Sitting of 9 March 1891

QUESTIONS.

  SHEIKH ABDUL RASOUL.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he can now specify the particular Statute Law or Regulation under which the Indian Government arrested Sheikh Abdul Rasoul and imprisoned him for nine months without trial and without bringing any charge against him; (2) whether the Regulation under which the Government acted in this matter is the same as that under which Henry Silk Buckingham was deported from India in or about the year 1818; (3) whether such Regulation has ever been embodied in the Indian Penal Code; (4) whether he can state the circumstances under which this Regulation was continued after the transfer of the powers of the old East India Company to the Imperial Government; (5) whether he will give a Return of the names of all the persons, native or otherwise, who have been arrested without charge or trial and deported under this or any other Statute or Regulation during the last 50 years, together with the particular circumstances of each case; and (6) whether there exists in India any Habeas Corpus Act or other statutory provision whereby any person so arrested without warrant may claim to be brought to trial without delay?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): In the absence of my right hon. Friend the Under Secretary for India, I have been requested to answer the question. (1) Regulation III. of 1818, as stated on the 16th of February. (2) No. (3) No. (4) It was retained in the interests of public safety. (5) The Secretary of State considers that it would be detrimental to the public interest to publish such a Return. (6) No.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he can now state the result of
  468
  his inquiries into the case of Sheikh Abdul Rasoul; what was the result of the interview, which took place on the 5th instant, between Rasoul and Sir Gerald Fitzgerald at the India Office; (2) whether the Government have offered to pay to Rasoul the expenses he has incurred in this country since he was deported from India and landed here against his will, and to give him a passage back to India; (3) will he explain on what grounds the Government have refused Rasoul any compensation for the imprisonment inflicted upon him, and will he now either state the cause of complaint, or prefer a charge against him; and (4) in the event of Rasoul returning to India, either on his own account or at the expense of the Government, will they give him a guarantee against future arrest or molestation?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: (1) Abdul Rasoul was offered: The refund of his expenses since arrival in November, 1890; a passage to Bombay, and permission to return to Kashmir. (2) He was sent to London at his own request. (3) If Abdul Rasoul demands compensation, he should address himself, in the first instance, to the Government of India, and, in the event of their refusing him redress, appeal to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is not in possession of information which enables him to state the cause of complaint or prefer any charge. (4) Abdul Rasoul has been informed that he will not be arrested in the absence of fresh offence.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I do not understand from the right hon. Baronet that any offence has been alleged against this unfortunate man. If so, why are the Government proposing to send him back to India at their own expense?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: The Secretary of State has not been called upon to consider the merits of the case, but only the operation of the Regulation which has already been referred to.
  MR. CONYBEARE: May I ask the right hon. Baronet if the Government will kindly consider whether the course taken in reference to Henry Silk Buckingham may not be adopted in this case? Mr. Buckingham was deported from India, and was allowed to receive compensation for loss of office. Will the Indian Government advise that a similar

  469
  course shall be pursued in regard to Abdul Rasoul?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: That is a question which I am not in a position to answer.

  LICENSED OPIUM SHOPS IN INDIA.
  MR. S. SMITH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he can state the number of opium shops which are licensed by the Government in India, and whether they amount to more than 10,000; (2) whether his attention has been drawn to a statement that the consumption of opium in Lucknow has increased from 36,240 tolas in 1883–4 to 64,320 tolas in 1887–8, and whether he has reason to believe that this statement is correct; (3) whether he can state if the consumption of opium in India is increasing generally; (4) whether his attention has been drawn to a meeting called by the Chinese Authorities at Singapore to petition Parliament to put a stop to the opium trade on account of its injurious tendency; (5) whether he is aware that nearly half the revenue of Singapore is derived from the opium traffic; and (6) whether, seeing that in Great Britain it is unlawful to sell opium except by a duly qualified and registered druggist under stringent regulations and labelled poison, Her Majesty's Government will take into consideration the expediency of adopting similar provisions with regard to its sale in India?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: (1) 10,417. (2) The attention of the Secretary of State has not been drawn to the statement referred to, but the consumption in Lucknow has increased in the proportion stated. (3) The consumption is slowly increasing. (4 and 5) Are matters for the Colonial Office. (6) The Secretary of State is not prepared to adopt such a provision.

  POST OFFICE SICK LEAVE.
  MR. JOHN KELLY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the Regulations of the Post Office respecting sick leave are in accordance with the provisions of Clause 9, sub-section (1), of the Order in Council of 21st March, 1890, and, if not, whether he is prepared at once to issue instructions for carrying the Order in
  470
  question so far as the clerks of the Second Division attached to the Post Office may be concerned?
  *THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): The Regulations of the Post Office respecting sick leave are, so far as I am aware, not inconsistent with the provisions of Clause 9 of the Order in Council. That clause provides that no Second Division clerk shall be absent ill for more than two days without furnishing a medical certificate. That is to say, two days is to be the maximum period allowed before a medical certificate is furnished. But this is not equivalent to saying that a medical certificate shall not be required before the third day. The Post Office practice is to require one on the second day and in the Order in Council, as I read it, there is nothing to require that the Post Office practice should be altered.

  THE VOLUNTEER INFANTRY.
  MR. BROOKFIELDI beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, with reference to the seventh paragraph of his Memorandum relating to the Army Estimates 1891–2, he can state the general military policy upon which increases in the Establishment of Volunteer Infantry have hitherto been sanctioned or refused; whether, in view of the recent reduction in the numbers of enrolled Volunteers, any modification has been permitted in the observance of a due proportion of strength between the two principal arms of the Volunteer Forces; and whether he can conveniently state the ground, military or otherwise, on which any such modifications have recently been allowed?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): Increases in the Establishment of Volunteer Infantry have been granted or refused with reference to local requirements under the scheme of mobilisation, to the interests of adjoining corps, and to the probabilities of recruiting. Local defence considerations have been specially considered in every case in which increases have been sanctioned. Any recent modifications of Establishment have been settled on the basis indicated above.

  ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS IN BIRKENHEAD.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been called to the statement of Mr. Kynnersley, Her Majesty's Inspector, published in the last General Report of Mr. Blandford, Her Majesty's Inspector (Blue Book, 1889, p. 270), that—
  "It is now only in Birkenhead and Runcorn that we have really objectionable buildings,"
  and to the statement recently made by the Chairman of the School Attendance Committee of that borough that—
  "The number of school places in the Public Elementary Schools of the Borough of Birkenhead, measured at eight feet per child, is 15,665;"
  or, if not, what is the correct number; whether he is aware that the population of Birkenhead, as estimated in the Registrar General's Returns for the year ending 27th September, 1890, is 105,049; whether, on the calculation of the Department that school places are required for one-sixth of the population, there should be 17,508 school places in Birkenhead, and whether there is therefore an actual deficiency of at least 1,843 places, which, if the Voluntary Schools were measured in accordance with the Luton letter of the Department (Parliamentary Return, No. 173, 1889), would be increased by about 2,000 places; and whether he will obtain from Her Majesty's Inspector a Report on the school supply of Birkenhead, both as to its amount and quality, having regard to its suitability as to fee, and take steps to secure that adequate provision be made for the education of the population of that town?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,): I have seen Mr. Kynnersley's statement; but if the right hon. Gentleman had pursued his investigations a little further, he might have observed that the Inspector goes on to notice the extraordinary fluctuations to which the population of Birkenhead is liable. That being so, I prefer to await the result of the forthcoming Census before expressing an opinion as to the accuracy of the Registrar General's estimate. The number of school places in Birkenhead
  472
  is 15,668, but the highest weekly average during any part of last year was only 14,389. The circumstances of the town are wholly dissimilar from those which gave rise to the Luton letter; and I am surprised that my right hon. Friend, if he has read that letter, should have fallen into the obvious error of citing it as applicable to the present case. So far as my information goes, no complaint of any deficiency has reached the Department; but it is part of their ordinary duty, which they are prepared to fulfil, to see that adequate provision is made for the education of the population.

  DIRECTORS' LIABILITY ACT.
  MR. STANSFELD: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether his attention has been drawn to any recent advertisements or prospectuses of companies in which it is stated that applicants for shares shall be deemed "absolutely to waive all rights to compensation under 'The Directors' Liability Act, 1890;'" and whether such an announcement is an evasion of the provisions of that Act?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): My attention has not been called to any such advertisements or prospectuses, but, having regard to the practices which were attempted under the Act of 1867, I think it quite possible that such advertisements may have been issued. The practice would rather be an avoiding than an evasion of the Act of 1890. It would not be a criminal offence.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: May I ask if it is the duty of any public official to prosecute for such an avoidance of the law?
  SIR R. WEBSTER: It would not be my duty to institute a prosecution.

  INFLAMMABLE LIQUIDS BILL.
  MR. COBB: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that great dissatisfaction and even alarm exists among sellers and consumers of petroleum oil in all parts of the country, and especially among the working and poorer classes, at the provisions of the Inflammable Liquids Bill; and whether there is any truth in the statements in the newspapers that the

  473
  Government, in consequence of the adverse opinion so generally expressed of the Bill, are prepared to withdraw it?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): Yes, Sir; I am aware that considerable opposition has been manifested by the retailers of petroleum oil against this Bill. I have no information about consumers. This opposition appears to have arisen without a sufficiently careful examination of the proposed measure, which is framed with a view of safeguarding small retailers, and which improves the position of hawkers. If the hon. Member will refer to the Bill of 1883, and to the Report of the House of Lords Committee upon it, he will see that large concessions have been made to the convenience of traders in the Bill of this year, which has been introduced after repeated conferences with the trade, and in consequence of the strong representations of Local Authorities and of the Admiralty, the Board of Trade, the Thames Conservators, the London County Council, and other Public Bodies that amended legislation is urgently needed in the interests of public safety. I shall, however, be glad to consider any proposals for amendments in detail where it is shown that the Bill is of too restrictive a character. The answer to the second paragraph is in the negative.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will lay upon the Table copies of the Memorials he has received?
  MR. CAUSTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say at the same time whether he will allow a full discussion upon the Second Reading of the Bill?
  MR. MATTHEWS: No doubt there will be a full discussion on the Second Reading.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: Are we to understand that the Second Reading will not be taken on this side of Easter?
  MR. MATTHEWS: It will not be possible to take it on this side of Easter; but it is a matter which will be arranged by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
  MR. KIMBER: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman when the Memorandum of Data and Reasons on which this Bill is based, and which he was good enough to promise, will be issued; and whether he will defer the Second Reading of the Bill for a sufficient period to allow of the Memorandum being publicly ventilated and considered by the many trades and industries affected?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I hope that the Memorandum which I have promised my hon. Friend will be in the hands of Members in the course of a week or ten days, and I will defer the Second Reading of the Bill until a reasonable time has elapsed for its consideration.

  EVICTIONS IN SOMERS TOWN.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether information has reached him that the agents of the Midland Railway Company or others are pulling down houses in Somers Town, St. Pancras, and, in consequence, evicting many of the inhabitants, without having previously erected dwellings for those displaced; and, as this is not only a severe injury to the evicted tenants, but a serious damage to the trade of the neighbourhood, whether he will have steps taken to have the strict spirit of Section 33 of "The Midland Railway (Additional Powers) Act, 1890," stringently enforced, in the interest of the inhabitants of Somers Town?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, Sir; information to that effect has reached me, but I have made careful and independent inquiry, and I find that the houses in question have not been demolished at the instance of the Railway Company, but of a private freeholder, whose solicitors inform me that the site has been cleared for rebuilding under the requirements of a reversionary lease granted to their clients in 1882, and that most of the houses were in a thoroughly insanitary condition, and altogether unfit for human habitation. As I stated in reply to a question on the 24th of January last, I have no reason whatever to believe that the Railway Company intend to evade their legal obligations, and they are now preparing a scheme for my approval with the view to giving effect to the 33rd section of the Act quoted.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTER: Will the right hon. Gentleman state the name of his adviser?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have not got the name with me, but I will tell my hon. Friend privately.

  THE SOUDAN.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any Proclamation has been issued by the Military Commanders at Suakin as to the intentions of the Egyptian Government towards the tribes; whether any terms have been made with the tribes in the neighbourhood of Suakin and Tokar, for the purposes of common action against the approach of hostile forces from Kassala; and whether at the fall of Afafite and Tokar, any prisoners were captured; and, if so, in what way they have been disposed of?
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg also to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the prisoners taken by the Egyptian force at the recent engagement at Tokar are to be deemed and treated as prisoners of war; whether these prisoners are to be detained; and whether it is intended to convey them to the place of their detention on any of Her Majesty's ships?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: A telegram has been received to the effect that a Proclamation has been issued by the Military Commander stating that the Egyptian Government has resumed its authority in the district about Tokar, calling on the tribes to repel the Dervishes, and granting amnesty to all except some notorious slave dealers; also that there is no intention of retiring from Tokar. Definite arrangements will not be made till the Sirdar has returned to Cairo. Of the prisoners taken 231 were released, and 300, including families considered dangerous, are for the present detained. Sir Francis Grenfell had ridden through the neighbouring country and had found it quiet and clear of Dervishes. The people were rejoiced at the re-appearance of Government in their neighbourhood.
  MR. J. MORLEY: May I ask for particulars as to the detention of the prisoners? On a former occasion I believe many prisoners were taken away and sold as slaves.
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: I cannot give further particulars, but I have no reason to believe that the prisoners would be harshly treated. I know that after the engagement at Tosti, on the Nile, all who were not considered dangerous were allowed to return to their villages, or were given land in Lower Egypt, and that even when the Dervish prisoners were released they preferred to stay where they were.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Are these men who have been "rightly struggling to be free" to be deported to Lower Egypt, and for what purpose has the amnesty decree been issued by the Khedive?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: I did not refer to those who had been "rightly struggling to be free," but to those who have been harrassing the country and raiding about Suakin.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Am I to understand that these people are recognised as the inhabitants of the Soudan, a part of the country over which Egypt has abandoned all authority?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: The hon. Gentleman is not to understand all that from my answer. I am not in a position to give more particulars than I have already given.
  MR. J. MORLEY: When will the right hon. Gentleman produce the Papers?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: I believe that the Papers on the subject are almost ready.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether an officer in Her Majesty's Service has been recommended for the Victoria Cross on account of his conduct at the recent engagement between the Egyptian forces and the forces of the Mahdi at Tokar; and whether, if so, there is any instance of an officer in Her Majesty's Service being recommended for the Victoria Cross on account of conduct in an encounter between the forces of two Powers with neither of which this country is at war?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: No officer has been recommended for the Victoria Cross in connection with the recent engagement at Tokar.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any Egyptian troops, or any stores or ammunition for any Egyptian troops,

  477
  have been conveyed in any of Her Majesty's ships between any ports on the Red Sea?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): No, Sir.

  NATAL.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I beg-to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Bill to establish responsible government in Natal, passed by the Colonial Legislature, has been received by Her Majesty's Government; whether Her Majesty's Government had intimated to the colony the general conditions on which the Government were willing to advise Her Majesty to allow such a change; whether, subject to minor questions of detail, those conditions have been complied with; whether he will lay the Bill and Correspondence before the House; and whether the Government will delay advising Her Majesty to give her sanction to the Colonial Act till the House has become cognisant of what is being done and has had, in some shape, an opportunity of discussing it?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,): The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is no, and to the second yes. It is impossible to reply to the third question until the Bill has been received. As regards the last two questions Her Majesty's Government cannot at the present moment undertake to say that before they finally decide to grant responsible government to Natal, an opportunity for discussing the question in the House of Commons shall be given, because the intervention of Parliament is not necessary in this case; but when the Correspondence (which may yet be prolonged) is in a sufficiently complete state it will, with the Bill, be presented to Parliament.

  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK.
  EARL COMPTON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether any temporary clerks have recently been appointed to the Savings Bank Department who have not passed any Civil Service examination, and who do not hold certificates from
  478
  the Civil Service Commissioners; whether such appointments have been sanctioned by the Treasury, and on what condition; whether there are candidates who have passed the Second Division examination still waiting for appointments; and whether any application has been made to the Treasury for permanent Second Division officers to fill these appointments in the Savings Bank Department; and, if not, whether he is able to give the reason why non-certificated clerks have been temporarily appointed in preference to properly certificated clerks? I beg further to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the 150 clerks from other Government Departments, who are employed on overtime in the Post Office Savings Bank after their official hours in other offices, owing to the working day of Savings Bank clerks having been limited to 10 hours, have access to the ledgers containing the depositors' accounts; and whether these clerks are required to make the statutory declaration as to secrecy, and to find the sureties which are required from other Savings Bank clerks; and, if not, whether precaution is taken in the interests of the public to guard against disclosures on the part of temporary clerks who are employed after ordinary office hours? I have also to ask the Postmaster General when his intention, as stated on the 2nd of March, to add 50 male officers to the minor staff of the Savings Bank Department, will be carried out?
  *MR. RAIKES: It will I think be convenient to include in one answer the replies to the three questions of the noble Lord. In order to diminish the pressure of work in the Savings Bank, I obtained the sanction of the Treasury to place on special duty a temporary force of over 150 officers, who are now at work there. This force is composed of about 130 clerks belonging to other offices, and holding Civil Service certificates, of 8 certificated Second Division clerks lent by the Civil Service Commissioners, and of 15 non-certificated assistants, for whose employment I obtained special Treasury authority. I have no knowledge whether there are any other candidates who have passed the Civil Service Examination and are waiting for appointments. I have not

  479
  yet come to a decision as to the number of clerks to be permanently added to the Establishment, but, having regard to the recent conduct of a considerable portion of the Second Division Staff, I am not at present disposed to add any recruits to that section of the Establishment. My answer to the first portion of the second question is in the affirmative. The Statutory Declaration to which the noble Lord refers does not mention the word secrecy, and is not very relevant to Savings Bank work, but there is a clause in the Savings Bank Act of 1861 which forbids all officers of the Postmaster General engaged in Savings Bank business to disclose the name of any depositor or the amount deposited or withdrawn except to the Postmaster General and his officers. I have not thought it necessary to ask the provisional force to find sureties during their temporary employment; but they are carefully supervised, and I have no reason to doubt that they will comply with the terms of the Act which I have quoted. In reply to the last question, I am making the additions required as rapidly as possibly. Fourteen additional messengers have already been placed on duty, and the female sorters will be obtained as quickly as possible.

  CENTRAL TELEGRAPH OFFICE.
  EARL COMPTON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General, in view of the fact that telegraphists of the Central Telegraph Office, performing duty on Sundays from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., have no stated time allowed for their mid-day meal, whether he will direct that they shall have an uninterrupted dinner time of half-an-hour, similar to that which is given to the staff on week-days?
  *MR. RAIKES: In reply to the noble Lord, I have to state that at the Central Station special arrangements are made with a view to enable the telegraphists as far as possible to obtain their meals on Sundays without interruption. As regards the time occupied in taking them, there is no objection to as much as half-an hour being allowed for the purpose.
  In answer to a further question from Earl COMPTON,
  *MR. RAIKESsaid: My answer must be regarded as fixing the practice in future.

  RAILWAY COMPANIES' LOAN AND DEBENTURE CAPITAL.
  MR. DAVID THOMAS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the amount of loan and debenture capital invested with Railway Companies in the United Kingdom upon which no interest has been paid for the year 1889, and upon which the rate of interest actually paid fell short of that at which the principal was borrowed; how much, if any, of the total interest paid on the loan and debenture capital was provided for other than out of bonâ fide income; whether he will arrange to have similar information supplied in future Returns; and in case he has not the necessary authority to enable him to obtain the information now sought, whether he will consent to a Motion for a Return on the subject, if made?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): I hardly think it is necessary to call specially for the information desired by the hon. Member, as, if he will compare the net earnings with the amount of debenture capital and rate of interest it bears, which are to be found in the Returns of Railway Capital already published, he will practically obtain what he wants.

  TRAINING COLLEGES.
  MR. DAVID THOMAS: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education if he is aware that much dissatisfaction has been caused by the refusal of the authorities of certain Training Colleges to allow candidates for admission to be examined at centres, such as Merthyr Tydvil, Cardiff, and Swansea, which have been fixed for the examinations for Queen's Scholarships; and whether, having regard to the fact that these Training Colleges are supported mainly by Government Grants, he will impress upon the Committees of such Colleges the desirability of allowing candidates to sit for examination at any centre fixed by the Department?
  SIR W. HART DYKE: I believe some complaint has been made, but it seems to me reasonable that the Training College Authorities, upon whom the responsibility rests of selecting the successful candidates for admission, should

  481
  have an opportunity of seeing them. The centres to which the hon. Member refers are primarily intended for those who do not propose to enter college.

  NONCONFORMIST FUNERALS.
  MR. WILLIAM M'ARTHUR: I beg to ask the Secretary of Stats for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the circumstances attending the funeral of Mrs. White, a member of the Wesleyan Society, at Loddon, Norfolk, on the 11th February last; whether he is aware that the Vicar of Loddon was duly advised that the body was to be buried in the churchyard without the rites of the Church of England, pursuant to "The Burial Laws Amendment Act, 1880;" and that upon application being made to the sexton for the bell to be tolled at the funeral, that official, in reply, exhibited the Vicar's notice—namely,
  "The Act of Parliament respecting funerals which are not taken by the Clergy of the Established Church does not contemplate the tolling of the Church bell; the bell therefore will not be tolled at funerals except when conducted by the Clergy of the Church of England;"
  that, although the bell was not tolled, the account of fees presented to Mr. White included a charge for the sexton of 1s. 6d. for the tolling of the bell at the funeral; and that upon Mr. White's protesting, the clerk refused to receive any payment at all unless all the fees were paid; whether the tolling of the church bell at the funeral of a Nonconformist in a churchyard under the Act of 1880 is included among the duties of the sexton; and whether, if the bell be not tolled, the parochial officers have a right to impose the fee charged for that service?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have received a telegram from the Vicar, from which I gather that the facts are as stated, except that the clerk did not refuse to receive any payment at all unless all the fees were paid. The duty of tolling the bell is prescribed by a Canon, the terms of which make it doubtful whether it applies to any persons but parishioners who have been attended by a minister or curate of the Church. I beg to refer the hon. Member to an answer which I gave in this House on July 30, 1888. The answer to the last paragraph de-
  482
  pends on the proper construction of Section 5 of the Act of 1880, under which I presume the sexton as well as the Vicar considers himself entitled to the same fees as he would have been entitled to had the burial taken place according to the rites of the Church of England, although those rites are not performed.

  EXCESSIVE DRINKING AT PUBLIC HOUSES.
  MR. ROWNTREE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been drawn to the continued and excessive drinking at public houses disclosed by the evidence in the inquest on the late Whitechapel murder, in which Sadler was described by two witnesses as "very drunk, and the deceased woman was stated to be half dazed with drink;" if it is correct that 2,309 persons were apprehended during the year 1889 for drunkenness in the Whitechapel police district; how many of the holders of licences in that district were proceeded against for permitting drunkenness during that year, and with what results; and if he will consider whether steps can be taken either to make the law, or the administration of the law in the Metropolis, more efficient in checking drunkenness?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, Sir; I gather from statements made before the coroner that the man Sadler had been drinking excessively from house to house. The figures quoted in the second paragraph are correct. There was one case where proceedings were taken for permitting drunkenness, and this was dismissed by the Magistrate. The Commissioner of Police assures me that every effort is made for the efficient enforcement of the law, and the figures quoted show that the police are not inactive. But the hon. Member is doubtless aware that there are great difficulties of proof in cases where publicans are charged with permitting drunkenness, and I do not think those difficulties will he removed by alteration of the law.

  THE MARINES.
  SIR JOHN POPE HENNESSY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the total annual cost of the Marines; the

  483
  total annual cost of the administration of the force; and the total annual cost of the relief of all the colonial garrisons?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The total number of Marines estimated for 1891–92 is 14,000. The total annual estimated cost of these numbers is £738,699, which includes £4,730, the total annual estimated cost of administration of the force. Taking the average of the current year and the two previous years, the cost of the relief of the British troops stationed abroad (excluding India) is estimated at £145,000 a year. These figures include the sea transport charges only.

  SHIPPING LABOUR AT CONSTANTINOPLE.
  MR. ATKINSON: I bog to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any advices from Sir William White respecting new regulations made at Constantinople, under which it is sought to take away the liberty of employing his own men, in discharging and loading, from the agent or captain of British steamers now in that port; and whether it is intended to protest against such changes, involving, as they do, extra expense?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: By a despatch received to-day from Her Majesty's Ambassador, it appears that there had been some attempt to restrict the unloading of cargoes to the members of an Evnaf or Union. As a monopoly in favour of a Corporation would be contrary to Treaty, Sir William White communicated with the Government, and the ships were discharged as usual.

  THE WHITECHAPEL MURDER.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he has yet received a Report from the Chief Commissioner in regard to the evidence of the police as affecting their conduct in the case of Sadler; and, if so, whether he has any objection to lay it upon the Table?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The Commissioner of Police informs me that the coroner's depositions confirm the statement I made on February 26th—namely, that there was no assault on Sadler in the presence of the police, and that the only constable who saw him at the dock gate did not consider him to be in such a
  484
  state of intoxication as to require that he should be taken into custody, and this view was shared by another police constable who saw Sadler shortly afterwards. I have received no Report beyond the information supplied in consequence of the hon. Member's questions, and I have given the substance of that information.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: Can access be obtained to the official evidence?
  MR. MATTHEWS: No, Sir; the coroner's depositions are only made public in the event of a verdict of murder or manslaughter on the occasion of the trial by the authorities.

  GOLD AND SILVER MINING IN THE COLONIES.
  MR. W. PRITCHARD-MORGAN: I beg to ask the Attorney General, as regards the colonies of New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, and Western Australia, has the Crown parted with or transferred to the Legislatures of those colonies, not only the management and control of the waste lands of the Crown, but the gold and silver contained therein in such a way that the Crown cannot ever again make any claim to the gold and silver or to royalties thereupon; whether the Government is aware that the respective Governments of the colonies referred to insert in leases to work for gold a reservation that the grant is made "except as against Her Majesty," or "subject to Her Majesty's rights;" whether the effect of such reservations would enable the Crown, during the existence of such leases, to terminate such leases or resume possession of such mines; whether, on the termination of any such leases in the colonies referred to, Her Majesty could refuse to renew such leases, and take possession of such mines without compensation; whether the Crown is in receipt of any royalties from the gold and silver mines in the colonies referred to; and does the gold and silver in all Her Majesty's possessions, except the colonies referred to, still belong to the Crown; and, if so, does the Crown charge or receive any royalties from gold or silver mines in such possessions outside Great Britain?
  SIR R. WEBSTER: The hon. Member appears to confound the rights of the

  485
  Crown as represented in the United Kingdom by the Imperial Government and the rights of the Crown as represented in the colonies by the several Colonial Governments. I am not sufficiently acquainted with the laws and practices of the different colonies to say more than that the Imperial Exchequer is not in receipt of any royalties from the gold and silver mines in the colonies named. By the Act 18 and 19 Vict., cap. 56, Sac. 4, the Legislatures of Tasmania and South Australia are empowered to regulate the sales and disposal of the waste lauds of the Crown and the disposal of the proceeds arising there from for the public service of those colonies respectively. By the Act 15 and 16 Vict., cap. 72, Sec. 72, the General Assembly of New Zealand is empowered to make laws for regulating the sale, disposal, and occupation of the waste lands of the Crown. The different Australasian Colonies have, therefore, it would seem, power to deal with the Crown's royalty of gold and silver, but I am unable to tell the hon. Member in what way that power is exercised. In other colonies I understand that the Legislature, under its general powers of legislation, enacts its own regulations for gold fields, which, if assented to and not disallowed by Her Majesty, form the law of the colony upon this subject. I am informed that the Imperial Exchequer receives no royalties from the colonies in gold or silver.

  TIED HOUSES.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, with the view of preventing the multiplication of "tied houses" in the various parts of the country, the Government will consider the advisability of calling the attention of the Licensing Authorities to the recently issued Return with respect to On-Licences, in which will be found the number of persons in each district, and the names of such persons who are on the register as owners of two, three, four, and any greater number of premises in respect of which On-Licences have been granted, with the number of such licences attached to each name?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am not aware that the Legislature has ever laid down
  486
  a policy to be observed against the system of "tied houses," nor am I in possession of information to show that this system has produced any such mischief as to call for the interference of Government. It is for the Licensing Justices, who know the circumstances of their own district, to take such action as they think necessary.

  RATING OF PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.
  MR. POWELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government is prepared to give facilities for the passing in this Session of the Bill to exempt public elementary schools from the payment of rates; and whether, if not so prepared, the Government will introduce a Bill in the course of the Session to relieve such schools from the oppressive burden which they now bear in consequence of their liability to the payment of rates?
  *THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): I am afraid it is not in my power to promise the facilities which my hon. Friend asks for; but the Session is not so far advanced that he may not hope himself to find an opportunity of pressing a measure which I know finds favour with a very large number of Members. I am not at present able to say what course the Government would take in the event of my hon. Friend's failing to obtain the judgment of the House on his proposals.

  ALLEGED INABILITY OF ONE OF THE JUDGES.
  MR. COBB: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the attention of the Lord Chancellor and of other Members of the Government has been called to an article in the Times newspaper of March 6th, referring to the alleged inability of one of Her Majesty's Judges to perform his judicial duties; whether he has received from the honourable Member for the Rugby Division a letter informing him (according to his request made in the House of Commons), of the name of the Judge referred to in a question put on February 26th; and whether the Lord Chancellor or the Government intend to take any steps in the matter?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I have to express my regret that the hon. Member should think it right to address this question to me. I wish to point out to him, what I have pointed out in the letter which I sent in answer to the letter addressed to me by the hon. Member, that it is the policy of the Government, of Parliament, and I might almost say of the Constitution, to respect the complete and absolute independence of the Judicial Bench. The Government have no authority whatever over a Judge of the land. The Government have no paternal or disciplinary authority in any way over a Judge of the land; and I have pointed out to the hon. Member that if he has reason to believe there is a failure of justice it is in his power, as well as in the power of any other hon. Member, to move an Address to the Crown for the removal of the Judge in question. That is the only course open to any hon. Member, whether he be a Member of the Government or of Parliament. I should earnestly deprecate any suggestion that it is the duty of the Government to bring pressure to bear on the Judges based on reports in news-papers, or on statements which are in any way deficient of allegations of positive fact as to the failure of justice. I must, decline, with all respect to the House, to discuss by question and answer across the floor of the House the conduct and capacity of any one of the Judges of the land.
  MR. COBB: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the incapacity of the Judge, whose name I gave him in a letter, is notorious, that it is, to use the words of the Times, the universal topic of conversation wherever lawyers meet, a subject of wonder and regret to the whole Profession. I wish to ask further, whether, having challenged me in this House last week to give publicly in the House the name of the Judge, and I having ascertained from the clerks at the Table that the course which the right hon. Gentleman invited me to take would not be in order, he has any objection to my publishing the correspondence which took place?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: If the hon. Member thinks it is to the public interest and to his own personal satisfaction to publish that correspondence he is perfectly entitled to do so.

  NORTH OF IRELAND MAIL SERVICE.
  CAPTAIN M'CALMONT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can now make a statement relative to the establishment of a mail service to and from the North of Ireland, by Larne and Stranraer?
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): No, Sir; I am not in a position to make a statement.

  THE BANN DRAINAGE.
  MR. LEA: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the difficulty of passing a larger measure through Parliament, the Government will introduce a Bill to allocate a portion of the £20,000 he proposed to spend upon the Bann Drainage, in order to relieve flooding, and discontinue a navigation little used, which imposes a tax of £1,200 a-year on the ratepayers?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): In answer to my hon. Friend, I have to say that the legislation he proposes would probably not be easier to pass through the House than that for which it is a substitute. I propose, however, to re-introduce the Bann Drainage Bill next year, in the hope that it may pass without serious opposition.

  BALLYMONEY MODEL SCHOOL.
  SIR CHARLES LEWISI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can explain why the children attending the Ballymoney Model School who live in Ballymoney have been prevented going to their homes during the play hour for meals, although this advantage has been enjoyed by the children for at least 20 years; whether he is aware that the parents unanimously memorialised the Commissioners of National Education, as also the Town Commissioners of Ballymoney, to permit the continuance of this practice, and that the prayer of the Memorial was granted to the extent of only two months, which expired at the end of last year, and that, though a second largely-signed Memorial wsa forwarded to the Commissioners expressing dissatisfaction with their reply to the first, praying for this benefit to be con-

  489
  tinued to their children without interruption, this Memorial has been entirely ignored; will he have the Inspector's Report, on which the action of the Commissioners of National Education was based, together with the Memorials referred to laid upon the Table; and will he request the Commissioners to re-consider the matter, with the view of meeting the wishes of the parents and Local Authorities?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Commissioners of National Education report that the practice referred to at Ballymoney Model School was unauthorised, and contrary to the universal practice in regard to National Schools in Ireland, which is to have an unbroken school-day, including, where it is desired, an interval of half an hour for recreation and luncheon, under supervision of the teacher. The Commissioners, to prevent any inconvenience to the parents by a sudden change, did consent to a continuance of the irregular proceeding to the end of last year. The second Memorial referred to did not, as a matter of fact, reach the Commissioners Office; but a communication from the Town Clerk of Ballymoney was received. The Reports of the Commissioners' Inspectors are treated as confidential. The Commissioners consider the rule of having an unbroken school-day to be one necessary for the efficiency of their school system, and they are unable to sanction its non-observance.

  USE OF FIREARMS BY IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that a police constable named Connell, stationed at Schull, County Cork, deliberately loaded his rifle in the presence of a large assemblage of people returning from a meeting which was addressed by Mr. William O'Brien, M.P.; whether he is also aware that Connell, with another police constable, followed Mr. William O'Brien from Schull to Bantry, carrying a loaded rifle in his hand; and whether police constables, when following Irish Members of Parliament, are ordered to carry loaded firearms?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Constabulary authorities report that the fact is substantially as stated in the first paragraph of the question. The constable did not follow Mr. O'Brien to Bantry with a loaded rifle. There is no order extant in the Force of the nature indicated in the last paragraph.

  THE LAND COMMISSION.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Rules made by the Land Commission and now in force can be laid upon the Table in a classified and collected form?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Irish Land Commissioners represent that the course suggested in this question would involve considerable trouble and inconvenience in the present pressure of their business, and that at an early date, upon Bills which are now before the House becoming law, it will be necessary to revise some of the existing rules, and to make new rules leading to a new codification. Perhaps, therefore, the hon. Member will defer his request for a little time. I will, however, confer with them further on the subject.

  DISTRESS IN ACHILL.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the distress alleged to exist in Achill; that many of the inhabitants are on the brink of starvation; whether he is aware that only a small proportion of the islanders have had relief work given them, these being obliged in numerous instances to travel very long distances to and from work; that the supply of seed potatoes has run short; that many of them have been found to be rotten, and that in many cases the good ones have been consumed for food; and whether any steps will be taken to remedy the alleged faults in relief of distress in Achill?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am unable to add anything to the reply which I gave on the same subject on Thursday last to the hon. Member for Darlington.
  DR. TANNER: Is it the fact that persons in this district have to travel 8 or 10 miles in order to get the relief at present supplied?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot, without notice, give the exact distances travelled; but all those for whom the relief work is intended can, I believe, obtain it.
  DR. TANNER: If I supply the right hon. Gentleman with instances, will he institute an inquiry?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Certainly.

  THE EIGHT HOURS BILL.
  SIR F. MILKER: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, considering there is no chance of a discussion being taken on the Eight Hours Bill on Wednesday, it will be possible to grant a day either before or after Easter in order to discuss the question?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I cannot agree with my hon. Friend that there is no chance of discussing this Bill on Wednesday. There is only one other Order of the Day before it; and if it is the desire of hon. Members that a discussion should take place, the preceding business might be disposed of by 2.30 or 3 o'clock, so as to enable the Eight Hours Bill to be taken up.

  NEWFOUNDLAND.
  MR. STAVELEY HILL: When may we expect the Papers in regard to Newfoundland to be laid on the Table?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: I cannot fix a date; but they are in the course of preparation.
  MR. STAVELEY HILL: May we expect them on this side of Easter? They are very important Papers, and we were told that we should have them soon.
  BARON H. DE WORMS: All I can say is that they are being pressed forward as rapidly as possible.

MOTION.

  SUPPLY.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee of Supply."—(Mr. Jackson.)
  DR. CAMERON: I beg to move the substitution of the word "to-morrow" for "immediately." The purpose of the Amend-
  492
  ment is to prevent such a Motion from becoming a regular piece of business on Mondays. The Motion is only resorted to when a Count-out has occurred on the previous Friday evening, and there-would be no need for it at all if a House-were kept. There would have been an ample opportunity for getting Supply if a House had been kept and business had been allowed to proceed. It is a recognised rule that it is the duty of the Government to keep a House on Fridays. Over and over again the Government have been lectured for adopting this practice by an ancient colleague, the right hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck), who has quoted for their benefit the importance-attached to keeping a House, both by Lord Palmerston and the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone). Now that private Members have been deprived of so many opportunities of bringing forward grievances on the Motion to go into Supply, it is more than ever important that the Government should perform their duty in keeping a House on Fridays. There was a similar Motion brought forward last Monday, aad I did not challenge it, because I thought the Count-out on the Friday might have been an inadvertence. But when it is seen that the Counts-out are encouraged by the Government, it is time to take action. I beg to move the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "immediately," in order to insert the word "To-morrow,"—(Dr. Cameron,)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the word 'immediately' stand part of the Question."
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The hon. Member has taken a curious method of punishing the Government for failing to keep a House on Friday. The hon. Member proposes practically to deprive private Members of their day for bringing forward Motions.
  *DR. CAMERON: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I do not propose anything of the kind.
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: The Motion, if carried, would have that result.
  *DR. CAMERON: No, not at all.
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: That must be the inevitable result; because, as I have

  493
  explained to the House more than once, the Supplementary Estimates must be concluded by March 16. I exceedingly regret the Count-out of Friday last, but I am not sure whether the hon. Member himself was in the House at the time. It is understood that if the Government make an effort to keep a House hon. Members who have Motions to bring forward will, at least, find some support among their own friends. On Friday evening the Government did their share, though the Count-out occurred at that most favourable moment for a count when hon. Members and even Ministers found it necessary to take a little refreshment. The fact that there were 38 Members present showed that the Government did their part; and it is evident that hon. Members opposite failed to come to the assistance of their champion who wished to bring about universal Home Rule. I hope the House will not longer debate the question and still further limit the time at our disposal for obtaining Supply. I greatly regret that it was not possible to go on with the Debate on Friday night, because some fallacies of hon. Gentlemen opposite might have been easily exposed and exploded.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I beg pardon. I will not further refer to the Debate of Friday, but I will merely add that I learnt on Friday, through the usual channels of information, that there was no prospect whatever of the Government reaching Supply that evening. I hope that the House will now consent to proceed with business.
  DR. TANNER: Any one present last Friday must have been perfectly aware that outside in the Lobby, at the time of the count, there was at least a score of Members, including some junior Members of the Government, who did their best to obstruct other hon. Members, including myself, from entering the House. Everybody knows that the right hon. Gentleman does his best in his own highly respectable way, but I think he ought to make himself better informed in regard to what takes place in the House.
  DR. CLARK: I do not blame the Government. It seems that it is their policy to discredit private Members, in order that they may take
  494
  Friday nights for Supply. After all, the matter rests with private Members to decide.
  The House divided:—Ayes 184; Noes 42.—(Div. List, No. 79.)
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee of Supply."

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  NAVY (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES' 1890–91.)

    SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    1. £350,000, Supplementary, Navy Services.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): I think the Committee will expect me to make some explanation of this Vote. When I introduced the Naval Defence Act I pointed out the extreme inconvenience of paying large balances into the Exchequer at the close of the financial year, whilst liabilities were carried forward to the following year. That system caused considerable disturbances in the continuity of finance. Therefore, an arrangement was made under the Naval Defence Act, by which all unexpended balances appropriated for specific purposes should be carried forward from year to year, and paid to the credit of the Naval Defence Act. In the interval between the making of my speech and the introduction of the Bill, the measure was in parts revised, and one or two alterations, which seemed to be only of a verbal character, were introduced into it. This year we had to put ourselves into communication with the Treasury for the purpose of asking them to allow us to make use of the unexpended balance of last year for the purpose of meeting the liabilities which fall upon the present financial year. Under Clause 3, Subsection A, of the Act, it was provided, that for the purpose of dock-yards, &c.—
    "The sum £2,650,000, or such less sum as may be required by the Admiralty, may be devoted in any one year,"
    and so on. In the same clause it was also provided that if any portion of the

    495
    sum that could be applied in pursuance of the section was not expended, that portion should be transferred to the Naval Defence Act. As the Act "was passed, the words "or such less sum as may be required by the Admiralty" were omitted from the section. To my simple lay mind it appeared that the omission was of no importance. The Treasury, however, who are the prime Authority in this matter, decided otherwise, and they ruled that no part of the unexpended balances could be appropriated in any one year in which a less sum than £2,650,000 had been voted. In the present financial year we have not taken the sum of £2,650,000, and, therefore, the Treasury ruled that the unexpended balances could not be utilised, and any excess that was required must be voted on a Supplementary Estimate. That is the reason why we ask the House to vote the sum of £350,000 and at the same time carry forward a balance of £542,000. The person who suffers is the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because it diminishes this year the amount of his realised surplus, which otherwise would have gone to the reduction of debt. I will take care that next year the maximum sum is voted. I ought to add that there is an excess of £50,000 under the head of coals for steam-vessels. This is due to the Navy having had to perform a far larger amount of blockade work on the east coast of Africa than was anticipated, and also to the fact that a large number of ships of the latest type have been this year placed in commission, and that the amount of coal consumed by the triple-expansion engines has been larger than was anticipated. One of the merits of the triple-expansion engines is that they economise coal. But our experience in the Navy is that when these engines are used at a low rate of speed there is, comparatively, a larger amount of coal consumed. This, combined with the extra amount of work we have had to do, is the cause of this excess of £50,000 for steam-vessels. I have thought it right to make these points clear.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I think the noble Lord has made a very clear and valuable statement. I have no reason to complain of the fulness of his statement in any way, but at the same time, looking back
    496
    to last year, it seems extraordinary that the Admiralty should have fallen into the mistake he now admits they did as to the meaning of the Naval Defence Act. Bearing in mind the construction of that Act, I cannot understand how the Admiralty could suppose that they could resort to the unexpended balances of the previous year, or to paying for work of the current year out of the Estimates of future years, until the £2,650,000 provided for in the Naval Defence Act had been expended. I have always contended that the course the Admiralty have pursued is calculated to confuse the Navy Estimates and prevent the possibility of yearly comparisons being made, and what has taken place has shown that I have been right. The fact is that the House was not told last year that the Admiralty did not propose to take in the Vote the total sum of £2,650,000, contemplated by the Naval Defence Act. The House was led to believe that the Estimates for the current year would include that sum. Although the right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the Act provided that either the £2,650,000, or a less sum, might be expended, yet the statements and tables placed before the House at the time the Act was under discussion indicated that year by year that sum would be proposed and voted by the House. Now it appears, a less sum than the £2,650,000 is actually provided in the Estimates for the current year, but the amount is not stated, and the effect is, I repeat, to confuse the finances and to prevent hon. Members from following or comparing them. I hold that last year the Navy Estimates ought to have been increased by £300,000 at least in order to bring up the anticipated expenditure under the Act to a total of £2,650,000. Not having done so the noble Lord was not entitled to look forward to the unexpended balances of previous years, or to the Votes of years to come. What is certain is that the Navy Estimates last year were less by £300,000 than they ought to have been, and to that extent comparisons with past and future years are disturbed.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: This is a very serious matter and is one of the first fruits of that extraordinary confusion into which the

    497
    whole financial system we have built up with so much care has been drawn, by the new methods adopted by the present Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian alluded to the manner in which the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has overthrown all those financial principles for which he was originally the greatest authority and the greatest stickler. The right hon. Gentleman has now introduced what I may call the abominable foreign system of ordinary and extraordinary expenditure—a system that has ruined the finances of France and other Continental nations; and, although formerly nobody protested more strongly against it than the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, he seems to have now adopted it as a fundamental feature of his Budgets. He seems to have departed from every principle laid down by his predecessor, Sir Stafford North-cote. Sir Stafford Northcote established a Sinking Fund, and devoted £28,000,000 a year to the service of the debt; but the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has reduced that amount to £25,000,000, and now he has adopted the principle of extraordinary Budgets, which in the year 1879 he denounced when on one occasion Sir Stafford Northcote made a slight departure from the principle of providing for the expenditure of the year out of the resources of the year. When, in 1879, the Government of that day having great difficulties abroad and heavy expenditure on hand, Sir Stafford Northcote proposed to make provision for £5,000,000, or some such sum, and to throw it over two years, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer loudly protested against it. What is the state of things now, when there is no extraordinary call for expenditure? There are £2,600,000 under the Imperial Defence Act, £10,000,000 or £11,000,000 under the Naval Defence Act, and £4,000,000 under the Barracks Act, which in successive years have been charged, not upon any provision of the year, but upon mortgaging the future resources of the country. That is what I call the new and vicious system of extraordinary Budgets. What did the right hon. Gentleman say about this in the year 1879—a little more than 10 years ago? He said—
    498
    "The fact was, the House had lost its power as to the expenditure of the country through the introduction of this distinction between ordinary and extraordinary expenditure."
    That is exactly our position now. I asked the right hon. Gentleman a question the other day to which he did not give me a very definite answer; but I venture to say that he has got the finances of the country into such a condition that it will be necessary to have three Budgets in order to clearly understand how we stand—the ordinary or old English Budget, an extraordinary or French Budget, and a local expenditure Budget—because every week, when the finance accounts are presented, you see "so much" received by the Exchequer and notes below, "so much paid over to the local fund "—so that we have now arrived at a point when it is impossible to know where you are unless you have three Budgets presented. That is a new system of finance on which we have entered. In the very speech denouncing Sir Stafford Northcote for a very mild offence compared with that of the present Government, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said—
    "While they hunted with the hounds they ran with the hare. After singing 'Rule Britannia' at Conservative dinners all over the country, with might and main, they come down to this House, as the First Lord of the Admiralty did the other night, to confess themselves the devoted and convinced disciples and champions of 'Peace, retrenchment and reform.'"
    That was the view the Chancellor of the Exchequer took of the Government of the day, and of this system of extraordinary Budgets. We know what these Budgets are meant for. The practise has been introduced by the Government in order that they may pose before the country as men who expend large sums of money in the defences of the country and yet escape the inconvenience of asking the people to pay for them. That was denounced as a vicious and cowardly policy by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Last year a Return was presented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Motion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford which showed that, at the very time that the right hon. Gentleman was pretending to take off taxes, he had failed to meet the liabilities of the year by £4,000,000. That is the policy laid down by the right hon. Gentleman, who said that the

    499
    Government had not shrunk from the test of making those sacrifices which were necessary for providing for the expenditure of the year. He said, and I would commend his words to the attention of the Administration—
    "It is an exhibition of an apparently strong policy carried out by weak men—I do not mean weak intellectually, but men wanting in the nerve and courage to face unpopularity. They had shown a want of confidence in the willingness of the country to bear the burdens, which were the result of their policy The whole secret of these extraordinary Budgets—this doctrine of spreading the expenditure of untold millions over a series of years, is to induce the people to agree to it, on condition that they shall not be bound to pay for it at present, but at some future time when it may be convenient."
    And the right hon. Gentleman said, of a system which was really microscopic as compared with this gigantic conversion of it, that he was anxious to protest against a Budget, which appeared to him to he shabby, flabby, and inadequate to the occasion. He was also good enough to pay me the compliment of quoting from a speech I had made to my constituents, and to add that he could but use the witty expression of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford about "Peace with honour, on tick." These were the doctrines of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer 10 years ago; yet since he has occupied his present position he has been responsible for the expenditure of millions which are net to be repaid until convenient. The fact is that the right hon. Gentleman has violated every one of the principles which he himself laid down. He has been a party to throe Acts of Parliament, in three successive years, which provide for the expenditure of millions of money which are not to be met out of the taxation of the year. Nor was this at a time of difficulty at home or abroad. The right hon. Gentleman has done this during a period of restored trade, when the resources of the country have been replenished to a degree they had not been for many a year. This series of financial arrangements has thrown the national finances into such confusion that it is absolutely impossible for any one to make out what is and what is not the expenditure during any one year. You have to look through all these Acts, and the greatest proof is that the
    500
    Government cannot read their own Acts; they have to bring in these supplemental Estimates because they made a mistake to the amount of £300,000, and because the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the First Lord of the Admiralty were at issue whether or not that £300,000 was part of the expenditure of last year. Could there be anything more conclusive of the financial jumble and confusion than this result of the policy of the Government? I venture to say that, under the circumstances of this financial juggle and confusion, the ordinary Budget becomes a senseless document. It is open to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to swell his Budget of expenditure this year and diminish it the next as he chooses, by throwing this year's expenditure on the last, or vice versâ. The House, for instance, was deluded by the Budget and the Navy Estimates of last year. This sum of £350,000 ought to have been provided for, and it was not. True, it is not a very large amount, but it affords an object lesson as to the present system, upon which, when the Budget comes on, we shall have more to say. If this money has now to be provided, why does not the right hon. Gentleman propose a loan such as Lord Palmerston proposed in respect of fortifications? As is well known, in that case the sum was to be spead over a number of years by terminable annuities, and before those years expired the fortifications were acknowledged to be quite useless. So it may be in regard to this expenditure. I have thought it right on this Supplementary Vote to call attention to the state of confusion into which the finances have now been brought and to show the reason for that confusion.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): I do not complain of the right hon. Gentleman, as one who had once filled the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, laying down strict principles of finance, but in the remarks which he has made he has indulged in what, after all, is occasional with him—gigantic exaggeration.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Oh, no; the exaggeration is on your side.
    *MR. GOSCHEN: The right hon. Gentleman has applied criticisms which

    501
    might be applicable on policy, namely, a vast scale to transactions on a small scale. He says that no one can understand the expenditure of the country, simply by reason, I suppose, of this extra outlay of £2,000,000 or £3,000,000. I should say that that is a specimen of his exaggeration. He has attacked our finance on two or three grounds. He has attacked it as a system of borrowing, and he has attacked it because he says it leads to confusion. But he appears to have entirely forgotten what were the grounds which prompted the Government to deal in this particular way with regard to Naval and Imperial defence. It is, perhaps, not to be regretted that the right hon. Gentleman has now given me an opportunity of reminding the Committee and the public of those reasons. The right hon. Gentleman says we might have resorted to a loan, and he instances the case of the fortifications. He considers that a loan, the repayment of which was spread over a number of years, would have been better.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I did not recommend a loan. I said it would have been more straightforward and honest, though it would still have been a bad plan.
    *MR. GOSCHEN: The right hon. Gentleman means to say it would have been more straightforward and honest to borrow and to spread the payment over a long instead of a short term. I fail to see that. It would, of course, have been easy for the Government to take a loan, as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, and extend the repayment over a long period of years. But Her Majesty's Government did not think that would be sound finance. We thought it ought to be spread over the shortest possible number of years and accordingly this expenditure was spread over seven years. The right hon. Gentleman has apparently forgotten the case of the Localisation of the Forces Bill in 1871, which is a precise precedent for the course taken on the present occasion. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to three Acts—the Imperial Defence Act, the Naval Defence Act, and the Barracks Act. I was a little surprised to hear all these Acts introduced into a Debate on a Supplemental Estimate,
    502
    but I suppose I am in order in replying to the right hon. Gentleman. Then, let me tell the right hon. Gentleman that the Barracks Act is based on the precise line of the Act of 1871 or 1872. There was permanent work to be undertaken, and the Government of that day, of which I was a member, borrowed for the purpose, and did not think that permanent buildings ought to be dealt with out of the revenue of the year. Similarly the present Government has not thought that the £3,000,000 or £4,000,000, to be spent on barracks, under the Act of last Session, ought to be placed on the taxpayers of one given year. If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby is of a different opinion, that opinion is in antagonism to the action of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian in 1871. Then as to the Naval Defence Act, the right hon. Gentleman has quoted words which I used in 1879. He was perfectly entitled to do so. But why has the Government passed this measure? Because experience has taught them that under the system of finance existing previously, ships were not built within the time in which they ought to be built, and that funds intended for shipbuilding were diverted to other purposes, such as repairs. Under the old system there was a constant shifting in the Navy Estimates, which had a most dangerous influence on the shipbuilding programme. I am bound to say, I must personally take a great portion of the responsibility for that Act, for it appeared to me that unless we laid down that a certain sum should be set aside under Act of Parliament for shipbuilding, we should never have such a Fleet as the country wants. I admit that the system of finance now adopted is more complicated than the old system, but the country will forgive the complication when, at the end of the four years over which the expenditure will be spread, it sees the ships built for which the money has been voted. The right hon. Member for Derby has quoted words of mine indicating that it is a cowardly course to borrow. But we are not borrowing. We are only regularising the expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Government are borrowing £10,000,000, but this is not a loan of £10,000,000; it is rather the regularising of an expenditure of

    503
    £10,000,000, spreading it over seven years, for every year a sum of £1,400,000 is put upon the Vote, and in this way £2,800,000 out of the £10,000,000 has already been voted, and another £1,400,000 will be put in the Estimates for this year. It cannot be said that this is borrowing the money. I must, therefore, demur to the charge brought against us by the right hon. Gentleman. This arrangement, be it observed, has not been made for the purpose of lightening taxation, but in order to secure that within a given number of years a certain number of ships shall be built. This end, I hope, we shall attain; and I again say, I feel sure the country will forgive a little complication of accounts if we succeed in doing what no former Board of Admiralty or any other Government has done. Who are responsible for the demands which the Government has had to meet? The right hon. Gentleman and his friends who did not make sufficient provision for the Fleet. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman himself said, "We have no money for guns," of which the consequence is that the present Government have had to supply them. The same thing occurred in connection with the coaling stations. In fact, within three or four years the Government have had to fortify the coaling stations, to supply the new magazine rifle, to build barracks, and to strengthen the Fleet. In these circumstances, the Government have thought it justifiable, with regard to a portion of this expenditure, to take the same course as was taken in 1871 in connection with the Localisation of the Forces Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has also spoken of Local Finance. That is a subject that would be more appropriately discussed on the Budget; but I must point out that, whereas, some years ago it was next to impossible to ascertain what liabilities we had incurred for local purposes, that department of finance has now been regularised and systematised, and will soon be intelligible to the country. But the main charge of the right hon. Gentleman is that the Government had borrowed. I answer, that so far as we have borrowed, we have followed the precedent set for us, and so far as we have withdrawn any expenditure from the control of Parliament, we have simply done so in order
    504
    to secure that the shipbuilding programme of the country shall be undisturbed by any change of feeling in this or a new Parliament, and to ensure that our shipbuilding programme shall be carried out.
    MR. J. MORLEY: The right hon. Gentleman, in his closing words, referred in the most distinct manner possible to the doctrine of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, when he attacked this particular system of finance. I venture to think that a more unconstitutional doctrine was never so audaciously avowed; and this is the doctrine which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself so courageously denounced in 1879.
    *MR. GOSCHEN: I did not denounce it from the point of view the right hon. Gentleman suggests.
    MR. J. MORLEY: Surely. What was the avowal of the right hon. Gentleman? That it was expedient and Constitutional for the Government to withdraw from the control of a future House of Commons the expenditure upon Her Majesty's Navy. The right hon. Gentleman said, in effect, that he resorted to this new system, which he denounced in 1879, in order that, if his Government were superseded by a Liberal Government, the present naval policy of Ministers might not be thwarted. What more unconstitutional position could a Chancellor of the Exchequer take up? Surely the controlling authority of this House is based upon the constant, steady, annual supervision of the annual expenditure. That is the most fundamental of all constitutional doctrines; yet the right hon. Gentleman wishes to prevent a new House of Commons, that may disapprove the naval policy of his Government, from interfering with their plans, and in order to baulk the new House, and to frustrate the will and intentions of the constituencies, he resorts to this system which the right hon. Member for Derby has denounced. By his bold and audacious avowal the Chancellor of the Exchequer has shown that he must have forgotten what he said in 1879. He then said—
    "The fact was, the House had lost power as to the expenditure of the country through the introduction of this distinction between ordinary and extraordinary expenditure."

    505
    Now, the right hon. Gentleman tells us that he has adopted this new system because he wishes to deprive a future House of Commons of all control over the naval policy of the country.
    MR. GOSCHEN: The right hon. Gentleman is indulging in some exaggeration. I do not shrink from the just inference which may be drawn from my words; but the right hon. Gentleman does not draw the correct inference, when he says that what we did was to substitute au Act of Parliament for the estimate. We placed the item on the Consolidated Fund in order that it should not be made the subject of an annual Vote, but the control of Parliament remains. Of course, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, an Act of Parliament can be repealed. Therefore, the naval policy of the country has not been withdrawn from the control of a future House of Commons, for the right hon. Gentleman and his friends, if they should think right, will be able to repeal the Naval Defence Act. My own views may well have undergone some modification since 1879, for I have had experience of the difficulties caused in naval matters by the system ordinarily pursued. I have endeavoured to explain to the House the difficulties into which the Navy and our system of naval construction have got owing to the policy which has been pursued during the last eight or nine years. I have seen all the disasters that have resulted from that system. Sometimes it has happened that there were guns for which no ammunition was provided, and in other cases it has happened that there were ships for which no guns were provided; while with regard to the ships themselves, they have been so slowly constructed that in some cases they have been rendered practically valueless for times of emergency. I have also seen the results which have been pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt), with regard to our fortifications, where the necessary work has been spread over a long time, so that had any necessity arisen in the meantime neither ships nor fortifications would have been ready. In answer to the right hon. Gentleman, I say that if these defences are essential to the national safety, it cannot be wrong for us to depart from the ordinary practice, and
    506
    to propose that the naval expenditure should be safeguarded by a permanent arrangement such as we now propose, instead of that which has hitherto been customary. Now, I confess that I have laid myself open to some of the reproaches of right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I have laid myself open to the reproach that I have in some degree lessened the control of Parliament over the expenditure for the construction of our Fleet; but I say that if the results should be that three years hence this country will have a larger Navy and a stronger Navy than it has ever had before, that our ships will be found to have been built more economically, because consecutively, by funds withdrawn from immediate Parliamentary control, and that in addition to our ships, we shall also have provided the magazine rifle and have fortified our coaling stations, I trust that the House will forgive the Chancellor of the Exchequer for having secured these results by this system of finance, which may be termed complicated, and which right hon. Gentlemen opposite may consider they are justified in denouncing as they have done, but which I still believe will be proved to be more beneficial to the country than that which has hitherto been adopted.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: We have heard the arguments put forward by the once Liberal Chancellor of the Exchequer in favour of what I call "ship-money." All the principles of the Constitution, all the control of Parliament over the National Expenditure, are thrown over by the right hon. Gentleman the Liberal Unionist Chancellor of the Exchequer. What, I ask, has become of the constitutional control of the House of Commons? The right hon. Gentleman says, "We put it into an Act of Parliament, which you can alter if you like." Yes, with the consent of the House of Lords. It is thus the control of the House of Commons over the Expenditure of the country is deliberately destroyed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and he does this because he fears a dissolution may come, and that another Government may sit in the places occupied by himself and his colleagues. That, I repeat, is the constitutional doctrine of a Chancellor of the Exchequer who was once a Liberal, and who made the speech

    507
    in 1879 to which reference has already been made. Let me for a moment examine this doctrine. The policy of this House ever since the Reform Bill of 1832 has been to put upon the Votes of Parliament everything that could properly be put upon the Votes, and to take off everything that could be taken off the Consolidated Fund, in order that the control of the House of Commons might be more efficiently maintained. But now the Expenditure which has always by the Constitution of the country been expressly reserved for the control of the House of Commons—that is to say, the naval and military expenditure—is put for the first time by Her Majesty's Government upon the Consolidated Fund, so that it cannot be removed except with the consent of the House of Lords. This paltry sum of £350,000 contained in the Supplementary Estimate is as insignificant as the amount of "ship-money" itself when compared with the doctrine which is used to support it. Here we have the Chancellor of the Exchequer coming down to the House on a Monday afternoon and saying, "I have given away"—no, not given away, but, "I have filched away—filched away secretly—in a manner which the country has never previously known, and by a deliberate plan, the control of the House of Commons over the Naval Estimates, thereby placing the House in such a position that if there should be a dissolution of Parliament or a new Government who desired to alter this policy, it could not do it without the consent of the House of Lords." That is the object, and the avowed object, of the right hon. Gentleman, and the period is put at seven years, I suppose with a view to the Septennial Act, so as to make the Government perfectly safe against another Parliament or Government, which might disapprove of their proceedings, thereby saying, "Although the majority of the country and the majority of their Representatives in the House of Commons might desire another policy, we, a discredited Government, have taken care that the country, and the Government which enjoys the confidence of the country, shall not be able to pursue whatever policy they, under the circumstances, may deem fit." That is the doctrine of the right hon. Gen-
    508
    tleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that doctrine cannot be too distinctly stated in this House, I think the country will be very much surprised to see it to-morrow—quite as much surprised as I was when I heard the avowal this afternoon. I had at first thought that it had been merely the result of a blundering policy, or what the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself spoke of as a "shabby, sloppy proceeding," arising from a blunder made between two Departments over a trifle of £300,000. But it is not so. It is a totally different thing. It is the result of the deliberate and well-considered policy of the Government for the purpose of removing this money from the control of the House of Commons for a period of seven years. Let us understand exactly where we are. This policy has been as distinctly avowed and defended by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as it is possible to conceive. I know that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who laughs at this, is as much the advocate of a Coercion Act for this House as he is of a Coercion Act for Ireland. I am not at all surprised at him; but in what I am now saying I am appealing to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who once held views on financial principles which have been established in this country for the last 100 years. I have already referred to "ship-money." There is a youthful Strafford sitting by the side of the right bon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I am reminded that Strafford was also a Governor of Ireland in his time when, I suppose, the government of Ireland was conducted on much the same principles and policy as those of the present Chief Secretary. I should not, therefore, think of appealing to him for anything like respect for constitutional principles. Nevertheless, I hope it is not too late to vindicate and affirm the old principle of the control of the House of Commons over the Expenditure of the country, which has been deliberately attacked by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We now know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has by a deliberate plan endeavoured to destroy that principle.
    *MR. GOSCHEN: The right hon. Gentleman seems to forget that a Debate took place on this very subject on the

    509
    Naval Defence Bill, and that the very same arguments were used and fully answered, the Government being attacked on precisely the same points as are advanced at the present moment.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: At any rate, I am very much surprised that we have had the avowal from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the whole policy of the Government has been deliberately adopted for the purpose of keeping the control of the naval expenditure out of hands of the House of Commons. I protest against any such doctrine. I think that this Debate is thoroughly justified, inasmuch as it has brought out before the country and the House of Commons quite clearly what is the object of the policy of the Government, namely, to destroy the control of the House of Commons over our naval expenditure, and that for seven years, whatever the country or the House of Commons may say or desire, or whatever the Government which enjoys the confidence of the country, may think Parliament has determined the matter by an Act which we cannot vary except with the consent of the House of Lords. I have always thought the principle of control by this House was accepted by both Parties; bat it now appears that it is only the Liberal Party that will have to maintain for the future the doctrine of the supremacy of this House over the National Expenditure. At any rate, that doctrine is repudiated by the Party which is represented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I had thought that the doctrine of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was sufficiently laid down in his speech of 1879; but he says he has shunted that doctrine just as he has abandoned a great deal more since that time. The doctrine which has hitherto been upheld by this House has been that, as a general rule, the money wanted to meet the expenditure of the year should be provided out of the resources of the year. There are exceptions to that rule, where the particular circumstances or exigencies may require a different course; but where it is necessary to vary the rule, the necessity ought to be frankly and fairly stated to the House. I have never yet heard any Government or Administration avow that they have deliberately adopted a plan by which, for seven years, they intended
    510
    to defeat the control of the House of Commons over the Expenditure of the country, and I venture to say that I, for one, protest against this doctrine, and express a hope that when the country has had an opportunity of considering it, it will repudiate it quite as strongly as we do.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The right hon. Gentleman has just made one of his usual appeals to the principles of the Liberal Party; and in justification of that appeal has given us a short sketch of English History, beginning with Charles I and coming down to our own time. But there is one principle which he seems to have entirely forgotten. I always thought it an essential principle of the Liberal Party that a practice was not to be adhered to merely because it was old, but that it was possible to re-consider even the most ancient and traditional custom when it was thought it might be amended. I have believed also that that principle was not the absolute monopoly of either Political Party, although, if it were claimed more by one Party than by the other, it was by the party to which the right hon. Gentleman belongs. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that this Debate has been sprung upon us, and that now, at the very last moment, the Tory Government, led by a Liberal Chancellor of the Exchequer, intends to subvert the beneficial liberties of the country and to destroy one of the principles upon which the financial policy of the Government has hitherto been based. The right hon. Gentleman, who poses as a vigilant guardian of the public purse, seems to have forgotten the Debates that took place upon this subject some two or three years ago. It may aid the right hon. Gentleman to refer to those Debates, in which some very eminent colleagues of his took part, although possibly he may have taken no part in them himself. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) took part in them, and so, also, did the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone); and well do I recollect the constitutional views which they put forward, and which received a certain amount of support from the speech made by my noble Friend the Member

    511
    for Paddington (Lord R. Churchill) from this side of the House. Therefore, to say that these questions are now for the first time sprung upon the House, and that the dark and nefarious design of the Government is only now made apparent, is to prove that the right hon. Gentleman, so far from being a careful guardian of the liberties of the House, has not taken the trouble to follow the discussions which have taken place on the subject upon which he has spoken so strongly. After all, Mr. Courtney, what the Committee have to determine is not whether the plan is subversive of the old plan, but whether the new plan is a good plan, and whether it is not justified by the facts of the case. The right hon. Gentleman said perfectly truly that the practice of voting money for an Expenditure which is to extend over more than one year is a new plan which was never thought of by our forefathers. But this is to meet a new exigency in shipbuilding. It did not take four or five years to complete a ship in the old time.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: It took more.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. The model of the wooden ship changed less in a century than the model of an ironclad changes now in five years. Therefore, the object of this change of policy is to meet what never existed before. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir W. Harcourt) apparently supposes that we have in mere lightness of heart adopted this new method. He must know, if he has followed the policy of naval construction during the last 10 years, that it was forced upon the Government by the evils which were brought to their notice, and the right hon. Gentleman did not show throughout the whole course of his speech that he had the slightest appreciation of what those necessities are. The Government adopted this plan, to which the House gave their deliberate sanction, with the view of carrying out a complete and economical programme of shipbuilding; and before we can abandon that plan, we must have much stronger arguments than the flimsy and shadowy constitutional pretences brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman. Of course, if the Government were to withdraw from the consideration of the Committee money to be expended on a policy to be
    512
    carried out within the year, that would be very gratuitously violating the traditions of Parliament. The Army expenditure is of that nature. But the peculiarity of modern shipbuilding and modern fortifications is this: that alterations of design are so rapid, and inventions are pressed forward at such a speed, that, if you followed the old plan of taking a long time to build, your ships would be more costly and less efficient. Are you prepared, in order to lay the ghosts of Charles I and Hampden, to have worse ships under the old plan than you will gain under the new plan? Let the right hon. Gentlemen show that our plan does not come up to the naval necessities of the case, and he will show us ample reason for abandoning that plan. They do not do that. They rely upon these Parliamentary practices which are perfectly justifiable in dealing with ordinary matters, but which are not justifiable in an expenditure on ironclads, which take years to build.
    MR. J. MORLEY: I think the right hon. Gentleman was not in his place when the remark fell from the Chancellor of the Exchequer which gave rise to this discussion. Upon the right hon. Gentleman's last remarks I would ask him one plain question. If you wanted £4,000,000 last year, why did you not ask Parliament to vote it then and there? Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give a plain answer to that when the opportunity arises. What the Chief Secretary has just been saying about the Navy of the country is really beside the mark. First of all, and as a matter of fact, I do not believe the First Lord of the Admiralty would say that a ship takes longer to build now than it did in 1879, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer laid down these sound doctrines. But the point we want to get at is the avowal made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Government adopted this policy not because ships takes longer to build, or from any point of view of that kind, but because, as he said, "We might be superseded by gentlemen on the other side of the House in the Government, and we want to anticipate that risk of supersession; and, therefore, in fact, we take out of you, the House of Commons, the power of saying what should or should not be done."

    513
    The Chief Secretary was not here at the moment that avowal was made, but I doubt that he would defend that principle. What is the Chief Secretary's argument after all, taking it for what it is worth? It assumes that the House of Commons are likely to be so blind to all the naval necessities of the country, or to the conditions of naval construction, that they will deliberately waste and throw away what has been done by the preceding Government. The Chief Secretary has not dealt with our comments upon the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which stands absolutely accepted by the whole Government, namely, that the Government of the day by this policy deliberately intended, and acted with that view, to take from the House of Commons the power of altering this policy or of checking an expenditure in which the House of Lords is to join.
    MR. GOSCHEN: It would appear that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle, as well as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, does not remember the Debates which took place on the Naval Defence Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian discussed this very objection to the Bill.
    MR. J. MORLEY: That is what I said.
    *MR. GOSCHEN: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby has asserted that this was not discussed.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I beg your pardon. I did not say the objection had not been taken; it has always been our objection. But what I said was that it had never been avowed before that it was intended to defeat the will of the country and of future Parliaments. It has never been said before, and never been answered, that it was in order to defeat the Government or the Parliament elected by the country.
    *MR. GOSCHEN: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to future Parliaments. Why could not a future Parliament repeal the Act?
    SIR W. HARCOURT: The House of Commons.
    *MR. GOSCHEN: The right hon. Gentleman ought to be more careful in his language. He spoke of Parliament.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: The House of Lords is not dissolved; the House of Commons is.
    *MR. GOSCHEN: The argument was used on the last occasion, just as it is used now, but Parliament decided upon a certain programme. It settled that certain ships should be built and finished, and the money raised for them in a certain way. Was it desirable, after this solemn resolve, that we should be exposed to the contingency that a future Government—I did not speak of a future Parliament—should interfere with the continuity of shipbuilding for four or five years? Our whole argument, our whole policy, was this: that precautions should be taken by Act to secure continuity for our programme for five years. That is the great crime with which we stand charged. We pointed out that no guns had been supplied, or, if they were, that there was no ammunition for them, and that the ships were far longer building than was necessary. ["No, no!"] We have it on record, and it cannot be denied that frequently the Admiralty changed the plans for a portion of some vessel, and that delayed its construction, while money that was voted for building was devoted to repairs. We considered it wiser to have continuous building, and I do think the right hon. Gentleman has exaggerated the scope of our proposal. Of course, the new Parliament will be able to deal with this as with any other Acts. The whole crime, as I understand, is that we have put into an Act what we formerly brought before Committee of Supply.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Our charge is that you have destroyed the control of the House of Commons over public expenditure.
    *MR. GOSCHEN: Then my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian, when he passed the Mobilisation of Forces Act, 1871, destroyed control over that amount of expenditure, just as we are said to be destroying control now. How does the right hon. Gentleman get out of that difficulty? The sanction of expenditure by an Act of Parliament has been done continually. It is done in every instance where there is a loan. The right hon. Gentleman says we have destroyed the control of the House of Commons. That is to say, nothing is to be done by loan. I admit to the full

    515
    with the right hon. Gentleman that the control of Parliament ought to be maintained, as far as possible, but there are cases where it is advisable to proceed by legislation, and we think this is a case.
    MR. CHANNING: As Her Majesty's Government have fallen back on the plea of administration as an excuse, I wish to draw attention to this one fact, that in a very important speech delivered in 1888 the First Lord of the Admiralty, I think, in introducing the Naval Defence Bill, said the building of the Trafalgar had been shortened by at least a year and a-half, involving a saving of £75,000 to the Exchequer. This improvement in administration was therefore secured before the adoption of this procedure to which Her Majesty's Government have had recourse. The contention which has been laid before us, especially by the Chief Secretary, shows very small attention to the facts as to the construction of various ships. I was astounded at what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said with regard to guns and ammunition, and other matters of administration, which can be dealt with without the unconstitutional procedure which has been so justly and rightly denounced by my right hon. Friends.
    SIR W. PLOWDEN: I think we ought to have some explanation of this sum of £350,000 extra expenditure in respect of steam vessels. The First Lord and his advisers, when they framed their Estimates, must have had a very accurate knowledge of triple-expansion engines, and they ought to have been able to frame them in such a manner as to avoid this extra expenditure of £350,000 being asked for. I would ask the First Lord whether there is any difference between the conduct of these triple-expansion engines in Her Majesty's Service and the conduct of such engines in the Merchant Service? If there is no difference, why are not the Estimates properly framed?
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I should like to ask the First Lord one question. He will remember that the most important part of his statement last year related to the proposal to reserve a large number of ships which would be available on an emergency at very short
    516
    notice. If I remember rightly, the large ships were to be available at once—the coastguard ships in 48 hours, and the principal part of the Naval Reserve in five days or a week. I think the noble Lord said, on the 1st of July 1890, that these ships would be all ready and available for war purposes, if they were wanted, within a less space of time than a week. I would ask him whether his expectation has been fulfilled, whether the vessels would be able to put to sea within a week, and whether they are all available for war purposes? I would also ask him whether he would have any objection to lay on the Table a Return showing the present condition of the mobilisation, and how far the actual condition of things corresponds with the expectations the noble Lord held out last year. Two or three days ago I saw in the Times newspaper a statement that none of these expectations had been realised, that hardly any of the vessels of the First-Class Reserve could be brought forward in a short space of time; that many of the vessels mentioned would take a year or more to bring forward; and that, in point of fact, the scheme of mobilisation on which all this extraordinary expenditure has been incurred has not been carried out. The writer of the article to which I have referred says that some of the Reserve ships are old wooden vessels, and some of the so-called ironclads are of so old a type that, practically speaking, they ought not to be regarded as available.
    LORD G. HAMILTON: I shall be very glad to give the right hon. Gentleman the information he asks for. Last year I announced that it was intended that the large ships should be made available for service within twelve hours. That has been done. I said it was intended to convert the Channel Squadron into a homogeneous squadron of modern battle-ships. That has been done. As regards the Coastguard ships, all of them are in a condition to be ready for action within 48 hours. The criticisms of the writer in the Times, to which the right hon. Gentleman has alluded, were made in reference to ships in what is called the First Reserve. I read the article, and it seemed to me a very clear and business-like article, but the writer committed two mistakes. He talked of a great many ships as obsolete—and

    517
    it is the fashion of a large number of people to say that a great portion of the British Navy is obsolete. But such persons have not mastered the fact that the question whether a ship is obsolete or not does not depend on the date at which it is built, but on the ships against which it will have to be used. If any other test were adopted, a large portion of the Foreign Navies would disappear. A certain number of our ships came back from the manœuvres of last year with very small and trifling defects, and these defects have not, owing to the pressure of work, been made good, so that technically a number of ships are still outside the First Class Reserve. I have, however, talked the question over with the Controller of the Navy, and the right hon. Gentleman will be glad to hear that practically all these vessels can be ready for Commission within a week. I have no objection to give the Return if the right hon. Gentleman wishes it. I know the right hon. Gentleman's interest in the Navy, but I wish every Chancellor of the Exchequer had had the advantage which my right hon. Friend the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has had of being at the head of the Admiralty for two or three years. Because when a right hon. Gentleman has had that experience, he finds out that a good many regulations to which the ordinary Treasury official attaches importance, as insuring economy, works exactly the opposite way. The present discussion has all originated on a Supplementary Estimate, and the right hon. Gentleman and his friends charge against the Government that they wish to deprive the House of Commons of its legitimate control over the national expenditure. Now, if it had not been for the Naval Defence Act, this large Supplementary Estimate never would have come before the House at all, because the Admiralty would have been able to meet it out of the savings on the other Votes; and it is because those savings are appropriated by Act of Parliament that this Supplementary Estimate comes before the House at all, and the House therefore has an opportunity of expressing its opinion which, but for the Naval Defence Act, it would not have had. The Debate has originated on the question whether or not it is wise that unexpended balances should be
    518
    carried to the credit of next year. My right hon. Friend does not consent to those balances being carried forward, as contrary to accepted financial principles; but under the Naval Defence Act the Admiralty practically should be able to build these ships at a very small percentage over the original Estimate.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I do not quite follow the noble Lord in saying that, but for the Naval Defence Act, it would not have been necessary to take this Supplementary Vote, but I wish to point out, in answer to the statement made by himself and the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the system adopted under the Naval Defence Act is likely to have the effect of hastening the construction of ships, that experience is rather in the opposite direction. I find that in 1888–9, £300,000, which had been provided for by Parliament, was not expended in the year, and that in the current year £200,000 has been unexpended on shipbuilding in the dockyards.
    LORD G. HAMILTON: That is for armament.
    MR. SHAWLEFEVRE: That is, I presume, for the ships. In respect to shipbuilding by contract we find that no less than £6600,000 is unexpended during the present year. By these amounts, therefore, vessels will be slower in building than was anticipated: in other words, the system adopted under the Naval Defence Act is having no better effect than the old system, in hastening ships. On the contrary, I believe the construction of ships is being delayed even to a greater extent than under the old system.
    *DR. CAMERON: I understand none of this money is intended to pay any of the expenses connected with the expedition to Witu in November last.
    LORD G. HAMILTON: This is all for stores.
    MR. DUFF: Reference has been made to the statement in the Times with regard to the delay in the building of new vessels. I should like to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is correct, as stated, that a great many of the new vessels, especially those built by contract, are two or three knots slower than was contracted for.
    LORD G. HAMILTON: The hon. Gentleman will find the information in my statement. In certain instances there was a falling off in speed of about a knot.
    MR. DUFF: I do not want to raise the question at length now. If the noble Lord is not prepared to go into the matter at this moment I will ask him a question on the Shipbuilding Vote.
    Vote agreed to.

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS. 1890–91 (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES).

    CLASS II.
    2. £500, Supplementary, Colonial Office.
    SIR G. CAMPBELL: I do not desire to raise the whole question of Colonial Policy on this Supplementary Vote, but I think I am entitled to ask for some information on important events that are now taking place. Two or three days ago there appeared in the Times an article in very large type headed "Outcome of the Negotiations regarding South Africa." I should like to know if the statements in the article were authentic.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member ought to defer raising such a question until the Colonial Office Vote is reached. The only item in the present Vote is for telegrams.
    SIR G. CAMPBELL: Yes, Sir; but I submit that the sending out of telegrams is a very important matter.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is quite entitled to ask as to any telegraphic charge, but not to discuss general questions of Colonial Policy.
    SIR G. CAMPBELL: Then I should like to know whether any part of the telegrams for which a charge is made in this Vote had reference to the passing of the Act giving Responsible Government to Natal? I am obliged to abide by your ruling, Sir, but I am afraid that ruling will tend to the discussion being confined in very narrow limits.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I think I might be allowed to ask this financial question: whether any of these telegrams refer to the Chartered Company of South Africa, because, if so, I imagine we might raise the question whether such telegrams ought to be
    520
    paid for by the Chartered Company or by the Imperial Government?
    *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,): The Chartered Company pay for their own telegrams.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: No doubt, they do; but I apprehend that if telegrams refer to matters concerning the Chartered Company, for instance to the enlistment of persons like Colonel Carrington for the Chartered Company, the Chartered Company ought to pay for them. This is important because we have speculative companies established in South Africa, and I notice that little by little we are being called upon to pay sums in respect of them. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will clearly explain whether any of the telegrams apply directly or indirectly to the action of Colonel Carrington, or to any other English official, with regard to the Chartered Company—in fact, whether if the Chartered Company had not been in existence these telegrams would have been sent at all.
    *BARON H. DE WORMS: The Vote to some extent arises from the increase of questions in this House, necessitating inquiries to be made by telegram in all parts of the globe.
    SIR G. CAMPBELL: I think we may assume that the inquiries were on the subject of questions asked in the House, and therefore, probably, you, Sir, will rule that we may raise a Debate on those questions.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order!
    DR. CLARK: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many telegrams were sent to South Africa?
    *BARON H. DE WORMS: It is quite impossible to say.
    COLONEL NOLAN: How much of the charge is due to questions put in the House? It seems to me the Colonial Office are entirely ignorant of colonial matters, unless questions are put to them by hon. Members, because when we ask questions they immediately telegraph, utterly regardless of the expense. The ignorance displayed by the Colonial Office shows the great necessity of hon. Members putting questions across the floor of the House. The best the right hon. Gentleman can do is to promise us a return of the cost of the different

    521
    telegrams and distinguish between the telegrams he has sent in the ordinary course, and those he has sent when stirred up by hon. Members. I shall certainly move to report Progress, and take a Division against the Vote unless the right hon. Gentleman will give us some information, some rough or approximate estimate, as to the amount under this head due to questions asked in this House.
    BARON H. DE WORMS: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must be aware that it is absolutely impossible for me to give such information at a moment's notice, but if he will put down a Question I will give all information I can obtain.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: But the right hon. Gentleman has told us that the increase in this item of expenditure is mainly due to the questions asked by hon. Members in this House, so surely he must have in his mind some idea of the approximate cost of telegrams on this account. The expenditure on telegrams is increased by £500, and the right hon. Gentleman, putting it rather as a slur upon the conduct of hon. Members, says, this expense has been mainly caused by questions asked here. But we repudiate responsibility for any increase of the kind. We, in the exercise of our undoubted right, put questions to Ministers on public matters, and we naturally suppose that the public Department concerned can supply the information we desire, but we have never supposed that the Colonial Office is so absolutely ignorant on colonial matters that to answer a simple question they have to telegraph to the Antipodes.
    DR. CLARK: It will be observed there is another Vote for £1,750 for telegrams for the High Commissioner alone. I should like to know if any portion of this was used for South Africa?
    *MR. J. E. ELLIS: I really think an answer is due to us with respect to this great increase in cost of telegrams. The right hon. Gentleman puts this extra charge as mainly due to getting answers to questions we, in the exercise of the privilege of Members, put in this House, and then, being further challenged, he says it is utterly impossible for him to say what amount is due to the cause he
    522
    has mentioned. But surely he has some approximate idea of the number of questions asked, or telegrams sent? It is hardly business-like to ask us to pass a vote like this, the right hon. Gentleman only saving, in an airy manner, the increase is due to questions in the House. Surely he can give us an approximate idea of the questions upon which he makes his statement?
    BARON H. DE WORMS: I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not wish to misrepresent me; I have not refused the information. I have explained that I am not prepared with it at the moment. I said that of this extra expenditure a great deal was due to receiving answers to questions asked in this House. The hon. Gentleman knows that it continually happens that upon the Notice Question being answered an hon. Member supplements it by asking that the information desired may be telegraphed for, and it would be considered extremely discourteous if I refused to obtain information in that manner. I can call to mind an instance when the Western Australia Constitution Bill was before the House in which a telegram was sent to West Australia, and the rate for such telegrams is 8s. a word. Several times during those Western Australia Government Debates the Government were asked to telegraph for information.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: The ordinary Estimates for the year included a large sum for telegrams, and this is a Supplementary Vote. Reasons for the increase must have been sent to the Treasury; can my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury tell us upon what information the Treasury sanctioned this additional Estimate?
    MR. H. HEATON: I should like to ask the Under Secretary for the Colonies whether his statement, that this increase is chiefly due to questions asked in this House, is based upon information supplied by permanent officials at the Colonial Office, because my information in regard to these telegrams is of a totally different character?
    *MR. BUCHANAN: I would reiterate the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton. Does the Under Secretary mean that this large increase

    523
    is mainly due to the increase of questions on colonial matters? I do not think that such a statement is in accordance with the general knowledge of hon. Members, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has, during the course of the Session, been called upon to answer an unusually largo number of colonial questions. This sum of £500 is a Supplementary Estimate. Will the Secretary to the Treasury say that when this increase of 14 or 15 per cent. on the original estimate was asked for the reason given was the unexpected number of questions requiring to be answered by means of the telegraph?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): Perhaps I may be allowed to say a word on the subject, and before I do so let me say that my right hon. Friend had no intention of making this increase any ground for reproach on hon. Members for asking questions. I am asked, what statement was made to the Treasury which induced the Treasury to sanction this Supplementary Estimate? and to this I have to say that the original Estimate—which, as hon. Members are aware, was £3,500—was represented to us in December as being insufficient, there having been a great deal of telegraphing during the first nine months of the year. Having regard to the fact that the Estimate would almost certainly be exceeded, we thought it better to provide for another £500 to meet the expenses that might be incurred in the latter part of the year. It may be that this amount will not be expended; it may be that only £100 will be spent. I do not anticipate that the whole sum will be required, but I hope the Committee will agree that we do right in providing for contingencies that may arise.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: If this answer had been given earlier I do not think there would have been any difference of opinion. This is just the information we required; but when the Under Secretary put the increase upon such a novel ground that this House was responsible, he must not be surprised that objection was taken.
    DR. CLARK: But may I ask what is the source of this: there is another Vote for £1,750?
    MR. JACKSON: That comes on a later Vote for the Colonial Service-That is a Vote by itself.
    MR. H. HEATON: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question as to the source of the information that the excess on the Vote is due to questions asked in the House. Is it derived from the permanent officials in the office? because my information is directly contrary to that.
    Vote agreed to.
    3. £10 Supplementary, Bankruptcy Department, Board of Trade.
    SIR G. CAMPBELL: I should like to have some information as to this expenditure. Though the nominal sum is £10, the expenses are really £700. I am very glad to find the Government find it necessary to spend £700 to give effect to the Companies Winding Up Act, and hope it may be the means, under that Act, of preventing those frauds such as we find daily brought to light in the Courts of Law in connection with the management of Joint Stock Companies. I should like to know what measures have been taken for the efficient working of the Act and the bringing to justice those who come within the clutches of the law.
    MR. JACKSON: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to explain that. The only reason it is necessary to take a Supplementary Vote at all is that the Companies Winding Up Act has been passed since the Estimates were framed, and the Board of Trade could not incur any expenditure else, the expenditure being limited to the Bankruptcy Department. It is necessary to take this Vote as a matter of regularity and routine. My right hon. Friend anticipates that £700 may be required during the current financial year, and the fees are expected to cover that amount. The hon. Member may rely upon full effect being given to the Act.
    Vote agreed to.
    4. £455 Supplementary, Friendly Societies' Registry.
    DR. CLARK: May I ask, is anything being done in reference to the Report of the Select Committee on this question, which made certain recommendations? There have been complaints

    525
    that certain classes of tables, for which an expenditure of £10,000 has been incurred, are not ready. I understand the Government intend to bring in a measure; there seems to be some change pending. I should like to have some information.
    MR. JACKSON: The hon. Member is quite right. The Committee did make certain recommendations, and subsequently a Departmental Committee went thoroughly into all the questions of staff and recommended certain alterations, and it is to meet the increased expenditure that the Supplementary Estimate is necessary. The £300 is to meet expenditure in the current financial year which was necessary upon these tables. These have been in preparation for some years, and it was estimated the total cost would be £10,000 for 10 years. They ought to have been completed this year, but it was found they could not be completed, but it is expected they will be completed next year. Rather than delay the work, and to get the advantage of the tables at the earliest moment, we sanctioned an expenditure of £1,000 in excess of the original estimate. The work has taken 10 years, and will be of great advantage to Friendly Societies.
    Vote agreed to.
    5. £20,000, Supplementary, Mint, including coinage.
    6. £1,150, Supplementary, Works and Public Buildings Office.

    CLASS III.
    7. Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £200, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1891, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Police Courts of London and Sheerness."
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Once more I must raise the question whether the expenses of Police Courts in London and the suburbs should be borne on the Imperial taxation or should be borne by London itself. We have Police Courts in the towns we represent, and in these towns most assuredly the inhabitants pay for them. In London that is not the practice. This practice of placing these expenses on the Estimates has, I
    526
    imagine, grown up from there being a Central Court at Bow Street, where international matters come up for consideration. Of the payment of a small sum on that account I should not complain, but why we should be called upon to pay for Police Courts at Sheerness, Woolwich, Greenwich, Wandsworth, and other places I do not understand. Is there any more reason why we should pay for the Courts at Woolwich or Sheerness any more than we should pay for the Courts at Derby or Northampton, or any other town? This matter has been frequently raised, and I have sometimes very nearly beaten the Government upon it, though at other times I have been much further from success, but there always has been a protest made. I raised it also on the question of the expense of building the Courts. Now, if we only look in the newspapers we see that the cases in these Courts, making an occasional exception at Bow Street, where there may be an extradition case to decide, are as much local to London as the proceedings in any of our provincial towns concern the Municipal Police of those towns. As I cannot find a sufficient reason for this Vote being put upon the Estimates I shall divide against the Vote.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: This is a very old controversy. My right hon. Friend (Mr. H. H. Fowler) has raised it over and over again, and the only defence which could be made in past times was that London had no municipal representation, and, therefore, this Charge was put upon the Estimates. With the extension of municipal government to London the Charge is no longer defensible. This was fully recognised in the Bill I introduced for the better government of London, this Charge being placed upon the inhabitants of London. Now that London has a County Council, I cannot see how this Charge can in justice to other Municipal Bodies be made a national Charge, and I hope we shall have an undertaking that in future this Charge shall be transferred from the Exchequer to local finance. If not, I shall certainly vote with my hon. Friend as a protest, for undoubtedly this should be a matter for the constituted Local Authority—the London County Council.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART WORTLEY,): Of course, this is a Supplementary Vote, and the House has already sanctioned the principle with the ordinary Estimates for the year. I understand the hon. Gentleman to draw a distinction between the Courts in London and those at Sheerness, Chatham, and Woolwich, and proposes to divide against the Charge in relation to the latter places.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: No; I said I was opposed to the whole of the Vote, though perhaps it might be possible for the Treasury to pay a certain sum—say £500—annually to defray the costs arising at Bow Street, in respect to magisterial investigations in relation to international matters. I can understand the reasonableness of that.
    *MR. STUART WORTLEY: I understood the hon. Gentleman to take exception to the Charge for Sheerness and other places. Of course, at Chatham, Woolwich, and Sheerness there are large increases of the population owing to the Government dockyards and military stations, and this involves a greater demand for summary jurisdiction. As to whether the London Police Courts generally ought to be supported from local resources or the Imperial Treasury, that is a subject for abstract discussion. The maintenance of good order in the Metropolis is a matter of Imperial as well as of local concern, and in passing the main Estimates for the current financial year Parliament has sanctioned the principle at present obtaining.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: I venture to think this has ceased to be an abstract question, and now assumes a concrete shape. When this question was raised some 10 years ago the answer given by the then Secretary to the Treasury was that it was impossible that the question could be raised with any advantage until London was invested with municipal government, and a pledge was given, which has been repealed since, that when London had her own municipal government the expenses of the Courts should be defrayed as they are in all other great towns of the United Kingdom. Of course, I should be out of order in raising the general question, but I can promise the Government that it will be raised when the Estimates
    528
    come forward. I confine my remarks to the Supplementary Estimate and the increase for the salary of a clerk at Sheerness. The Under Secretary tells us that the good order of the Metropolis is a matter of Imperial concern, and that the nation should support the Courts at Sheerness because there are large Government works there, and the population is increased by Government employés; but would the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary to the Treasury countenance such an argument on behalf of Liverpool or Portsmouth or Plymouth or other of our maritime ports? This is the only opportunity which the Committee will have of dividing on these Votes, which were passed en masse at the end of last Session, in too great a hurry for Parliament to approve or disapprove of the principle under discussion. Unless the Government can give us some more encouraging answer in respect to the future Estimates I shall go into the Lobby with my hon. Friend.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: The Under Secretary says it is the duty of the Imperial Government to provide specially for the Police Courts at Sheerness and elsewhere, because there happens to be a large amount of Government dockyard labour. But is that the case with Plymouth or Pembroke or Portsmouth? No; there is no pretence that the Government labour entails heavier local expenditure on the Courts. We know perfectly well that people like to have these Government establishments. The populations of garrison and dockyard towns should, above all others, pay for the local administration of justice, because the existence of the Government establishments brings so much trade to the localities.
    MR. BARTLEY: I quite agree that London should pay for its own Police Courts, and I think the time has come for making the change, but I do not know that the right opportunity offers itself upon a Supplementary Estimate. It does seem to me, though I do not always approve of the action of the London County Council, that that is the authority to be entrusted with the duty of raising the money for this expenditure, and on another occasion I shall support a proposal for transferring this Charge to the Local Authority.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): I confess I am not disposed to say there are any very strong arguments why London should be treated differently from any other town, and I think if the whole thing were to be commenced de novo the Committee would be disposed to agree with my hon. Friend. But this is a Charge which for many reasons has been long thrown on the Estimates. It may be desirable at some future time to go into the whole question of London finance as compared with that of other towns, but it must not be assumed by the Committee that because this particular Charge is thrown upon the Estimates, London is in a very much better financial position than other towns as regards its relations with the Exchequer. In the arrangements that were made under the Local Government Act London was placed at a disadvantage as compared with every other part of the United Kingdom. I have not the figures by me, but I believe I am correct in saying that, whereas the relief that was given generally throughout the country was something over 3½d. in the £1, the relief which was given to London was under 2d. in the £1. If there were to be a re-adjustment of the settlement, London would, therefore, have more to gain by re-adjustment than it would lose.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Although it is no doubt true that the whole question was gone into carefully when the County Councils were created, still this is a matter which should stand on its own footing. Of course, to tie a question of this kind on to any re-adjustment of the whole system would be practically to defeat the course of justice. I am not at all confident that those who are the recipients of the bounty of the right hon. Gentleman have any reason to be thankful for it. In the parish in which I live in the country, I inquired what the effect of the benevolence of the right hon. Gentleman had been, and I found that the rates had been raised 4d. in the £1.
    MR. BARTLEY: On a point of Order, I beg to ask whether this is relevant to the Vote?
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I am answering what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
    THE CHAIRMAN: It is not in Order.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Then I hope L may be allowed in one sentence to answer the right hon. Gentleman by saying I traverse the statement that London has lost under this system as compared with the rest of the country. I have observed an ominous silence on the part of the Secretary to the Treasury on this question, and he is the man we really ought to hear, because he is the vindicator of the public purse in this matter. He knows very well that the public purse is being robbed as it ought not to be robbed; and though he will not speak in opposition to the Vote, I hope he will enter the Division Lobby against it.
    (7.5.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 143; Noes 75.—(Div. List, No. 80.)

    CLASS IV.
    8. £190, Supplementary, London University.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I should like to have some explanation of the increase in this Vote.
    *MR. JACKSON: There has been a slight increase in the expenditure owing to the fact that there have been more candidates for examination, and that there have had to be more examiners. The increased expenditure, however, has been more than covered by the additional fees received.
    MR. CONYBEARE: Owing to a policy adopted not only by the present Government but by their predecessors, and in fact by all Governments, the books in these cases are of no value. The money is not required; still, it has to be spent. I have seen most curious entries about some Departments, and it comes to this: that when the money is voted they are bound to find somebody to receive it. The money is run away with in a most mysterious manner, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman for an assurance that the fact that money is voted does not necessarily imply that it must all be spent.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Have we a guarantee from the right hon. Gentleman that there is no sort of religious test upon any person whatsoever in seeking to pass an examination at the London University?
    MR. JACKSON: Yes; certainly.
    DR. CLARK: I notice that a portion of this Vote is for buildings. May I ask if the Government are considering the advisability of having a University for all London?
    THE CHAIRMAN: That is quite outside the question of this Vote.
    DR. CLARK: There is an item of extra cost in respect of new buildings.
    THE CHAIRMAN: But that question is quite outside the scope of the Vote.
    DR. TANNER: We always appreciate the extremely nice way in which the right hon. Gentleman answers questions, but I never was so surprised as I was just now to learn from him that, practically speaking, we have defective bookkeeping in respect of the fees received in connection with examinations. We asked the right hon. Gentleman what was the reason for the increased expense under the Vote, and he says it is in consequence of increased examinations; and he supplements it by saying that the increased examinations bring in an increase of fees, so that there is a balance in favour of the Department. Then he tells us that the Vote is asked for in consequence of the extraordinary system of book-keeping of the Department. That seems to me rather ridiculous. The right hon. Gentleman belongs to one of the most important Departments of the State—the Department having charge of the public money—and I really think he should try and bring about some modification of this system which he tells us himself he takes exception to. The Committee ought to impress upon Her Majesty's Government the necessity of doing this. If the right hon. Gentleman can demonstrate to us a little more plainly why this money is asked for we shall be glad. If it is not really wanted why ask for it?
    DR. CLARK: The Government will make £136 this year by the London University. Under the head "a" we are told that it is caused by an increased number of theoretical examinations and by insufficient accommodation for University building, and there is an addition under the head "b" for examinations in physics. Under the circumstances—as the University of
    532
    London is a source of gain to the State and the Government are asking us for new buildings—I think we ought to have some scheme brought forward for making the London University suitable for the work it has in hand.
    MR. JACKSON: We have tried for some time past to do that. These examinations are held at particular times, and temporary accommodation has to be obtained, which involves the necessity of hiring rooms. The Vote is in consequence of an increased number of candidates and a corresponding increase of examiners. They have rendered increased accommodation necessary. The receipts in fees are estimated at £700 more than they were last year. It was not my intention to convey the impression that the system at present adopted was bad, because it is quite obvious that if the total cost grows there should be power given by the House to provide for that additional expenditure. The original amount was £3,647, but it was found necessary to spend £3,778. The system of book-keeping adopted is a good one. Vote agreed to.
    9. Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £11,484, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1891, for certain Charges connected with West and South Africa."
    SIR G. CAMPBELL: I desire to take exception to the item of £600 for the Anglo-French Mission to settle the boundary of Gambia. I would suggest that we should do away with this expense by getting rid of Gambia altogether. There has been a good deal of talk about the place, and it has been clearly demonstrated that it is of no use to us, being surrounded and enclosed by French territory. It is a sort of thorn in the side of the French in Africa. We have what I may call a "roughness" with the French in Newfoundland, and they are dissatisfied with something we are doing in Egypt; therefore I think it would be a good thing to throw a little oil on the waters by handsomely presenting France with this colony. Mention was made of this question in a letter which appeared in the Daily Graphic, signed "F. Buxton," and it appeared to many of us that there

    533
    might be a great deal of truth in that gentleman's statements. I have noticed also that a constituent of my own has described the state of affairs in these colonies in West Africa. He tells us that the people in the French Colonies there are God-fearing Mahommedans who do not drink spirits, and that their places are comparatively healthy. In the British colonies he found a different state of things existing. The people are dirty and degraded, and they consume enormous quantities of drink. That is unfortunately encouraged or permitted by us, and tends to the insanitary or degraded condition of these colonies. Under the circumstances, I will not move the reduction of this Vote, but I would suggest to Her Majesty's Government the great advantage of giving up or trading away Gambia to the French. I hope it may be possible on some future occasion to get rid of this unnecessary and inconvenient colony.
    BARON H. DE WORMS: Sir' I am sure the hon. Gentleman will not wish me to consider the expediency of giving up to France territory which we are now engaged in delimiting. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the Agreement of the 10th August, 1889, he will see by Article V. we have the right of nominating Commissioners to make such special survey as might be necessary to establish the line of demarcation between the English and the French territory. This sum of £600 is simply for the purpose of paying the Commissioners who were engaged in the delimitation of the boundaries. The delimitation of a portion of the boundaries, from Lagos to Porto Novo, has been successfully performed by an English and a French officer. At present the Commissioners are engaged in the delimitation of Gambia and Sierra Leone, the geography of which is very difficult. The delimitation is being carefully carried out in order to prevent the possibility of future dispute. It was decided to appoint officers who were capable of making a survey, and Royal Engineer officers, with a staff of non-commissioned officers and men, were appointed. It is to pay a proportion of the expenses of these officers and men that the £600 is now asked for. We divide the expense with the colony, which provides, in addition, a local trans-
    534
    port, carriers, interpreters, and an escort. I may say that the colony is also at the expense of providing an additional outfit. The hon. Gentleman also referred to some letters from a person named Buxton, giving, from his own experience, a terrible account of Sierra Leone; and he said that he thought there was much truth in that person's statements.
    *SIR G. CAMPBELL: I could have quoted other letters to a similar effect.
    *BARON H. DE WORMS: This person, named Buxton, went out to the Gambia to find a Government appointment. He found none, and went on to Sierra Leone. He could not pay his hotel bill, and was turned into the streets. Then the residents got up a subscription for him, and sent him back to England after he had been in the colony for a day or two. Soon after his return he brought out a flaming prospectus for carrying a railway across the Sahara. If the hon. Gentleman possessed the information which I have about Mr. Buxton I do not think he would attach any importance whatever to his letters in the Daily Graphic.
    *SIR G. CAMPBELL: I do not attach importance to anonymous letters in newspapers, but still I should like to know whether there is this drunkenness in the colonies.
    *BARON H. DE WORMS: I think I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that the picture is very highly coloured and very much overdrawn.
    MR. BUCHANAN: I desire to call the attention of the House to the item of £5,000, a moiety of the deficit to be granted in aid of Swaziland. As to the agreement with Swaziland, what has practically been done is that we have entered into a joint Government of Swaziland with the Transvaal, and the statement of Sir Francis de Winton that there is no finality about the arrangement is confirmed by the resolution of the Transvaal Republic—that the joint agreement is a transition measure. I perfectly allow that the hands of the Government and of the Prime Minister were forced in this country by those who were interested in various financial enterprises in Swaziland. With regard to the financial aspect of the question, Sir F. de Winton, in his Report, says that nearly

    535
    all the concessions are in the hands of the South African Republic. The concessions are not mining concessions, but concessions of revenue and of Customs Duties, already made to individuals, and purchased by the Government of the South African Republic. As far as I understand no advance has been raised as to the possibility of buying up these concessions. Sir F. de Winton puts down the estimated expenditure for police and Government at £22,500, and he estimates the Revenue at £5,000. The estimated deficit, therefore, comes to £17,500. I may say that in the Estimates for the ensuing year there is a charge of £7,000 for Swaziland, which is an estimate made by the High Commissioner. This sum is due under the Convention, which says that any deficiency shall be duly certified. I asked the right hon. Gentleman a few days ago whether there had been any audit of the accounts or any certification of the deficit. The right hon. Gentleman replied that the rules of the audit of accounts, which were provided by an Article of the Convention, had not yet been received for South Africa, nor could the deficit be certified until the close of the year, on the 31st inst. The right hon. Gentleman also stated that the revenue derived from Swaziland was £1,347, as against the £5,000 estimated by Sir F. de Winton. That £1,347 is only for six months, so that the revenue for the year would be £3,700 instead of £5,000. The expenditure estimated by Sir F. de Winton comes to £22,500, so that we shall have a very much larger deficit next year. It appears, therefore, that this is only the first demand, and that in all probability we shall have before us a continuous and increasing demand for the purpose of sup porting the Government of Swaziland. We may have a continuously increasing demand, and, therefore, I think it is only right that the House of Commons should take note of the first appearance of this very serious charge upon the revenues of this country. We know very well what happened in regard to Bechuanaland, where the expenses incurred had to be borne by the Home Government. The cost was at first estimated as only a small matter, but it went on increasing from year to year, until at last it amounted to£110,000
    536
    and £120,000 a year. Undoubtedly, considering the difficulty we shall be under in administering this country, and in attempting to do so in partnership with the South African Republic, we shall find that the calls made upon our Exchequer will be likely to increase from year to year, and that at present we are only at the beginning of what will be a continual charge on our resources; therefore I desire to obtain from the House some expression as to whether the policy on which we have embarked is a wise policy, and ought to have received the approval of the House of Commons. I have, however, given no notice of a Motion for reducing the Vote, and, therefore, I will merely ask the right hon. Gentleman to favour us with further information on the subject. At present our information is exceedingly meagre, and, while urging him for a more explicit statement, I would also endeavour to impress upon him that he should take advantage of the present opportunity, when negotiations are going on in this country, for the settlement of a great number of our political relations in various parts of South Africa, to come to some permanent settlement with regard to Swaziland. Surely it would be a wise step on the part of the Government not merely in our own interests but in those of the natives of Swaziland, were they to seize this opportunity of bringing about a permanent and satisfactory settlement of the question. In doing this the Colonial Office should endeavour to effect such an arrangement as would leave it as little to do as possible, and would throw on South Africa the greater share of responsibility, at the same time relieving the taxpayers of this country, as far as may be, of a permanent burden on their resources.
    MR. CONYBEARE: It may save time if I endeavour to bring this matter practically before the Committee by urging upon the Government a point in relation to the liquor traffic in Swaziland and the regulations authorised by the Government of this country in regard to it. I wish to draw the attention of the Government to the Appendix of the main Report of Sir F. de Winton, already quoted by the hon. Member for West Edinburgh, in which was given a very interesting account of the discussion on the liquor question which took place

    537
    between Sir F. de Winton and his colleague the Transvaal Commissioner, and the native chiefs, the latter of whom desired the traffic to be suppressed altogether. The Swaziland natives sent their representative to put before us, as the Governors of the country, the necessity of suppressing the liquor traffic; and they made strong representations as to the ruin it brought about, not only upon the men but also among the women and young children in Swaziland If the Committee will turn to page 37 of the Appendix to the Report they will find it there stated that the question was first introduced by Sir Francis de Winton, who agreed that young men and women ought not to drink the stuff, and that those whom he was addressing must try and join them in endeavouring to abolish the evil. Upon this one of the head men said drink was the ruin of the country, and was making it rotten. It is quite clear from what was then said that the Commissioners adopted the idea that the concessions for canteens, granted by the late King, could not be revoked, but the claim made by the Swazi nation was that it was useless to rely simply upon prohibitive regulations which permitted the sale of liquor in the country, because it was found by experience that they were always contravened, even when the most careful regulations were enforced by the police. The natives desired to have the canteens done away with altogether, so that the liquor traffic might be entirely abolished; but this desire was met by the Commissioners with the statement that the canteens had a locus standi granted them by the late King, and therefore they could not meet the wishes of the natives by doing away with them. On page 41 of the Appendix there is an account of another meeting between the Commissioners and the head men of the Swazi nation. Sir F. de Winton introduced the business by telling the natives that they had come to the conclusion that something must be done, and they would be glad to hear from the head men their opinion on the subject. A Mr. Brennen, who was present, and who was apparently interested in the canteens, here interposed and asked what evidence there was that the natives wished the canteens to be abolished. Sir F. de Winton replied that the Indunas were
    538
    present, and Mr. Brennen might see the letter if he wished. So that here we have the canteen concessionaires fighting strongly for their rights, the head men of the Swazi nation strenuously opposing the existence of the canteens, and the Commissioners asserting that they could not recommend prohibitive regulations, and were unable to consider the possibility of putting an absolute veto on the canteens. Now, the statement of Mr. Brennen, that the drinking of spirits did not do harm to white men, was a very strong one indeed; as also was his assertion that British subjects-would fight to the bitter end rather than allow these concessions to be taken away from them. I should like to ask the Government whether, in view of a threat of that kind, they are prepared to back up the statement and to insist that these drinks shall be supplied in Swaziland to the degradation and ruin of the natives? Umbandeene said at this Conference that the natives wished to see all the canteens closed, because so long as the canteens-were there, the natives could not help drinking. Mr. Brennen, in reply to that, suggested that what the natives asked was impossible, and thereupon Mr. Shepstone pointed out that all they wanted was that a check should be put upon their own drinking. They had no idea of a middle course; all they thought-necessary was that the canteens should be closed. Mr. Shepstone added that that was their way of putting it and that would not affect the rights of white men to indulge in drink. Now, with all due deference to Mr. Shepstone, I cannot quite agree with that interpretation of the wishes of the natives. The only reason why I have ventured to trouble the Committee with quoting at such great length this statement, is in order to bring before the people of this country the great evils which now prevail among the Swazis, and to point out that the natives themselves are desirous that a prohibition should be introduced for the sake of their women and children, because they know perfectly well that indulgence in these drinks means the ruin and degredation of their nation. I think it is rather hard that Mr. Shepstone should have tried to gloss over their words at this Conference. There is no doubt that they want the canteens closed altogether, because if

    539
    they are open for any one class of people the possibility is that others may be able to get the drink; these people undoubtedly ask for the absolute and total prohibition of the liquor traffic. They know perfectly that, unless the canteens are closed altogether, they will be unable to prevent many of their race from becoming degraded and ruined with drink. This is a very important question for our consideration, and I think we are bound to impress upon the Government the necessity of taking the Swazi view of this matter, and of putting a stop altogether to the importation of liquor into this country. At this Conference, Sir Francis do Winton pointed out the difficulty of closing canteens altogether in face of the concessions which had been granted, and he suggested that it was only possible to go to work in a legal way to stop the drink traffic, and objected to the total demolition of the canteens. It might not be desirable to pull the canteens down altogether; I am not in this country, at any rate, an advocate for anything like compensation, because I do not believe there is a vested interest in licences; but I take it that the case of Swaziland is somewhat different, and I hold that if it were found necessary in the interests of the Swazis to pull down the canteens, and to pay the concessionaires the cost to which they had been put in their erection, it would not be an improper step that we should provide compensation. I have only one other quotation to deal with: Sir Francis de Winton, as will be seen on page 46 of this book, said the Court had considered the question concerning canteens, and would take such steps as would secure that it would be entirely the fault of the natives themselves if they indulged in drink. The chief who represented the Swazis on that occasion suggested that that was not enough, and that what they wanted was that no more spirituous liquors should be imported; and Sir Francis De Winton promised that that point should be further considered, adding that it would be their own fault if any natives indulged in more drinking. Now, the passage which I have quoted showed exactly what were the sentiments of the Swazis, and I hold that it is the duty of the Government to take measures to prevent the importation of
    540
    spirits into the country. Whether or not the Government take that view, we on this side of the House will at all events have done our duty in bringing this matter before the House. We have now given publicity to the appeals of these unfortunate people, who desire to be rescued from the demoralised condition which their nation may afterwards be placed in by reason of the policy which we have been pursuing. I hope that my appeal to the Government may not be unsuccessful. I do not think it would be agreeable to this House or to this country that the pleadings of these people should be rejected by us, because hereafter we may discover that the rejection has placed the nation in a miserable and degraded condition. What we urge is this: That if it be impossible to prevent the importation of beer—which, undoubtedly, is not so deleterious to any human creature as spirits—we might at any rate prohibit the importation of strong spirits, which are nothing more than poison in the form of firewater. This fire-water is indeed the worst kind of poison; and we would urge upon the Government, whatever may be their views with regard to the importation of beer and drinks of that kind, which are not poisonous, vigorously to prohibit the importation of these poisonous spirits. I will not trouble the Committee any further, and can only hope that it will not be deaf to the appeals and pleadings of these Swazi chiefs, which certainly ought strongly to appeal to the consciences of Englishmen. I trust the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies will give us some satisfactory, undertaking that this matter shall be most carefully considered before any final decision is come to, and that the decision, when arrived at, shall be in the direction of total prohibition of the importation of the worst and most poisonous drinks that exist.
    BARON H. DE WORMS: I will deal first with the observations of the hon. Member for Edinburgh. The hon. Gentleman will remember that by the 9th clause of the Convention entered into with the Transvaal Republic, it was agreed that any deficit in the revenue available for the purposes of the joint Government should be borne in equal shares. The annual deficit has been approximately estimated at £14,000,

    541
    but the proportion required during the present financial year will not exceed £5,000; and I hope that next year probably it will be less, as I believe the revenue will be larger and the expenses less. It is probable that in the future, when the inquiry into the reckless concessions granted by the late King has been completed, two of the Judges may be dispensed with; and in that case, a saving of £3,600 a year will be effected. With regard to the question of the Government of Swaziland, I would remind the hon. Member that three alternatives were open to the Government—the first, that this country should assume the sovereignty; the second, that it should be left to the Boers; and the third, that there should be a joint Government, consisting of a Representative of this country, a Representative of the Transvaal Republic, and a Representative of the Swazi nation. I think it will be admitted that Her Majesty's Government were right in adopting the last alternative. Nobody would approve of placing a white population—a population of Englishmen, Scotchmen, and Irishmen—under the entire control of the Boers. The hon. Gentleman asks me, has anything been done in the way of buying up concessions. Nothing, whatever, has been done with regard to buying up concessions.
    *MR. BUCHANAN: I was referring to concessions of taxes. I understood the Transvaal had purchased the concession of Customs duties and postal rights.
    *BARON H. DE WORMS: I do not understand that, but I may say that a great many of the concessions have been investigated, and the bad ones are being sifted out. As to the important question raised by the hon. Member for Camborne, who has asked whether Her Majesty's Government are prepared to suppress the liquor traffic in Swaziland, there is every wish on the part of the Government to deal with the liquor traffic, but it is utterly impossible to go beyond the Convention. That has already been ratified.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I did not know that the Treaty had been ratified; but I wanted the Government, in any case, to carry out this policy of total prohibition.
    *BARON H. DE WORMS: It is utterly impossible for us to go beyond the Convention, and to introduce new conditions after the Treaty has been ratified.
    MR. CONTBEARK: When was the Treaty ratified? This is the first I have heard of it.
    *BARON H. DE WORMS: The Convention was presented to the House in November, 1890. I explained its provisions three or four times last Session.
    MR. CONYBEARE: This is the first opportunity we have had of discussing it.
    *BARON H. DE WORMS: Oh, no. The Convention was discussed last year on the Colonial Vote, on two separate occasions.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I only ask the Government to carry out the wishes expressed in the appeal of the Swazis themselves, that the importation of spirits should be totally prohibited.
    *BARON H. DE WORMS: The Government of Swaziland is at this moment vested in three persons as I have already stated. It is for this Joint Government to lay down such laws for the regulation of the liquor traffic as they think fit. Moreover, it is expressly provided in the Convention that the Representatives forming the Joint Government shall have no share in the management of affairs in which natives alone are concerned. I can, however, assure the hon. Member that, so far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, they will be most willing to do anything in their power to modify the evils of the liquor traffic. Where-ever Her Majesty's Government have control they have made very stringent prohibitive laws, and have done their best to carry them out. But in this case they have no power to interfere, and can only hope that the three Representatives forming the Government will do their utmost to check the evils feared.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I should like to point out that this Conference took place prior to the ratification of the Treaty, and the object was to ascertain first the views of the settlers, and secondly those of the natives, upon this grave question of the importation of intoxicating liquors. The natives had made a strong appeal to have the importation of liquor put an end to, in their own defence. I have shown the

    543
    line taken by our own Commissioner in relation thereto, and I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman what was the use of this discussion between our Commissioner and the Representatives of the natives on the question, if no attention is to be paid to their wishes. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to quote the clause of the Convention and say, "We cannot do anything because the Government of the country is placed in the hands of these three persons, and it is for them to make whatever regulations they like; only our Commissioner has no power whatever to deal with any matter affecting the natives themselves." I do not wish to use harsh language, or I should be inclined to say that it is only quibbling with the question. The broad and important point is that no effect has been given to the wishes of the natives. We have in the Blue Book a list of concession after concession, recognised and confirmed by our own Representative, for the establishment of canteens and dram-shops in that country. We sent out a Commissioner to find out the wishes of the people, and their wishes have been expressed in clear language against the importation of intoxicating liquors. I want to know what line our Government has taken in the matter. Has the Government had under consideration the question whether it would be possible to get rid of these canteen licences by compensating those who hold them, as suggested in the Report of Sir Francis de Winton? If nothing has been done to meet the wishes of the people we have a right to be informed why.
    *BARON H. DE WORMS: Will the hon. Gentleman read Article 6 of the Convention? If the hon. Gentleman had read the Convention his speech would not have been delivered.
    MR. CONYBEARE: Let us assume that provisions have been made. That disposes of the right hon. Gentleman's argument that our Representative has no power to deal with matters affecting the Swazi people themselves. All I say is that, on the broad, general principle, it was the duty of the Government to take measures for meeting the wishes of the Swazi people. The whole question arises on this Report of Sir F. de Winton, and we could not know what the wishes of the people were until we
    544
    had the Report before us. That Report was issued to us after the House rose last August. How on earth was it possible for us to inform the House what the wishes of these unfortunate people were before we had an opportunity of appealing to the exact words used by the Swazi Chiefs? This is the first time we have been able to place properly before the House and the country the way in which the piteous appeal of the natives is being treated, and I think that is a proper opportunity for protesting against the pernicious practice of ratifying Conventions behind the back of the House of Commons. How is this House to keep a proper control over the actions of the Representatives of the country abroad unless we are able to see for ourselves the exact facts on which Conventions are based? These natives have a right to be protected against the ruin we are bringing upon them. For the right hon. Gentleman to come down and say, "We cannot do anything now, because the Convention has been ratified" is simply to play with the House. I hope the Government, in view of the interest which attaches to these questions in the eye of the public, will mend their ways in the future, and see that we have proper material for forming a correct judgment on such questions be fore any conclusion is arrived at. I take a special interest in this matter, because many of my constituents have gone out to the mines in Swaziland, and I am sure they would all endorse the views I have expressed on the subject. (8.41.)
    (9.13.) Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. BUCHANAN: The right hon. Gentleman the Undersecretary was in possession of the House, and if he desires to proceed I will not stand in his way. There are one or two points to which I should like to direct attention. In the first place, with reference to the concessions in Swaziland, I referred not to the mining rights, but the concessions acquired by the Transvaal Government postal, telegraph, banking, Customs, &c.; and the point of my argument, enforced by the Report of Sir Francis de Winton, was that our partnership with the Transvaal is not

    545
    upon equal terms financially, because the Transvaal Government are in possession of revenue from Customs and other sources. The question I have to ask is whether any steps have been taken, as Sir Francis de Winton contemplated there would be, supposing a dual Government instituted towards the purchase of these concessions of Customs duties? Because undoubtedly if any steps have been taken in that direction, and are likely to bring forth fruit, it would make up for deficiencies in regard to the financial position in Swaziland, as to which we are now asked for this £5,000. In his statement the right hon. Gentleman complained, and complained, I venture to think, rather unfairly, of our raising this discussion now, because he said we had ample opportunity before us last Session. That was far from being the case. There was a supplementary sum for the Swaziland Mission; but, as the right hon. Gentleman will remember, the Government made an appeal to their supporters not to discuss the subject, but to allow the Vote to be taken on the ground that negotiations were not yet concluded. More than that; on the 17th March a supporter of the Government, the Member for one of the divisions of Liverpool, was induced to withdraw a Motion for which he had the first place on that ground. It was not until August 2nd that the Convention was concluded, and the general terms were announced by the right hon. Gentleman on the 4th or 5th August. On the 12th August undoubtedly the Colonial Vote came on for discussion; but I find, on reference to Hansard, that it was at 11.44, a quarter of an hour before midnight, that the hon. Member for Peckham rose to ask one or two questions in regard to the Swaziland arrangement. It may be in the recollection of Members of the Committee that we then had merely an abstract of the Convention in an answer from the right hon. Gentleman; we had no papers; we had not the Convention, nor the Report of Sir Francis de Winton, nor this volume of correspondence. These were only issued in October or November last. Since having these we have had absolutely no opportunity of raising the question unless we had made it the subject of Amendment to the Address in reply to the Queen's Speech, and the
    546
    Government might fairly have complained had we taken that course. The' question raised by the hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Conybeare) is undoubtedly a serious one. Have we any power under the Convention of controlling the canteen holders and the sale of intoxicating liquors in Swaziland? Article 6 of the Convention provides that the control in Swaziland, in matters in which natives only are concerned, remains unaffected by such organic proclamation. It seems to me it is a strange interpretation to put upon that article to take it to mean that by that section we are prevented from any control over the canteen holders in Swaziland. I suppose the sale of drink is equally to white settlers as to natives, and I suppose regulations apply to the whole of the traffic; and surely it must be straining of the terms of the article to say we have absolutely no jurisdiction over the liquor traffic in Swaziland under the Convention. I think it will largely affect the judgment of the people of this country when we are called upon to find £5,000 now, and during the ensuing year £7,000 in aid of the government of Swaziland, if they are told that notwithstanding such grant in aid we are to have no responsibility or control over this traffic. This is a subject upon which many people take the deepest interest—this sale of drink to natives in Africa. If we are to have no control in this matter, I think the people of this country will regard with great jealousy the terms of this Convention, and will grudge the Vote of £7,000 for the maintenance of government in that country. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can enlighten us on this point.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I understand that my hon. Friend (Dr. Clark) intends to move a reduction of the Vote on specific grounds; and as that may deprive me of the opportunity, I now wish to put a question in reference to the telegrams to the Lord High Commissioner. The original Estimate was £750, but now we have £1,750. An increase of a few hundreds I could understand, but the original Estimate is more than trebled. I suppose this is in connection with the Chartered Company of South Africa, but is there any explanation of this excessive amount?
    BARON H. DE WORMS: I can assure the hon. Gentleman the increase is not in connection with the South Africa Company; the bulk of the telegrams chargeable under the Vote have relation to Bechuanaland and Swaziland. There was an extensive telegraphic correspondence during the negotiation of the Convention.
    MR. MORTON: I desire to say a few words upon this drink question. It is, of course, not a new one, and, under various aspects, it has been under public discussion since American and African colonisation first began. I understand that under this Convention we are to have no control over the drink traffic in Swaziland, but we may well ask how it comes about that we have no such power or control? How is it that a responsible Government does not take care of this, which the people of this country consider of the greatest importance? Of course, we understand that the Tory Party, having special interest in the drink question, do not look upon these matters so keenly as we do; but the people generally have the strongest sense of the iniquity of native races being ruined by the supply of strong drink. Swaziland, we understand, is to be governed by three Commissioners, one of whom is the Representative of this country. Cannot we instruct our Representative to take care that the question is dealt with? It is almost an absurdity to suppose that we have no influence in the matter. I am afraid the Government are not sufficiently alive to the importance of this question. Surely they must have the power if they care to use it. When I was in Canada, a good many years ago, I found that the colonists had made it a crime to sell or give ardent spirits to the Indians. Surely if the Colonial Authorities could do that the Imperial Government can do something of the same kind. It has been a reproach to our Christianity that we go among native races with the Bible in one hand and the whiskey bottle in the other; and hence it is that our efforts at civilisation are so often treated with contempt. I hope we may have an assurance that, through our Representative on the Commission, every effort will be made to stop the
    548
    drink traffic among natives altogether. Prom my experience in Canada, I know that if it cannot be entirely stopped, it can be very much restricted. Our duty is plain; and I earnestly hope the Government will not neglect it.
    *BARON H. DE WORMS: The question referred to by the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) has not been overlooked. I may say I did not complain at all of the question being brought on. What I complained of was the statement of the hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Conybeare) that the question had never been brought before the House. When the matter was discussed in August last I gave a complete telegraphic summary of the Convention. The hon. Member for Camborne has asked me about the liquor traffic in the colonies. Hon. Members must recollect that, as we have not annexed Swaziland, we have no power to put down the liquor traffic. We have to consult the Representative of the Transvaal Government and also the Representative of the Swazis themselves. The hon. Member for Camborne says the Swazis are not represented; but they have a Representative in Mr. Shepstone, whose sole business it is to look after their interests. I can give the hon. Member an assurance that we will instruct our Representative to press on his colleagues the desirability of checking the liquor traffic as far as possible. That is all we have power to do, because we cannot act without the co-operation of the Representatives of the Transvaal and the Swazis.
    *MR. MORTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why the Government had not taken power in the Convention to deal with this drink question?
    SIR G. CAMPBELL: I am not prepared to submit to the House of Commons a plan for dealing with Swaziland, but I sympathise very much with what was said by the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) to the effect that, whilst we are more and more committing ourselves to dealing with Swaziland, we are not in any way getting out of the difficulty in which we are placed. We have imposed upon ourselves a very heavy responsibility in regard to the liquor traffic. The right hon. Gentleman tells us Her Majesty's Government are desirous of diminishing the liquor traffic as much as possible.

    549
    We have heard that again and again, but it has not been done. I do not, in the least, believe that anything will come of the present declarations. One thing is certain, that as long as you allow liquor to be sold to the white Christian, the white Christian will sell it to the natives. If the Government were really seriously in earnest, they would put down the traffic in spite of the interests of the white trader, and the desire of the white Christian for his liquor. I am not altogether in sympathy with the desire of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) that general South African questions should be settled in Africa. I do think it necessary, however, that we should take to heart what Sir Hercules Robinson has told us, and that we should have an Imperial policy or a South African policy, that we should either tell the South Africans that certain things must be done, and they must pay for them, or that if we pay we shall undertake the management. At present we are taking the chestnuts out of the fire for the benefit of the Cape Government. We pay the piper as long as there is trouble; but when there is benefit to be obtained, it is all made over to the self-governing Cape Colony. That seems to me to be a very undesirable and unfair system as regards this country. On the Vote for the Army we were told that it was intended to withdraw the troops from Natal, and to concentrate them in the Cape Colony. We were told that some effort was to be made to get the Cape Government to contribute to the Vote of the troops; but at present nothing has been paid by them, and I believe nothing will be paid as long as they see we are willing to take the chestnuts out of the fire for them.
    DR. CLARK: I beg now to move a reduction of the Vote by £500, being the money contributed by this country of the deficiton the account of the territory, I move this because I am thoroughly opposed to the policy adopted by Her Majesty's Government, and because this is the first time we have had an opportunity of discussing that policy with the Papers before us. I should like to ask the Government one or two questions: Last time we were discussing this matter we had a telegraphic summary of the contents of the Convention before us, but since that we have had the Convention
    550
    itself placed in our hands; and since that, again, we have had the Report of Sir Francis do Winton. I would ask, "Why has this arrangement been entered into, and who advised it? "Who is the author of this arrangement? Because he ought to get the credit of it, whoever he may be. Up to the present there has been no document published by the Government in which any responsible Authority in South Africa has recommended this course. Two very important officers have tendered advice to the Government in regard to this matter. The first of these is Sir Hercules Robinson, who probably knows more about the question than any living man. He is the greatest authority, just now, in South Africa, having had great experience in the affairs of that country, and having had experience of the transition from the old condition of things to the present. Then there is Sir Francis de Winton, who was sent out by the Government, and he has sent in a Report. Sir Hercules Robinson strongly urged the Government not to take the course they have done. I could have understood their action if, after having received that advice and being unwilling to follow it, they had sent out some one on whose wisdom and discretion they could rely to report, and this official had recommended a different course to that suggested by Sir Hercules Robinson. But we find that their special Commissioner, who was sent out at great cost, strongly endorses the recommendations of Sir Hercules Robinson. He says that the Government should not adopt the course they have taken. I ask, therefore, who recommended the course they have taken, and why has it been adopted? It is not necessary for me to point out the strong character of the words of Sir Hercules Robinson, because they are not official, but I would draw attention to the recommendations of Sir Francis De Winton. He says that the system of dual control you have adopted will be a very bad thing indeed. He says it will not lead to any finality, and that it will result in a state of things adverse to the interests of Great Britain and South Africa. The Government have gone against that opinion. Secondly, I ask, "In whose interest are we to spend this £12,500, and are we to have a perpetual tax of £10,000?" I think

    551
    the annual tax on this country will be more like £20,000 than £10,000, as I doubt very mach whether our partner to the transaction will get his share as easily as you do. In this House you will get some £10,000 by merely ringing the Division bell, but in the Transvaal Parliament things are very different. President Kruger is a strong man, but I know the material of which the Transvaal Parliament is composed, and I doubt whether he will be able to get a single penny of this money. If he makes it a matter of confidence and of remaining in office, the result will be that he will quietly disappear, and somebody else will take his place. In whose interest are you asking for this money? Not in that of the natives of Swaziland. If it had been, there would have been something to say for this Convention; but as usual in treaties between the British and the Boers, or between a Colonial Government and the British Government, native interests are overlooked, neglected, or sold. I have often had to protest against that. I did so in the Zululand question, five years ago. The Boers and the British are able to look afer themselves, but not so the natives. Under the precious 6th clause, which you tell us ties your hands and prevents your doing anything, the natives are left a prey to the white people, who secure all sorts of wicked concessions from them. They get concessions, for instance, for selling liquor, and, as a result, I have seen the Swazi girls asking everybody for money and buying liquor, and lying about the canteen doors, drunk. You have debauched the people, and there is no power given by the Convention for preventing further demoralisation. In whose interest, I ask again, can this be? It can only be in the interest of the concessionaires. The Swazi King, Umbandine, was a very decent man at one time, but he fell into the hands of unscrupulous adventurers, who robbed him of all his possessions by the concession system; and now you have set up a Government to empower these adventurers to carry out these unjust concessions. Why has this policy been adopted? Do the Government think it will settle the question, or do they intend to re-open the matter? It has been imposed on the Swazis without their consent, and on the Boers by a
    552
    threat. The Swazis have some right to ask us for protection, for when we annexed the Transvaal the Swazis were a portion of it, and by the Transvaal law these men had an absolute right to their own location—and Swaziland was one large location. By the Treaty of Pretoria we cut off Swaziland, because there were no white men there—as we did in the case of Bechuanaland—and it came under the control of the King only. Swaziland is a small portion of the Transvaal. It is not so large a portion of the Transvaal as Kent is of England. It was a native location that no white man could obtain any control or power over, but when it was out off white adventurers came in, and the King gave away concessions until he had parted with every acre of his country, with all mineral rights, grazing rights, and rights of every possible kind, to his secretaries and members of his Council, if the reports in all the South African newspapers are correct. It is somewhat amusing to see the kind of concessions he has given. There are 42 wicked concessions which the Swazi people very much object to, and which they say the King had no right to give; but I understand from the South African papers that the Courts are upholding all the concessions. Mr. Thoburn, for some time secretary to the King—like Mr. Shepstone—has a concession for the manufacture of gas, another for surveying, and others for pawn broking and lotteries. Mr. Cohen obtained a concession for Customs which he sold to the Transvaal Republic, who now have the sole right to raise any Customs they think fit in that country. The mere mention of this shows the absurdity of the arrangement. There are concessions given for forming townships, wool washing, the importation of machinery, the importation of cement, tobacco, and other things. A Mr. Harrington had the right to all Inland Revenue and taxation raised in the country, and that the Transvaal Government have also bought. Another person has the sole right of insurance. Mr. McNab has the sole right to sell patent medicines, other people have the sole right of photography, farming, for selling silver, glass ware, for tanneries, for postal arrangements, for advertising, for grinding, for sup-

    553
    plying veterinary surgeons, prospecting, representing the commissionaires, railways and refreshment bars, abandoned concessions, dynamite. The railway concession the Transvaal Government has also bought. One man has bought the right to import all goods free. These are a few of the 200 concessions which have been granted. These rights were given by the poor old King when he was drunk and had no notion of what he was doing. I saw him myself giving these concessions. One man came to him and complained that he had a concession for mineral purposes overland, which the King, a fortnight before, had handed to somebody else. The King said "I am sorry about that; but can you not agree." "No," was the answer "we cannot." The King then said "If you like I will give land somewhere else." "I don't want that," said the man. "Then," replied the King, "The strongest man must keep it." The Court which has been sent out to Swaziland has not to settle whether or not these concessions should have been conceded, but whether they are bonâ fide, whether the King really did grant them or not, because frauds were often committed, a nought being sometimes added to a figure, so, for instance, as to make "20" acres of land "200" and "300" acres "3,000." The price of the drink concession was £10, and for that sum power was given to debauch the people. This country has no control over it, neither have the Swazis themselves. They are to be left to drink, and witchcraft/and anarchy. Those who have got letters by to-day's mail, or the last mail, will find that the native regiments are getting drunk and fighting each other regarding the division of the women. Anarchy still exists there, and that anarchy is brought about by us, because we have not done anything for the Swazis. Therefore I ask the Committee to refuse this Vote, and to reverse the policy of Her Majesty's Government. The question is what policy should be adopted in its place. There are two or three policies which would tend to the benefit of the white people and the Swazis. I do not care for the white people. They have gone out under false pretences, and for inadequate sums have got rights from the King, many of which he did not even know the meaning of. It will be seen, therefore, that there were
    554
    several courses open to the Government. There was first of all the course they have adopted, then they might have come to an arrangement by which Great Britain should have taken possession of Swaziland, as we did in the case of Bechuanaland. In that case the Government would have had aright to have asked Parliament for money, because it would then have had power as well as responsibility, whereas now it has responsibility but no power. Had Swaziland been as near as Bechuanaland, so that it could have been as easily got at, the wisest course would have been to have annexed it, but you cannot annex it now; it is surrounded on three sides by the Transvaal and on the fourth by the Portuguese, and the only way through it would have been through the Tonga territory, which is exceedingly unhealthy. In 1886 I took a Division in this House against your giving to the Boers the territory which would have enabled you to have dealt with Swaziland, but I was defeated, and it is entirely by your own action that you are now shut off from that part of the country. You are upon its borders and, but for this Convention, you could easily have added Swaziland to Natal, but you neglected the opportunity. The only other course for you to have pursued was to have arranged that the Transvaal Government should have taken over Swaziland and given you some equivalent for it. That was recommended by the Natal Government, the Cape Government, the High Commissioner and the Special Commissioner, and the whole of them advised Her Majesty's Government against the course they have taken, but instead of taking Swaziland over, which would have been the best thing for the natives, you did exactly what you ought not to have done and gave the country to the new Republic. The result is that you have practically failed to settle this question, although you have succeeded in involving yourselves in no end of difficulty and expense. The general result will be a state of affairs adverse to the interests of Great Britain in South Africa. Under these circumstances, I move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £5,000. I repudiate the settlement you have made. It is not in the interests of the natives, who will continue to be debauched and demoralised, whose territory will be taken away from them, whose mineral

    555
    rights have been given to European adventurers, and to whom no sort of protection has been afforded. You merely bolster up injuries which would be prejudicial to any population, and adopt a policy which is contrary to the well-being of South Africa.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item I (Swaziland), be reduced by £5,000."—(Dr. Clark.)
    CAPTAIN BETHELL: I quite concur with the statement that our having allowed the Boers to penetrate in Swaziland has been the cause of much of the trouble; I do not personally think there was anything in the treaty to prevent our taking Swaziland and ruling it ourselves, even without the assent of the Transvaal Government, but this was not the general opinion. I am strongly opposed to the alternative suggested by the hon. Member opposite, namely, that we should hand Swaziland over to the Transvaal Government; to do this, without making satisfactory arrangement for the welfare of the people, would have been a sad breach of faith. It has occurred to me that supposing the present arrangement should last for a number of years, an opening might be offered for undoing what we did in 1886, by making some sort of an exchange for that portion of the territory which is between Swaziland and Natal; but that is a question of future policy. Not having taken either of these courses there only remained the policy Her Majesty's Government have adopted. The hon. Member opposite has taken exception to this policy on various grounds. He says the interests of the natives have been entirely set aside, and that the arrangement come to has been contracted against the advice and judgment of those who are most experienced in South African affairs. I am under the impression, from what I have read, that Sir Hercules Robinson was in favour of handing Swaziland over to the Transvaal Government, but that was because he was of opinion that our own Government could not act strongly enough if they were to take over the territory. I want to point out, that on a question of policy of this sort we are entitled to judge for ourselves, while giving the High Commissioner's opinion every weight, though not treating it as if it dealt with a matter entirely beyond us. We have to look
    556
    to something more than to the idiosyncrasies of the people or local peculiarities. We have to look at the question as it affects our other colonies. I disagree with my hon. Friend when he says that the Government acted wrongly in not accepting the advice of those who had great experience. As I have said, while attaching weight to the opinion of those of experience, it is none the less our duty to consider such questions apart from local peculiarities, and in connection with our policy as affecting other Colonial Governments. My hon. Friend further complained of there not being sufficient advantages to balance the responsibilities undertaken. That there will be some charge upon us, is without doubt; but if you look to Bechuanaland and others of the colonies, you will find that within a year or two they make a profitable return in trade. The hon. Member denounced the expenditure in connection with South Africa generally, and said that no return was obtained. I am convinced that if he were to add up the advantages derived from commerce, that there is a large balance upon the whole in favour of this country. The expenditure we incur in opening up these countries, little and narrow as it is, is not merely useful in safeguarding and protecting the interests of the natives, but is productive in the development of commerce with this country. With regard to the liquor question, so far as I have been able to discover, the interests of the natives in that direction have not been sufficiently safeguarded by the Convention made last year. Subject to correction, I am bound to say something more might have been done in making the Convention, to prevent the introduction of liquor among the natives. It may be that difficulties were thrown in the way by the other Party to the Convention, still I am very much inclined to think that if greater insistence had been shown with the Transvaal Government, much more might have been done to exclude drink, which does so very much to destroy the natives. Upon the whole, I congratulate Her Majesty's Government in the general course they have taken, in concluding the Convention, considering it merely as a temporary, and not a permanent, arrangement. I consider it is of advantage that the arrangement should be temporary until we see what will be the future course

    557
    of the South African Republic. So much depends upon future events that it would be unwise either to take Swaziland or to give it over to the Transvaal. The period of probation allowed us therefore—during which I hope the best interests of the natives will be carefully considered—will be best for those who have taken part in the Convention.
    BARON H. DE WORMS: I am sure that those who have listened to the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend must feel that he expressed not only the views of the great majority of this House, but the great majority of the people of this country when he said that, if Her Majesty's Government had adopted the course suggested by the hon. Member for Caithness of handing over to the Transvaal the white and native population, we would have acted contrary to their wishes. My hon. Friend, in referring to the concessions, seemed to believe that they had been sanctioned by Her Majesty's Government. No statement could be more erroneous. Those concessions, as I stated in the earlier part of the evening, have been investigated, and we have discarded those which are worthless, and have been obtained by improper means. Therefore, there is not a shadow of foundation for saying that Her Majesty's Government in the slightest degree approved the concessions referred to by the hon. Member for Caithness. The speech of the hon. Member for Caithness was rather a remarkable one, because he spoke in the interests of the Boers in urging that the Treaty of London ought never to have been made. While implying that Her Majesty's Government had some responsibility for the making of it, he seemed to forget that it was made in 1884, when the right hon. Member for Mid Lothiau was in power, and that his policy with regard to the Transvaal was the subject of a Vote of Censure moved against the Government of the day. The hon. Member said that, notwithstanding the existence of that Treaty, it should be abrogated or ignored by the Government, and Swaziland handed over to the Boers. There were three courses open to the Government. One was to ignore the arrangement of 1884 and take over Swaziland; secondly, to abrogate the Treaty of 1884 and allow the Boers to take it over; and the third and most rational course was the one which has been
    558
    adopted—namely, to respect the Treaty of 1884 and establish a joint system of government. Well, then, the hon. Member proceeded to say that it was owing to the action of our Government that the natives of Swaziland have been degraded and brought into a miserable condition. The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten the whole history of Swaziland. When those negotiations began the Swazis were, owing to the drunken King who ruled over them, in snch a degraded condition that the Government, in conjunction with the Transvaal Government, felt that the moment had arrived when a better state of things ought to be established, and the natives be relieved from their miserable state of barbarism and anarchy. I am therefore at a loss to understand how the hon. Member has arrived at the conclusion that the policy of the Government has reduced the Swazis to a state of degradation. The state of affairs which led to the intervention of the Government in Swaziland was the indiscriminate granting of concessions by the late King, and the incursion of numerous whites, some of them in search of mining and other concessions. Some of these whites, with the consent of the Swazis, were elected a Committee of Government, but they had no experience of administration, and nearly all the members of that Committee had private interests of their own, while their proceedings were marked by internal dissensions and an absence of desire for the welfare of the country. That was the condition of Swaziland when the Government interfered to see whether they could not remedy it. A Report was made in October 1889, by the resident and official agent to the Swazi nation, who stated that affairs for a long time had been growing worse and worse, and that there was no sort of security for the life and property of the inhabitants. Then it was that Sir Francis de Winton was appointed to inquire into the condition of Swaziland, and he reported in favour of handing the land over to the Boers. But the Government were not bound to accept and act upon that Report. They alone were responsible to the country, and accepting that responsibility they chose the other alternative, under which the Provisional Government was established. It consisted of one officer nomiated by our Goverment, one by

    559
    the South African Government, and one by the Swazi nation. It is perfectly true we have been pat to certain expense in Swaziland, and probably we shall have to spend money on it for some years to come. But if we had violated the Treaty of 1884 and annexed the country, should we not have had to pay much more? It is strange that those who are always advocating economy should, in the same breath, wish us to take over a responsibility which would involve an expenditure of a far greater amount. As a matter of fact we acted in accordance with the Convention of 1884 and the policy of the Government was dictated in the interests of the Swazis themselves. They are protected by the convention whatever hon. Members may say to the contrary. If hon. Members will read Article 6 they will see that all matters in which the natives alone are concerned are to be regulated by native laws and customs.
    DR. CLARK: How about Article 5?
    *BARON DE WORMS: That provides that concessions within the boundaries of Swaziland shall be recognised and respected if they meet with the approval of Her Majesty's Commissioner. That is the very article to which I should have thought the hon. Member would not have drawn attention. His argument has been all the way through that these reckless concessions have been recognised by the Government, and yet here, in this very Convention signed by the Government, is a clause that any reckless or absurd concession shall not be declared valid unless it meets with the approval of Her Majesty's High Commissioner or of the President of the Transvaal Republic. Anything more illogical than the hon. Member's argument could hardly be conceived. Article 5 saves the Swazis from being dragged into illegal or improper concessions. The Government did not agree to the Treaty until it was expressly arranged that the Swazis themselves should have a special Representative. Mr. Shepstone is that special Representative, and he has equal authority with the Representatives of Great Britain and of the Transvaal Republic. Therefore, the policy of the Government has been to protect the Swazi nation. There is no doubt the degraded condition of Swaziland was brought about by the chronic drunken condition of its late King I must say the suggestion of the hon.
    560
    Member, that we ought to have handed over the control of the white population to the Boer Government, was one not likely to find favour in this House, neither do I believe it would have found favour outside. No doubt it would be supported by the hon. Member himself, who represents the Boer Government in an official capacity; therefore, we cannot, with all due respect to him, look upon his utterances as absolutely impartial. I trust that I have been able to dispose of the main arguments of the hon. Gentleman, and I think the House will not wish me to repeat the statement I have-already made as to the policy of the Government. We have been actuated by the best wishes for the welfare of the Swazis. My hon. Friend has alluded to the drink question. I can assure him that the Government will communicate with the Representative of Great Britain in Swaziland, and request him to place himself in communication with the Transvaal Government, and see what arrangements can be made with regard to the liquor traffic.
    DR. CLARK: If the right hon. Gentleman had read Article 5 he would possibly have understood it, which he does not now. It begins by—saving all existing rights; and that is what I object to. Up to the proclamation of last year everything-given by Umbandine is reserved and saved by this clause.
    *BARON H. DE WORMS: The question of right is now being tried.
    DR. CLARK: All that requires the sanction of the Government is that which was granted after the date of the organic proclamation. The Court has to inquire into the validity of concessions which are disputed and which do not appear in the King's book But all the concessions, practically, were given to Shepstone, Nuller, and Thorburn; and as they took care they appeared in the King's book, the validity cannot be inquired into. The only ground upon which a concession can be declared void is, that it was obtained by fraud. And what has the Court done? I have carefully studied the South African papers, and all disputed concessions, with but one exception, have been declared valid and binding upon the Swazi people. I am not here in this House pleading the cause of the Boers; I am pleading the cause of the

    561
    Swazis, as I pleaded the cause of the Zulus against the Boers; and I ask the Government to take the advice of all who are able to speak with authority on this question. Who are responsible for the Treaty? Sir Hercules Robinson and ex-General Sir Evelyn Wood—who, when he entered into the negotiations, was burning to avenge Majuba—and the Chief Justice of the Cape. It was simply because the Swazis were at one time under the Boers that they lived; otherwise, the Zulus would have wiped them out altogether. Under Boer law, native reserves cannot be sold to white men; neither is drink allowed to be sold to natives; but under our rule, the Swazi's are deprived of the protection of both those provisions; and, therefore, I say that Sir Hercules Robinson, in acting on the evil advice of General Wood, has done much to debauch these natives. We know that in no territory in Africa do natives live so comfortable as those under Boer rule; and if Swaziland had been placed under the Boers, I venture to say that these concessions, of which I com-plain, would not have been ratified. In the joint Government to which I have referred, Mr. Shepstone represents the Swazis. Who is Mr. Theophilus Shepstone? He is a fraudulent bankrupt, who, having embezzled the funds of his clients, bolted away to Swaziland, and he is a fine type of the Europeans to be found there. The Transvaal, indeed, is a kind of sewer for all the vagabondage of South Africa. There you find some of the biggest rascals—the scum of the land. The Government have degraded and debauched the people by their policy, and not only are they doing nothing under the treaty to save their rights, but they are pursuing a course which will probably cause difficulty in the future.
    MR. GOSCHEN: I am glad the House understands now that when the hon. Member for Caithness talks of the debauching of the Swazis, the Government which made the arrangement of 1881 was the Government which began the debauching of the Swazis. In the early part of his speech it would have been thought that it was the policy of the present Government which has had that effect. The hon. Gentleman spoke as if it was the present Government which brought Mr. Shepstone there, but what has been the policy of
    562
    the present Government? Mr. Shepstone, before the existing arrangement was made, was practically ruler of the Swazi people, and what this Government has done is to neutralise the effect of the incursion of adventurers, to endeavour to stop the abuses which exist, and to establish something like regular government in Swaziland. The position had become intolerable, because the adventurers were practically bringing Swaziland into a condition which might have been a disgrace to civilisation. Under these circumstances, the Government had to make their choice as to what remedy should be applied. Whatever the hon. Member may say, and whatever other hon. Members may think at the present moment, I assert that there would have been the greatest possible outcry in this country if the Government had handed over Swaziland to the Boers. We should have heard, even from hon. Members opposite, denunciations of the weakness of such a policy, and of the abandonment of the natives, with reference to whom we are under some responsibility. With regard to finance, it would have been perfectly easy, if the Government had simply wished to adopt a convenient course, to hand over Swaziland to the Boers. It was a tempting policy in many ways. Swaziland is an embarrassment to us, but it is an embarrassment we cannot shake off in conformity with the obligations we have entered into simply by taking the course advocated by the hon. Member. They do not understand the sentiment of the British people, or even the views of this House, who think the Government would be likely to accept simply the policy of handing over Swaziland to the Boers. Therefore, the Government fell back on the existing arrangement, certainly not an ideal arrangement, but merely a temporary arrangement. However, it gave time to the Government to endeavour to work out a better system, and to see whether some arrangement could be come to by which the natives and the whites might be protected. The hon. Member objects to the Government undertaking the expense. Well, it is a very disagreeable expense, and the English taxpayer will be likely to get very little for his money; but let hon. Members understand that if they go into the Lobby in support of the Amendment, they will

    563
    be going in for the alternative policy of handing over Swaziland to the Boers. We are all interested in putting down the drink system, and reference has been made to the fact that the Boers do not tolerate the drink traffic with the natives in the Transvaal. If that is so, they will support our Representative in his efforts to suppress the drink traffic, and the liquor trade ought to have a very short existence in Swaziland.
    DR. CLARK: May I point out that General Joubert has already urged the joint Government to do as the natives desire in regard to the liquor traffic.
    *MR. GOSCHEN: If the Representative of the Boers is in favour of putting down the liquor traffic, and will support our Representative in his efforts in that direction, the liquor traffic ought to have a very short existence. My right hon. Friend has undertaken to use all his influence in that direction.
    SIR J. POPE HENNESSY: The right hon. Gentleman has said very truly that Her Majesty's Government have, in taking charge of Swaziland, taken upon themselves a task of great embarrassment. How have the Government got into this position of embarrassment? The most experienced High Commissioner of our time advised them not to take over Swaziland. They acted against the advice of Sir H. Robinson. They then sent out a special Commissioner, Colonel De Winton, and they acted against his advice also. My right hon. Friend the Under Secretary said that all the embarrassing concessions are subject to the decision of the Courts. No doubt many of the smaller and less important of these concessions are being brought before the Courts, but the most important, such as the postal, telegraphic railway, banking, and Customs concessions, have been actually purchased by the Government of the Transvaal, and in the opinion of the law officers of the Crown that Government are within their legal rights in obtaining possession of these concessions. Looking to that state of things, it is clear the House will agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that Her Majesty's Government have certainly got a most embarrassing bargain in Swaziland.
    MR. CONYBEARE: The argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that Her Majesty's Govern-
    564
    ment could not act otherwise than they have acted: that they were afraid of public opinion. What, he said, would the country have said?
    *MR. GOSCHEN: What did the country expect?
    MR. CONYBEARE: The country always expects a Government to do their duty, but they do not always do it. I do not suggest that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues did not think they were doing their duty, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer's argument was that if they had adopted the policy which is advocated by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark), and which I do not support, namely, to hand Swaziland over to the Boers, they could not have stood against the indignant explosion of public opinion which he imagines would have ensued upon such an act of weakness, to use his own phrase. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman is, even at this late hour, learning something. Perhaps, the storm which was raised about his head last year in respect to his notorious Budget has led him to be wiser in future. But I want to point out that the closing words of the right hon. Gentleman's-speech were practically opposed to what we heard earlier in the evening from the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said if General Joubert, as my hon. Friend pointed out, is in favour of putting down the liquor traffic he will support the efforts in that direction made, or to be made, by our Representative, and the liquor traffic ought to have a short existence. That is not what the Under Secretary led us to understand. I put the question to the right hon. Gentleman: "Will you take steps for the prohibition of the liquor traffic?" and what was his answer?
    *BARON H. DE WORMS: I gave that answer. The hon. Gentleman was not present.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I am speaking of the answer the right hon. Gentleman gave when I was here. Of course, during the evening I had to seek refreshment, like the right hon. Gentleman. The Under Secretary led me to understand that at the present time it was beyond the power of our Commissioner to interfere in this matter. He quoted Clause 6 of the Convention, and charged

    565
    me with not taking the trouble to read the Convention. I want to be satisfied whether the Under Secretary is right or not. I am going into the Lobby against the Government, not to support my hon. Friend's (Dr. Clark's) plea for the annexation of Swaziland to the Transvaal, but as a protest against what I hold to be the fact that the Government have precluded themselves by the terms of their Convention against conceding, without the express demand or wish of the people, that their young people and old people should be protected against ruin and demoralisation caused by the importation of drink. There is not a single word in this Convention which even intimates the intention of the Government to put down the importation of spirituous liquor. The right hon. Gentleman pointed to Article 5 in connection with the question of the people having granted away their rights and so on, and would have us believe that the Court which is sitting to determine the validity of some of these concessions will be able to do right as between the Swazi and the concessionaires. The right hon. Gentleman did not say what is meant by the words, "saving all existing rights," which appear at the commencement of the article, and which govern the whole of the article. Does the right hon. Gentleman ask us to believe that any single concession, whether it be for a canteen, or a lottery, or anything else, that is granted by Umbandine will be upset by the Court, unless it can be proved there was something in the nature of fraud in the obtaining of it? What is the Court going to do in the case of the concession registered by Mr. Shepstone and granted to Mr. W. T. B. Wilson on the 28th March, 1889, giving a monopoly for lotteries P It appears you are going to demoralise and debauch these unfortunate people not only by drink, but also by gambling, which is so familiar with the aristocratic people of this country. Will the Under Secretary take steps to have all the proceedings of the Court placed before the House of Commons? Fortunately the Convention will come up for review at the end of three years, and then we shall be able to see whether our influence has been productive of mischief or the reverse. I do not desire to advocate the annexation of Swaziland to the Transvaal, and
    566
    I think that under the circumstances, the arrangement that we made, although a very humble and by no means heroic arrangement on the part of the Government was, perhaps, not an unreasonable one. But everything depends upon the way it is administered, and I assert, in spite of what the Under Secretary said earlier in the evening, unless he is prepared to pay attention to the voice of the Swazi people in connection with the matter of the liquor traffic, there will be great mischief in the future.
    SIR J. SWINBURNE: I should like to ask the Under Secretary whether he has taken into consideration the future arrangements in Swaziland, because there is no worse government than a dual government? There is in Swaziland a dual control—half British and half Boer. Would it not be possible to come to an arrangement to divide the country into two portions and have one portion under the supreme control of Great Britain, and the other portion under the control of the Transvaal? The present system will lead to the utter destruction of the native tribes; all the Europeans' vices and none of their virtues will be introduced.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I never gave a vote with greater pleasure than I shall give my vote to-night [Cries of "Oh!"] If hon. Gentlemen think they will shorten the proceedings by crying "Oh!" they are very much mistaken. So far as I can see, the only persons in the world who are in favour of this expenditure, and the retention of this dual control, are certain vague Jingoes to whom the Chancellor of the Exchequer alluded, and who he fears will take an unfavourable view of the Government if they act according to the wishes of everybody who knows anything about the matter, and give up this attempt to rule over Swaziland. Your own High Commissioner and Special Commissioner have reported against the present system. You have the Cape Government and the Government of Natal opposed to it. You have the Swazi people themselves opposed to it, and you admit the English taxpayer will get uncommonly little for this expenditure. Who then, in the name of Heaven, except these vague Jingoes, are in favour of this expenditure, and why should we spend money—throw

    567
    it away, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer admits—upon such a foolish object as the maintenance of our sway-there? It appears to me we have established in Swaziland the most criminal Government it is possible to conceive. You got hold of a half drunken King and induced him to grant concessions of all kinds of things and to all kinds of people. A concession has been given to an individual to establish in this savage land operas, music halls, and to have a monopoly in midwives. Half a dozen concessions have been given to sell spirituous liquors. In every sort of way the Swazi have been exploited. My impression is that the next thing we shall be asked to do will be to vote a sum of money to do away with these concessions. We shall be told that this property in liquor, lotteries, operas, music halls, and midwives is sacred. I protest against money not only being wasted, but injuriously expended in order to please the vague people who appear to dominate the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Colonial Office.
    SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: The hon. Gentleman says nobody but only some vague Jingoes uphold the present system. I personally was very much against the arrangement made, but I see definite reason for adhering to the arrangement. We have, after consultation with the Government of the South African Republic, come to this conclusion, and we are bound by treaty to maintain this system for three years. I do not think it would be consistent with our honour to break the treaty. In the second place, we have to uphold existing rights, but I think we have made arrangements by which a distinction can be drawn between concessions which are ridiculous and those which are reasonable. I think the arrangement entered into will be excellent, as far as the natives are concerned. I do not think you can stop drunkenness among native races by mere control of the liquor traffic. What is far more effectual is to establish a civilised and strong Administration, and I hope that the result of our three years of temporary joint control in Swaziland will be to establish a proper Administration, which will effectually control the terrible curse of drunkenness in the native races.
    DR. CLARK: I am glad to hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this is only a temporary arrangement. So far as its most important clauses are concerned, however, the treaty goes on for ever. Only one or two points affecting Tongaland will come to an end if that district does not join the Cape Customs Union. I do not think it will be possible for it to join the Customs Union, as Tongaland has on one side the Cape, with 15 per cent. Customs duties, and on the other side Natal with 5 per cent. duties. The hon. Member for Liverpool (Sir G. Baden-Powell) says the arrangement must be maintained because we have entered into it with the South African Republic. The South African Republic has, however, pointed out the absurdity of the arrangement, and it has only ratified it in order to give it a trial. Evidently the Government intended to give powers to this new and costly Court to annul certain concessions that had been legally granted, but were contrary to the rights of the Swazi people, and contrary to public policy; but, unfortunately, the 5th clause of the Convention construes all the concessions granted up till last year, and the 3rd clause only gives the Court power to consider disputed concessions. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer really represents the views of the Government they have adopted these clauses because they are afraid of public opinion. The thing will, however, break down financially, because I am satisfied, from my own knowledge of the Boers, that they will never pay for the support of an expensive Government which does no good to them or anybody else. I know the gentlemen who form this Court. The head of it (Mr. Detoy) is an English barrister, and I am sure that if supported by the Government they would, under the saving clause, consider these concessions on their merits, and in the interests of the Swfzi people. I am glad to have this assurance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the arrangement is only a temporary one, and I am convinced that events will prove it is as indefensible as were the arrangements of 1881–84.
    DR. TANNER: In respect to these concessions we have heard a great deal of a Court of Inquiry into the abstract rights and wrongs; but has there been any specific point upon which

    569
    a concession has been abrogated? From hon. Members who are better posted up in these matters than I can pretend to be, I understand this Court has been sitting for some time past, and if the Under Secretary can show us any instance in which a concession has been done away with or modified he will do much to clear up a great amount of doubt this Debate has shown to be existing. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said very rightly it is an embarrassing position in Swaziland. Can he tell us if the Transvaal Government, who have obtained concessions, are prepared to accept the dictum of this Court in respect to matters in which they are interested, or is there reason to apprehend a state of affairs we should all deplore, and strained relations between the Government of the Transvaal and Great Britain? An assurance on these points may enable us to terminate this discussion without a Division. It is an embarrassing subject, though some light has been thrown upon it by this Debate, lengthened somewhat by the Under Secretary not being fully acquainted with some of the details of the question.
    (11.35.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 51; Noes 121.—(Div. List, No. 81.)
    Original Question put, and agreed to.

    CLASS V.
    10. £15,005, Treasury Chest.
    DR. TANNER: A few words of explanation on this would not be out of place from a high Financial Authority like the Chancellor of the Exchequer. How is it that he, with his great knowledge and experience, cannot in connection with these bi-metallic questions, make such provision as will save the Treasury from this large loss? This money only deals with the silver dollars of Hong Kong, the Straits Settlements, and, I think, Ceylon—only a small portion of a large colonial area. I hope we may not be told by such a great master of finance as the right hon. Gentleman is accounted by many to be, that it is due to chance that this loss occurs. Any want of foreknowledge on his part could be amply supplied by a right hon. colleague, the present Minister for Agriculture, who, we all know, has mastered the intricacies of the bimetallic system. I should like to know
    570
    if these silver dollars are paid to the officials in Hong Kong and the Straits Settlements—are they obliged to submit to the loss by depreciation? I hope we shall have some explanation.
    COLONEL NOLAN: I am sadly in want of a little enlightenment, and candidly confess I do not know what the "Treasury Chest" means. If it has occurred in the Estimates before it has escaped my notice. Is there a "Treasury Chest" for India? So far as I can make out, this Vote has the laudable object of making up the difference between gold and silver in payment of salaries in Hong Kong and the Straits Settlements. Now, we know there have been constant complaints that officers in India suffer heavy loss by the depreciation of the value of the rupees in which they are paid. If there is a Treasury Chest in Downing Street which puts this matter right for Hong Kong and the Straits Settlements, why is there not a Treasury Chest for India, where the loss is felt in a more marked manner? This Vote arises, I presume, out of questions connected with the bi-metallic currency, and there may be a reason which has special reference to Hong Kong and the Straits. Settlements, but the sum is large, and I think we may well ask for some explanation.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,); I must ask to be excused from going into the whole question, and as to regulations concerning India—payments there do not come from the same fund, and I have no knowledge on the subject. I must leave that to my right hon. Friend the Under Secretary for India. But in regard to the present Vote, I may explain that during the past eight years there has been a gain to the Treasury Chest on the exchange of about £90,000. But this year, owing to the change made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in favour of soldiers and sailors, the Treasury Chest has suffered a loss of about £15,000.
    COLONEL NOLAN: But what is the Treasury Chest?
    *MR. JACKSON: It represents the balances held by paymasters in different parts of the world. The exchange is fixed at the beginning of each quarter, and if it goes against us there is so much

    571
    loss, and during the past year this loss has been £15,000. That represents the loss to the Treasury Chest out of about a million of money.
    COLONEL NOLAN: But I want the Point to be made clear—is it due to depreciation in silver or to rate of exchange? I think we ought to have the distinction drawn. I know these matters are much mixed up by Indian officials. For my own part I do not pretend to know much about it, and so I seek information.
    *MR. JACKSON: I should have thought the hon. and gallant Gentleman would have known that the rate of exchange is more or less governed by the price of silver.
    COLONEL NOLAN: But it is not the same thing.
    *MR. JACKSON: The price of silver has fallen considerably—from 54 pence to 44 pence an ounce in the last year.
    MR. CONYBEARE: But surely it will not be denied that the rupee, which 12 months ago was worth 1s. 5d., now is worth something near 2s. [Cries of "No, no!"] Well, without arguing this, I pass to the point I wish to put. We understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that in some years there is a considerable difference in favour of the Treasury Chest, a surplus of from £20,000 to £50,000, and if that is so, why does not the surplus in one year balance the deficiency in another?
    MR. JACKSON: The accounts for each year are kept separately.
    *SIR J. SWINBURNE: I only wish to say it is most desirable that soldiers and sailors should be paid in currency, the amount representing the real value of their pay. I know from personal experience how in former times both officers and men suffered very material loss from being paid in Government paper, which was only encashed by merchants as a favour, and at a large discount.
    Vote agreed to.

    CLASS VI.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum not exceeding £3,915, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1891, for Superannuation and Retired Allowances."
    572
    It being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
    Resolutions to be reported to-morrow; Committee also report Progress; to sit again upon Wednesday.

  SEED POTATOES SUPPLY (IRELAND) ACT (1890) AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 239.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1.
    MR. J. P. X. O'BRIEN: I do not wish to delay this Bill, but I desire to get some explanation. I want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman has obtained thorough information in regard to the districts to be supplied under the Seed Bill? I find that in Gweedore and in other distressed districts in Ireland at the present time, no seed potatoes have been provided. I find there is in Gweedore only one resident Guardian, who is a land-agent, and that the Chairman of the Poor Law Board is the well-known Mr. Olphert. I wish to know whether under this Bill the Government will be prepared to make the Board do their duty and, that failing that, they will themselves be able to undertake the duty which the Board so grossly neglects?
    MR. CONYBEARE: And will the Government take care that when the seed potatoes are in the ground and grown up Mr. Olphert——
    THE CHAIRMAN: These observations have no reference to the clause.
    DR. TANNER: I wish to know what is being done about the seed potatoes in the Island of Achill?
    THE CHAIRMAN: That has no reference to this clause.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 2.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I wish to make some observations on this clause, which refers to the Guardians obtaining security for the payment, of the price of seeds sold. During last year Mr. Olphert sent armed forces on to the land of his tenants, rooted up their growing

    573
    crops and carted them away. [Cries of "No!"] Yes he did; I happen to know it as a matter of fact. I want to know whether the tenants have any security that if they have to pay for these seed potatoes, Mr. Olphert will be permitted to root them up?
    THE CHAIRMAN: That clearly has no relevance to the clause.
    DR. TANNER: In the Island of Achill a certain number of seed potatoes have been supplied and the Guardians will not be able to obtain security inasmuch as, owing to the abject poverty of the unfortunate people, they have been obliged to eat the seed potatoes supplied to them. I hope some special provisions will be made with regard to the administration of the measure in this particular district.
    MR. MACARTNEY: I want to ask what steps the Government will take to make the Guardians obtain security where it is possible to do so? I do not think there will be in most cases any security worth having, but where there is I want to know what steps will be taken?
    *THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): The object of this Bill is a limited one, and I do not think the clause now before the Committee will justify any general discussion respecting the administration of the Seed Potatoes Act. That Act, passed in the short Session of last year, inherited from the former Act of 1881 a provision under which it was necessary before a supply of potatoes was made to any one cultivating land in conacre, to get the consent of the tenant of the land, who must be a party to the advance. I quite agree that it will be the duty of the Board of Guardians to see that proper security is obtained, and that it will be the duty of the Local Government Board to watch the action of the Boards of Guardians in this respect. The object of the Bill is to enable the Boards of Guardians to deal in proper cases directly with the labourers. I hope the Committee will allow the Bill to be passed, particularly as at this season of the year it is desirable that steps should be at once taken.
    MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: The right hon. Gentleman has not given me a reply to my question.
    *MR. MADDEN: This clause does not open the general question of the Seed Potatoes Act, and I, therefore, should be out of order in discussing the point raised by the hon. Member.
    MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: The Government have control over the administration of the Act——
    THE CHAIRMAN: That is not relevant to this clause.
    Clause agreed to.
    Bill reported, without Amendment.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a third time."—(Mr. Madden.)
    SIR J. SWINBURNE: Before the Bill is read a third time I should like to draw attention to the extraordinary fact that the Minister for Ireland—the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant—is not present in his place when this important and urgent measure, which so particularly applies to Ireland, is being brought forward.
    DR. TANNER: I would point out that the Bill is intended to supply seed potatoes to labourers, and as the season is advancing the sooner the potatoes are got in the better.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

    ELECTORS REGISTRATION (ACCELERATION) (RE-COMMITTED) BILL. (No. 234.)
    Order for Committee read, and discharged.
    Bill withdrawn.

    SUPPLY-ARMY ESTIMATES.
    Resolution [5th March] reported.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £5,632,700, be granted to Her Majesty to defray the Charge of the Pay, Allowances, and other Charges of Her Majesty's Army at Home and Abroad (exclusive of India) (General Staff, Regiments, Reserve, and Departments), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1892."
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I desire to ask what the Government propose to do with regard to the Island of St. Helena? Is it intended to retain a force there? This will have an important bearing on a question I intend to raise later on, as to the continuance of Ascension Island as a military station. The Royal Com-

    575
    mission on Colonial Defences, four years ago, recommended that the force at St. Helena should be retained, but that a force should not be retained at Ascension Island. A considerable amount has been expended on the force at St. Helena, but subsequently that policy was changed, and now there has been a second change of policy.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): There has been no change of policy. We are endeavouring to raise a local Militia at St. Helena. We have not done it yet, but as soon as we have done it we propose to reduce the garrison of Imperial forces.
    MR. SHAW LEPEVRE: Is it not a fact that for two years attempts have been made to raise a Militia at St. Helena, but that, practically, there are no able-bodied men in the Island, all the people having gone to the African gold fields?
    MR. E. STANHOPE: That is the position of those who do not want to see the Militia regiment raised. We do wish to see it raised, and think it possible to do it.
    Resolution agreed to.

    PENAL SERVITUDE BILL.—(No. 192.)
    Order for Committee read, and discharged.
    Bill committed to the Standing Committee on Law, &c.

    ARMY ANNUAL BILL.—(No. 240.)
    Read a second time, and committed for to-morrow.

    TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION BILL. (No. 40.)
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1.
    *THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,): I do not wish to impede the progress of the Bill, but I desire to point out that I have consulted the Law Officer of the Crown as to whether that for which provision is made in this clause can not be done under the terms of the original Act. I hold the opinion that it could—that under the existing law fees can be paid by County Councils as proposed—and my view has been sup-
    576
    ported by those legal authorities. Doubts seem to exist in the minds of the County Councils as to the working of the Act. Therefore, I leave the matter in the hands of the Committee. If hon. Members and the County Councils think these provisions necessary, I am not prepared to insist on their removal from the Bill.
    MR. A. H. DYKE ACLAND: The original difficulty and doubt as to this subject was raised not by the County Councils, but came from another quarter. The doubt has become so wide-spread amongst many County Councils that I think it desirable to pass this measure. I hope the right hon Gentleman will allow these words to remain.
    MR. BRUNNER: It can do no harm to allow this Bill to go forward this stage. If it is necessary to alter the terms of this clause at a later stage the alteration can be made.
    Clause agreed to.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered to-morrow.

    TEACHERS' REGISTRATION BILL. (No. 48.)
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on question [18th February], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    Question again proposed.
    MR. A. H. DYKE ACLAND: An hon. Member has objected to this Bill being proceeded with after 12 o'clock, but I would appeal to him to withdraw his objection so that the Bill can be read a second time and referred to the Select Committee, to which a Bill of a somewhat similar character has already been referred. By reading it a second time the House will not affirm its principle.
    Qustion put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed to the Select; Committee on Teachers' (Registration and Organisation) Bill.

    MUSEUMS AND GYMNASIUMS BILL. (No. 159.)
    Bill read the third time, and passed.
    House adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock.

NEW PEER.
William Walsham Lord Bishop of Wakefield—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
NEW PEER.
  RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
  Message from the Commons, that they have come to the following Resolution, namely, that all Bills of the present Session to confirm Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the "Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888," containing the classification of merchandise traffic, and the schedule of maximum rates and charges applicable thereto, be referred to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons; the said Message to he taken into consideration to-morrow.
TURKEY AND THE EASTERN QUESTION.

  ADDRESS FOR PAPERS.
  *LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL,in rising to call attention to the correspondence in Turkey, and to move an humble Address to Her Majesty for further Papers in connection with the Eastern Question, said: My Lords, a notice of this kind would have come on in August last had it not been for the absence of the noble Marquess who directs the Foreign Office. Something at the time occurred with regard to the appointment of the Bishops in Macedonia which tended to provoke a serious discussion, and it is no matter of astonishment that the noble Marquess, placed and burdened as he is, should sometimes withdraw before the Session terminates. I make no observation upon that point. I know how difficult it is to draw attention to any question of Foreign Policy at present. We have had too much in the United Kingdom to preoccupy and to distract us; but even the incidents of the Divorce Court, or the embarrassments of Ireland, will not avert the march of armies on Constantinople, but, on the contrary, are much more likely to encourage it. They do not either release Great Britain from the obligation of supporting the treaties she has entered into. It is when we are much preoccupied at
  458
  home that we become more vulnerable in the larger and more general circumference. To take an extreme case, if the country was engaged in Civil War, Parliament no doubt would be rather deaf to Foreign Policy, and yet, under those conditions, Foreign Policy would be fraught with peril and anxiety. Domestic troubles should be rather an incentive, although no doubt they are an anodyne of, vigilance. Although, under the circumstances which I am pointing to, I cannot hope to draw much attention from your Lordships, I will hazard a few words in strict accordance with the notice I have given. There is a volume upon Crete which contains an important despatch from Commander Brenton proving that the disturbances in Crete were pretty well arranged unless aggressive movements in Greece happened to renew them. There is an important volume upon the trial of Moussa Bey, the Kurdish chieftain, which shows that in the East as well as in the West of Europe it is not easy to obtain convictions in spite of evidence to call for them. His acquittal was lamented by the British Embassy and by the Foreign Office. There is a volume on Bulgaria which shows that the position there is still unaltered; that Prince Ferdinand has not received the sanction of the Powers, and that the Sublime Porte bas sent out a manifesto to impeach the validity of his position. There is a volume also, presented in this very Session, which is a lively mirror of Armenian disturbances. It concludes, however, with an intimation that at the end of last December they were in a great degree composed. During the last three months there is perfect darkness which might be a sufficient ground for seeking further information. In that volume on Armenia, presented in this Session, there is an interesting Minute from Mr. Clifford Lloyd—at page 82—which will remind anyone who reads it of a well-known passage in Burke, to the effect that "distance always weakens government," and which shows that the Sultan cannot govern in Kurdistan as he might do in Asia Minor. It is curious as showing that the genius of one century may be corroborated by the detailed knowledge of another. As it would be fatiguing, I shall read no extracts to

  459
  your Lordships. It is more important to advert to the conclusions which the Blue Books may suggest to us. They are I think that Russia is entitled to expostulate as regards the position of Bulgaria—that peace was duo to a great extent to moderation and forbearance upon her part. If Russia is ever to move again towards the Balkans, it ought to be when France is seeking her alliance; when Germany, on that account, is little able to restrain her; when Great Britain is anxious about Herat and India, as well as about the Black Sea and the Bosphorus; when a distinguished orator who sought the partnership of Russia, and who proclaimed her benevolence, is active still on the political arena. But what may be the counsels at St. Petersburg is too intricate a question for me, perhaps for anyone, to fathom. It may, however, be worth while to point to two or three expedients or precautions which these documents, in some degree, suggest to us. One is that the mode of nomination for Bulgaria ought to be corrected. The principle of giving a veto to every Power has proved to be impracticable. It ought to be recollected to his credit that at the Congress at Berlin the noble Marquess did his utmost to prevent it. You may see it in the protocols. Another is, that it might be usefully laid down that the ruler of Bulgaria, whether he is destined to be sovereign or vassal, should only be of the Greek or of the Bulgarian religion. As the Blue Books show, Russia is inexorable against Prince Ferdinand on the ground of his connection with the Vatican. The third point which might suggest itself at present is that the Treaty of April 15th, 1856, by which Austria, France, and Great Britain engaged to act together when the Sublime Porte is in danger, might be subjected to some re-construction, by which other Powers should be admitted to partake in it. It might then become what it has not been—a barrier to war, a shelter to the Bosphorus. But I pass by these topics, each of which would in itself suffice to occupy an evening, in order to go on to one which is more practical and urgent; which also tends to a result more easily attainable. I cannot help thinking that the time has come when a judicious effort might be made to revive the Ottoman Assemblies
  460
  which sat in 1877, which were supported by Sir Henry Layard, as Ambassador, by Sir William Gregory, and Mr. Laurence Oliphant, as travellers, which were suspended by the war, and which have fallen since into comparative oblivion. Ten years ago, upon a Motion exclusively directed to that subject, I went into a statement which is long ago forgotten, but which at present I should venture to repeat, only desiring to add to it an observation suggested by the recent Life of Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, Lord Stratford de Redcliffe was well known to your Lordships. Although he was, no doubt, little suited to the Parliamentary arena, as a thinker, a negotiator, a despatch-writer, his merits have been long acknowledged and referred to. To recall his type you would have to go back to the first Earl of Malmesbury in the last century. Now, Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, during a long career at Constantinople, was constantly engaged in the attempt to overcome abuses from, the Adriatic to the Black Sea, from the Danube to the Tigris and Euphrates in the State to which he was accredited. After the Crimean War, which raised him to a pinnacle almost above the Sultan and his Empire, he did appear to have established various advantages. But still he had imperfectly succeeded. The evidence is copious. You have it in the admirable work of Mr. Nassau Senior, who travelled to Constantinople and the East between the close of the Crimean War and the retirement of the illustrious diplomatist. Mr. Nassau Senior, was admitted to the confidence of the Ambassador, and was not at all inclined to disparage his achievements. But that volume constantly reflects the general misrule, imperfect justice, lawless conduct, and corrupt administration which everywhere met the brilliant, painstaking observer. Now, the point which I wish to bring before the House is this; that what Lord Stratford de Redcliffe failed to do, his successors can hardly be expected to accomplish, because they have not the splendid vantage ground of the Crimean War from which he was enabled to exert himself. No doubt, Lord Dalling, Lord Lyons, Sir Henry Elliot, and others who succeeded Lord Stratford de Redcliffe in that post, were men of eminent ability, but they were not, like

  461
  him, from early youth acclimatised upon the Bosphorus, and, therefore, could not reach his personal ascendency. Nor is it the least disparagement to say that even Sir William White, who stands above my praise, is far from likely to effect what Lord Stratford de Redcliffe was thus unable to accomplish. I know that the prevalent opinion in Great Britain as to Ottoman abuses runs in an old and rather superannuated channel. Governments are urged and Embassies exhorted to lecture or reform autocracy in the Ottoman Empire, as if political assemblies had never come into existence there. The old agency is constantly invoiced in spite of its reiterated and, indeed, intelligible failure. The new one, in spite of the applause it gained during the short time it lasted, is altogether disregarded as if it had no place in history. Articles and speeches are constantly put forward to make autocracy effective and benevolent, but none, or scarcely any, are directed to restore the agency by which improvement is attainable. If all the power of mind so frequently brought to bear on the despotic system of the Ottoman Empire was directed to the establishment of a system for reforming and for balancing it, the end, no doubt, would be attained. But no such effort is apparent. On the contrary, the fig-tree is importuned for grapes; the vine is left to perish on the dust-heap. I admit, however, that the present Government can hardly be expected to make exertions to revive the Ottoman Assemblies unless impelled in some degree by national opinion. Those bodies came into existence, or, at least, apparently, as a counter-project to the schemes of the noble Marquess and of General Ignatieff, in the Conference which went on at Constantinople towards the close of 1876. Their origin, however, is wholly independent of that circumstance. They would have appeared if the noble Marquess and General Ignatieff had never met, and if the Conference which I have referred to had never come into existence. They were the outcome of a movement some time before against the Sultan Abdul Aziz. The object of their founder was a higher and more substantial one than that of rivalling or parrying the scheme which the Conference had organised. But, in
  462
  consequence of the moment at which they first appeared, there was an inclination to disparage them among the friends of the alternative proposals which that Conference matured, and which the Porte refused to acquiesce in on grounds explained in Despatches of January 25th and March 31st, 1877, just before the war was imminent. But the language of the noble Marquess soon modified on that subject. In 1878 his Despatches to Sir Henry Layard, which I have had a recent opportunity of glancing at, admit that the Constitution of 1876 may be at least a partial basis of reforms to be initiated. But, my Lords, that I may not be too retrospective, I pass at once to the Correspondence now before us. The acquittal of Moussa Bey, in itself, sufficed to condemn the institutions under which it happened. The noble Marquess and Sir William White have mingled and accentuated their concurring protests on that subject. But, in order to correct tribunals, you must correct the power which underlies them. It is the great lesson of our history. The Revolution of 1688 was marvellous in its effects on justice. You would have had no Sir John Holt if you had had no Prince of Orange. Beyond that, if nothing is now done, a brilliant opportunity to recover influence will be abandoned. The power which comes forward to revive the Ottoman Assemblies will have in some degree the credit of establishing them. In different regions, in Armenia, in Albania, in Asia Minor, Syria and Kurdistan, the divided races would combine to exult in its design and welcome its initiative. It cannot be denied, indeed, Her Majesty's Government have frequently admitted, that the Conference of 1876, the war of 1877, the turn of subsequent events, have deeply compromised our influence. The aim would be by some new method to restore it to the elevation which it reached after the events of the Crimea. If Great Britain cannot be hailed as a defending, she may yet be cherished as a liberating Power in all the regions I have mentioned. But here it should not be forgotten, if that mode of looking at the subject is correct, that the opportunity may be a very transient one. There is a series of contingencies which might entirely withdraw it. The Sultan may himself determine to restore the

  463
  Ottoman Assemblies, under a secret influence too difficult to analyse. An insurrection might arise, like that of the Softas in 1876, to call for these Assemblies or to suggest the policy of granting them. A Grand Vizier, anxious to stamp his name or benefit his country, might resolve to tread in the now abandoned path of Midhat Pasha. Some calculating Power might desire to recover over these Assemblies the influence to which the Polish Diets used to be subject. It is only now that Great Britain can secure priority, ascendancy, and gratitude, by moving. It will not be denied that many methods would be open. The Armenian movement which is not, as far as I know, yet extinguished, might easily be drawn into the channel. The British Embassy, of course, may well be called into activity. If all other methods fail a special mission might be easily defended. No doubt the chances of succeeding may not be equal to the risk of failing. It is not easy to persuade an arbitrary sovereign to share his power with representatives, but come what may, there must be yet advantage to Great Britain. If the assemblies are restored a British object is arrived at. If a deaf ear is offered to well supported admonition we should be less firmly bound by obligations which now weigh upon us; we should be more entitled to enter upon other lines, to contemplate experiments which policy suggests, but honour would not sanction at this moment. Her Majesty's Government, I think, are able to concur with me that, before you contemplate a new system on the Bosphorus, before you overthrow the landmark which the fall of the Byzantine Empire created, you are bound to give the Ottoman Dominion, which, through so many wonderful vicissitudes, has endured 400 years, the latest prospect of surviving. In urging, as I only do, however, subject to the light which further correspondence throws upon the subject, the revival of the Ottoman Assemblies, I am not blind in any manner to the merits which belong to the existing ruler of that Empire. His zeal and industry are universally acknowledged. His liberality to the Armenian prisoners has recommended him to Europe. It is enough, perhaps, if we admit that there is no one else to whom
  464
  despotic power could be so usefully confided. And here I cannot help remarking that there is a chain, a succession of authorities presiding over the Ottoman Empire, who have all been genuine reformers in design, but all oppressed and thwarted by malignant obstacles around them. Sultan Mahmoud, if I am not entirely deceived, was inclined to many salutary measures besides the war which he conducted against the Janissaries, and with which his name has been conspicuously identified. Abdul-Medjid, who immediately succeeded him in 1839, promulgated most excellent decrees—that of Gulhané, which was famous—in order to create a new departure in the Empire. Abdul-Aziz, who succeeded him, I think in 1862, was for many years looked upon as a champion of improvement in that respect, and was welcomed in this country, in this capital, while yet his melancholy end may be remembered by your Lordships. The fact is that, as regards the autocratic system in that country, bad rulers are insufficient to condemn it. It is by good rulers that its inherent vices must be stigmatised. When you have men like Nero and Domitian, their characters may be the mainspring of abuses which betray themselves. It is far graver that a system is incurable when men like Trajan and the Antonines direct it. The strongest argument against autocracy in Turkey, and the most difficult to answer, is that during half a century the greatest minds, greatest virtues, when placed upon the Throne, have not been able to redeem it. My Lords, as I think the Government intend to produce some further Correspondence, there will not, I trust, be any technical objection to the Motion now submitted to your Lordships.
  Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for further Papers in connection with the Eastern Question."—(The Lord Stratheden and Campbell.)
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, if I followed rightly the thread of the noble Lord's discourse, his object was to persuade the House that it was the duty of Her Majesty's Government to take steps for establishing representative Government at Constanti-

  465
  nople. He referred with eulogy to a Representative Assembly which sat at Constantinople for a short time, but whose precise exploits I am unable to remember. He said that, if we could not do what he suggested, other Powers might anticipate us, or that the Sultan might be moved by a sudden desire for representative institutions, or that some Grand Vizier might desire to tread in the path of Midhat Pasha. From all I have heard of Midhat Pasha, I doubt whether any Grand Vizier would desire to follow his career, because it ended in a very unfortunate manner. My Lords, I do not feel very competent to express an opinion upon the value of representative institutions at Constantinople. We have never yet seen representative institutions successfully conducted by a Mahomedan population, and I am not aware that the experiment of Midhat Pasha was enthusiastically received by the population of the Empire, or that any regrets were expressed when it disappeared. I have seen many things stated as to the wishes of the people in various parts of the Empire; but it has never been my fortune to come across any expression of a desire that that transitory institution should be revived. If I were forced to give an opinion, therefore, I should be rather doubtful whether there is any strong desire for the institution of such a Government, and I should be more than doubtful whether the present Sultan is an enthusiastic admirer of representative institutions. But, whatever may be the facts with respect to these points, I would submit to the noble Lord that we have sufficient trouble at home and in our colonies, in managing representative and other institutions, and that it is not our business to set about extending them to Constantinople. If the people of Turkey want Representative Institutions, I have no doubt they will get them; but if they want them and get them, they probably are capable of working them, and they may come to some good. But if they are imposed by a foreign and distant State, by a people who have no sympathy whatever in religion, in manners, or in political life with the existing inhabitants of the Ottoman Empire, the probability is that institutions which we should foist upon them would be utterly foreign to their nature,
  466
  and would not succeed in producing contentment, or in administering to the prosperity of the country. Without, therefore, venturing to pronounce dogmatically as to whether there ought to be representative institutions or not at Constantinople, I say it is no business of ours, and that we shall best consult our own credit and the advantage of our own and other people by confining ourselves to our own business. There are Papers in preparation which it will probably be more convenient should be laid before Parliament in the ordinary form, as by command of Her Majesty, rather than in compliance with Motion; but if the noble Lord still wishes to move for them, I have no objection.
  *LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: As the noble Marquess is so good as to assent to the Motion, I have no wish further to detain the House; but I think that considering the great importance that attaches to his language it ought to be remarked that when we disclaim all responsibility for what goes on in that distant country we entirely forget that the established policy of Great Britain, of which the noble Marquess is but a passing organ, has been to insist upon Ottoman reforms, upon Ottoman improvements, and actively to protest against all abuses in the administration of that Empire. If it can be reasonably established that such a mode of acting is thoroughly exhausted, and has irrevocably failed, it must be rational and politic to attempt the sole alternative which offers itself.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I would merely suggest to the noble Lord that from the librarian's point of view it is not very convenient in the case of a series of Papers such as this, which are printed by command, to present one portion separately. It is merely a question of convenience, and if the noble Lord would not press his Motion now I think it would be advisable on that account.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I will undertake that the Papers shall be laid in a few days.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  House adjourned at ten minutes past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock,