Sitting of 16 March 1891

RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
Resolution of the House relative to Railway Rates and Charges Provisional Order Bills [6th March], which was ordered to be communicated to the Lords, and Message from the Lords [10th March], signifying their concurrence in the said Resolution, read.
Ordered, That the following Bills be committed to a Select Committee of Five Members, nominated by the Committee of Selection, to be joined with a Committee of Five Lords:—
Great Eastern Railway Company (Rates and Charges) Provisional Order Bill.
Great Northern Railway Company (Rates and Charges) Provisional Order Bill.
Great Western Railway Company (Rates and Charges) Provisional Order Bill.
London and North Western Railway Company (Rates and Charges) Provisional Order Bill.
London and South Western Railway Company (Rates and Charges) Provisional Order Bill.
London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Company (Rates and Charges) Provisional Order Bill.
London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company (Rates and Charges) Provisional Order Bill.
Midland Railway Company (Rates and Charges) Provisional Order Bill.
South Eastern Railway Company (Rates and Charges) Provisional Order Bill.
Ordered, That all Petitions in favour or against the Bills or Orders scheduled thereto presented five clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents be heard in favour of or against the Bills, and Counsel heard in support of the Bills.
Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Lords, to acquaint their Lordships that the said Bills have been committed to Five Members of this House, to be joined with a Committee of Five Lords, pursuant to the Resolution of the House relative to Provisional Orders Confirmation (Rates and Charges) Bill of the 6th day of March last, and to the Message of the 10th day of March, signifying their concurrence in the said Resolution."—(Sir Michael Hicks Beach.)

QUESTIONS.

  THE OPIUM TRADE.
  MR. S. SMITH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to a Petition to Parliament on the subject of the opium trade, signed by over 11,000 Chinese residents of Singapore, wherein they pray of the British Administration
  "Not to ruin them morally, physically, and materially, by affording facilities for carrying on the traffic in this most pernicious drug";
  and whether he can state if nearly half the Revenue of Singapore is derived from the opium traffic?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,): My attention has not been drawn to any Petition on the subject of the opium trade signed by Chinese residents of Singapore complaining of the facilities afforded to the trade. In reply to the last question of the hon. Member, I may say that the Excise on opium in Singapore produces more than one-half of the total Revenue of the colony.

  THE INDIAN FACTORY BILL.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India if it is true, as stated in the Times of 11th March, that the Secretary of State has intimated to the Indian Government that certain parts of the Factory Bill, submitted by them to the Indian Legislative Council—
  "Would be contrary to pledges given in the Imperial Parliament, and could not be accepted;"
  if so, when and to whom those pledges were given; (2) whether, since the Despatches of May and July, 1890, the Secretary of State has been in further communication with the Viceroy regarding the Factory Act; and (3) whether, now that the communications have resulted in a Bill, he will lay the further Correspondence upon the Table?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): In answer to the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question, I have to say that the statements made in Parliament by the First Lord of the Treasury regarding the Indian Factory Bill, which are, I presume, referred to in the question, have not formed the subject of communication by the Secretary of State to the Government of India. The answer to the second paragraph is in the affirmative. The reply to the third paragraph is that the presentation of further correspondence will be considered by the Secretary of State as soon as the new Indian Factory Act is received.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: In regard to the reply of the right hon. Gentleman to the first part of the question, may I point out that the Under Secretary has given me an answer to a question which I did not ask, while he has not answered the question which I did ask? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, as stated in the Times of the 11th of March, that the Secretary of State has intimated to the Indian Government that certain parts of the Factory Bill, submitted by them to the Indian Legislative Council, is contrary to pledges given in the Imperial Parliament, and cannot be accepted; and, if so, when, and to whom those pledges were given?
  *SIR J. GORST: The hon. Member, I presume, has-been in his place in this

  1045
  House, and must have heard the answers of the First Lord of the Treasury to the various Members who have put questions to him, and he must therefore know whether any pledges have been given. I have said that there has been no correspondence between the Secretary of State and the Government of India in reference to any pledges which have been given in the Imperial Parliament.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: Is it true, as stated in the Times, that certain parts of the Bill submitted to the Indian Council are contrary to the pledges given in the Imperial Parliament? I ask whether that is true or is not true?
  [No answer was returned.]
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I beg to give notice that I will put the question down for to-morrow.

  THE BOMBAY SALT ACT.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India (1) whether manufacture of salt is defined in the Bombay Salt Act, under which two native women were recently convicted and punished, to be not merely the preparation of salt for trade purposes, but "every process for the purification or refinement of salt;" (2) is he aware that it is by the process of evaporation over fire, which the Definition Clause of the Act defines to be manufacture, that the dirty bazaar salt is prepared for table use; (3) is he aware that the salt, for the treatment of which by the above process the women were punished, had already paid duty; (4) whether the cases were referred by the District Magistrate to the High Court in order to ascertain if there was any way of escape from the hard and fast definition and prohibition contained in the Act; that Justices Bird wood and Parsons found that there was not; and that Mr. Justice Birdwood declared that the definition of manufacture in the Act
  "Would apparently convert into crimes some perfectly innocent practices connected with the use of salt for domestic purposes;"
  (5) whether, in the face of so strong an expression of opinion by the learned Judge, he still adheres to his decision that the law shall continue to be enforced; and (6) whether he will cause a Return to be prepared, showing each
  1046
  case of alleged infraction of the Act, the nature of the offence, and the punishment inflicted?
  *SIR J. GORST: The answer to the first paragraph of the question of the hon. Member is, Yes, and to the second, Yes. The reply to the third paragraph is that the newspaper report of the High Court decision states that the salt was not alleged to be contraband. The answer to the fourth paragraph is that the words quoted occur in the newspaper report. In reply to paragraph five, I have to say that the law will be enforced with discretion, and, if it is found necessary, will be amended. The answer to the last paragraph of the question is that if the hon. Member will consult the Bombay Annual Salt Report he will find there an account of salt prosecutions and the result thereof.
  MR. CONYBEARE: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman controverts the accuracy of the report of Mr. Justice Birdwood's statement that the definition of the manufacture of salt in the Act
  "Would apparently convert into crimes some perfectly innocent practices connected with the use of salt for domestic purposes."
  *SIR J. GORST: No, Sir; I said that the Secretary of State had received no official communication in regard to this trial, but that the words quoted by the hon. Member do appear in the newspaper report.

  THE PUNJAB—LAND REVENUE.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the official, since dead, to whose mistake, in refusing to suspend a part of the Land Revenue in Gurgaon in 1877, he has publicly attributed the losses of human life and cattle during the years 1877 and 1882, and the great indebtedness then incurred, was Mr. Gore Ouseley, then Financial Commissioner of the Punjab; (2) whether, in the year 1877, a circular was issued by the Government of India from Simla, commanding that as large a proportion as might be possible of the revenues were to be collected; (3) whether Mr. Gore Ouseley was bound to obey that Circular; and, if so, why he is to be held more to blame for the disaster than his superior officers; (4) whether he is aware that the prevention of similar mistakes for the future in the

  1047
  Gurgaon District depends not upon the general Famine Codes, as stated by him on 18th February last, but on the terms of a Resolution, referred to by Sir James Lyall in his Orders on the Gurgaon Settlement, in which it is stated that the full revenue of insecure tracts shall not be realised in years of severe and long continued drought; and (5) what security exists that this Resolution will not be set aside if (as was the case in 1877) Imperial necessities forbid a relaxation?
  *SIR J. GORST: In reply to the first question of the hon. Member, I have to say that the Secretary of State respectfully declines to give the name of the deceased officer. The answer to paragraph 2 is that no such circular can be traced. In regard to paragraph 3, officers are bound to obey general orders unless special circumstances justify a departure. As to paragraph 4, my answer on the 18th of February last was correct; and the reply to the last question of the hon. Member is, that the securities which exist are the vigilance of the Government of India, of the Secretary of State in Council, and of the Imperial Parliament.

  ABDUL RASOUL.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India (1) whether Abdul Rasoul was arrested at Bombay in consequence of communications received from the Indian Office by the Commissioner of Police at Bombay; (2) what action on the part of Rasoul prior to his arrival in Bombay led the India Office to forward instructions for his arrest; (3) for how long a period had Rasoul been an object of suspicion to the India House authorities, and on what grounds was such suspicion based; (4) is it the fact that Rasoul was escorted from the gaol at Assirgad on board the Peninsular and Oriental steamer Assam by a sergeant of police and seven constables, and his passage paid for him; (5) what further information, or action on the part of Rasoul, has led the India House authorities to the conclusion that Rasoul is now neither a danger to the Empire nor an object of suspicion; (6) and did any, and what, communications pass between the India Office and the Viceroy, in consequence of which the latter telegraphed
  1048
  to the Chief Commissioner of Police at Bombay that he was to send back Rasoul to London?
  *SIR J. GORST: The answer to the first question is in the negative; the second and third, therefore, fall to the ground. The reply to the fourth question is, that the Secretary of State has no information about Abdul Rasoul's journey from Assirgad to the. Peninsular and Oriental steamer. His passage was paid for him by the Government. In answer to the fifth paragraph of the question, I have to say that the Secretary of State has received no fresh information about Abdul Rasoul; but this answer must not be taken as admitting the conclusion attributed to him in the question. In reply to the sixth paragraph of the question, my answer is that no such communication passed.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I understand that Abdul Rasoul has been interviewed by the authorities of India. If that is so, is the right hon. Gentleman still under the impression whether or not he was escorted from the North-West Provinces to Bombay by the police. Was it not a police escort that brought him down from Assirgad to Bombay; and, if so, I want to know, in spite of any statement to the contrary, whether the Government intend to maintain that Abdul Rasoul came to England at his own express wish, and not against his wish.
  *SIR J. GORST: That is exactly the point on which the Secretary of State has no official information. He does not know how Abdul Rasoul came except that he came by steamer. There is no doubt that Abdul Rasoul did ask to be sent to England.
  MR. CONYBEARE: Abdul Rasoul says that he did not demand an escort. I think it would save the time of the House if the right hon. Gentleman will make inquiry upon these points, because I shall have to repeat the question until I get a satisfactory answer. Will the right, hon. Gentleman do his best to obtain the information?
  [No answer was returned.]

  THE NORTH-WEST PROVINCES OF OUDH.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India what remissions, if any, were made by the

  1049
  Lieutenant Governor of the North-West Province of Oudh to the State tenants in 1877–8, when the average price of food was more than one-third higher than the average of the six preceding years; and whether he can state how far there is any connection between the high prices ruling in 1887–8 and the fact that the recorded death-rate in India in that year was the highest known?
  *SIR J. GORST: The answer to the first question is that the remissions in 1877–8 were 214,315 rupees. At the end of the year 282,000 rupees were held over uncollected, of which 104,563 rupees were eventually remitted. In reply to the second question, I have to say that the connection between high prices and high death-rate must be a matter of opinion. The high death-rate of 1887–8 was chiefly caused by cholera and fever.

  SHIPMENT OF INCOMPETENT SEAMEN.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the illegal shipment of incompetent seamen as A.B.'s at the Port of Cardiff, as appears from the statement of R. Phillips and other's, reported in the South Wales Daily News of 25th February, and also by the statement taken from the said R. Phillips and others by the Superintendent of Mercantile Marine at Cardiff; if he is aware of the fact that the man referred to, although incompetent and inexperienced, were signed on as A.B.'s in the presence of an official of the Board of Trade; if he is aware that the men so signed on as A.B.'s were brought to the ship by a person who is not licensed to ship seamen in accordance with Sec. 147, sub-Sec. (1), of "The Merchant Shipping Act, 1854"; and if these statements are true, whether he can take any steps to prevent the recurrence of these irregularities and to secure compliance with the law?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): Yes, Sir; my attention has been called to the statements in the question, which are substantially accurate. I am, however, informed that prosecutions were instituted against those persons who supplied the seamen illegally, and that, in two cases, convictions were obtained.

  RIFLE RANGES.
  CAPTAIN PENTONI beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the acknowledged deficiency of rifle ranges accessible to Metropolitan Volunteer Regiments, his attention has been called to the fact that a company has been formed with the object of establishing rifle ranges available for Metropolitan and other corps near Staines, and whether the scheme has his sanction or approval?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): My attention has been called to the project of forming a company to establish rifle ranges near Staines, and I have expressed strong approval of the objects of the company.

  SOUTH KENSINGTON MUSEUM.
  MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works when he will be prepared to give the names of the judges and assessor of the South Kensington Museum completion competition; whether he is aware that the plans and elevations supplied to the competing architects contain no drawing or indication of the Central Quadrangle, with its important surrounding façades, which furnish the keynote of the style of the present buildings which the proposed competition is to complete, and whether he would be willing to arrange for all the competing architects to be taken over the present buildings and have the details explained to them, especially the exterior terra cotta enrichments and earthenware mosaics, by the officials of the Board of Works and of the Science and Art Department?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET,): A course somewhat similar to that adopted in the case of the last important competition for Government buildings will probably be adopted in that for the South Kensington Museum competition; in that case the judges were for the most part Members of the Government of the Day, chosen for the purpose, and were assisted by professional assessors. Mr. Waterhouse. President of the Royal Institute of British Architects, has undertaken to act as assessor on this occasion. No competing architects have bean invited to visit and

  1051
  inspect the existing buildings, and of course every facility will be afforded them in obtaining any information they may require. In Class 3 of the Conditions and Instructions which we have issued to the architects it is laid down that the designs shall "pay regard so far as may be necessary to the style of the existing buildings," and beyond this it would, in my opinion, be very unwise to fetter the competitors.

  LONDON WATER SUPPLY.
  MR. LENG: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has seen Professor Frankland's Report, stating that during the month of February the water abstracted from the Thames by the Chelsea, West Middlesex, Southwark, Grand Junction, and Lambeth Companies was, in all cases, of very inferior quality, being polluted by an abnormal amount of vegetable organic matter, that supplied by the Grand Junction Company on the 5th February surpassing in respect of organic impurity any sample of Thames water examined by Professor Frankland during the last quarter of a century, being opalescent from imperfect filtration, and not in a fit state for dietetic use; whether he has further observed that Dr. Koch's process of examination applied to the water supplied in the different Metropolitan districts showed the existence of "microbes" in the respective ratios of Kent 20, New River 74, West Middlesex 104, Chelsea 144, Grand Junction 220, East London 248, Lambeth 284, and Southwark 356; whether the Reports from the Officers of Health show that there is any correspondence between the condition of the water supplied and the amount of sickness in those districts; and whether, if the existence of "microbes" in water for drinking and culinary purposes is found to be pernicious and injurious to the public health, the medical officers of the Local Government Board are able to recommend any effectual method either of extracting or counteracting them?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): My attention has been drawn to the Report to which the hon. Member alludes. With regard to the analysis of the water supplied
  1052
  by the Grand Junction Water Company on the 5th of February, I recently stated the facts very fully in reply to a question of the hon. Member for the Knutsford Division of Cheshire. As to the analysis of the water supplied at a later date in the same month by other Metropolitan Water Companies, I have no doubt that the abnormal amount of vegetable matter, although much less than was the case with the water from the Grand Junction Water Company on the 5th February, was occasioned by similar causes. Dr. Frankland informs me that the exceptionally impure condition of the river-derived waters supplied to the Metropolis in February has now passed away, and that these waters have apparently returned to a condition approaching the normal at this season. I have communicated with Dr. Frank-land with regard to his statements as to the existence of microbes. He states that the number was not large for filtered river water, and that as no pathogenic organism was observed among the microbes, their presence does not afford any ground for alarm. The Board have not received any Report from Medical Officers of Health, showing that there is any such correspondence as is suggested in the question.
  *MR. BOULNOIS: I wish to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman, which arises out of the answer he has just given, namely, whether it does not appear from Dr. Frankland's Report of February that the water supplied to Glasgow and Birmingham during that month was inferior to that usually supplied to those places?
  *MR. RITCHIE: I am afraid that that is a question I cannot answer without notice.

  THE HOME AND FOREIGN OFFICES.
  VISCOUNT WOLMER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War why sentries are posted outside the Home Office and the Foreign Office?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: It has always been customary to post a sentry in front of certain important Government Offices, and its utility has been proved upon more than one occasion.

  MAGAZINE RIFLE SIGHTS.
  MR. JEFFREYS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, with, reference to the magazine rifle, why it has been decided to abandon the sights invented by Lieutenant Colonel Lewes, and revert to the old barleycorn sights; whether the Lewes sight was adopted because it enables fire to be kept low in the shock of rapid volleys; whether, with this sight, recruits are much more quickly taught to become effective shots; whether the Lewes sights were incorrectly marked, in consequence of having been calculated for the strength of a powder not yet issued; and whether he will therefore have a portion of the Mark II. rifles fitted with Lewes sights, with elevations correctly marked for the ammunition now in use, so that a fair estimate of their value may be obtained?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: The Lewes sight was abandoned at the suggestion of the Committee on the Magazine Rifle after much practical experiment. It was found that the foresight was liable to injury, and difficult to repair if injured. The soldiers preferred the barleycorn sight, and the Naval Authorities distinctly objected to the Lewes. Seeing the importance of uniformity for all Services, and bearing in mind that the Lewes flight gave no decided superiority in firing, it was thought best to revert to the system which had given satisfaction with the Martini-Henry rifle. I am not prepared to go back on this decision.

  PAUPER EMIGRATION TO THE COLONIES.
  MR. S. SMITH: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state the number of pauper children emigrated to the Colonies during the last 12 months; and whether the modification of the rules laid down by the Local Government Board in 1887 has perceptibly affected the progress of the movement?
  *MR. RITCHIE: The number of orphan and deserted children who were sent to Canada by Boards of Guardians during the year ended 31st December, 1890, was 375. In the year preceding the revision of the conditions of emigration, the number of pauper
  1054
  children sent to Canada was 166. The year 1890 shows an increase of 209 on that number.

  CIVIL SERVICE WRITERS.
  MR. KELLY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the system of appointing persons to posts on the Civil Service, to be paid out of allowances for clerical assistance granted to Heads of Departments, is intended to apply to only such posts as should be held by Civil Service Writers, and to cases of meeting emergencies, or whether it is intended to appoint persons, without their having first passed an examination, and the usual inquiries having been made with reference to them by the Civil Service Commissioners, as accountants, and to other staff posts which, according to the recommendations of the Civil Establishments Commission, were to be reserved for the best clerks of the Second Division?
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): I think that my hon. Friend will see on consideration that it is not possible for me to give an answer to his question determining what will be the policy of the Treasury in the future; but I shall be quite ready to answer any question of fact in particular cases.

  COMMUTATION OF PENSIONS.
  MR. KEAY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether any of the proposals contained in the Treasury Minute of 15th July last have yet been carried out as to the commuting by cash payments the pensions named therein; if so, will he state what payments have been made?
  *MR. JACKSON: Yes, Sir; two of the proposals made in the Minute of July 15 last have been carried out, and payments have been made to the Paymaster General of the Supreme Court ex parte the Duke of St. Albans and the Marquess of Downshire.

  SEVERE SENTENCE.
  MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of a man named Edwards, who was sentenced at

  1055
  the Surrey Sessions in 1888 to 14 years' penal servitude for stealing a small quantity of spirits, valued at 2s. 9d.; and, if not, whether he will have an inquiry made, with a view to reducing the sentence or granting the man (who still asserts his innocence) a pardon for the remainder of the sentence?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): Yes, Sir; this case was considered by me in 1888, and I then decided that the sentence might be treated as one of seven years, which will allow of the convict's release, if his conduct is good, after five years and five months. Though the embezzlements were petty, they were extensive and systematic, and the man's record was a bad one, he having been four times previously convicted—once of forgery, when he was sentenced to five years' penal servitude.

  POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS AT MORPETH.
  MR. BURT: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been called to the inconvenience caused to Mr. Tweedy, farmer, and others, of Heighly Farm, Morpeth, through the non-delivery of letters; and whether anything can be done to remedy the grievances complained of?
  *THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): I quite appreciate the inconvenience to which the hon. Member calls attention. But the postal service in the locality is already carried on at a heavy loss, and I should scarcely be warranted in effecting improvements at still further outlay. If the persons immediately concerned would arrange to have their letters taken charge of at a house within the official delivery, some, at least, of the inconvenience now felt would be remedied.

  MAIN ROADS AND THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT.
  MR. ROWNTREE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board how many and which Quarter Sessions boroughs have appealed to the Local Government Board (under "The Local Government Act, 1888," sections 35 and 38) from decisions of the County Council with respect to the
  1056
  declaration of highways to be main roads, and how many and which of these appeals have been decided; what are the guiding principles upon which such decisions have been founded; in how many and in which cases is the result of the appeal to establish connecting links within the boundaries of the borough between the different main roads converging upon that borough; and in how many and in which cases does the arbitration of the Local Government Board leave the said boroughs without any main road leading to the railway station, or to the harbour (in case of a sea port), or to the market place, or to any place which may be regarded as the business centre of the borough?
  *MR. RITCHIE: The Local Government Board have received appeals under the Local Government Act from nine Quarter Sessions boroughs. They have given their decision in the case of Dover, Carlisle, Grantham, Scarborough and Banbury. With regard to the principles on which the Board base their decisions, and the details of the several decisions at which the Board have arrived, I can only state generally that, before coming to a decision, there has in each case been a local inquiry by one of the Inspectors of the Board, the representatives of the borough and of the county have had full opportunity of submitting at the Inquiry any representations which they deemed necessary, and the decision of the Board has been given after full consideration of the circumstances of each case.
  MR. ROWNTREE: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the last paragraph of the question.
  MR. RITCHIE: No, Sir; there are details into which I cannot enter as to the decision of the Local Government Board. They are reserved for future inquiry, and I do not think it would be convenient that I should state in this House all the decisions we have reserved for future consideration.
  MR. ROWNTREE: Persons feeling themselves aggrieved can have recourse to a local inquiry, and in that case would it be inconvenient for the Local Government Board to give reasons for their decision. If so, what remedy can the right hon. Gentleman suggest?
  *MR. RITCHIE: I am afraid there is no remedy after the Local Government Board has come to a decision and issued

  1057
  an Order. There are no means by which, the question can be re-considered.
  MR. ROWNTREE: I will call attention to this matter on the Estimates.

  SHEBEENS IN WHITECHAPEL.
  MR. ROWNTREE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is correct, as stated by Mr. Roberts, Secretary to the East London Licensed Victuallers' and Beersellers' Association, in a letter to the Morning Advertiser of 11th March, that it is "a notorious fact" that the Whitechapel district
  "Abounds in she beens and bogus clubs where intoxicating liquors (generally of a most inferior quality) may be obtained at all hours;"
  how many persons have been proceeded against in the Whitechapel Police District during the past year for keeping such places, and with what results; and whether, if it is the case that such places abound, he will instruct the police to take more active steps for their suppression?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that there are in all 20 clubs, established for various objects, in the Whitechapel district, but it is not within the knowledge of the police that these are bogus clubs. It has, however, come to the knowledge of the police that intoxicating liquor was being sold at private houses in this district, and special observation has been kept, with the result that proceedings were taken during the past year against 15 persons for illegally selling intoxicating liquors, and convictions followed. In addition to this, 26 persons who were found on such premises were summoned and convicted. I have called the attention of the Commissioner to the hon. Member's question; but I have no reason to believe that the police are otherwise than vigilant in the exercise of this particular duty.

  POST OFFICE OFFICIALS AND POLITICS.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that, on a bill advertising a meeting of Parliamentary electors at Sunbury on the 11th instant and addressed by the honourable Member for the Uxbridge Division of Middlesex, and other Conservative
  1058
  Members of Parliament, it was announced that tickets for reserved seats might be obtained on payment of 1s. each from Mr. Trotter, Post Office, Sunbury Common; and whether it is in accordance with the regulations of the Service that postal officials and premises should be used for the advantage of a political party?
  *MR. RAIKES: In reply to the hon. Member, I have to say that I am aware that no such meeting as he mentions was addressed by the hon. Member for Uxbridge Division and other Conservative Members, and that in matter of fact no such meeting took place at all. The Sub-Postmaster of Sunbury Common assures me that his name was inserted in the Bill to which the hon. Member refers without his knowledge or consent. The Bill was not exhibited in the Post Office, but in the Sub-Postmaster's shop.

  THE SILKSWORTH EVICTIONS.
  MR. GOURLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is correct that on the last meeting the two working men who are members of the Joint Committee of the Durham County Council desired to raise a question as to the conduct of the police at Silksworth, and whether the rest of the members rose and left them unable to form a quorum; whether up to date a single person has been arrested, or charged, or summoned by the police for throwing stones, earth, or any other missile on the occasion of the recent baton charge; and how many police were present on that occasion?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The Vice Chairman on the occasion in question is abroad, so that I have not been able to obtain the information from him; but I am informed by the chief constable that one of the members of the Committee made some remarks on the conduct of some of the policemen at Silksworth, referring to a quarrel between three constables in their lodgings. The reply given was that, this being a question of discipline, it had already been disposed of by the chief constable. The conduct of the police in relation to the strike at Silksworth was in no way impugned. Some further questions were also asked and answered as to the number, lodging, and expense of the police at Silksworth.

  1059
  There was a full quorum of the members of the Committee present until the business before it was concluded. No person has been arrested, charged, or summoned in connection with the mêlée on the 25th of February. The missiles came from all parts of a tumultuous crowd, most of whom were strangers to Silksworth. The number of constabulary of all ranks was about 150, of whom 45 took part in the charge.

  LIGHT DUES.
  MR. ATKINSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will let the Committee on the Incidence of Light Dues meet, without any longer seeking to bind the ship-owning members to give up their conviction that light dues should fall on the Consolidated Fund, in accordance with the recommendation of Select Committees of this House?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The Committee to which the hon. Member refers was instituted on the suggestion that a Committee on which the shipping interest should be represented should be appointed to consider the incidence of the present system of light dues and the possibility of substituting a tax on shipping for them. If the shipowners insist, as I understand they do, on the justice of these matters being paid for out of the Consolidated Fund, I do not see that such a Committee would serve any useful purpose.

  BANKING RESERVES.
  MR. ATKINSON: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he intends to introduce a new clause into the Savings Bank Bill, by which he will set an example of providing banking reserves in the proportion which he considers necessary, in face of the fact that his liabilities to the public alone for deposits amount to over £112,000,000?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): No, Sir; I have no such object. The question of my hon. Friend assumes an analogy between the deposits in the hands of bankers and those in the hands of the National Debt Commissioners. I should be prepared at the proper time to show the fallacy involved in the view that such an analogy exists.

  EVENING ATTENDANCE AT NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS.
  MR. LAWSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what has been the number of persons attending the British Museum during the evenings since the trustees opened it to the public; and what has been the average attendance after 6 o'clock p.m. in this and other National Institutions?
  *MR. JACKSON: The total number of persons who have attended the British Museum during the evening since the evening opening was established in February, 1890, is 73,412—average per evening, 264. From February, 1890, to December, 1890, there was an almost unbroken decline from a monthly average per evening of 635 to an average of 90; the average for January and February of this year has been 120 and 160 respectively.

  ST. PAUL'S SCHOOLS.
  MR. LAWSON: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Penrith (Mr. J. W. Lowther) whether the Charity Commissioners are aware that the governing body of St. Paul's Schools have not yet carried out Clause 35 (1) of the Scheme under which they are appointed, by having a modern department for about 500 boys; and whether they are aware that the present building and grounds cost nearly £150,000 for 1,000 boys, and were provided to give effect to the provisions of the scheme of this trust and charity—a classical department for about 500 boys, and a modern department for about 500 boys; whether the Charity Commissioners have sanctioned the action of the governing body in acquiring a site of about 4a. 2r. 20p. in West Kensington, Fulham, for erecting a school for 400 girls under the said scheme, before they have provided a modern department, for which the present expensive building was erected; and whether the cost of such site, having no frontage, is £15,250, or nearly £3,300 an acre, whereas building land in Fulham, with frontages, and ripe for building purposes, can be easily obtained for about £1,500 an acre; and whether the Charity Commissioners will intervene to prevent this expenditure of charity money?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: The Charity Commissioners have received complaints that Clause 35 (1) of the Scheme for St. Paul's Schools has not been carried out, and are in communication with the governors on the subject, whose final explanation they have not yet received. The order of priority in which the various schools and departments to be maintained under the scheme are to be established is, by the scheme itself, directed to be such as the governors may deem most expedient. The Commissioners have before them an application from the governors to purchase the site in question, but before sanctioning the purchase they have required to be furnished with satisfactory evidence of the value of the site.

  IMPERIAL DEFENCES.
  SIR J. COLOMB: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the date of the communication, referred to by the Auditor General in his Report on the Imperial Defence Act, addressed by the Colonial Office to the Government of Queensland, respecting the non-ratification of the Australasian Agreement by that Government; whether any remonstrance or representations on this subject have been made to the Government of Queensland by any of the other Australasian Colonies who were parties to and who have ratified the said Agreement; and whether the correspondence will be presented to the House?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: A Despatch was, on October 31st last, addressed to Queensland and the other colonies concerned. The Secretary of State is not aware whether any representations have been made to Queensland by the other colonies. It seems hardly worth while to print the Circular Despatch of October 31st, but a copy of it shall be furnished to my hon. Friend.

  GRANTS TO VOLUNTEERS.
  MR. AINSLIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can explain on what grounds the grant of 12s. per efficient Volunteer is held to be enough for the provision of the equipments required under the regulations in the cases of country battalions; if he is aware that
  1062
  the lowest charge at which these equipments are procurable is 18s.; if he can make a distinction in favour of battalions whose detachments are widely scattered; if he is aware that the regulation which limits this grant of 12s. to efficients on the previous October will adversely affect those corps which were below their strength at that time; if also, in the case of the Volunteer Artillery the grant of 5s. has been found wholly insufficient, and, without including valises, does the required equipment cost fully 11s. 6d. per man; and if he can make a substantial increase upon the allowances alluded to?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: The special grant for the equipment of the Volunteers was intended to complete their equipment with which they were already partially supplied, and not to completely re-equip the Force. As regards the Infantry Volunteers, the articles deficient were taken to be braces, pouch, mess-tin, haversack, water-bottle, and carrier. These it was estimated last year could be obtained for 12s. A rise in prices has since taken place, and the sums are somewhat insufficient. Accordingly, the grant of 12s. will be increased to 15s. for those corps which wear buff, and to 13s. for those whose accoutrements are black or brown. As regards Artillery Corps, they were understood to be already in possession of a waist-belt and pouch, a frog, and a sling. The remaining equipment can, it is known, be obtained for 5s. Consequently it is not intended to increase that amount. Great-coats will, in many cases, be issued in kind, to the advantage of corps concerned. The grant of 30s. sanctioned for all future cases of increase of establishment will be made retrospective to April 1st, 1890.

  JOINT STOCK BANKS.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his proposals for a more frequent publication of the accounts of Joint Stock Banks are confined to the London Banks, or whether they extend to all the Joint Stock Banks in the United Kingdom?
  MR. GOSCHEN: My appeal for more frequent publication of the accounts of Joint Stock Banks was made without any distinction as to the locality of the banks; but I mainly had the London

  1063
  banks in view. I am glad to say that I have every reason to believe that the London Joint Stock Banks will consent to monthly publication. With regard to the country Joint Stock Banks, I understand, though they have the matter still under consideration, that they are in general reluctant to adopt a monthly publication, but would consent to a quarterly publication instead of half-yearly publication as at present in vogue.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I am informed that the action of the London banks will rather depend on what the country banks propose to do.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I understand that the London Joint Stock Banks have practically agreed to a monthly publication, subject to their agreeing on the particular form of account.
  MR. ATKINSON: May I ask whether the country banks have not unanimously decided for a three-monthly publication?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I understand that that was the recommendation of the Committee, but the country Joint Stock Banks themselves have still to be called together with reference to the final conclusion.

  SECOND CLASS TELEGRAPHISTS.
  MR. NEVILLE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General when his promise of increase of salary to the second class telegraphists, given in July last, is to come into operation in Liverpool; whether such clerks in Liverpool have been ordered to refund payments made to them on the faith of such promise; and whether the increment has already been granted to clerks in some towns; and, if so, why these towns are preferred to Liverpool?
  *MR. RAIKES: I am not aware of such a promise as that alluded to by the hon. Member. In July last I promulgated the scheme sanctioned by the Treasury, which changed the annual increment of second class male telegraphists throughout the Post Office Service from 1s. 6d. to 2s. a week. In order to do this it was necessary to fix a common date from which the new scale giving the new increment should commence, and to adjust the sums payable under the old system up to that date. I believe that in some few instances this
  1064
  rule was not properly observed, with the result that some incorrect payments amounting to a few pence had to be adjusted. I am not aware that the course indicated in the last part of the question has been adopted in any instance. The method of adjustment followed at Liverpool was adopted in every case in the application of the improved scales, and was in accordance with the Treasury Rules on the subject.

  THE CENSUS.
  MR. CAUSTON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board what steps will be taken in the coming Census to secure the enumeration of persons in London who will not be returned as having slept in any dwelling house or lodging house, but who may spend the night in the streets or in places not likely to come under the notice of the enumerators?
  *MR. RITCHIE: The Instructions to the enumerators require them to take an account, so far as possible, of any persons who may have been in their district during the night of the Census, although they may not have slept in any house. The period of the year makes it very improbable that any large number of houseless persons will be passing the night in the streets on the night in question.
  MR. CAUSTON: What is the nature of the information those persons will be called on to give the enumerators?
  *MR. RITCHIE: I presume the enumerators will ascertain as far as they can the same information from people in the streets as from people in houses.

  SCOTCH SCHOOL BOARDS.
  MR. SHIRESS WILLI beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether in view of the triennial elections of School Boards in Scotland now commencing, he can give the House any information as to the duties of returning officers at such elections; whether, looking to Section 53 of "The Elections (Scotland) Corrupt and Illegal Practices Act, 1890," repealing the 14th section of "The Elementary Education (Scotland) Act, 1872," it is now the duty of the returning officer (or of any and what other authority) at such elections, in every case of equality of votes, to determine which candidate is to be deemed

  1065
  duly elected; whether, looking to the repeal aforesaid, there is now any authority (under the existing provisions of the Education Acts affecting Scotland) for returning officers to hold or declare the candidates having the majority of votes duly elected, or to determine in every case of equality of votes which candidate is to be deemed duly elected, as was the law under the Act of 1872; if the 14th section of "The Elementary Education (Scotland) Act, 1872," is to any extent repealed, what are the duties of returning officers in relation to the matters above referred to; and whether any and what subsequent legislation takes the place of the directions given to returning officers in the Act of 1872?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): The duties of Returning Officers at School Board Elections are prescribed by the General Order of October, 1890, issued by the Scotch Education Department in virtue of the powers conferred on the Department under the Education Acts. Paragraph 20 of that Order provides for the case of an equality of votes. The Returning Officer is also, in pursuance of Paragraph 21, to make a return of the result of the poll and of the names, with place of abode and designation, of the persons elected, which must necessarily be based upon the number of votes obtained by the respective candidates.

  THE LABOUR COMMISSION.
  MR. BRYCEI beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in recommending to Her Majesty the names of persons to be appointed on the proposed Labour Commission, the Government will consider the desirability of placing on the Commission one or more women, having regard both to the large extent to which working women and their trade organisations are interested in any amendments of the laws relating to labour which may be suggested, and also to the fact that some of the questions likely to be dealt with by the Commission affect working women and children in a special and peculiar way?
  *THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): The Government have very carefully considered this question, and they have come to the conclusion
  1066
  that, on the whole, it is not advisable that women should be placed upon the Commission. All interests will doubtless be fully represented before the Commission.
  MR. BRYCE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his answer must be regarded as final, or whether it will be of any use to bring before the Government further evidence in the matter?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: Yes, Sir; I think my answer must be regarded as final.

  POACHING CASE.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the following facts relating to the case of William Lay cock, recently imprisoned for an alleged poaching offence by Hon. Harbord Harbord, at the North Walsham Petty Sessions; that Laycock was only served at 4 o'clock on a Monday afternoon with the summons requiring him to appear the following morning at 10.30; that, owing to this short interval, he was unable to obtain legal advice or secure the attendance of several witnesses material to his defence, and his application for an adjournment was refused; that the alleged offence was committed in Antingham Wood, which is within the jurisdiction of the Cromer Bench, and not of the North Walsham Bench; that the summons averred that Laycock was, "about the hour of 7," in a certain plantation, the property of Right Hon. Charles, Baron Suffield, which averment was found at the trial to have been altered to the defendant's disadvantage to "10 minutes past 7;" that the Hon. H. Harbord is the agent of Mr. Mundy (lessee of his brother, Lord Suffield), who prosecuted Laycock; and whether, having regard to the above facts, and to the fact that Laycock is an illiterate man, unable to read, he will advise a re-hearing of the case to enable him to be properly advised as to his defence, and to bring all his witnesses into Court?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am informed by the Clerk to the Justices that the summons was served at 4 o'clock the day before the hearing. The question as to time of service was not raised before the

  1067
  Bench, and no intimation was made by the defendant that he wished to procure legal assistance. Had he applied, an adjournment would undoubtedly have been granted for that purpose. The offence was committed within the jurisdiction of the North Walsham Bench. The summons averred that the offence took place about the hour of seven, and was not subsequently altered. I am informed that the Chairman is not the agent of the lessee. I have no power to order a re-hearing of the case. The man's imprisonment is now at an end.

  THE MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  MR. JACOBY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in consideration of the very great interest taken, both in and outside the House, in the Mines (Eight Hours) Bill, he will move the suspension for Wednesday, 18th March, of the Standing Order which prevents the continuance of any Debate upon Opposed Business after 5.30 p.m. on Wednesdays?
  *MR. W H. SMITH: The Government have come to the conclusion that it would not be right to ask the House to suspend the Standing Order in this case. A great necessity should be made out for the suspension of the Standing Order on Wednesday, as the early rising on that day is a great relief to the strain on hon. Members and the officers of the House.
  *MR. JACOBY: Is it not the fact that on Wednesday the 19th of June, and Wednesday the 3rd of July, the Standing Order was suspended?
  *MR. W H. SMITH: I have no doubt that the hon. Member is perfectly accurate in the statement he has made as to the suspension of the Standing Order.

  PRIVATE MEMBERS BILLS.
  MR. WALTER M'LAREN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether with a view to prevent the waste of time caused by counts out when Private Members' Motions are being discussed, the Government will consider the advisability of asking the House to alter the Standing Orders governing business on Tuesday nights so as to allow Private Members' Bills to take precedence of
  1068
  Motions, and on Friday nights, so as to allow more than one Division to be taken on Motions or Amendments on going into Committee of Supply?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: A strong case should be made out before any attempt is made to revise the Standing Orders of the House. At present I am not prepared to undertake that task.

  PRISONERS' EXERCISE IN IRELAND.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if there is any shed or open air shelter in Clonmel, Galway, Kilmainham, or Tullamore Gaols, where prisoners can take the two hours' exercise as required by the Irish Prison Rules?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The General Prisons Board report that the prisons mentioned, in common with others, contain no exercise sheds, the exercise being given in the open air, but sheds are available there for shelter from showers should the necessity arise.

  CONSTABULARY FORCE FUND.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the amount payable from the Constabulary Force Fund to the widow of a pensioner is calculated upon the amount of pay drawn by him while serving in the Force, and also upon the amount of pension drawn by him as a pensioner; if he is compelled to subscribe to the fund while serving in the Force; and whether if he does not subscribe when on pension his widow or his children have no claim upon the fund?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The amount payable from the Constabulary Force Fund to the widow of a pensioner is calculated upon the amount of pay drawn by him while serving, and (except in the case of pensioners who retired before April 1st, 1867) an addition is made in respect of the amount of pension drawn. All officers and men of the Force appointed prior to the Constabulary Act of 1883, are compelled by Statute to subscribe to the fund so long as they are actually serving. Subscription to the fund on the part of a pensioner is voluntary. It is the case that a married member of the Force must, in order to

  1069
  secure the existing claim of his wife or children against the fund, subscribe when on pension. The claim otherwise lapses.

  IRISH RELIEF WORKS.
  MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the relief works are about to be commenced at last in the County Cavan; and whether he will include among those works the roads for which presentments were refused by the Grand Jury, owing to the promise of the Government to start relief works?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not, as yet, been able to obtain Reports on this question; but in regard to the last paragraph, I have to say that I would strongly advise any Grand Jury to construct the works which they think are required in a county without consulting the action the Government may think it necessary to take.
  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 condition of a vast proportion of the population of the Gweedore district of Dunfanaghy Union; whether any part of Ireland can show a worse condition than is to be found in the Meenacladdy, Bloodyforeland, and Brinlack portions of this district; what measures he proposes for the relief of this misery; whether his attention has been called to the consequences that must result next year owing to the fact that no seed potatoes have been provided for the Gweedore district, and whether he purposes making provision to prevent the famine that must ensue next year if seed be not promptly provided now; and whether it is by any fault of the Poor Law Guardians of the district that no seed has been provided; and, if so, whether he can compel this Board of Guardians to perform their duty in this crisis, or whether he will take steps to save the people from the consequences of their neglect?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Careful attention is being paid to the condition of the Gweedore and other districts in the Dunfanaghy Union. Serious injury must undoubtedly result to the Gweedore people if they persist in their refusal to apply for seed potatoes. No
  1070
  blame appears to attach to the Board of Guardians in the matter. On the contrary, the Guardian who resides in the district had the necessary notices posted, detailing the steps to be taken to obtain a supply of seed; but not a single application was made. It is said that the parish priest, the Rev. James M'Fadden, has taken upon himself the responsibility of advising his people not to apply for any seed from the Guardians, and, if this be so, upon him must rest the responsibility for the results. The time within which seed potatoes may be obtained has been extended in this and certain other Unions up to April 2.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has considered the deep distress prevailing among the numerous small farmers in Kiltullagh and Ballinlough, in the Castlerea Union, County Roscommon; and what measures he proposes in order to afford them relief?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The condition of this district is engaging the attention of the Government.
  In reply to Mr. HOWORTH (Salford, S.),
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid: For the general scheme of railway construction in Ireland the Government are, on the whole, responsible, and primarily, of course, the Irish Government. The work, however, has to be constructed and negotiations carried on with the Board of Works, who are not under the Irish Government. Those are not circumstances which, in the ordinary course, would lead to a successful prosecution of novel and arduous business; but the Board of Works, as a matter of fact, have shown the greatest zeal and energy in carrying out the instructions or recommendations which I have made to them, and not only am I personally, but the public also, under a deep debt of gratitude to the Board of Works for what they have done in the matter.

  THE SEIZURE BY PORTUGAL OF A BRITISH VESSEL.
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government are in a position to give the House any information,

  1071
  in addition to that which has appeared in the public Press, as to the seizure of a British vessel on the Limpopo River?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): Information has been received from the Acting Governor of the Cape, and indirectly from the Consul at Delagoa Bay, that the steamer Countess of Carnarvon had been detained by a Portuguese in the Limpopo River on a charge of smuggling, and was being sent to Delagoa Bay. We do not know any more at present.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask whether the Lower Limpopo traverses territory admitted to be Portuguese; whether, by the laws of the Portuguese Province of Mozambique, through which lower river flows, no vessel may import arms or ammunition, either into the Province or through the Province to the interior, without a licence; whether the Countess of Carnarvon had that licence; whether, before the vessel is condemned as prize, there will not have to be a condemnation by a tribunal, at which it will be open to the owner of the vessel to appear; whether there is any Convention or Treaty now in force by which the right is secured to Her Majesty's ships to import arms and ammunition by the Limpopo, or to navigate that river to the sea; whether the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has approved of the alleged concession to exercise power and sovereignty in Manicaland granted to the South Africa Company by Mutassa, and whether the Charter granted to that company does not preclude them from exercising such power and sovereignty in Manicaland until such approval is granted; whether Manicaland does not form part of the territory where it was agreed by the Convention of last November?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The lower waters of the Limpopo are in territory recognised to be Portuguese; the importation of arms and ammunition into the Province of Mozambique is prohibited; we are not aware of the circumstances in which the Countess of Carnarvon was seized, except that it was on a charge of smuggling. If detained on that ground only, legal proceedings would have to be taken, and
  1072
  we should suppose that the persons charged would have an opportunity of defending themselves. In a case of smuggling there is no question of "prize." There is no Convention at present entitling Her Majesty's subjects to import arms by the Limpopo. The Secretary of State has not approved of a concession to the South Africa Company to exercise power and sovereignty in Mutassa's country, nor is the company doing so. Mutassa is an independent Chief, and is still governing his own territory. He has granted concessions to the company, and with his consent their police are keeping order among their own people. Manicaland, until its frontiers are surveyed and defined, is a loose geographical expression; and it cannot be at present declared to what extent it is affected by the terms of the modus vivendi. The question of the importation of arms is separate, and is not affected by the modus vivendi. The company's agents, as well as certain Portuguese officials, were at Mutassa's kraal before the date of the modus vivendi agreement. The capture of the latter took place shortly after that date, but before its signature was known in Manica.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATION—MR. STOREY.
  MR. STOREY: I desire, with the leave of the Speaker, to draw attention to a personal matter of some importance to me, though I am ill-disposed to intrude my personal affairs on the notice of the House. On Friday night the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. Wharton), whom I have always regarded as a friend, asked a question relating to some private legal proceedings in which I have been engaged at Sunderland. Now, I believe it is unusual, and certainly it would be very inconvenient in many cases if it were the practice, to ask questions in the House concerning the private affairs of other hon. Members. But even if it were the practice, it is only fair that notice of the question should be given in accordance with the practice of the House, so that the Speaker, or the other officials of the House, might have an opportunity of pronouncing whether it was a proper question or not. Still more unusual is

  1073
  it that such a question should be asked without any notice whatever being given to the Member most concerned. But on Friday night the question I refer to was not on the Notice Paper, but was nevertheless put in such circumstances. It was put at the end of the list of questions, and the Home Secretary bad evidently rehearsed the little play, because he rose at once with an answer pat to the question and gave it. I think, therefore, I have a right to complain of the course taken by the hon. Member for Ripon, especially in not giving me notice. I have sent the hon. Member notice that I intend to bring the matter forward to-day—to all the addresses I could find—the Oxford and Cambridge Club, the Carlton Club, and the House of Commons—the only addresses which appear in the books to which I have access. The only excuse, if any, the hon. Member can offer for raising the question on Friday was that a few nights before I had drawn attention to the conduct of the police of the County of Durham in regard to the famous baton charge. That charge took place on the 25th of February, and the proceedings in which my name was introduced related to an affair on the 20th February, so that the hon. Member could not even plead that justification for bringing the matter before the House. I hope the House will permit me to say, first, that it is quite correct that the case was tried before a Bench packed with my political opponents, and that I failed to sustain a charge of assault against the police. ["Oh!" and cries of "Order!"] Hon. Members opposite say "Oh." I make no complaint of the Magistrates who adjudicated on that occasion, but I may tell the House that the Magistrate who was in the chair was a gentleman whom the miners of Silksworth rejected for the County Council in favour of their own secretary; that the Magistrate next to him was a gentleman whom I defeated for the Borough of Sunderland, and that the two other Magistrates on the Bench "were openly and notoriously my political and personal opponents. ["Order, order!" and a VOICE: "Monstrous!"] "Monstrous," says an hon. Member opposite. Well, I will still further earn the censure of that hon. Gentleman by making another statement—that I do not think, considering the weaknesses of ordinary
  1074
  human nature, that the conduct of the Magistrates is much to be condemned or complained of on the occasion; but I will say this, that the evidence before the Magistrates——
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is entitled to complain of a question concerning him being put to the House without proper notice having been given, but he certainly would not be in order in re-trying the case in this House.
  MR. STOREY: I shall not, of course, seek to re-try the case; but I suppose I may be permitted to say that the evidence upon the case will be tested in another Court, composed of competent men of legal training—[Cries of "Order!"]—and, in these circumstances, I will venture to ask the hon. Member for Ripon to withhold his opinion until the facts—the real facts—have been placed before him and before the House.

MOTION.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: In rising to move the Resolution which stands in my name on the Paper, I may say I have heard that great objection has been raised to the Motion. But may I point out that the Parliamentary Session has already extended five weeks longer than is usual at this period of the year? The Motion is necessary in regard to Public Business, and is, therefore, made in the interests of the House and for the convenience of hon. Members, so as to enable the Government to prorogue Parliament many weeks earlier than usual—in July, in fact. Morning Sittings in April are, I may remind hon. Members, not unusual. There were three Morning Sittings in April, 1889; seven in May of the same year; four in April, 1890; and seven in May of that year. I am asking the House to give the Government seven Morning Sittings in the month of April, and this, I think, the circumstances of the case fully justify. The Government propose to proceed with the Irish Land Purchase Bill as the principal business directly after the Easter holidays, and I shall propose to take it on the first Thursday after the House has re-assembled unless some urgent business intervenes. The

  1075
  Budget will not be taken until some days later. It is important we should proceed with the Land Bill from day to day as, in order to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion on the question, the whole energies of the Government and of the House ought to be devoted to the Bill. I beg to move the Resolution on the Paper.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, unless the House otherwise order, the House do meet at Two of the clock on Tuesday and Friday, and that the provisions of Standing Order LVI. be extended to the Morning Sitting on those days."—(Mr. W. H. Smith.)
  MR. LABOUCHERE: There is no doubt that so much business is thrown upon the House that it is very difficult to find time for dealing with it. But it has been pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian that it is possible to overcome this trouble by adopting a system of derogation—a system which has been entirely ignored by the Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House is now asking us to give him the time of private Members up to Easter. What for? For a number of small Bills; and yet the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that he is very much behindhand in the matter of Supply. Why does he not attempt to put forward Supply? Simply because he is now doing what, with all respect to him, I must say he always does do—he is making a muddle of the business of the House. ["Oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen opposite cry "Oh!" Possibly they have not had the experience of former Sessions. Well, I am content to take the experience of this Session alone. We were told in the Queen's Speech that there was to be a Tithes Bill, a Land Bill for Ireland, a Free Education Bill, and a Small Holdings Bill. I imagine that the Free Education Bill and the Small Holdings Bill have entirely disappeared from the Government programme. Certainly, the right hon. Gentleman said nothing about them. He said he wished to Prorogue the House in July. Up to the present time we have passed the Tithes Bill through its various stages in this House and have sent it to the Lords. The Irish Land Bill has been read a second time, and various other measures have been carried.
  1076
  Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman cannot for a moment complain that he has met with any sort of obstruction from this side of the House. Now, if he were to say: I am anxious to Prorogue the House in July, and, therefore, I will give up the Small Holdings Bill, and the Free Education Bill, and will only attempt to pass the Land Bill, and I will devote these Morning Sittings to the discussion of the Estimates, I imagine we should be able to look with favour upon his present proposal. But that is what he has not done. We are told that up to Easter the Government intend to take these Morning Sittings simply for the sake of pushing forward a few small Bills, and the right hon. Gentleman in his speech said it depended upon ourselves—it depended upon whether we passed the Vote on Account to-night—whether we should or should not get the proposed Easter holiday. He told us that it was absolutely necessary that that Vote should be agreed to to-night, and so it is, unless the House of Lords are prepared to do what they have done over and over again—to suspend their Standing Orders, and to pass the necessary Bill in one or two days. The right hon. Gentleman knows there is nothing more easy than for a Government to induce the House of Lords to do this, and, no doubt, if we do continue the Debate on the Vote on Account after to-night, that will be the course which will be adopted. I quite admit that the Government have a right, by long usage, to ask for one Vote on Account every Session; but unfortunately they do not limit themselves to a single Vote. We know they have asked for repeated Votes on Account in past Sessions. We have a right to discuss every shilling of public expenditure on these Votes; but when these claims upon us are made so frequently, it becomes absolutely impossible for us to adequately discuss them. I can only say that if we give this Vote on Account to-night, the right hon. Gentleman must understand that if he asks us for further Votes on Account later in the Session, we shall discuss them as though we were debating the Estimates. I hold that the consideration of the Estimates ought not to be put off until the close of the Session. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that after Easter he is going to take the Land Bill

  1077
  from day to day. But, at the same time, it must be remembered that there is the Budget to bring in and matters connected with it, and I do not see, therefore, how, in the months of May and June, the Government will be able to devote any time to Supply. The fact is Supply will be postponed until July, and then it will not receive the discussion which ought to be devoted to it. Now, personally, I should have no objection to Morning Sittings being generally adopted by the House as part and parcel of the scheme for the management of its business. I never, myself, have complained of counts-out taking place. I have always thought that if an hon. Member wants to bring forward a Motion, he ought to be able to induce 40 of his Colleagues to attend and help him make a House. I never yet understood why the Government were expected to make Houses on private Members' nights. The original idea was that on Friday night the Government might hope by 10 or 11 o'clock to get into Committee of Supply and then would be able to get a considerable number of Votes passed, but when Effective Supply is not put down, I do not see why the Government should be called upon to make a House. It was once said—I think by Lord Palmerston—that the business of a subordinate Member was to make a House, to keep a House, and to cheer Ministers. Well the Government could send down a few subordinate gentlemen to help make a House, and if it sent down 10 it might legitimately be expected that the Opposition would supply the remaining 30 to make up a quorum. Now if from the beginning of the Session the Government would have Morning Sittings on Tuesdays and Fridays, and pledge themselves to devote those sittings to the discussion of Supply, I think it would be a very good plan, because then there would be no inducement for Conservative Members to obstruct the "Estimates, as the ordinary Government business could not possibly be interfered with. They would know perfectly well that in the end the House must sit on Tuesdays and Fridays until the Estimates were all passed. If the right hon. Gentleman would make a proposal of that sort I would support him, but I would object to the right hon. Gentleman always speaking of the
  1078
  Standing Orders of the House as if they were like the laws of the Medes and Persians, and yet interrupting and altering them to make them suit his convenience. I do not think at present that the business of the House is in such a condition as to justify the right hon. Gentleman in asking for these Morning Sittings, and I shall vote against his proposal unless we have an assurance that instead of the small Bills he has said he will take, he will put down the Estimates for discussion on Tuesdays and Fridays up till Easter, and give a reasonable number of days during the months of May and June for the discussion of similar matters.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I think the right hon. Gentleman draws rather largely on the pliability of the House, and I was rather amused at the nature of the precedents which the right hon. Gentleman quoted. The right hon. Gentleman did not go back to what took place in earlier years as to morning sittings on Tuesdays and Fridays. All the precedents which the right hon. Gentleman quoted were precedents which he has himself set. In regard to Morning Sittings, as well as in other respects, if the right hon. Gentleman had gone back 10 years he would have found that the Government were then much more moderate in the drafts they made on the patience and the willingness of the House. The strong point in the case of the right hon. Gentleman is that he declares he is animated by a desire to bring about the Prorogation in decent time in the month of July. I hope the month of July does not mean the 31st of July. I am disposed myself to give every reasonable assistance to the right hon. Gentleman. I make the concession to the right hon. Gentleman that I think he was right to a great extent in his contention that the House will derive advantage, in the case of an extensive and complicated measure like the Land Bill, from as much continuity as possible. But there are two things which I missed entirely in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and upon which I wish seriously to press him. One is that he did not give any assurance that it is the serious intention of the Government to put forward Supply at an early date

  1079
  and—whether the Prorogation be in July or in August—not to allow Supply to drift to the latest weeks of the Session. I think the House is entitled to have an explicit declaration from the right hon. Gentleman on that subject. The right hon. Gentleman slipped, if I may say so, with great facility and adroitness over the whole subject of keeping a House on Fridays. Now there is some misunderstanding on that matter. The obligation of the Government to keep a House on Fridays never did arise altogether or mainly out of the belief that it would be able to get effective Supply on that day. Undoubtedly that point was reported upon by the Committee that recommended the present plan, but the obligation arose in this way—that before the Order was made which required Supply to be taken as the first business on Fridays, it was necessary to make a Motion every Friday, "That this House at its rising do adjourn till Monday next," and on that Motion all the miscellaneous Motions were made by private Members which are now made on the Motion for going into Committee of Supply. The consequence is that it is always an obligation of the Government to keep a House on Friday nights, and when the change was made to the present system, that duty of the Government was recognised explicitly, and it is a total mistake to speak of the Government as being under no necessity to keep a House on Fridays. And over and over again on, I must say, the very rare occasions when the Secretary to the Treasury failed to keep a House on the Friday, the unfortunate Secretary to the Treasury, whoever he was, on coming down on the Monday had to stand before the House morally in a white sheet and make his apologies for having been unable on the occasion to fulfil the duty of the Government. Any attempt to deny or extenuate that duty was never made. It is an extremely difficult thing for private Members to make a House at 9 o'clock, but with the obligation of the Government recognised with regard to Fridays, they have at least one chance in the week, and that is the least to which they ought to be reduced. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not think I have used him unfairly, but on these two points we are entitled to ask for assurances which it
  1080
  is sincerely to be trusted he will be disposed to give.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member for Northampton made a proposition which is worthy of a little more consideration than has been given to it. The hon. Member suggested for the block of business in the House a remedy which is sometimes proposed by Railway Directors when there is a block on the railway. They sometimes proposed a double line, one for goods traffic and the other for passengers. The hon. Member for Northampton suggests that the Government business should go on the ordinary lines, but that a new line in the shape of Morning Sittings on Tuesdays and Fridays should be created in order to enable hon. Members to discuss Supply to their hearts' content. He pointed out that under these circumstances there would be no obstruction, since delay with the Estimates would not affect the ordinary business of the Government. But I think the hon. Gentleman will see that if the plan he suggests were adopted, it would take from the Government a great deal of their present responsibility and control with regard to the Estimates, because to establish the practice of taking Supply at Morning Sittings would be something equivalent to the course of business in Grand Committees. It has been found impossible for the Grand Committees to be conducted on Party lines, and for the Government to be certain of a majority, and consequently, if this were applied to Supply, the Government would have to consider themselves discharged from responsibility for this important business. I should like to know what would happen if, on some occasion when an hon. Member should find himself in a temporary majority in the Committee of Supply on Tuesday or Friday, the hon. Member were to get up and propose to diminish the Army by 30,000 troops? Supposing a proposition of this kind were carried, what would be the position of the Government of the day—unless, indeed, the hon. Member for Northampton accompanies his proposition by a further suggestion that the Government shall have the right to re-introduce any Vote on the occasion of the Report to the House. Let the House consider the position in which we find ourselves.

  1081
  The House, this Session, met at a much earlier date than usual, and it cannot be said that the Government have forced on the attention of the House any undue amount of public business. And, although we have been sitting for a considerable time, up to the present no practical progress has been made with Supply. We have, of course, not yet approached the questions arising out of the Budget, and we have two important Bills before us, one of which has not yet been approached in Committee. That makes it necessary for the Government to make this demand on our time at a confessedly early period of the Session, that not unnaturally leads to the wail that private Members are being robbed of their privileges. I venture to say that what is wanted is not more time. There is, under ordinary circumstances, quite sufficient time to deal with the ordinary business which is introduced by the Government, and also full time for the discussion of any important questions brought forward by private Members. But what is wanted is a better disposal of the time we have. The hon. Member for Northampton says there has been no obstruction during the present Session. Well, of course, one's definition of obstruction varies very much according to the side of the House on which one sits. But it will be the opinion, I imagine, of the great majority of the House that, at all events, much too great space of time has been given to unimportant matters, and that important matters have, consequently, been put aside; and, therefore, I submit to the House, for consideration at the proper time, the possibility, the desirability, of so amending the Orders as to give to the majority some greater control over the disposal, the division, of its time. In the American House of Representatives, where they found themselves face to face with a similar difficulty, they met it by a plan under which a Committee, which was called a Committee on Rules, reported to the House what time, in their opinion, should be allotted to the discussion of particular stages of Bills or particular Resolutions; and when that time was exhausted, then the vote on the Bill or on the Resolution was taken. I am perfectly convinced that a system of that kind would, in the long run, be found to work here, because,
  1082
  knowing exactly what proportion of the whole time of the House is allotted to a particular measure, the Opposition would arrange its discussion, and would take care that its strongest arguments and its best speakers have the opportunity to which they are entitled. Without some such disposal of the time, I am perfectly certain we shall continue to have these Resolutions of the Government in every Session, and probably at an earlier period in every Session, and that private Members will still continue to be without the facilities they desire.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: I should not have interfered in this Debate but for an observation made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian with regard to the obligation of a Government to keep a House on Friday night. I think the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten altogether what manner of man he was some years ago. I remember in days gone by when he was Leader of the House his contention was always the exact reverse, and now I am only too delighted to welcome him as a convert to my own views. It is perfectly true that when the alteration in the Rules of the House was made, whereby Supply was placed at the head of the Paper on Fridays, and the Motion for an Adjournment until Monday was got rid of, it was stated by Lord Palmerston that that would give Members of the House the full rights that they would have on any occasion when Supply was put at the head of the Paper. That was my contention, but it was resisted by the right hon. Gentleman on a memorable occasion, and when a Motion that "Mr. Speaker leave the Chair" had been agreed to, he refused to make the ordinary Motion from the Ministerial Bench that the House should resolve itself into a Committee of Supply. I fought that question with him before your predecessor (Mr. Denison) in the Chair, and he was good enough to decide in my favour, and declare that it was an obligation of the Government on such an occasion to renew the Motion for Supply. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion was defeated. When Mr. Speaker Brand was in the Chair the same question again cropped up, and the right hon. Gentleman again refused to renew the Motion that "the House

  1083
  resolve itself into a Committee of Supply." I myself then put a Motion on the Paper and argued it to the best of my ability. I was opposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, and Mr. Brand decided that, though there was no absolute obligation on the part of the Government to renew the Motion, it was, at all events, customary and, as a matter of course, ought to be done. Now we have tonight this position: The right hon. Gentleman, having changed sides in the House, has taken up the position which formerly he resisted. What I contended was that Her Majesty's Government were bound to make a House on Friday; and particularly when the House met again at 9 o'clock. But I never heard it contended that the obligation of the Government was to go further than that. They are only bound to keep a House for a reasonable time, and it cannot be expected that they will sit for two or three hours for the benefit of the speeches of hon. Members below the Gangway. My object in rising was to express my satisfaction that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian has taken the proper view that the Government are bound to make a House, but to add that they are not bound to do more than what is reasonable in this matter. If they keep a House for about an hour after 9 o'clock, I do not think they are called upon to extend their efforts any further.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: Sir, there are two distinct questions: the making of a House on Friday, and the keeping of a House for the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair, and the point raised in the setting up of Supply a second time. The First Lord of the Treasury said that there was no understood obligation on the part of the Government to set up Supply a second time, and the point which we wish to impress upon him is that the Government should make and keep a House until the Question is disposed of, "That the Speaker leave the Chair." As to the present state of business, I think you cannot point, in the last 10 years, to a 16th of March when the business of the Government was advanced up to this point. Three of the principal measures of the Government have been read a second time. One of the measures
  1084
  to which they attach great importance has passed through Committee of this House, and is coming from the other House, and in all probability the Amendments of the Lords will be disposed of before we adjourn for the Easter holidays. With reference to Supply, all the Supplementary Votes have been obtained except one or two. The great Votes for the Army and Navy have been obtained, and I think it would be difficult to find a year in which Supply has made the progress which it has made this year. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman when he proposes that the Speaker shall leave the Chair for the Civil Service Estimates? With all deference, I would suggest that some Votes should be taken before the Easter holidays. Are we to understand that the Irish Land Bill will not be taken until the Thursday, and that Monday and Tuesday will be taken for Supply after the Easter holidays?
  MR. STUART RENDEL: Can the right hon. Gentleman state on what day the House will be asked to consider the Lords Amendments to the Tithes Bill?
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGE: I wish to say a few words on behalf of hon. Members who, like myself, have to attend to other work besides that of this House. When I became a Member of this House it met at 4 o'clock. The hour was then brought down to 3, and it is still more inconvenient when 2 o'clock is fixed as the hour of meeting, though that inconvenience may not be felt by hon. Members who come from a distance and leave their business behind them. It is felt, however, by hon. Members who are at home in London and have their ordinary business to attend to. I think the object of the Government might be attained without inconvenience if they met at 3 o'clock on Tuesdays and took Government Business up to 8; the House might adjourn for half an hour as usual, and the evening sitting would commence at 9 and go on until 12. By this plan the Government will have as much time with private Members, only half an hour less than now, and we shall not be kept here until I. There have been five Counts-out this Session, and the Government have been attacked in the newspapers for not

  1085
  preventing them. I suggest that the Standing Orders should be altered, so that the effect of a count may be not to adjourn the House, but to pass to the next Order of the Day. In this way we shall escape from uninteresting subjects and dull speeches, and take up the next business of interest, or go on to Supply, for which Members will be ready to stop.
  DR. CLARK: I would point out that the course pursued by the hon. Members of the Government in counting out the House is one which retards Public Business. For four Friday nights I have put down a Motion regarding the grievances of Scotland. On three occasions the House was counted out. If the opportunity had been allowed me I could have dealt with the grievances of Scotland in one night's Sitting and in one speech; whereas I will now have to seek opportunities in Supply, and perhaps be compelled to make 20 speeches and take 20 Divisions. It is the junior Members of the Government who prevent Members coming in after dinner, when they see that there is no chance of getting Supply; and, of course, Members on this side of the House never think of leaving their dinner, or the Smoke Room, or Reading Room, because they expect the Government to keep a House. When you count out the House you will not prevent dull speakers from making speeches on the different Votes in Supply. The business of Supply is lengthened mainly because the Government allow the House to be counted out. Hon. Members must dine, and the half hour taken by the Chairman or Speaker is not sufficient. I think the course which has been adopted is a very unwise one, and prevents fair discussion.
  MR. BRYCE: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether the Civil Service Estimates will be taken first after Easter? There are several Motions down with regard to the Diplomatic Service of the Foreign Office, and we could hardly have a satisfactory discussion on the first day after the holidays. With regard to the suggestion thrown out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham in reference to the method adopted by the House of Representatives at Washington, I venture to suggest that it would only have
  1086
  the effect of making the majority of this House more tyrannical by putting larger opportunities of oppression into their hands. As to the other argument of my right hon. Friend, there would be no more danger of the Government being caught by a sudden Division in Supply than on a Bill. Why should not the Government keep a majority for Supply on Tuesdays and Fridays just as they will for the Irish Land Bill when it is in Committee?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: With the permission of the House, I will now reply to the questions that have been addressed to me. I have to thank hon. Members for the extremely valuable and varied advice I have received from them. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian that when the Counts-out took place there was such an obvious want of interest in the subjects before the House that the Counts-out were almost inevitable; but I do not see why hon. Members on the other side should have left the House at that particular time. To ask the Government to keep a House in such circumstance would be to increase against the Government the stringency of the existing Rule to an unreasonable extent. It is the duty of the Government to make a House for the first Motion on going into Supply on Fridays, and that they will continue to do. But it is only reasonable that hon. Members who make Motions should have some support from their own friends. The hon. Member for Caithness indicated that Liberal Members could not be expected to keep a House for Liberal Motions. If that be so, it is rather hard to expect his political opponents to do that which his own friends will not do. As to Supply being in a forward state, that is owing to the fact that, as Easter comes at an unusually early period this year, the Government are under the necessity of getting Supply as early as possible. The Government will certainly do what they can to make a House at 9 o'clock on Friday. As to the complaints about Votes on Account, we took two such Votes last year, one on March 21 and the other on May 23. There is no record in the last 20 years when so few Votes on Account were taken by any Government as by the present Government. I hope to be able to take the Lords' Amendments to the Tithe Bill

  1087
  on Friday next, but as the hon. Member is aware, the last stage of that Bill has not as yet been passed by the other House. Therefore I am not able to give any positive assurance, but I may refer to the matter to-morrow. As to the Civil Service Estimates, I hope we shall be able to get the Speaker out of the Chair on Monday next. The Civil Service Estimates will be taken on the Monday after the holidays. The hon. Member for Caithness has complained that he has not been allowed to make one speech instead of many. If the hon. Member would confine himself to one speech full opportunity will be given him to make it in lieu of the many he promised for other occasions. We should be only too glad to purchase the hon. Member's silence for the rest of the Session on these terms, and I hope for that purpose we shall have the cordial support of Members on both sides.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved, That, unless the House otherwise order, the House do meet at Two of the clock on Tuesday and Friday; and that the provisions of Standing Order LVI be extended to the Morning Sitting on those days.—(Mr. William Henry Smith.)

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE (EXEMPTION FROM THE STANDING ORDER).
  Ordered, That the Committees of Supply and Ways and Means be not interrupted, this night, under the Standing Order Sittings of the House, and may be taken at any hour, though opposed.—(Mr. William Henry Smith.)

  JOINT STOCK COMPANIES.
  Return ordered—
  "Of the names, objects, or business places where business is or was conducted; date of registration; number of persons who signed the Memorandum of Association; total number of shares taken up by such subscribers; nominal capital; number of shares into which it is divided; number of shares taken up; amount of calls made on each share; and the total amount of calls received of all Joint Stock Companies formed since the 1st day of January, 1890, to the 31st day of December, 1890, inclusive; distinguishing whether the Companies are limited or unlimited, and also the number of shareholders in each of the said Companies at the date of the last Return, and whether still in operation or being wound up.
  "Of the total number having their Registered Offices in the City of London, or within five miles of the General Post Office.
  "And, of the total number, and the paid-up capital, of all Registered Companies which are
  1088
  believed to be carrying on business at the present time."—(Sir Michael Hicks Beach.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 148.]

  FACTORIES (ACCIDENTS CAUSED BY SHUTTLES.)
  Address for—
  "Return of the number of Accidents to Men, Women, Young Persons, and Children caused by Shuttles flying from Power Looms, which have occurred in the Cotton, Woollen, Worsted, Flax, and Silk Trades in each of the years ended on the 31st day of October, 1879, 1885, and 1890, in the following form:—

  COTTON.
  1879.

  1885.

  1890.

  Number of Persons injured.

  Number of Power Looms.

  Number of Persons employed in factories where weaving is carried on.

  Number of Persons injured.

  Number of Power Looms.

  Number of Persons employed in factories where weaving is carried on.

  Number of Persons injured.

  Number of Power Looms.

  Number of Persons employed in factories where weaving is carried on.

  Children.

  Males under 18 years of age.

  Females above 13 years of age.

  Males above 18 years of age.

  Total number injured.

  Children.

  Males under 18 years of age.

  Females above 13 years of age.

  Males above 18 years of age.

  Total number injured

  Children.

  Males under 18 years of age.

  Females above 13 years of age.

  Males above 18 years of age.

  Total number injured.

  "And similar Returns for Woollen, Worsted, Flax, and Silk."—(Mr. Shepherd Cross.)

  EMIGRATION AND IMMIGRATION.
  Copy ordered—
  "Of Statistical Tables relating to Emigration and Immigration from and into the United Kingdom in the year 1890, and Report to the Board of Trade thereon."—(Sir Michael Hicks Beach.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 147.]

  EAST INDIA (INDIGO CULTIVATION).
  Address for—
  "Return of Correspondence between the Government of India and the Secretary of State for India, relating to the Cultivation of In digo in Bengal."—(Mr. Howorth.)

  MAURITIUS (EX-SULTAN ABDULLAH OF PERAK).
  Address for—
  "Return of Correspondence between the Government of Mauritius and the Colonial Office with reference to the case of the ex-Sultan Abdullah of Perak."—(Mr. F. S. Stevenson.)

  NEW WRIT.
  For the County of Sligo (Northern Division), v. Peter Macdonald, esquire, deceased.—(Mr. Donal Sullivan.)
MOTIONS.

  PRESUMPITON OF LIFE LIMITATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of the Lord Advocate, Bill to amend the Law of Scotland as regards Presumption of Life, ordered to be brought in by the Lord Advocate and Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 248.]

  RETURNING OFFICERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of the Lord Advocate, Bill to regulate the charges of Returning Officers at Parliamentary Elections in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by the Lord Advocate and Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 249.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1890–91.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  CLASS III.
  1. £150,000, Constabulary Force, Ireland.
  *MR. H. H. FOWLER: We are asked to grant £150,000 to make good a possible deficiency. The Royal Irish Constabulary have their pensions voted direct by Parliament. The amount this year is £305,388, but this fund forms no part of the superannuation fund at all; it is a separate fund called the Police Reward Fund, or the Constabulary Force Fund. It was created originally by fines of the police, and by a reduction of their pay by 10s. per cent. The time has actually not arrived when the fund is insufficient to meet its liabilities. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that contingency may arise, and yet we are asked, without having a single fact or figure placed before us, to vote this £150,000. I would submit to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Committee that we are, at all events, entitled to know the present condition of the fund. Parliament is entitled to know exactly what are the assets and liabilities of the fund. If there is a deficiency let Parliament annually vote the sum. I think this is a dangerous precedent, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not press the Vote this evening.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): I am not surprised at the view which is taken by the right hon. Gentleman. No doubt there have been laches in the past, and while the present Government believe that no obligation has been incurred, past Irish Governments have allowed the idea to grow up in the Force that practically there is an obligation to meet any deficiency. The Force is uneasy with regard to the solvency of the fund, and the unhappy position is this, that while the members of the Force have been encouraged to believe they are safe, Parliament may theoretically, nevertheless, reject the responsibility. I think that would be a very serious thing for Parliament to do. It does not seem to me to be a good suggestion that we should leave the matter open from year to year, neither getting the benefit of freedom from liability nor increasing the confidence of the Force. I must say I think the course we have taken is the soundest course. We are not going to hand over the money, but we are going

  1091
  to say we have provided for any deficiency. We have at all events taken a course which is somewhat inconvenient to ourselves, as it raises the expenditure of the year, but we have done so because we think it is the soundest course we can adopt. I cannot state exactly what the assets are; but I can say that few questions, if any, have given us more anxiety, and there are few which we have examined in greater detail. We should not feel justified in taking a smaller sum than this. I think the right hon. Gentleman will do me the justice to believe that if I had not thought it wise and necessary to increase the expenditure of this year, which is already very large, by asking Parliament to assent to this sum, I should not have given my assent to this Vote. I cannot accept the view that the Vote ought to be withdrawn, as it would give the impression to the Force that Parliament was doubtful about its obligation to pay. Parliament should either repudiate that obligation or pay; but it would be unwise to halt between the two opinions.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: The right hon. Gentleman has told his story clearly, although he has not given the details my right hon. Friend has asked for. But it is clear from the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman that nobody feels more strongly than he does how unfortunate has been the story of the past. As far as I can see, the concessions that have been made to the Constabulary have been made by the Executive and not under statute. We have been objecting very much to a large liability being laid upon subsequent Parliaments with regard to ships and guns; but in the case of ships and guns, the policy can alter from year to year, and we thought that Parliament ought to have an opportunity of reviewing it. With all respect to my right hon. Friend, I do not see the same objection in this case if we are quite certain that the scale of gratuities, allowances, and rewards, is fixed for ever—at any rate that the maximum is fixed. I think it is not only desirable, but absolutely necessary, that the Secretary for Ireland or the Secretary to the Treasury should speak most positively on this point. Nobody knows better than those who have been at the Irish Office what great pressure is put on the
  1092
  Government to increase the allowances for gratuities of this sort; and if the Government acquiesces in what I cannot but describe as the self-denying policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in putting all this sum on himself in one year, it should be on the distinct understanding that there shall be no increase at all in these allowances. I cannot help paying a tribute on this subject to the great financial and administrative abilities of Sir Robert Hamilton, and pointing out that if he was not the first to see, he most clearly, of all who had preceded him, saw through the objects of the administration of the fund, for it was while he was at Dublin Castle, in 1883, that the liabilities of the Fund were brought to an end.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): We are fully alive to the dangers which have been pointed out. Undoubtedly there has been laxity in the administration of the fund in the past, but whether this is due to the Irish Government or the Treasury I will not pause to inquire. But the members of the Constabulary Force are in no way responsible for the regulations. They are bound by statute to contribute to this fund. The amount of the gratuities is settled for them, and we are bound in honour to see the transaction is a prudent one. If the transaction is financially rotten the burden should fall on the Government and not on the men. The lesson, however, will not be thrown away on the Irish Government or on the Treasury, and the Committee need be under no apprehension that the evils which have occurred in the administration of the fund in the past will be repeated.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I will supply the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton with full details in regard to the assets and liabilities, but he is acquainted with the character of the gentlemen who have been inquiring into these questions, and he may be assured that the Estimates have been very carefully scrutinised.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: It seems to me very astonishing that there is not a single Irish Member in the House when this Vote is being discussed. We have frequently to complain that we are persistently

  1093
  voting money for Ireland, and I think we ought to have some statement from the Irish Members as to whether they consider this Vote legitimate and proper.
  Vote agreed to.

  CLASS VI.
  2. £3,915, Supplementary, Superannuations and Retired Allowances.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government have any intention of introducing the Bill with regard to superannuation? It was introduced two years ago, but not last year, and, as a Member of the Royal Commission, which took a great deal of pains to see that superannuation should be put on a proper basis, I am anxious that the question should be properly dealt with.
  *MR. GOSCHEN: It is a source of regret to the Government that they have not been able to deal with this question. I have this year again been over some of the clauses of the Bill, endeavouring to see whether we can secure the most indispensable conditions without putting into the Bill provisions which would excite opposition, such as we might not eventually be able to overcome, and which would greatly delay the progress of the measure. We will endeavour to pass that Bill whenever we see a reasonable chance of making progress with it.
  MR. BARTLEY: Under this Vote is an item of £1,000 as a pension for Sir J. P. Hennessy, granted on account of ill-health. I wish to know whether his Excellency is not well enough to resume his duties; whether he is the same person as the hon. Member for Kilkenny; and how it happens that a pension as ex-Governor does not disqualify for a seat in the House of Commons while a pension in the Civil Service does disqualify? Under what statute is the exception made?
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he could not bring in some Bill throwing the burden of pensions for ex-Governors upon the colonies? At present, while it is laid down as a principle that we are not to pay the salaries of the Governors of most of our colonies, we are called upon to pay for
  1094
  their pensions. I always understood that the theory of a pension was that it was deferred salary, and if the colonies pay one portion of the salary, why should they not be called upon to pay the other portion which is given under the guise of superannuation allowances. I have not the slightest doubt that the hon. Member for North Kilkenny is labouring under such ill-health, as, though it permits him to take part in the proceedings of the House of Commons, would not justify him in risking his valuable life in the colonies. I am not in the least complaining of this, still, as there happens to be in this Vote a pension of £1,000 per annum for him, said to have been granted on the ground of ill health, I should like to know what sort of certificates are demanded before Governors obtain these pensions, and how long the certificate remains in force? Does it have to be renewed every year, or does the certificate relieve from service for the future altogether. Possibly, under the influence of the excellent atmosphere of this House, his Excellency's health may so improve as to enable him to again undertake the functions of the Colonial Governor, and I want to know whether it is possible to call upon him to do so? Speaking generally, I think we ought to have some sort of understanding about this matter. I have seen a good many diplomatists, and other Civil servants, going about in what appeared to me to be a most enviable state of health, and yet they have been for many years enjoying pensions.
  MR. T. H. BOLTON: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will also tell us upon what principle these superannuations are granted. I see that an hon. Member of this House (the Member for North Kilkenny) has obtained a pension of £1,000 a year for 20 years' service upon a salary of £5,000; whereas a very distinguished Colonial Governor—Sir Hercules Robinson—perhaps one of our most distinguished Colonial Governors—has, after a service of 35 years, and after receiving a larger salary of £7,000, only been granted a like amount of pension. That seems to me to be somewhat inconsistent. In one case, I admit, the retirement was on the ground of ill-health, and the other on the ground of

  1095
  age; but the age of the two retiring Governors did not differ very much, Sir Hercules Robinson being 65 years of age, and the Member for North Kilkenny 56 years. As to the question of ill-health, if an hon. Member can go through an exciting election contest such as took place in North Kilkenny at the end of last year, and can undertake the fatiguing business of this House, I do not think his condition is so serious as would seem to be implied by the granting of a pension of £1,000 a year on the ground of ill-health. There are a few other pensions in this Vote which are open likewise to observation. I see there is one pension of £900 a year granted upon a salary of £1,250, and another pension of £700 only granted upon a salary of £2,000. In the one case there was 31 years' service, and in the other 32 years' service. It is very difficult to understand the principle upon which these superannuations are granted, and I think this Vote, therefore, requires a little explanation. I am not opposing the Vote, nor am I suggesting that the pensions are unjustifiable. I am only asking for information upon the points I have mentioned.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): The hon. Member for Islington was wrong in stating that there is any difference between a pension in the Civil Service and one in the Colonial Service. A Civil Service pension does not disqualify for a seat in the House of Commons. The Treasury has the power to call up for service again servants who have retired on a pension on account of ill-health. All these pensions are defined by statute; and, as to the case of Sir H. Robinson, he received the highest pension which the statute provides for ex-Colonial Governors.
  MR. BARTLEY: I was for over 20 years in the Public Service myself, and when I retired I was told by the Prime Minister of the day that if I had a pension granted to me—which I did not—it would have to be abandoned if I entered the House of Commons. That Prime Minister was a Conservative. I think the general opinion amongst Civil servants is that they cannot retain their pensions and sit in the House of Commons. Surely there ought to be one rule for everyone, and unless I
  1096
  receive a more satisfactory explanation, I shall move the reduction of the Vote.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Evidently a Tory Minister has done one good service, because he has saved his country from paying a pension to the hon. Gentleman opposite, who apparently has done very well without it. But the Secretary to the Treasury did not answer my question, namely, why these pensions are not paid by the colonies. I can only repeat my contention that they are a portion of the salary which the colonies are called upon to pay.
  *MR. JACKSON: Until the hon. Member or someone else alters the law, the Treasury must continue to pay the pensions of Colonial Governors. The duty is imposed by statute. The hon. Member for Islington will find it most distinctly stated in Acts 32 & 33 Vict that Civil Service pensions do not disqualify for seats in the House of Commons.
  Vote agreed to.

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
3.£90,000, Post Office.
CIVIL SERVICES, 1890–91 (EXCESSES).
4.£5,885 10s. 11d., Civil Services (Excesses).
SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.

  VOTE ON ACCOUNT.
  5. Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £3,917,003, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charges for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1892, viz:—

CIVIL SERVICES.

  CLASS I.
  £

  Royal Palaces and Marlborough House

  6,000

  Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens

  16,000

  Houses of Parliament Buildings

  5,000

  Admiralty, Extension of Buildings

  4,000

  Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain

  11,000

  Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain

  5,000

  Diplomatic and Consular Buildings

  9,000

  Revenue Department Buildings

  56,000

  Public Buildings, Great Britain

  30,000

  Surveys of the United Kingdom

  40,000

  Harbours, &c. under Board of Trade, and Lighthouses abroad

  4,000

  Peterhead Harbour

  5,000

  Caledonian Canal

  1,000

  Rates on Government Property (Great Britain and Ireland)

  90,000

  Public Works and Buildings, Ireland

  40,000

  Railways, Ireland

  100,000

  CLASS II.
  United Kingdom and England:—

  House of Lords, Offices

  4,000

  House of Commons, Offices

  5,000

  Treasury and Subordinate Departments

  15,000

  Home Office and Subordinate Departments

  15,000

  Foreign Office

  6,000

  Colonial Office

  7,000

  Privy Council Office and Subordinate Departments

  2,500

  Board of Trade and Subordinate Departments

  30,000

  Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade

  3

  Board of Agriculture

  8,000

  Charity Commission

  7,000

  Civil Service Commission

  7,000

  Exchequer and Audit Department

  10,000

  Friendly Societies, Registry

  1,500

  Local Government Board

  27,000

  Lunacy Commission

  2,000

  Mercantile Marine Fund, Grant in Aid

  ——

  Mint (including Coinage)

  20,000

  National Debt Office

  2,500

  Public Works Loan Commission

  1,500

  Record Office

  4,000

  Registrar General's Office

  110,000

  Stationery Office and Printing

  70,000

  Woods, Forests, &c., Office of

  6,000

  Works and Public Buildings, Office of

  8,000

  Secret Service

  6,000

  Scotland:—

  Secretary for Scotland

  2,000

  Fishery Board

  4,000

  Lunacy Commission

  1,600

  Registrar General's Office

  15,000

  Board of Supervision

  1,500

  Ireland:—

  Lord Lieutenant's Household

  1,000

  Chief Secretary and Subordinate Departments

  7,000

  Charitable Donations and Bequests Office

  400

  Local Government Board

  15,000

  Record Office

  1,000

  Public Works Office

  10,000

  Registrar General's Office

  5,000

  Valuation and Boundary Survey

  6,000

  CLASS III.
  United Kingdom and England:—

  Law Charges

  8,000

  Miscellaneous Legal Expenses

  6,000

  Supreme Court of Judicature and Land Registry

  65,000

  Land Registry

  1,000

  County Courts

  10,000

  Police Courts (London and Sheerness)

  3,000

  Police, England and Wales

  10,000

  CLASS IV.
  United Kingdom and England:—

  Public Education, England and Wales

  820,000

  Science and Art Department, United Kingdom

  50,000

  British Museum

  27,000

  National Gallery

  3,000

  National Portrait Gallery

  600

  Learned Societies, United Kingdom

  5,000

  Universities and Colleges, Great Britain

  10,500

  London University

  3,000

  Scotland:—

  Public Education

  160,000

  National Gallery

  400

  Ireland:—

  Public Education

  180,000

  Endowed Schools Commissioners

  200

  National Gallery

  300

  Queen's Colleges

  500

  CLASS V.
  Diplomatic Services and Consular Services

  100,000

  Slave Trade Services

  1,500

  Colonial Services, including South Africa

  25,000

  Cyprus, Grant in Aid

  — —

  Subsidies to Telegraph Companies, &c.

  16,000

  CLASS VI.
  Superannuation and Retired Allowances

  120,000

  Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions, &c.

  1,000

  Friendly Societies Deficiency

  — —

  Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances, Great Britain

  500

  Pauper Lunatics, Ireland

  70,000

  Hospitals and Charities, Ireland.

  4,000

  CLASS VII.
  Temporary Commissions

  7,000

  Miscellaneous Expenses

  1,000

  Pleuro Pneumonia

  — —

  Total for Civil Services

  £3,247,000

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
Customs

100,000

Inland Revenue

100,000

Post Office

100,000

Post Office Packet Service

20,000

Post Office Telegraphs

350,000

Total for Revenue Departments

£670,000

Grand Total

£3,917,003

MR. F. S. STEVENSON: On this Vote I take the opportunity of asking some questions of the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and of calling attention to certain matters relating to the condition of affairs in Armenia. It is within the knowledge of the Committee that a few weeks ago a White Book appeared, giving an account of what has taken place in Armenia during the past year, and I asked the right hon. Gentleman why no Despatches were contained in this White Book dictating or recommending a policy, or making any actual suggestion as to what ought to be done by Sir William White and those under him in Armenia? The reply given me was to the effect that as far back as the 20th January, 1890, a Despatch had been sent from the Foreign Office including certain recommendations, and these were in the nature of standing recommendations, and there was no necessity to send a special Despatch. But I venture to think that if hon. Members will look at this White Book relating to Armenia, they will find in it a record of a state of thing's so serious, a condition of affairs so grave, that it must be matter of surprise that active steps were not taken here in London to bring about a remedy for the grievances of the Armenian population. It cannot be too often brought to our memory that our interest in the affairs of Armenia is not one of a purely sentimental character. We are bound by two distinct Treaty obligations, in the first place, in common with the other signatory European Powers, by the 61st Article of the Berlin Treaty, in which the Porte undertook to carry out certain reforms in Armenia, and to protect the Christian people against the depredations of the Kurds and Circassians, and in the next place we are bound more expressly and more emphatically by the Cyprus Convention of 1878, under which a special obligation
1100
was imposed on this country, of seeing the reforms carried out in Armenia and in other parts of the Turkish Empire. We are under this double obligation, the one we share in common with other European nations, and in a special sense by the stipulations of the Cyprus Convention. That being so, what is the state of things revealed in this White Book, published a few weeks ago? The first observation that occurs to me is that many of the matters which have formed the subject of Question in this House find full corroboration in the statements made, in spite of the very imperfect information that exists at headquarters. I take the opportunity to say that so far as the conduct of Mr. Clifford Lloyd can be judged by the Papers, he did his best under very trying circumstances. This I say not merely out of deference to the sentiment expressed in the proverb de mortuis nil nisi bonum; the perusal of his Despatches will convince any reader that the reforms he recommended were defeated by the apathy of the Government at Constantinople, and by the fact that he was not backed as he should have been by the Foreign Office. When we look at what Mr. Clifford Lloyd has written and know what he did, we are driven to the irresistible conclusion—that although there were certain objections to his being sent on his mission to Armenia, yet for his action while there high praise should be bestowed upon him. What do we find to be the purport of these Despatches of Mr. Clifford Lloyd? A state of things is revealed and explained at great length, with clearness and fulness of detail on page 80 of these Papers. There will be found a series of recommendations put forward by Mr. Clifford Lloyd based on the information he possessed of the condition of affairs in that country. The sufferings of the people, he said, proceeded from three direct causes: first, the insecurity of their lives and properties owing to the habitual ravages of the Kurds; secondly, the insecurity of their persons, and the absence of all liberty of thought and action; and, thirdly, the unequal status held by the Christian as compared with the Mussulman in the eyes of the Government. So far as the lives and liberties of the people are concerned, the statement finds full confirmation

1101
in earlier Despatches. Thus, on February 12, 1890, Mr. Clifford Lloyd, writing from Erzeroum, refers to a very signal instance—the imprisonment of certain Armenians—and the case is remarkable. He says—
"In my Despatch dated the 31st January 1890, I alluded to the fact of there being in the gaol at Erzeroum five Armenians awaiting the confirmation of a sentence of exile for life to some portion of the Turkish Empire on a charge of sedition. I have caused inquiry to be made into the case of these persons, and, though it is extremely difficult to obtain reliable information, I learn from various sources, independent one of the other, that the offence of four of the prisoners consisted in having been found in possession of 'national songs,' and that of a fifth, a priest, in having had in his house a history of Armenia published in Venice. These men have been for about two years already in prison. There is good reason to believe that the case of these unfortunate prisoners is no uncommon one. In fact, a high Turkish official informed me that some 30 Armenians, similarly charged and sentenced, had lately been deported from Erzeroum to their respective destinations."
This in itself affords sufficient confirmation of the Minute submitted on October 2nd. The great bulk of the Despatches are made up of three incidents. One is the trial of Armenian political prisoners, and upon this I will only say in reference to the so-called amnesty given by the Sultan that the latest information of a few days ago is to the effect that the great bulk of the prisoners are still in prison; another section of the Despatches is devoted mainly to the incident at Koum Kapou, which I do not propose to dwell upon; and a third section of the Despatches has reference to disturbances at Erzeroum, there being numerous Despatches relating to that subject. But the sum and substance of the Despatches is contained in the long Minute from Mr. Clifford Lloyd, dated October 2nd, 1890. Mr. Clifford Lloyd points out that as late as June 20th, 1890—
"A Mussulman mob attacked unoffending Armenians in the streets of Erzeroum, killing and wounding many, and at the same time pillaging their houses and shops; but up to date no steps of any kind have, to my knowledge, been taken to prosecute the guilty persons."
This is convincing proof, I think, that many of the statements which have been made in the Press as to the condition of affairs in Erzeroum were founded on fact so far as the main features were concerned; but, of course, in the state of
1102
things existing, no one can bind himself to the accuracy of details, and there, of course, the Oriental imagination plays a part. But we have to judge of the sum total of the evidence before us, and the general tendency of these Despatches, and I say these Despatches confirm Reports made by distinguished travellers and missionaries who have watched the condition of affairs with the eyes of utter impartiality. There is the testimony of Mrs. Bishop, formerly Miss Bird, who, in a letter, says she had passed through Kurdistan and through the country of the Nestorians and Armenians, and could bear testimony to the increasing ravages of the Kurds and the total want of protection given by the Government to the Christians in the villayets of Van, Tiflis, and Erzeroum. This is similar to the evidence of other travellers conversant with the condition of affairs. A good deal has been said upon another point—the arming of the Kurds—and this, during the last few weeks, has taken a special form. It appears that the Governor is enrolling a regiment of these Kurds, and the answer given by the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and which we may take to be the Turkish official defence of this step, is that by this means it is hoped these Kurds will be made more amenable to discipline, and their habits of ravage and pillage will be controlled. But I think, on the contrary, there is every reason to regard the proceeding with the utmost distrust. There is too much reason to believe that the enlistment of these Kurds very much resembles the enlistment of Bashi-Bazouks. The right hon. Gentleman said the experiment is one that will be watched with the greatest attention, but I think some very energetic steps should be taken at Constantinople for the purpose of inducing the Turkish Government to interfere in this matter, which involves a violation of the 61st Article of the Treaty of Berlin, which states that the Armenians are to be protected against the depredations of these Kurds. But here we find the Turkish Government, instead of giving this protection to the people, entrusting the Armenian people to the tender mercies of these armed Kurds. Why, this is like entrusting the sheep to the custody of the wolf. I cannot see how

1103
this proceeding can commend itself to this country, which has definite, moral, and Treaty obligations to see that justice is done to these Christian populations. We find if we turn to this Despatch of of Mr. Clifford Lloyd, of which I have spoken, we find that he confirms what has been reported from other quarters, that these Kurds have for a long time been receiving arms from Turkish officers. Mr. Clifford Lloyd says—
"The result is that this summer the valley (Alashgird) has again been overrun by the Kurds, who, here as in other parts of Kurdistan, openly declare that their action meets with the approval of the Turkish Government."
Instances are to be found scattered through the whole of these official Papers; and taking them altogether, although there may be inaccuracies pointed out which is to be expected from the remoteness of some of the districts and the difficulty of obtaining information, they represent the state of things which has been confirmed by other evidence, and the whole condition of things in Armenia represents a state of oppression and terrorism which is a disgrace to the controlling Government, and would be a disgrace to any nation under the sun. I do not wish to dwell on details, but I must say it is remarkable that throughout these Papers there is not a single Despatch from the Foreign Office except of a purely formal character, no Despatch anywhere laying down a statement of the policy which ought to be observed; and although the Under Secretary has referred to a previous Despatch contained in a previous Blue Book giving instructions for Her Majesty's Representative to carry out, yet I think that the Despatch is not of such a permanent binding character as to be applicable at such a distance of time to the very serious matters that have occurred in Armenia since. I think the Foreign Office should take a more active interest in this subject, seeing the obligations we are under by the stipulations in the Cyprus Convention, which have never been repudiated, as we find from statements made by the Foreign Secretary and Under Secretary. What is our position in Constantinople? Undoubtedly Mr. Clifford Lloyd appears to have been supported by Sir W. White. Of this there can be no serious doubt, but the question is whether Sir W. White has
1104
been supported by our Foreign Office. Time was when we had great influence in Constantinople in the days of Lord Stratford de Redcliffe and others, but then behind our Ambassador was the strong support of our Foreign Office. I think if there was energetic support now there would be some progress in carrying out reforms in the Government of the Christian population of the Turkish Empire. Perhaps the Under Secretary can give us some definition of the view the Foreign Office take of the Cyprus Convention of 1788? In the second place, I would ask him to give some sort of pledge that they will take more active steps than in the past they have taken to support the action of Sir W. White in Constantinople to encourage him in the course he is disposed to take. Thirdly, I would like to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether, and to what extent, the Foreign Office are acting upon the 61st Article of the Treaty of Berlin; whether they are making any attempts to enter into negotiations with the other Powers—signatories to the Berlin Treaty—to carry out the reforms contemplated by that Article in Asia Minor. Apart from the injustice to Armenians in the present administration of the Province, it is a source of weakness to the Turkish Empire, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman for an expression of opinion. Does he not think that a large measure of autonomy would strengthen the Turkish Government in Asia Minor? There can be no doubt of the capacity of the Armenians for self-government when we remember that many of the officials at Constantinople are of Armenian birth; that Loris Melikoff, in the service of Russia, is an Armenian, as is also Nubar Pasha. The only valid argument against putting the Administration of Armenia into the hands of the Armenians is that the Armenian population is not sufficient to justify it. But the figures and statistics on this subject are of a misleading character and contradictory. This may be said of the computations made in the Despatch of May 14 on these Papers. Very little actual importance can be attached to them. The nomadic tribes of Kurds who commit these ravages may be left out of the calculation of the settled population. The quiet law-abiding people

1105
belong to the Armenian race, and they give to the country whatever stability it possesses; they are the working classes, and they are the wealthy class, and they should be entrusted with local administration. From the carrying out of these reforms the Turkish Empire will acquire strength and stability, but the ultimate result of a refusal of these reforms can only be to throw Armenia into the hands of Russia, a consummation we ought to do our best to avert.
MR. G. LEVESON-GOWER: I am sure I shall express the feeling of the House when I say that I share the regret the Government must feel at the decease of Mr. Clifford Lloyd, and that the country has experienced a great loss in being deprived of the ability, zeal, and activity of the late Consul in Armenia. I daresay it will occur to the right hon. Baronet that not so very long ago in one of his speeches, delivered with that verve and sarcastic humour for which the Prime Minister is well known, and upon which not so many years ago he was complimented by Lord Beaconsfield, Lord Salisbury, speaking to the Associated Chambers of Commerce, remarked upon the inutility and undesirability of remonstrating with a Foreign Power except in such cases where we were prepared to back our remonstrance with physical force. I daresay it may appear to the right hon. Baronet that the course we are taking is somewhat inconsistent with that position. For my own part, I think true diplomacy consists in using the eyes and the ears much, the tongue little, and the hands less. But I think my hon. Friend has shown that in the case of Armenia there are special reasons why this country—I do not say should intervene—but should use every effort within our power to induce the Porte to grant a better Government and remove some of the elements of misrule. In the Cyprus Convention there are stipulations that certain reforms shall be introduced, and they are conditions of our assistance for the defence of the Asiatic frontier. Such reforms do not imply a brand new Constitution according to the ideas of Western Europe, but a practical working system of administration suited to the country and the condition of the population under which the people may be secured tolerable good government and protection
1106
to life and property. The evidence is conclusive that they have nothing of the kind at the present time. One principal object should be to restrain the raids of the Kurdish tribes, who have ever been nomadic robbers. There should be an impartial administration of justice as between Christian and Mussulman populations, and the religious and educational privileges of the Armenians should not be interfered with as they are now under pretence of stopping seditious and revolutionary movements. We have to try and see that these lamentable outrages which constantly occur shall be put down, that the extortions on the part of the minor officials of the Turkish Government, under the guise of levying taxes, may be put an end to, and that the Christian population of that part of Turkey shall not be looked upon as sheep appointed to the slaughter. Lastly, there is one great grievance of which they complain—and to my mind justly complain—and that is, that the most frivolous and unsatisfactory reasons are enough to cause them to be sent into imprisonment or exile. Now, what are the means by which these grievances can be put an end to? The best means by which this could be attained would be to have a Christian Governor who should be assisted by a mixed gendarmerie force—I mean a force in which some proportion of the officers and men should be Christians. The Mussulman population, being in the majority, might urge certain objections to this plan; but I believe the improvement in the condition of the country that would result from the appointment of an able and energetic Christian Governor, with the corresponding improvement of their own property, would soon reconcile the Mussulmans to such a state of things. There is another reason for adopting such a plan. It would be easier for a Christian Governor to be impartial in his decisions of suits, for it is well known that although by the Constitution, as my hon. Friend pointed out, there is a nominal and apparent equality between Mussulmans and Christians, in practice that is very far from being the case, because the Koran does not admit the evidence of a Christian as against that of a Mussulman; and if the Governor is a religious man, he is bound

1107
to follow the precept of his religion in this matter. If there were any evidence of partiality being shown by a Christian Governor towards his co-religionists it would be sure to find its way to Constantinople, where it would be thoroughly sifted. Of course, if it is impossible, owing to the prejudices of the Mussulman people, to have a Christian Governor, we must, I suppose, acquiesce in the appointment of a Mussulman Governor; but we should take care that he is an energetic Governor. Still, the point of a mixed gendarmerie, properly officered and armed, a force from which Christians should not be excluded, would be, in my opinion, a necessary element in the settlement of those difficulties. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs will refer with pride to the Papers that have been recently presented as evidence of the efforts the Government have been making by representations to the Forte to improve the state of things in Armenia. I have no desire to grudge or deny him this legitimate satisfaction. The right hon. Gentleman will probably go on to say that the action taken by hon. Members in this matter—the frequent interpellations and interventions which take place in the British Parliament—really do more harm than good on the ground that they annoy and exasperate the Sultan. I should be very sorry to contribute to such a result; but I cannot forget the 35 years' sad experience we have had in this matter. We have seen, again and again, how the Porte delights to make a promise to the ear and to break it to the sense, and we have had only two cases—in the Lebanon and in Crete—in which self-government and good government have been secured to Christian populations. And this was from outside pressure, and not through spontaneous action. The Government may say that having done so well already, the best course to adopt will be to leave them to take a fitting opportunity of representing the necessity of reforms to the Sultan and his advisers. I would not accuse my right hon. Friend of indifference, but I believe there is a certain disposition on the part of the Foreign Office to "masterly inactivity" and to "leave well alone," and perhaps a little pressure in Parliament will assist them. Mr. Lloyd has complained that
1108
the frequent publication of exaggerated and unfounded charges of outrage and misgovernment on the part of the Porte does great harm to the cause we all have at heart. I am quite alive to the truth of this remark; at the same time, although false accounts may now and again have crept in, we have sufficient evidence in the Report now on the Table, and from independent sources, to show that where there is this smoke there is also some fire. There are two or three questions to which, very briefly, I should like to draw the attention of the hon. Baronet, and the first of these is with regard to Moussa Bey. I will not go through the whole history of the Moussa Bey incidents, as we had that last year. It is more or less a past and finished matter, but what I want to ask is whether it is certain that Moussa Bey, having been sent to Medina, will be kept there, or whether, after a time, when European feeling has subsided, and in accordance with the practice of the Porte in such cases, he will, be allowed to return, and again become a pest to his country? When anyone has been intriguing against the Porte, the Turkish Government has no scruple in sending him into exile, from which he very rarely returns; but if it is only a question of conciliating European sentiment by an apparent condemnation, the man may probably be sent off for a few months and then, when the matter is tided over and has dropped out of notice, he pops up again and returns to renew his malpractices. Another point is in regard to the treatment of Christians in the recent disturbance at Erzeroum. Although I admit that the Christians were to blame in not taking the advice of the officer who called on them to disperse when they were holding their meeting, and still more in attacking the soldiers, yet I hold the Turkish Governor primarily and chiefly to blame in the matter, for the disturbance was wholly brought about through an irritating search for arms which was made in the Christian school and church, without any justification and without any result. This is clear from the Despatches received from Her Majesty's Representatives in that part of the world. It is also clear that blame is to be attached to the subsequent conduct of the Turkish Government, for in spite of the remonstrances of

1109
Consul Lloyd, backed up by those of his Excellency, Sir W. White, at Constantinople, Armenians were imprisoned for their share in the disturbances, whilst from beginning to end no Mahommedans were punished. With the permission of the Committee, I will quote one of Mr. Clifford Lloyd's dispatches to show how strongly he regarded the gravity of the question. On June 26th, Mr. Fane, in a Despatch to Lord Salisbury, says he has received the following information from Mr. Lloyd:—
"I am personally of opinion that danger is over for the moment; but a number of Armenians are being arrested by order of the Government, while no steps are being taken towards the prosecution of any of the Mussulman mob who were engaged in the affray of Friday. An extremely bad effect may be caused by this action, and fanaticism may be thereby encouraged."
Later on Mr. Consul Lloyd writes to Mr. Fane—
"In connection with the events of the 20th June here, a few more Christians have been arrested, making a total of 24 now in custody. No Mussulmans have yet been arrested for the murder and pillage of the Christians on that day."
Though there was a tardy dismissal of one Turkish official on September 22nd, 28 Armenians were kept in prison for three months without trial, and no Mussulmans were imprisoned at all. I contend that action of that kind on the part of the Turkish Government is an incitement to murder and pillage, and that the effect on the Mussulman population is most demoralising in these large towns if action is taken on one side and not on the other, and no sort of semblance of impartiality is maintained. And, now, I would draw attention to what I look on as a most serious element in the state of the country, and that is the considerable movement of population that is taking place within Armenia at the present time. It may be taken for granted that no population desert their homes, their farms, and commerce unless they are suffering from considerable extortion and oppression, yet a large movement of population is taking place in Armenia. That movement is of two kinds, namely, the emigration of Armenian Christians from their own country into Persia, and the immigration of Circassians from Russian territory in the Caucasus into Armenia.
1110
There are two Despatches amongst the Papers in the hands of the House which illustrate this point. On page 25 it will be found that Consul Lloyd, writing to Sir W. White, says—
"In this country an Armenian family may be reckoned as consisting of at least seven persons, which would indicate that arrangements have been concluded for the emigration of from 4,000 to 4,500 persons. The Turkish Government, however, sustains its prohibition."
The Armenians are not allowed to live in their own country in peace and quiet, and when they propose to go elsewhere they are detained by the Turkish Government to continue longer the prey and the spoil of the Kurds. Consul Lloyd says—
"The poverty among these people and the Christian inhabitants of the adjoining districts is stated to be very great. Their lamentable condition seems to result from, on the one hand, the heavy, and in some respects unjust, taxation imposed by the Government, and levied without consideration by subordinate officials, and on the other, from the exactions and ravages of the neighbouring Kurds."
As to the immigration into Armenia from the Caucasus, Sir W. White, in a previous Despatch to Lord Salisbury, says—
"I have ascertained the following respecting the immigration of the Circassians from the Caucasus. It would seem that the number reaches 50,000; that the Russian Government has made no objection to the departure of these people who are looked upon as rather a disorderly population."
In the same Despatch he says—
"I understand that the immigration is dictated in a great measure by fanatical reasons, these people desiring to inhabit a Mussulman country."
From what took place in 1876 and 1877 it is well known what is the Circassian idea of the proper line of behaviour in a Mussulman country; and I fear that unless some steps are taken to have a proper watch kept on these people they will inaugurate their arrival in their new home, if not by indiscriminate massacre, at any rate by violent attacks upon the population. I appeal to the Government to do what they can to rescue these unfortunate people, the agricultural population in the small Christian villages, who, as every account agrees, are being Systematically plundered and harried. The honour of their women is not safe; their own lives are not safe; they have no chance of living

1111
in peace in their own country. It is true that some years ago it was only the orthodox Armenians who were persecuted by the Turks, but the persecution is no longer confined to them. The Armenian Roman Catholics are subjected to the same treatment as their fellow-countrymen of different religions, and I had plenty of proof of this last October, when I visited the Armenian convent at Venice. Lord Beaconsfield once spoke of the Turks as an historic people; but they are known in history only as having destroyed everything they met with, and having created nothing. The Armenians, on the other hand, may truly be referred to as an historic people. They have a very different record. They have made a name in the world of art, of literature, and of commerce; and there is, at the present time, a flourishing Armenian community in Manchester, embracing amongst its members some of the most respected citizens. The right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary will be aware that a meeting of these Armenians was held in Manchester not long ago to express sympathy with their fellow-countrymen in Armenia. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to remember that these people are gradually being harried out of existence. If Her Majesty's Government are able to secure for them safety and protection, the Armenian nation, through many a generation, will remember the name of England with gratitude and thankfulness; and though England will only be doing her duty in listening to the voice of humanity and justice, it will be no small thing to earn the gratitude and thankfulness of the Christian population of Armenia.
MR. LABOUCHERE: Wherever there is misgovernment my sympathies are with the misgoverned. My sympathies are with the oppressed in China, Africa, Turkey, but I have never yet been able to understand why hon. Gentlemen have such a peculiar, special, and sentimental affection for the Armenians. The Armenians are not one atom worse off than the Christians in the European provinces of Turkey. Wherever the Turk is, there must be the grossest misgovernment. The fact of Turkish misgovernment is as old as the Turkish Empire itself, yet, whenever it has been thought advisable by other Powers to clear
1112
the Turks out of Europe, England has always interfered, either on the ground that it is necessary to maintain the balance of power in Europe, or on the ground of her interests in the East. Wherever there are Armenians under Turkish rule, there, in the very nature of things, will be bad government. The hon. Member who has just sat down seemed to think that the Armenians are limited to the Province of Armenia. Geographically they are, but the Armenians are spread over the greater part of the Turkish Empire, and the majority of them live outside Armenia, if you include those under the sway of Russia. What is the condition of things in the Province of Armenia? It is populated by Kurds and Armenians. The Kurds live to a great extent in the mountains, and their habit is to come down and blackmail the Armenian villages. So long as the villagers pay what is demanded, as the Scotch Lowlanders used to pay to Rob Roy and his Highlanders, they are left in quiet; but when they cannot pay, the Kurds descend and exercise cruelty upon them. The reason why the Turkish Government does not interfere is that the supremacy of the Turks in Armenia depends entirely upon their playing into the hands of the Kurds. Turkey makes of the Kurds a species of irregular cavalry, and they are no doubt a defence in that part of Asia Minor against an attack on the part of Russia or an attempt on the part of the Christian population to throw off the Turkish sway. The sole reason why, it is said, England should interfere is on account of the Treaty of Cyprus. Under that treaty the Turks engaged to establish reforms in Armenia and Asia Minor, and the quid pro quo was that England should guarantee the dominion of the Turks in Asia Minor. Well, I do not suppose the Government consider themselves bound by any such guarantee now, but if we are to claim that those reforms shall be carried out, we shall have to recognise that guarantee. I do hope the country has arrived at that state of wisdom that it will not be dragged into war in order to maintain the Turk in Europe or in Asia. As far as Turkey in Europe is concerned we may leave it to the rivalries and jealousies of Austria and Russia, but so far as Asia Minor is concerned,

1113
if the Russians are determined to take Armenia, let them take it. But as a matter of fact we do not intend to go to war either for Armenia or for Asia Minor. The Turk knows this fact well, and understands that his Government must be an oppressive Government to the Christians, because if the Christians had the power they would certainly overthrow the Turkish Government. Therefore, if you maintain the Turkish rule you must also accept the fact that Turkish government will be bad and oppressive. But the main reason why I have risen is that I am anxious to obtain from the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the views of the Government on this question. The guarantee which we gave that Asia Minor should be defended against all comers, was the main condition on which we received the Island of Cyprus; the other condition being that the Turkish Government should carry out the desired reform. We said that if those reforms were carried out we would recognise our guarantee. The matter is very important. If we call on the Turkish Government to accept these reforms on the plea of the Convention of Cyprus, then we recognise our guarantee. We could not defend Armenia against Russian attacks. The Russians are close by, and might overwhelm Armenia at anytime, and we can only prevent their doing this by going to war with Russia, blockading or trying to blockade St. Petersburg, and doing injury to Russia in other parts of the world. Therefore, I urge that in making demands for reforms in Armenia we should not put them on the ground of the Cyprus Convention, unless we are prepared to do what would certainly be most unwise and impolitic, namely, by recognising the Cyprus Convention to declare that we did take Asia Minor under our care.
MR. SCHWANN: I agree with the hon. Member for Northampton in what he has said about sympathy with misgoverned peoples wherever they are found, but, at the same time, I do not quite understand the tone he has taken in this Debate. The reason why many of us take so strong an interest in this Armenian question is that there exists scarcely any country claiming to be civilised in which such open violence, so much cruelty, and
1114
such repeated robberies and murders are perpetrated as is the case in Armenia. The Treaty of Cyprus, which will no doubt be fully explained by the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is the basis and standpoint from which we argue. The hon. Member for Northampton has said the people of Armenia would prefer to be in the hands of Russia rather than under the rule of the Turk, in order that they might escape from the suffering to which they are now subjected. We know that this will practically be out of the frying pan into the fire. Doubtless the Government of Russia is somewhat better than that of the Porte, but it still leaves so much to be desired that if I were an Armenian, I should have great difficulty in choosing under which Government I should prefer to live. But there is no reason why we should not bring what pressure is possible to bear upon the Porte. I should like to hear the Under Secretary explain what is the opinion of Her Majesty's Representatives in Armenia in reference to the recent proposal to arm the Kurds, and form them into separate regiments. In answer to a question put to him the other day, the hon. Baronet told us that, although the Government look on the arming of the Kurds with some amount of apprehension, it might turn out to be for the benefit of the Armenians, by organising and placing under military control the lawless wandering hordes of Kurds and Circassians. This maybe so; but I wish to know whether it is true, as has been stated in the newspapers, that the British Consul, as soon as he had heard of this arming of the Kurds, entered a strong protest against it, pointing out how inimical to the interests of Armenia such a step would be. If the hon. Baronet has obtained any further information on this subject I should be glad if he would give us the benefit of it. I should also like to know what amount of truth there is in the statement that messages have been sent to the Armenian colleges that Armenian history is not to be taught in them. I I should like to know whether this is the fact? and, having said this, I will only add the expression of my hope that the hon. Baronet will use his exertions in furtherance of our Treaty obligations to the Armenians so as to mitigate, as

1115
much as possible, the sufferings of that unhappy people.
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): The House will bear in mind that many things have been said on the present occasion that have not been stated for the first time, and I may admit that it is not surprising that in a history so painful in many respects as that of the Turkish Provinces of Asia there should be many gentlemen who pay attention to public affairs, and who take a special interest in these matters, who find it impossible to refrain from calling attention to the subject. At the same time, it is to be regretted that those who have such keen sympathy for the sufferings of the Armenians, and such hatred of misgovernment generally, should have shut their eyes to the efforts that have been, and are being, made to carry out their own wishes, and to the results that have already accrued. I think that while we should all regret and condemn indifference on the part of our officials to misgovernment and outrage, and while, also, we must all sympathise with the oppressed, we should, at the same time, be doing wrong to be indifferent to the efforts Her Majesty's Government are making to obtain a remedy for the evils complained of. With regard to what has been said by hon. Members with reference to the interference of this House, I would ask hon. Members to consider whether the interference of the House of Commons can in this case be exercised for good, first, upon Her Majesty's Government, and then upon the Turkish Government, in stimulating them to efforts to bring about a better state of things in the Armenian Provinces. If such interference is accompanied by denunciation of the Ottoman Government in the Asiatic Provinces, what good result can possibly accrue from advice offered by Her Majesty's Government when, at the same time, the Ottoman Government are able to point to expressions of hon. Members of this House declaring hatred of Turkish rule and denouncing entirely the government of the Turks? I venture to think that the remonstrances that may be fitting and acceptable for us to make ought to be the remonstrances of a friendly Government, and not such as have been suggested.
1116
At all events, that is not the sense in which the Government have hereto counselled the Porte. We have used our efforts to obtain the repression of disorder in the Turkish Provinces, and I am glad to say that the Ottoman Government have recognised that the advice we have given them has-been given in a friendly spirit, and with every desire to promote the welfare of the country. The hon. Member for the Eye Division of Suffolk, who opened this discussion, said while rendering a just tribute to the exertion of the late Mr. C. Lloyd to obtain justice and protection for the Christians in what is called Armenia, that gentleman had not received sufficient backing from London. I say that that is a most unfounded charge. The hon. Gentleman said that, although it is more than a year ago that instructions were sent out to Sir William White to use his best efforts to procure a better state of things in the Asiatic Provinces, they have not been followed up by repetitions of those instructions. I think the Committee will recognise that an Ambassador in the position of Sir William White does not require to have his instructions constantly repeated by Her Majesty's Government. An officer whose merits have been acknowledged by the Government which preceded that of Her Majesty's present advisers should be left to use his discretion in carrying out the instructions he has received. That he has carried out these Resolutions is justified by the Papers which are before the House. I think these are the words of the Despatch:—
"6th December, 1890 "—
this is later than the Papers presented to the House—
"For my part, I do not relax my efforts to induce the Sublime Porte whenever I can to induce the Sultan to select trustworthy civil and judicial officers, and thus ensure a better administration of those districts, with security of life and property to all alike in them."
That shows that Sir W. White does not require any fresh instructions, and that no efforts are spared to produce those results which we are all desirous of obtaining. Reference has been made to a letter from a lady who has travelled through these districts, in which she has spoken of the increasing outrages of the Kurds. That account does not agree with the testimony of Her Majesty's

1117
Officers in those districts. It is true we are obliged to record very lamentable occurrences, which show the necessity of continued efforts to repress them. For instance, in November there was a bad murder; in January an Armenian was beaten to death by zaptiehs, or constables; and from Erzeroum our acting Consul reported misconduct of the Kaimakan. In the first case the prompt action of the Governor General procured the arrest of five men who were guilty of the outrage; in the second case the Vali at Erzeroum, on the requisition of the Consul, immediately ordered inquiries to be made; and in the third case the officer whose conduct has been complained of was dismissed. That is a proof that the representations of Her Majesty's Government are not in vain. I cannot help saying that many erroneous and exaggerated statements are made which do more harm than good and only serve to prejudice the Armenian cause. I sometimes feel great reluctance in throwing cold water on well-meant representations from hon. Members on the other side of the House; but after repeated instances of reports apparently believed in and brought forward on that side of the House, I cannot help thinking that Her Majesty's Representatives are thoroughly justified in not reporting rumours that come to their knowledge until they have investigated those rumours. For instance, in the Daily News of September 16, 1890, there was a telegram from Igdys headed "Disorder in Armenia," which, on inquiry by the British Representative, proved to be erroneous and false; on December 3, 1890, the Daily News contained an account of the desecration of a church at Mush, which, on inquiry, was proved never to have taken place. The same paper stated that "A priest escaped from Van says, 'But for the presence of the Russian and British Consuls no life would be safe.'" As the result of inquiry into this, Mr. Devey states that the report "scarcely called for serious notice." Many similar outrages are reported, all wholly without foundation. With regard to the levying of blackmail and the withdrawal of protection from the Armenians, Mr. Devey states that the representations made are wholly incorrect, and that the levying of blackmail had been steadily repressed by the
1118
Turkish authorities. Then comes a very curious statement made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen in a question with regard to an attack on the Van Consulate. On inquiry being made the Vice Consul denied the report categorically. I think that these instances ought to make hon. Members pause before giving credence to information telegraphed home by newspaper correspondents, many of whom have never been near the place. It is too true that murders do take place, and in Crete they seem to come as much from one race or set of religionists as another. There there is a strong religious animosity existing between the different creeds, and nothing but strong impartial government will prevent these occurrences. We have reason to believe, however, that measures are now really being taken to remedy this state of things. Mr. Devey speaks of the active conduct of some of the present Governors in Asia Minor. An extraordinary statement was lately made that on one occasion 18,000 stacks of hay were burnt. The case has been investigated, and it is found that 5 or 10 stacks had been burnt, and the culprits were seized and delivered to the Courts of Justice. In another case, where the seizing of corn was reported, it is found to be a very petty affair, and the culprits punished. All the reports show that; there is much more energy on the part of the authorities, and no want of zeal on the part of our Representatives. With regard to the riots at Erzeroum, the local Consul and the Ambassador have recommended the execution of certain measures which seem peculiarly desirable to them; and I have a long list of results from applications made by our Representatives which have led not only the Vice Consul at Van, but also the Consul at Erzeroum and Sir W. White, to say that there appears to be a better state of things existing in those Provinces, that the authorities are showing greater activity and a greater anxiety to repress outrages, and that the condition of the people generally is better than it has been in former years. Hon. Members have made certain suggestions. The hon. Member for Eye recommended increased autonomy in Armenia. The hon. Member for Stoke advocated the appointment of a Christian Governor

1119
for these Provinces, while he admitted that the Mussulman population is in a considerable majority. Of all proposals that is the least practicable—absolutely hopeless for Her Majesty's Government to recommend to the Porte, and absolutely hopeless to expect the Ottoman Government to adopt. The hon. Member also asked if we believed Moussa Bey would be allowed to return to the scene of his former atrocities, or whether his exile would be permanent. I think it is extremely improbable he will be allowed to return. On account of the failure of justice in the case of Moussa Bey, the Minister of Justice was dismissed from his position, and the House ought to recognise that as a proof of the desire of the Ottoman Government to do justice. Indeed, whenever a flagrant disregard of justice has been brought to the notice of the Sultan, he has promptly punished it. The hon. Member for Stoke also referred to the desire of the Armenians to migrate to Persian territory, but I must say I do not think the language he used was likely to be very persuasive to the Ottoman Government. I would not have ventured, as has the Member for Northampton, to compare Moussa Bey to Rob Roy; but, while talking of the proposal to embody some regiments of Kurds for the protection of the land, I think it right to point to the success which attended the formation of highland regiments after the last rising. The whole population of the borderland had previously lived in terror of the highland clans; but this state of affairs was entirely changed by embodying those brave though turbulent people into regiments, in which afterwards they performed most distinguished service. Even wild tribes often make excellent soldiers. I know how well the hill tribes of India, who gave so much trouble to the British Government in the early part of this century, became most excellent soldiers, and I once had the pleasure of placing the order of merit on the breast of a man who had been captured at the taking of a hill fort. Therefore, this method of pacifying highlanders is not new. I told the House the other day that the experiment of forming regiments of Kurds was one which must be watched with anxiety; but if carried out with judgment and prudence it may not be at all a fresh danger to the
1120
Armenians, but may have the effect of pacifying the Kurds, and of giving greater protection to the people. The Member for North Manchester asked whether it was true that the Vice Consul protested against this step. He certainly did no such thing. The Ottoman Government is well aware of the view Her Majesty's Government take of the matter, and we hope that, while these levies may constitute an additional source of strength to the Empire, they may also be the means of lessening disorder and of giving increased security to the peaceable inhabitants. For Her Majesty's Government I can say that, wherever a well-authenticated case of injustice or oppression has been brought to the notice of our Representatives, communications have been addressed to the Turkish authorities either at Constantinople or on the spot in a friendly manner—in the way best calculated, in the opinion of our experienced agents, to procure redress—and in many cases those representations have been successful. The condition of these Provinces has shown a decided improvement, and Her Majesty's Government have every reason to believe that the choice of prudent and wise governors will in time tend to greater improvement.
MR. BRYCE: The right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, in his observations, suggested that this was a matter which had frequently been before the House, and so it is, for it seems always to be the same story on the one hand and the same reply on the other. The right hon. Gentleman never tells us more than that he has reason to believe an improvement is taking place. But I fear that the Under Secretary does not appreciate the gravity of the new features which have arisen in this question. He endeavoured to make the House believe that things are improving, but the Blue Book of January last shows that the state of things has, in some respects, become graver. Of course, we do not know if he has other information with more recent Despatches. In the first place, there is a disposition on the part of the Christian Armenians to emigrate into Russian and Persian territory. That is conclusive proof of the miseries under

1121
which they suffer. In the second place, a considerable number of Armenians appear to have indicated a wish to join the Greek Church, which shows how strong is their desire to obtain Russian protection, and which will open to Russia a pretext for interference she has not now. In the third place, the riots and disorders which have arisen in Constantinople present quite a new feature in the situation. I believe nothing so serious has occurred since the 15th century. Sir William White recognises the gravity of these proceedings, which he says show the growing animosity rankling among the Armenians even at Constantinople. A fourth fact of some gravity is to be found in the relations of the Russian and Turkish Armenians. The Committee may not know that there have been very strong movements of sympathy amongst the Persians, and still more amongst the Russian Armenians. They have come to sympathise very warmly with the sufferings of their fellow-countrymen, who live under the tyranny of the Turk, and it has been with difficulty that they have been restrained from organising armed demonstrations against Turkey. These are only some of the new and alarming features which the events of the last two or three years present, and which make us feel that it is more than ever necessary for Her Majesty's Government to endeavour to supply a remedy before it is too late. I listened in vain to the speech of the Under Secretary for any word of sympathy for the people, for any word of acknowledgment of the sufferings which they undergo. He seemed to devote himself entirely, as he has done in all the Debates we have had on these matters, to extenuating and palliating the cruelties and atrocities of the Turks.
*SIR J. FERGUSSON: I do not think the hon. Gentleman is doing me justice, I have always said that I sympathise as much as anyone can with the sufferings of the people.
MR. BRYCE: I accept those words for what they are worth; but I must observe that the right hon. Gentleman directed his whole speech, as he usually does, to an endeavour partly to deny and partly to extenuate, palliate, and excuse the atrocities which are perpetrated by the Kurds. The burden of his song has always been, "You are exaggerating;
1122
this and that are proved not to have happened; the Turkish Government is hardly pressed; and you ought not to say anything which can touch its susceptibilities." It would be wiser and better if the right hon. Gentleman would tell the Turk in plain terms what the country thinks, if he would avail himself of the opportunity we give him to speak in firm language, and to tell the Turk the opinion of enlightened Europe, and particularly that this country condemns in the strongest manner the indifference of the Turkish Government to the atrocities perpetrated under their sway. The right hon. Gentleman has adverted to the Reports which we have under the incontrovertible authority of Mr. Clifford Lloyd and Mr. Devey. Mr. Clifford Lloyd seems to have shown himself to be a man of great energy and humanity; and in his position at Erzeroum he did his best, with tact, firmness, and moderation, to induce the Turkish Government to adopt a different course. Here are some of his words in a Minute which he transmitted on the 2nd of October last—
"It is admitted by every one that a change is necessary in the system of government now being applied to the Christian population of Kurdistan, i.e., the Armenian people. Their sufferings at present proceed from three direct causes:—(1) The insecurity of their lives and properties owing to the habitual ravages of the Kurds. (2) The insecurity of their persons, and the absence of all liberty of thought and action (excepting the exercise of public worship). (3) The unequal status held by the Christian as compared with the Mussulman in the eyes of the Government. As regards No. 1, putting aside isolated instances of depredation, there has been pillage on the most extensive scale, with much slaughter, by Kurds in various parts of Armenia during the past few months, as will be observed from my Despatches dated the 21st August and the 1st October 1890. This year the record is an exceptionally large one, but the position of the defenceless Armenian peasantry with reference to the Kurds, who are all armed, varies only in degree, and looked at from any point of view, is one calling for immediate relief. There are two courses open to the Turkish Government in its desire to protect its Armenian subjects; one to actually and completely subjugate the Kurds by force of arms; and the other to adequately protect the Armenian peasants from Kurdish aggression. The former would entail a large expenditure of money, and in all probability bring about a general massacre of those for whose benefit it was undertaken. Many reasons exist for not suggesting this course, not the least of which is that, under any circumstances, the Turkish Government could not be induced to adopt it. It is, however, the first duty of every Government to

1123
protect its subjects, and in this instance duty and self-interest both demand it. The Armenian peasantry are unable at present to pay their taxes owing to the ravages of the Kurds, and from the same cause are reduced to such a state of discontent that they are willing even to forsake their homes, and it is said also their religion, if relief could thus be obtained."
He goes on to say—
"The result is that this summer the valley has been again overrun by the Kurds, who here, as in other parts of Kurdistan, openly declare that their action meets with the approval of the Turkish Government."
That is the gravamen of our charge. It is not that the Turkish Government is unable to protect its subjects: it is that sub rosâ it encourages the Kurds: it does not take the steps that are within its power to keep the Kurds in order. Some years ago I travelled in Russian Armenia—it adjoins this territory. In the Russian territory the Kurds give no trouble at all, because they know that there is military force to suppress any misconduct on their part. If the Turkish Government desires to do its duty it can do it; it is will and not power that is wanting. Mr. Clifford Lloyd proceeds to say—
"The third cause is the inequality of justice and consideration shown to the Christian inhabitants of this country, both by the Executive Government and by the Law Officers. This is well known to everyone conversant with the condition of Kurdistan, but, as an instance, I may mention the fact that in all crimes of violence of which the Christians have been the victims during the past year in the Province of Erzeroum no one has been punished, nor, with very few exceptions, has any effort been even made to bring the offenders to justice."
That clearly shows that in Mr. Clifford Lloyd's opinion it is not want of power, but want of will on the part of the Turkish Government that prevents them making reforms. He proceeds—
"Whatever other reforms may be desirable, they are not of the same pressing necessity as immediate measures for the protection of the lives and properties of the people. The agricultural portion of the Armenian people plead not as rebels, but as subjects of His Majesty the Sultan, for this protection; but in the words of the Note presented 10 years ago to the Sublime Porte on this same subject, the Local Government at Erzeroum seems 'to refuse to recognise the degree of anarchy which exists' in this Province, or the gravity of a state of things which, if permitted to continue, would, in all probability, lead to the destruction of the Christian population of vast districts.'"
I am sorry to say I cannot share the hopeful views of the right hon. Gentleman
1124
with regard to the attitude of the Turkish Government on this question. Too many things go to show that the Turkish Government think that the way to get rid of the Armenian question is to get rid of the Armenians themselves. I have only one or two more quotations to make, but I must make them on account of the entire neglect of the right hon. Gentleman to dwell on this part of the case. I will quote a passage which you will find on page 28 of the Blue Book—
"At present, as your Excellency is aware, the Kurds are armed and the Christian peasants unarmed and helpless, the latter sow and the former appropriate the harvest to their own wants, while to gratify their instincts they often burn and destroy what they do not appropriate. On the other hand, owing to these circumstances, the peasants get into arrears in the payment of taxes, the collection of which proceeds by arbitrary and sometimes by cruel methods on the part of subordinate officials, and redress in the one case and the other being for various reasons refused or withheld, the Christian peasants are reduced to a state of abject poverty, fear, and discontent. Any combination for the purpose of petitioning the Government for assistance and consideration is met by the application of those measures only excusable in the case of a people plotting revolution. This the Armenian people in this country are far from contemplating. There are undoubtedly young and indiscreet persons to be found here, as elsewhere, who at times act imprudently, but my observation and information lead me to the belief, held also by all those whose local experience constitutes them authorities on the point, that if the Christian peasants were adequately secured against the attacks and ravages of the Kurds they would be as contented and loyal as they are naturally industrious."
Elsewhere in the Blue Book there is ample proof that the only thing that is likely to provoke revolutionary outbreaks is the total absence of justice and the impossibility of obtaining it. That also is the opinion which Mr. Devey, who, writing from Van, says, on page 74 of the Blue Book—
"As rumours have been spread again of late of the growth of seditious sentiments among Armenians, I take this occasion of once more submitting most respectfully my private opinion that no real revolutionary feeling exists in either Bitlis or Van. The general loyalty of the Armenian community is perfectly sound, and if efficient protection were afforded to the Christian agricultural population throughout the districts, combined with something more than a mere perfunctory display, or rather semblance, of executing justice, I venture to think that the cause of many well-founded complaints would be removed."
I am not selecting these extracts and

1125
distorting them from their context; I am giving what I believe to be the substantial result of the Blue Book, and I think any hon. Member who reads the Blue Book can only come to the conclusion that there is a total want of wish on the part of the Turkish Government to introduce reform. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to deny that the Kurds are armed.
*SIR J. FERGUSSON: No, I did not deny that. I denied on the authority of the Consuls that they had been armed by the Government with the Martini-Henry rifle.
MR. BRYCE: But they are. I hold in my hand a letter from Mrs. Bishop, whose authority is unquestionable. She says—
"My own caravan was attacked by Kurds armed with the Martini-Henry rifle, as most of them are."
She also states that she passed through a valley which had been bared by them; they had committed robberies, women and girls had been outraged under circumstances of peculiar brutality, and girls had been carried off to the mountains. Against all this evidence the right hon. Gentleman can only quote the assurances of Turkish officials, which he will scarcely venture to say he believes. We are fortunate in having at Constantinople a man of so much ability, experience, and energy, as Sir W. White; but there is no evidence that Her Majesty's Government have sent him such Despatches as are likely to have any influence upon the Turkish Government. It has been said that any attempt on the part of the Government of this country to endeavour to compel Turkey to treat her Christian subjects justly, would be an act of gratuitous philanthropy on our part. It would be nothing of the kind. It is owing to the action of this country more than of the other great Powers that the Turkish Government exists. If it had not been for the action of this country, probably the Sultan would not now be reigning at Constantinople. Therefore, we are bound by every consideration of honour and humanity to see that she acts fairly to her unhappy subjects. It may be asked, with some plausibility, what is the use of us interfering in the matter, and I own that there is something academical and idle
1126
in our constantly making the same complaints in the face of our being met by the same non possumus argument. In my opinion, however, it is time that the Government of this country made a step forward in this matter. During the last five years Her Majesty's Government have never attempted to induce the other great Powers to co-operate with us in endeavouring to induce Turkey to do her duty by her subjects. If we made some effort in that direction we should, at all events, be discharging our consciences as a Christian community. Much might be accomplished if we could only induce the Turkish Government to appoint a better class of Governors, instead of men who are only able to maintain their positions by exacting from the people such sums as will enable them to bribe the officials at Constantinople. Mr. Bartley, in a little book which he has written on Turkey, points out that a good Governor of a province is unable to effect any reforms, because directly he attempts to do so he is re-called. If the Sultan could be induced to send out better Governors and give them proper support, and not listen to the voices of intrigue and detraction which are raised against them in the capital, I believe a very great improvement might be effected without the appointment of Christian Governors. Unfortunately we have no evidence that Her Majesty's Government press in that direction, still less have we evidence that they endeavour to induce other Powers to cooperate with them. I fear nothing will be obtained until there are joint representations from the Powers made to the Sultan. It only lies upon us to endeavour to obtain the concurrence of the other Powers, and if we cannot obtain that, to go frankly to Russia and ask her to aid us in bringing about an amelioration of the condition of the people. I feel that this matter is one of greater gravity than the House realises. The time will come when the Christian populations will become the leading element in those districts: Is it proper we should endeavour to help them to improve their condition? I still believe that great firmness on the part of the Government might even now awaken the Turks to a sense of the evil which they are doing to the danger to

1127
their own power which arises from the perpetuation of anarchy in Armenia.
MR. CONYBEARE: I am rather inclined to agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen that these repeated Debates upon Armenian matters are but idle beating of the air and waste of Parliamentary time. But whatever may be the feeling of the Government, we have the consolation of having done our duty by constantly calling the attention of the Government and the country to these matters. I have not the slightest expectation of seeing Her Majesty's Government goaded into any action than their present action; and even if they were induced to use anything more than polite diplomatic language to the Turk, I have not the slightest expectation of seeing it attended with any success. Therefore, while I entirely sympathise with the suggestions which have been made across the Table, I cannot help thinking it will need something far stronger than we are likely to get from Her Majesty's Government before we see any alteration in the attitude of the Turks towards their Armenian subjects. I do not quite agree with the hon. Member for Aberdeen that the difficulty would be met by sending out good Turkish Governors. I do not recollect any case where a Turkish Governor has been sent to quell disturbance and has succeeded. I am not aware of any case where it might not be said of Turkish Governors that evil communications corrupt good manners. In fine, I do not believe you could get a respectable Turkish Governor who would be able to resist the temptation of the gain which wholesale pillage of his unfortunate Armenian subjects would bring to him; and therefore I am inclined to discard, as a practical solution of the difficulty, the proposition that you could find a respectable Turk to go out and bring about good government and general contentment and prosperity in these unfortunate provinces. But to suppose that Her Majesty's Government are in the least serious about this business is absurd. I never knew a time when a Tory Government was serious in bringing any form of coercion to bear upon any people except the Irish. They have always entertained a feeling of affection and respect for the unspeakable
1128
Turk, and it would be inconsistent with the general principles of Toryism if they were to undertake the mission suggested by the hon. Member for Aberdeen. Whatever our feeling or pity for the Armenians may be, and however anxious we may be to produce something like law and order in Armenia—and however we may fail in our efforts in that direction—I think we may require them to do something to look after the interests of our own fellow-subjects. Long ago I was convinced that a Tory aristocratic Government, consisting of noble Lords in in another place, and Baronets and other great men on that Bench, is not the best representative Government for a commercial nation like our own. We have great cause to complain of the neglect of the commercial interests of the country which the Government display. I have to refer in particular to a statement which appeared in this morning's papers with respect to the treatment of a particular person who had commercial business in Asia Minor. The facts, so far as I gather them from the papers, are these: A gentleman named Pilling, a citizen of Manchester, had a concession for the construction of a railway from St. Jean d'Acre to Damascus. I do not propose to discuss the wisdom of the construction of such a railway. I think it would be better, from the point of view of the picturesque, that there should be no such railway; but considering it desirable to construct, and having obtained a concession from the Sultan, how was this gentleman treated? The concession, like every concession, was limited to a certain time. Owing to the difficulties of the last few months Mr. Pilling was unable to carry out the conditions under which the concession had been granted to him. Instead of the Turkish Authorities showing him consideration as any civilised Christian Government would, they came down upon him, and, so to speak, estreated the money he had deposited. There was an exceedingly amusing account in the papers of the way in which the Turks danced with joy at the very idea of fingering the Christian's cash. I do not mention these facts for the purpose of showing that this gentleman was entitled to any consideration, but for the purpose of drawing attention to the different

1129
manner in which the different Governments attend to the commercial interests of their subjects. The German Government is particularly solicitous for the commercial interests of German subjects, and the consequence is that wherever you go—to Africa or the East, or any other part of the world—you find that the commercial agents of German firms are outstripping our own commercial agents. Their Consuls are so many touting agents for German interests.
MR. KELLY: I rise to Order. I beg to ask you, Sir, whether the hon. Member is speaking to the question before the Committee?
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is speaking about the conduct of the Foreign Office.
MR. CONYBEARE: I am sorry my argument was not quite clear to the hon. Member. Although I must apologise for having gone somewhat more into detail in connection with the case than I intended, I was, at the moment of the interruption, explaining my view—it may be a wrong view—that whereas other Governments look after the commercial interests of their subjects in all parts of the world, our Foreign Office shows a total disregard of the commercial interests of our own fellow countrymen, a fact which tells very seriously against the extension of our commercial interests. That is surely a grievance which we have a right to bring to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Foreign Office in this House. In connection with the question of a concession such as that I have mentioned, it is quite obvious that the Government might have brought some gentle persuasive pressure to bear on the Sultan to extend the time allowed for the carrying out of the conditions of the concession. I ask the Government to bestow a little attention to these insignificant details, and if no other argument can be employed to attract the conscience of the Government to this and other kindred subjects, I would humbly submit the possibility of the minds of the constituents of the Under Secretary, who are largely interested from a commercial point of view in undertakings in the East and elsewhere, and especially in Armenia, being awakened to the gravity of the situation in Armenia. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I do not
1130
for the moment recollect what Division of Manchester the right hon. Gentleman has the honour to represent, but I do-know the Armenian colony in Manchester is a very considerable and important factor. I hope there are many Armenians in his constituency, and I strongly recommend all Armenians who have commercial interests in this country to try whether they cannot raise such an agitation in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency as will force him to take far more energetic action in this matter than he seems inclined to do. There is only one other word I want to say, and it is that whether the whole of Asia Minor eventually comes under the rule of the Russians or not, I feel quite certain that the sooner it passes from the rule of the Turk the better. No one will contend that there are not unlimited resources of all kinds in that great peninsula which we know as Asia Minor. What is being done? With the exception of a few places like Smyrna, on the coast, practically the whole of that great territory is closed to the outer world. It might just as well be in the interior of China as where it is. I do not say that the whole of the territory should pass into the hands of the Armenians, who are a minority of the population, but whoever the Government of it may pass-to, I hope it will pass into the hands of some nation who will be able to develop its resources and do something for the benefit of the population. Past history shows that the Turks have done nothing towards developing the resources of Asia Minor, but ruin and misery have followed their rule. The time is coming, I hope, when Armenia will be free from Turkish Administration, and the wealth of the country will be developed under the influence of civilisation.
SIR J. FERGUSSON: I only rise to express my regret that the hon. Member should have allowed himself the use of such terms as he has employed towards a Power and a Sovereign with whom this country is in friendly relations.
MR. CONYBEARE: Unspeakable?
*SIR J. FERGUSSON: It is a word most unsuitable to the occasion. It is very much to be regretted that the hon. Member should have used the expression "unspeakable Turk" as a description

1131
of the Sovereign of a country in friendly relations with Her Majesty. Against this I venture to enter my protest, though I hope there are not many Members who would fall into such a mistake. As to the question the hon. Member has raised respecting a British subject, who, the hon. Gentleman alleges, has suffered some injustice at the hands of the Turkish Government, I have to say that it is my daily duty to inquire into cases in which British subjects make complaints, and to make representations concerning them, but I do not recognise such a case under the description the hon. Member has given. If it can be shown to me that a British subject has really suffered injustice at the hands of the Turkish Government, we will, of course, make representations; but if the case in question is merely that in which a concession was revoked after its limit had been passed, I am not sure that I see in it grounds for interference. (8.32.)
MR. LABOUCHERE: I see that the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary has not yet returned to his place. He has, however, left three despatch boxes on the Treasury Bench. One I suppose he has exhausted, because it is no doubt the Ottoman box. The two others are, I suppose, the Tokar box and the Manica box. I shall finish by moving the reduction of the Vote by £100, in regard to the salary of the Secretary for Foreign. Affairs. I have spoken of this matter frequently in the House, and I shall probably speak of it frequently again, because I think it is a question of paramount importance, and I am surprised that the House of Commons and the country are not fully awake to the dangers we are incurring. I should like to know where the Nonconformist conscience is. It appears that that very sensitive membrane can only take in one Commandment at a time; and it does not seem particularly ready to take in the Commandment, "Thou shalt not commit murder." In 1884, when the Dervishes were attacked in the Soudan, the Nonconformist conscience was aroused. Since then worse things have been committed, and yet no strong feeling has been aroused in the country about them, though the awakening will no doubt come. At that time it was asserted, rightly or wrongly, that Suakin
1132
was in danger. An understanding was come to with the Egyptian Government, who declared that the Soudan had been abandoned for good and all; and the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale (Lord Hartington) told the House at that time that the Government would abandon it under certain conditions, and that this country was to remain for a certain time in Egypt. Those conditions have been fulfilled, and yet we find that the Egyptians are not only making a raid and massacring the Dervishes, but the Government have claimed that the Egyptians have laid hold of a portion of the Eastern Soudan. I have really not yet discovered what the policy and the intentions of the Government are, and how the Government can possibly justify the advice they have given to the Egyptian Government inducing them to annex the Province of Tokar. An Egyptian civil and military government has been established there, and it is now said that the Province of Tokar is under the dominion of the Khedive. This policy is merely a means to an end, and this end is to recover the entire Soudan for Egypt. I have just been reading, in the Second Edition of the Times, some correspondence from the well-informed correspondent of that newspaper in Egypt. This gentleman lets the cat out of the bag. The Times correspondent says that the Egyptian Government are rejoicing because they see the possibility of going to Berber and laying hold of the Soudan again. The military party in Egypt has always desired this. That party consists mostly of Pashas. The Soudan was the feeding ground of these Pashas, and they hope that by again extending the Egyptian domination in the Soudan they will be extending the field of their depredations. Besides, there is in Egypt the greatest fear that Her Majesty's Government will retire. This feeling is not entertained by the fellaheen, but by the financiers. There is a large amount of money invested in different Egyptian enterprises, and the financiers try so to arrange matters that we shall be forced to remain in Egypt, now on one plea and now on another. They think that if they can induce us to assent to the Egyptians laying hold of the Soudan, they can inaugurate a frontier war, that they can push on to Berber and Khartoum, and

1133
so prevent us leaving the country. The matter is important to the British taxpayer. We have 3,000 troops in Egypt. The reason given for keeping them there is that they are to maintain order in Egypt. We are in Egypt to aid the Egyptian garrison in maintaining order, but if Her Majesty's Government allow the Egyptians to go on making wars of aggression, greater responsibilities are thrown on our troops, and the argument that we must remain in Egypt for the purpose of maintaining order there is stronger than ever. The feeling of the electors of this country has never been in favour of the occupation of Egypt. The Secretary for War asserted that the recent fight was a mere military operation necessary for the defence of Tokar; but the Committee must remember that Tokar is 55 miles away from Suakin, and that the argument that it is necessary to go so far afield in the defence of a fort, is equivalent to saying that it is necessary to annex Granada and Seville for the defence of Gibraltar. It is sheer hypocrisy for Her Majesty's Government to try and persuade this House and the country that this taking of Tokar was necessary to the safety of Suakin. The great argument in favour of keeping Suakin has always been that it can be secured and maintained alone. It has always been urged that it can be defended by a small garrison and by the guns of our Elect. I wish to know whether Her Majesty's Government have, at any rate, now told the Egyptian Government distinctly that they must not go one step further, and that if they find themselves involved in difficulties they need not expect to be backed up by British troops? The policy which is being pursued now will one of these days land us in enormous expenditure. I believe that it will tend to keep us in Egypt, contrary to all the pledges we have given to foreign Governments. In 18S4 the Conservatives in this House voted with me when I moved a Resolution protesting against the massacre of the Dervishes, but no sooner do the Conservatives come into power than—notwithstanding all the pledges they have given—they allow the Egyptians to go out and massacre a thousand Dervishes. Who does this country belong to? To the Soudanese, Egypt having abandoned it; and yet we are told that an Amnesty
1134
Proclamation has been issued by the Khedive. The Khedive might as well put out an Amnesty Proclamation in regard to London. He has no business in the Soudan. If he has taken the province there is no necessity for an Amnesty Proclamation, and as to the prisoners, the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs told us that they were exceedingly comfortable and happy, as they had been "deported to another place."
*SIR J. FERGUSSON: I did not say they had been deported to another place, but that they had the choice of going home or staying where they were, and that they preferred to stay where they were.
MR. LABOUCHERE: They were wise in that respect; but a certain number of people were taken prisoners, and they were detained. Did these people prefer remaining in prison to going home?
*SIR J FERGUSSON: They remained at large.
MR. LABOUCHERE: What does that mean? Does it mean that they were to leave this Province of Tokar and go back to Khartoum?
*SIR J. FERGUSSON: I said we might hope that these people would be treated kindly if taken prisoners at Tokar, as others had been so well treated on the Nile. They preferred to remain where they were rather than return up the Nile.
MR. LABOUCHERE: Very likely. When their houses had been burnt down, and their wives and families had been slaughtered, they said, "You take care of us now." I want to know why the Egyptians went amongst these people? There is such a thing as International Law, and I ask whether, under that law, the Egyptians were justified in what they did? Did the country belong to them? If not, why did they go there and take prisoners and issue a Proclamation of Amnesty? All this was done with the consent of Her Majesty's Government. The real responsibility for these acts rests, not on the dummies in. Egypt, but upon Her Majesty's Government. Unless a definite stand is made against these expeditions into the Soudan, the Egyptian Government will proceed further and further—urging, next, that it is necessary to the security of Tokar that Kassala should be taken, though it

1135
is 250 miles off, then that Berber should be occupied, and never resting satisfied until they get to Khartoum: having taken one Province they will be equally keen on taking another. In order to elicit from the Government a clear explanation of their policy, I beg to move a reduction of the Vote by £100.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Item of £6,000, for the Foreign Office, be reduced by £100."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
DR. CLARK: I should like to ask in what position do we stand towards the Central Government of the Soudan at Khartoum? Bight or nine years ago the Soudanese people of various tribes determined to get rid of Turkish misgovernment. They rose in rebellion, cleared out the Turkish Pashas, and have over since been a self-governing country. The seat of Government has been in Khartoum, and in the Provinces they have had Emirs or Lieutenant Governors. Formerly we had a large trade with the Soudan, and that trade might be revived if Her Majesty's Government came to terms with the de facto Government at Khartoum. Why do Her Majesty's Government refuse to recognise that de facto Government? The fanaticism which characterised it in the first instance has been dying out, and I have no doubt it is perfectly prepared to come to terms with us and with other civilised Governments in order to obtain our commodities. I pointed out on a previous occasion that we are aiding and abetting the Egyptians in their race against the Italians to Berber and Kassala, and I see in a telegram in the Times a statement from a correspondent exactly confirming my view. The rule of the Turks and Egyptians in the Soudan was about the most horrible on earth; why do you not, therefore, recognise the de facto Government? It rules over hundreds of thousands of miles of fertile territory, populated by industrious people, and I think we ought to do what we can to come to terms with them.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: On the last occasion this subject was under discussion, after an ostentatious and aggressive silence, the right hon. Gentleman opposite wound up by saying we need not trouble ourselves
1136
about this matter, as the territory was occupied solely and entirely for the defence of Suakin. The noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office advised people to study large maps. I want to know if the Under Secretary has studied large maps? I do not think he has, otherwise he would have avoided the error into which he has fallen. Tokar is 55 miles from Suakin, and since the capture of that place another fort 12 miles further on has been occupied, so that to secure the safety of Suakin the Egyptians have seized upon territory 67 miles away. In order to protect a small insignificant port, a territory as large as Kent, Surrey, Sussex, and part of Hampshire has been taken. You might as well say it is necessary to take that amount of territory from Spain in order to secure the defence of Gibraltar. The Soudan has been decimated by internecine feuds, and latterly by famine, the Egyptians having followed the doubtful policy of starving out the people by instituting a blockade. Since then the Egyptians have killed a large number of them, and have occupied their territory. When the famine blows over and they revive a little you will find these people as troublesome as they were 10 or 12 years ago. The rebellion in the Soudan gave rise to all these troubles in Egypt. I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary has deceived himself. He does not believe what is really the case. This is merely a part of our Jingo policy; and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will believe in the Times, which to-day publishes a telegram from Cairo, which regards the capture of Tokar as a first step towards the occupation of the Soudan, The telegram of the Times Correspondent says—
"It is the general opinion in well-informed circles that the capture of Tokar is only part of a larger scheme, as, taken alone, it involves a considerable increase in the Soudan military establishment, and furnishes additional points for attack."
The Correspondent further states—
"The capture of Tokar may be the first step towards the re-conquest of the Soudan, a measure which is becoming inevitable in consequence of the Italian progress towards the Nile, and is called for to relieve the peaceable inhabitants from the terrible cruelties inflicted under Dervish rule."
These are the ideas prevalent in Egypt, and will, if allowed by Her Majesty's

1137
Government, continue to prevail. It is idle to say that this occupation of Tokar has been rendered necessary in the protection of Suakin, a place which could be defended by a gunboat and a single battalion. The occupation of Tokar is an extension of territory, which may lead to infinitely larger extensions, with the dangers consequent upon indefinite continuance there.
SIR J. FERGUSSON: I had hoped that the Debate which took place a fortnight ago on this subject would have sufficed, as on that occasion I replied with considerable fulness to all the arguments which were adduced. On the occasion of a second edition of that Debate, I did not think it necessary to repeat what I had said, but to avoid the criticism to which I was subjected, I will now briefly answer the points which have been again advanced. I am not concerned with the Nonconformist conscience, which was not particularly active when similar but far larger measures were taken by a former Government. The Member for Northampton has referred to declarations made six or seven years ago that the Soudan was abandoned. At that time, when the Egyptian troops were withdrawn from the Soudan excepting the ports on the Red Sea, Her Majesty's Government promised support to Egypt in retaining those possessions. That position has been maintained until the present time; but the Turkish Ambassador pointed out to Her Majesty's Government that the Sultan by no means relinquished his sovereign rights to the territories in that part of Africa, and that neither the Sultan nor the Khedive, his great feudatory, had ever abandoned his right to the Soudan. Consequently he is entirely within his rights in re-occupying that portion of the Soudan which, for special reasons, appears necessary. Her Majesty's Government only consented to the advance of the troops on Tokar, first, on the distinct assurance that there was no intention to proceed further; and, secondly on account of military necessity, caused by the constant annoyance of the Dervishes in the neighbourhood of Suakin. The Dervishes have never ceased their attacks, not merely upon that portion of the Soudan, but even
1138
upon Egypt itself. Consequently it cannot be said that the Egyptians are invading the Soudan and disturbing the status quo when a large Dervish force comes down the Nile for the purpose of invading Egypt.
MR. LABOUCHERE: What was the date of that force coming down the Nile?
*SIR J. FERGUSSON: It was in 1890. The Member for Northampton wishes to know what attempts have been made to establish diplomatic relations with what he calls the Central Government in the Soudan. For my own part, I do not know that there is a Central Government established there. It is impossible to establish diplomatic relations with a person who about twice a year sends messengers down the Nile to warn all concerned, including the British General and Her Majesty herself, that unless they conform to the rule of the Mahdi he will sweep them off the face of the earth. With regard to the telegram in the Times, I may remark that no attempt to occupy such points as Berber and Khartoum will be possible without at least doubling the number of the Egyptian Army. The Committee may feel quite sure that the speculations of the Times Correspondent are unfounded, and that what he anticipated was a manifest impossibility. The Member for Northampton represents the Egyptians as having trespassed upon the liberties of the poor inhabitants by re-occupying that portion of the Soudan. The truth is that the inhabitants welcome the return of the Egyptian troops most cordially as a relief to the constant oppression to which they had been subjected for years past. The constant attacks made by the Dervishes on Suakin and the neighbourhood render the advance necessary, but it is intended that the movement shall stop. Even since the occupation of Tokar Her Majesty's Government have received information from Egypt than there is no idea of going any further. So far we have been able to do a great deal of good, and the people are in an infinitely better position than when we first went there. Far from the Egyptians seeking to victimise the Soudan in order to replenish their resources, all movements involving expenditure are avoided.
MR. LABOUCHERE: I will leave it to the right hon. Gentleman to settle the matter with the Times Correspondent, although I may say that, in my opinion, the Times Correspondent is generally correct in the information he furnishes, and seems to me to be a very well informed man. Living there, and occupying an important position, it seems to me that the Times Correspondent knows more of what is going on in Egypt and what the Egyptian Government are about than, with all due respect to the right hon. Gentleman and his chief, they do themselves. But the right hon. Gentleman seems to have put forward a very different view as to the abandonment of the Soudan to that which was put forward in 1884, when it was stated in the House by Her Majesty's Ministers that they had decided to abandon the Soudan. I remember very well reading the telegram from Sir Evelyn Baring, in which he said that we had abandoned the Soudan; and we have all heard of the pressure which was then used upon the Egyptian Government to induce them to abandon that region, the conditions upon which they were to do so being that for a certain time we should guarantee them Egypt and Suakin. I might remind the Committee that at that time rather than accept the policy of Her Majesty's Government two Members of the Administration resigned. Well, what happened? We continued to remain where we were, but we voted money in this House on the idea that the Soudan was to be abandoned. Now, however, the right hon. Baronet tells us that the Khedive never abandoned the Soudan; that the Sultan never abandoned it; that the Egyptians are there still. I ask, what for? They have not asked for or obtained the Sultan's permission, but we are told that they are acting on the assumption that they never did abandon the Soudan, and that that territory is part and parcel of Egypt. If this be so, it is evident that being allowed to keep possession of the Eastern Soudan they may before long go on to Berber, and then, if they like, extend their operations to Khartoum. The question to us is, whether it is expedient that they should be allowed to go there? From what the right hon. Baronet has said it is rendered still more
1140
probable than even is stated in the telegram of the Times Correspondent, that the Egyptians will ere long be dragged into some further enterprise in Kassala, and after that upon Khartoum. The right hon. Baronet treats what has happened as a mere military necessity, because he says we were obliged to take Tokar because we hold Suakin, and the Dervishes having established themselves in the Tokar district, it was necessary to take Tokar. Well, not only are we at Tokar, but we are building forts beyond that place. The Dervishes may attack those forts, and then it may be necessary for us to go still further. The result will probably be that we shall go on and on, until at last we have laid hold of the whole of the Soudan, just as it was formerly laid hold of by the Egyptians when Ismail was the ruler. The right hon. Baronet justifies the massacre of 1,000 Dervishes in the, neighbourhood of Suakin, because a year ago the Dervishes attacked the Egyptians at Wady Haifa. Why were not those operations undertaken at that time? Simply because the Egyptian Government did not suppose that Her Majesty's Government would be so weak as to listen to the nonsense we hear about military necessities. Of course, the Government feel pretty sure of their position; they have the wealthy classes of this country at their back, and we know that they are in favour of the continued occupation of the Soudan. We see this in the organs of the Conservative Party, where we who oppose this occupation are blamed for merely hinting, however remotely, that under any possible contingency the British forces ought to leave Egypt. This being so, if the Government are anxious to make things comfortable for their followers, I have no doubt that within a year or so a further advance will take place beyond Tokar. I am told that we have discussed this matter before. That is quite true but we have been unable to get at the intentions of Her Majesty's Government, and I do not know that even after the speech of the right hon. Baronet we have been enabled clearly to ascertain what are the intentions and policy of Her Majesty's Government at the present moment. We shall probably still have

1141
to initiate many discussions on this question. There are other Votes on which Egyptian questions are involved, and until we get an assurance that the Government will maintain what should be our own place in Egypt and fall back on Suakin, it will be my painful duty to insist on dividing the House on every one of these Votes. There is one other point on which I wish to say a few words. I have already mentioned Manica——
THE CHAIRMAN: As the hon. Member is now opening a different topic, I would suggest that he should reserve that for another occasion.
DR. CAMERON: I wish, Sir, to call attention to a matter in connection with this Vote.
MR. LABOUCHERE: Pardon me. In answer to what the Chairman has said, I may say that I thought of taking both questions on the one Vote; but if he thinks I ought, as a matter of duty, to take another course, I have no objection to taking half a dozen Divisions.
THE CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member for Glasgow is about to bring forward a matter connected with this Vote he would have precedence.
*DR. CAMERON: I desire to put a question to the right hon. Baronet in reference to a matter I brought forward the other day. I refer to the recent seizure of a vessel called the Arbib Brothers at Algiers. There was a claim against that vessel for salvage, and the French Court ordered the owners to lodge a sum of 150,000 francs in satisfaction of that claim, should it be established, and that, I believe, was done. The British Consul at Algiers had the matter brought under his cognizance, and pledged his word that the Arbib Brothers should not leave pending his decision; but the other party to the suit, the Compagnie Transatlantique, sent one of their ships with an armed crew alongside the Arbib Brothers, with the avowed object of preventing her from leaving by force, if necessary, an act which is strongly complained of. I wish to know whether the right hon. Gentleman will not make some remonstrances to the French Government against conduct which was certainly likely to have led to a breach of the peace and to international disagreement. The right hon. Gentleman told me the other day that no breach of the law had been committed; but, at any
1142
rate, there was a breach of the comity of the nations which might have led to international consequences. I was exceedingly dissatisfied with that answer. I think that had it been the case of a German vessel, or had a vessel belonging to any other nation been treated in that fashion, we should certainly have heard of a very strong protest. The matter was one in which Her Majesty's Government should have had no difficulty in sending a representation to a friendly nation. It is nonsense to say that there was the smallest chance of a disabled British vessel surreptitiously leaving a port like Algiers, with forts all round and garrisoned by a strong military force gave notice that I should call attention to this matter on going into Committee of Supply. As I may not have the opportunity of doing this, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will now say whether he has taken any steps in the matter.
SIR J. FERGUSSON: I regret that I am unable to give the hon. Member any further information than I gave him on a previous occasion in answer to his question. I do not think the hon. Member has made any misstatement of the facts, which are simply these: that a British ship broke down off Algiers, and called for assistance; a French steamer went out to render that assistance; then came a demand for salvage, which the captain did not feel justified in admitting without reference to the owners. Upon this, proceedings were taken without delay in Court, and on the representation that the ship was about to leave the harbour a seizure was made upon her, and steps taken to prevent her going to sea. A week afterwards a tug steamer arrived from England to take her home, where she could be more cheaply repaired than at Algiers; but the vessels of the company which had made the claim took the steps referred to to prevent her going to sea. No doubt the proceeding was very uncourteous and unnecessary, but it was not illegal; and owing to our not having a Consular Convention we could not regard what happened as a breach of Treaty. In fact, we have no grounds whatever for making formal representations on the subject to the French Government, there having been no actual breach of the law.
*DR. CAMERON: Wore those proceedings taken with the cognisance of the French Government?
*SIR J. FERGUSSON: They were certainly not taken by the French Government; but I believe they could not have been taken with the cognisance of the local authorities. There was, however, no actual assault committed, and the mere fact that two merchant steamers anchored in the immediate vicinity of a disabled British steamer affords no real claim for redress.
MR. LABOUCHERE: I may now perhaps be allowed to refer to the question of Manica, and to the action of those who have received the charter to Mashonaland. I wish to obtain from the right hon. Gentleman some information in explanation of what has taken place. The operations of this Chartered Company are limited by the charter to Mashonaland and Matabeleland. By the proposed Treaty with Portugal, Manicaland was recognised as part and parcel of the Portuguese territory. By the Convention which was signed last August, after the Treaty fell through, it was agreed that the status quo should remain, and under that status quo a line was drawn which showed that Manicaland did not form part of the portion of Africa under British protection, but that it was regarded as Portuguese. Just at the very moment this Convention was being signed, this company having a number of deperadoes who had been enlisted in Mashonaland; and probably finding that there was no gold in that country, while they had heard that there was gold in Manicaland, crossed the frontier, where they found Portuguese officials, whom they laid hold of and sent away as prisoners to Cape Town, a distance of 1,600 miles. Then they established themselves in Manicaland, and made a Treaty with the Chief Umtassa. The right hon. Gentleman seems to despise the Times correspondence, but I do not despise it; and from that correspondence I find that Umtassa's stock-in-trade consisted of a second-hand pair of trousers and a cocked hat. And this was the Chief with whom these desperadoes made a Treaty. They induced him to hand over to them certain powers and rights to all mines and lands, and also the right to found banks. I think the word "banks" will show how this poor unfortunate
1144
Chief was humbugged, and I should like to know how they translated it to him. The Portuguese pleaded that they had effective occupation; that Mutassa was only a tributary to another Chief, whose concession to them was paramount. It is said that that concession has been repudiated. I do not believe a single word about that, because I think such statements are attributable to the special financial interests of private British investors. There is no doubt that these persons migrated from Mashonaland to Manicaland; that they established themselves there; that they are exercising powers of sovereignty there. It is very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say that this is not the case, but we have the correspondence before us. We know very well that by the Charter which was granted to the company it was stipulated that they were only to be allowed to exercise powers of sovereignty over that portion of the territory in which their mining rights were ceded to them by Lobengula on the condition that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs gave them permission. I asked the right hon. Gentleman the other day whether they had obtained that permission, and he said they had not. This means that these men are merely filibusterers. The Under Secretary for India, some time ago, in discussing the question of the Borneo Charter, said that a Chartered Company merely meant filibustering by proxy. That is my opinion of Chartered Companies. I believe these people have no sort of right to exercise power and influence in Manicaland under the terms of their Charter, because they have not got the permission of the Secretary of State. I asked the right hon. Gentleman a question to-night as to the arrest of a steamer which was going up the River Limpopo with arms on board, and he stated that it carried smuggled goods; but there is no doubt that the ship was going up to the aid of the filibusterers. This is a most serious matter, almost as serious as the capture of Tokar, because we may be dragged into a war at any time by these filibusterers. I see that the newspapers, including the Times, are to-day pointing out that the Portuguese have really no rights, and that we might oppress and crush them with impunity; but I would venture to point out that there is an

1145
International Law which regulates these matters. Lord Salisbury is very fond of attacking weak Powers, and of cringing before strong ones.
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I have not discovered yet what connection the remarks of the hon. Member have with this particular item.
MR. LABOUCHERE: I am finding fault with the conduct of Lord Salisbury, and moving a reduction of his salary as a sort of penal action in condemnation of his conduct. I believe that this is the usual way of proceeding.
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has not pointed to any conduct on the part of Lord Salisbury.
MR. LABOUCHERE: I am coming to that. Instead of protesting against this conduct, and telling the filibusterers that he will not give them any sort of protection, he appears, from the answers given to questions in this House, always to say that he has no knowledge of the matters complained of. He evidently does not want to hear anything against them. When we ask the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs "Has it come to your knowledge that certain facts which are known to everybody have occurred?" he replies, "We have received no sort of information." Now, Lord Salisbury is responsible for the acts of his subordinates. We ought not to be put off in this way. It shows me that Lord Salisbury is acting with this Chartered Company: he knows Portugal is a weak Power, and he is encouraging and abetting this company in attacking Portugal, enabling them to deport and put in prison Portuguese officials and those who send arms and ammunition through Portuguese territory contrary to Portuguese law. Under these circumstances, I do think that, before we agree to the salary which is proposed to be voted to Lord Salisbury, we should hear some explanation from the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs in regard to the position Her Majesty's Government have taken up in respect to these filibusterers.
SIR J. POPE HENNESSY: I think that before my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton condemns the conduct of Lord
1146
Salisbury in Africa he should contrast it with that of his predecessor. I am bound to say, for my own part, as far as I know anything of Africa, that I approve the policy of Lord Salisbury far more than that of any other statesman who has preceded him. I wish, however, to ask the Government a question on this Vote in respect to a matter that I previously mentioned, but could then obtain no information about it. On February 24 one of the correspondents of the Times wrote a very interesting description of the conduct of the Russians in Warsaw, and in that correspondence we were told that no fewer than 46 political prisoners were treated with great cruety—were tortured, flogged, and otherwise maltreated for merely political offences. I asked the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary at the time whether the Government had any information on the matter, and the answer was in the negative. Since then I have myself received evidence confirming the statements of the Times correspondent, and I therefore wish to again ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government have also received any confirmation of them, and, if so, whether Lord Salisbury has addressed any remonstrance on the subject to the Russian Government. I would remind the Committee that Lord Salisbury himself once, speaking in this House, and from the very seat now occupied by the hon. Member for Northampton, dwelt on the fact that, owing to our Treaty engagements respecting Poland—under the Treaty of Vienna, signed by Russia as well as England—we were bound, whenever the population of that part of the world suffered injustice at the hands of Russia, to protest against it. We know that from time to time that engagement has been acted on, and remonstrances made; and I hope that if the Government have received information on the matter referred to it will be resorted to in this case.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: We are all admirers of Lord Salisbury in matters in which his views coincide with our own. I am an ardent admirer of Lord Salisbury, except in two or three important particulars. The hon. Member for Kilkenny approves Lord Salisbury's policy in Africa, but seems to

1147
disapprove of it in Europe. I cannot help feeling that Lord Salisbury answered the hon. Member by anticipation the other day at a banquet, when he said that wrong might have been done to the Poles, but that, after all, if we remonstrated we might be told to mind our own business, and that if we interfered the last state of the poor people might be worse than the first. As regards Lord Salisbury's conduct in Africa, I am altogether an admirer of the noble Lord, though I think there must be something behind to induce Lord Salisbury to allow the Egyptians to act as they have done. With regard to Manicaland, I am no admirer of the Portuguese. All they are doing there is to try and run their company-mongers against our company-mongers. It is a case of diamond cut diamond, or "pull devil, pull baker." Still, I think there are some grounds for diplomatic decency. The Portuguese allege that they have a Treaty with Umtassa. The South Africa Company said the same. The parties met, and Umtassa had to decide which he preferred; and while Umtassa was sitting there on his Throne, the agents of the South Africa Company seized their opponents and carried them off. I certainly do think that Her Majesty's Government are bound to keep this company within bounds. If they do not do so, they will some day involve this country in grave responsibility. I hope the Government will insist that the South Africa Company shall not do things in such an extremely high-handed manner in the future.
MR. CONYBEARE: I am not going to argue in defence of the Chartered Company or of any other company, but I do not think, so far as my observations of the facts have gone, the representations given of them to this House by the hon. Members for Northampton and Kirkcaldy have been accurate. The hon. Member for Northampton admitted that while the Convention was being signed the Portuguese representatives were seized by the agents of the Chartered Company. But if I understand the position correctly, there was a conflict of evidence as to whether Manicaland belonged to the Portuguese or to the company, and that question was being determined by
1148
the Home Authorities when the difficulty arose in Manica itself, and these proceedings occurred. I do not think the Chartered Company acted in defiance of any authority. They did nothing in contravention of their Charter, because, at the time they seized the agents of the Portuguese Company, they did not know what decision had been come to in this country, and therefore I would rather deprecate the some what vigorous denunciation which been levelled against our fellow-countrymen in South Africa. This question of the action of the agents of the Chartered Company was raised in this House last Session, and I ventured on that occasion to express my own opinion that if you are going to have concessionaires and company-mongers, or filibustered, or gold prospectors to explore these countries, it is better that they should act under some recognised authority, and that they should be kept in check by means of the regulations of a company like the Chartered Company. I have taken the trouble to make myself familiar with some of those regulations, and it certainly seems to me that they have a direct tendency to promote good order and government in those territories over which they are authorised to exercise sway; and until far graver complaints are made out against the general conduct of the company, I shall, at any rate, hesitate to cast a stone against it, and shall not join with my hon. Friends in their denunciations. It appears to me that, as a whole, the policy which——
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member is wandering from the point before the Committee. The Committee is only concerned in the attitude of the Foreign Office in relation to these affairs.
MR. CONYBEARE: I will not go into details of the dispute between the Portuguese and the agents of the Chartered Company. I only wish to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs what is the position of the Government in the matter between the Portuguese and the Chartered Company? I cannot agree with my hon. Friends who have expressed so much admiration of Lord Salisbury's conduct on this or that point. I do not think there is one point on which I can join in admiring

1149
him. Now we are discussing the conduct of Lord Salisbury as Foreign Minister, and I should like to reiterate my strong opposition to his policy in connection with the African question generally; I am not going to traverse the grounds on which last year the Government gave way to Germany on every point in connection with the partition of East and Central Africa. When we consider the position of our territory north and south of the Zambesi and north of Albert Nyanza, and when we bear in mind the importance of having some connecting' link between those two parts, I am sure we shall all deplore the blindness of Lord Salisbury in permitting the Germans by means of their newfangled Hinterland doctrine to push in a wedge of German territory between our northern and southern territories. I said at the time that, in my opinion, it was a most fatal mistake, and I fear that in the future we shall have great cause to deplore this unfortunate step. Undoubtedly the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs cannot be expected to undo the mischief, but some steps might be taken to strengthen our position. There have been a good many rumours lately as to the operations of British subjects in Damaraland and Dutch territories, and there has been apparent a desire of the Germans to get rid of that portion of their possessions. Walfisch Bay remains isolated—a kind of oasis in the desert of German territory. The German territory in that part of Africa is known to contain in some parts very valuable copper mines, and also I believe a considerable amount of gold. I want to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether any information has reached him as to proposed operations by British subjects in that territory, and whether the German Government have expressed any willingness to enter into negotiations with this country for the purpose of giving over the whole of that territory in exchange for any other? At any rate, I think the Government ought to take some measures for the purpose of securing whatever rights we may possess in connection with Walfisch Bay. It may be desired to construct a line of railway to the copper-bearing districts to the North of
1150
Damaraland. If so, I hope Her Majesty's Government will do their utmost to secure for such British enterprise whatever protection and fair play may be needed. I hope the Government will not rashly or in too great haste concede to Portugal rights which English subjects have secured and are acting upon with great advantage to the people.
MR. ATKINSON: It would be very amusing if it were not so sad to hear political pigmies—to hear Members on the other side, one after another, speaking deprecatingly of the policy of a statesman like Lord Salisbury and proposing that his salary should be reduced. The idea of anyone trying to depreciate the foreign policy of the Government by even insinuating that the reduction of the salary of a statesman like Lord Salisbury would have any effect whatever, is too amusing to accept seriously. The Member for Northampton knows perfectly well that if he goes down to the City and inquires there, he will find that the prosperity of this country is founded on the foreign policy of the present Government; and if there is a point that is totally unassailable it is the foreign policy of Lord Salisbury. It is a policy that we are all proud of as Englishmen, and that makes us all the more enjoy every trip we take into every other country, because we know it is such a change from that policy which our friends on the other side would like to have restored. When their leader was in office nobody knew what the foreign policy would be for six months together. Gentlemen on the other side are indulging in constant wearying references to Turkish atrocities. Our friends opposite do not seem to think at all that Turkey was fighting side by side with us not very long ago, and they speak of the "unspeakable Turk" as if the word "unspeakable" did not apply to any offence committed in this country. There are unspeakable wretches in England as well as in Turkey. We hear nothing about the conduct of Russia towards the Jews from those who seem to think that Russia is our best friend. There are offences committed in all countries; and while we ought to use our influence to diminish those offences, we ought not to kick at those who are on friendly terms with us.
SIR J. FERGUSSON: The hon. Member for Northampton has called attention to another branch of foreign policy in which, unfortunately, he finds his countrymen again in the wrong. It seems to be his constant view of the conduct of Englishmen all over the world that they are always in the wrong. I confess I begin always with a contrary predisposition. I am inclined to think they are in the right primâ facie, and I cannot reconcile myself to condemning them primâ facie. I do not think many hon. Gentlemen will agree with the hon. Gentleman who says he does not believe one word the South Africa Company may say. The hon. Member wishes to have a declaration from the Government as to the affairs of Manicaland. Recent events there are pretty well known. We were anxious to make arrangements with the Portuguese, and to avoid disputes with them in Manicaland. In August last a Convention equitable to both countries was concluded, but the Portuguese Government was not able to have the Convention ratified. Then a modus vivendi was agreed upon for six months. At the time when the collision between the agents of the South Africa Company and the Portuguese occurred this agreement was not known to them. The hon. Member says that the South Africa Company has violated its charter in exercising powers in Umtassa's country which have not been approved by Her Majesty's Government. The company's agents are not exercising any powers of sovereignty or administration in Umtassa's country. But as a large number of Europeans are, with the Chiefs' consent, following their vocations in the country, the police of the South Africa Company arc, at Umtassa's request, keeping order in the country. I think that the Committee will see that until a definite settlement is arrived at, probably no better arrangement could be made. I am sorry to hear an hon. Member talking of our people there as filibusters; they are enterprising colonists in the same sense as our people have colonised great portions of the world. The Committee may be quite sure that Her Majesty's Government will keep faith both with foreign Powers, and with native Chiefs, and that no precipitate action will be taken. I think that in this House we should give
1152
credit to our own countrymen who are carrying on enterprises under considerable difficulty in a straightforward manner, and not call them by opprobrious names. My hon. Friend the Member for North Kilkenny (Sir J. Pope Hennessy) has referred to the question of the treatment of certain prisoners at Warsaw. Her Majesty's Government have no official information of the occurrences to which the hon. Member referred, and I think it is well that we should not interfere in the affairs of foreign countries unless our interference can be accompanied with some advantage, and I do not think that the experience of 1863 will lead the House to wish for interference in the affairs of Poland. Many statesmen in the House in 1863 entertained the idea of intervening in the affairs of Poland, and an attempt was made at combined action by several Powers with regard to the matter, but those efforts were abortive, and Russia has since 1831 disclaimed the right of foreign Governments to interfere in the affairs of Poland. The hon. Member for Camborne asked a question with regard to the state of things between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Portugal. It is not customary to give information as to the progress of negotiations until they are concluded, and I must ask leave to follow that wholesome rule in this case, because, undoubtedly, when you have a game of some difficulty to play, it does not tend to your success to lay your cards on the table. Her Majesty's Government trust that the negotiations which are being conducted in a most conciliatory spirit will lead to a conclusion satisfactory to both countries.
DR. CLARK: After hearing the defence of the Government I am prepared to support the hon. Member for Northampton in his Motion to reduce the salary of the right hon. Gentleman by £200. We shall vote for that Motion in order to express our disapproval of the action of the Government in refusing to come to terms with Portugal, and to delimit our spheres of influence, and also for aiding and abetting the filibusters of the South Africa Company, in taking possession of a portion of Portuguese territory. The right hon. Gentleman does not like the term "filibuster." If he had read the papers of seven or eight years ago

1153
Stellaland and other Republics were all formed by filibusters, whom we all denounced. But then they were Boers and were not organised, and had no charter from our Government. Since then we have organised filibusters and granted them a charter, and now when they actually take Portuguese territory we aid and abet them. That this territory does belong to the Portuguese is perfectly clear. In the Treaty of August last the River Limpopo was used as a boundary between the Portuguese sphere of influence and the British sphere of influence; the British sphere of influence was put west of the river, and the Portuguese east of the river. The Portuguese objected to that because it carried their boundary too far east; and under the present modus vivendi Manicaland is a portion of the Portuguese sphere of influence. Your legalised filibusters, by taking possession of this territory, have declared war against Portugal, and we have a lot of little unofficial wars carried on. Is this territory Portuguese, and have the Portuguese any right to it? They have been there for over 200 years. Five years ago, before this Chartered Company was promoted, the Mozambique Company had prospectors there. Three years ago three companies were formed in London to work some concessions granted by the Mozambique Company. The companies sent out their prospectors and took possession of this territory. We are told Umtassa has given a concession to the British Africa Company. Of course, he will give a concession to whoever will give him something to drink and a few presents. All the native Chiefs will do that. If the Germans came east they would soon get concessions from the Chiefs in our Protectorate, and they would have just as much right to take possession of Bechuanaland as we have to take Manicaland. Let us try the filibustering game with Germany. I cannot see why, because Portugal is a weak Power, we should aid and abet Mr. Rhodes in filibustering. What excuse can Her Majesty's Government offer for playing into the hands of this private company? A few Tory and Unionist Dukes control it, and they are now demanding that the Portuguese Government should build a railway for their convenience. Her Majesty's Government are laying
1154
down a condition that in order to save the company a route of 1,700 miles to Cape Town, the Portuguese shall place a railway at the disposal of the company by which they will get to the coast in 350 miles. At least this is so stated in the Portuguese papers, and I ask what right have our Government to make this demand on behalf of filibusters who have taken possession of Portuguese territory?
SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID: I protest against the language used by the hon. Member for Caithness. Mr. Rhodes and other gentlemen who have taken part in colonisation work are no more filibusters than the hon. Member himself. The hon. Member has most unjustifiably endeavoured to prejudge the case which is now in dispute between Portugal and England—a case in which Portugal, I believe, is entirely in the wrong and England in the right—but the hon. Member is not justified by his position as a Member of this House in using language against his own country, and I hope we shall hear no more of such expressions in the House of Commons.
Question put, and negatived.
Original Question again proposed.
MR. SCHWANN: I take this opportunity to call the attention of the Foreign Office to the imposition of the Paddy Tax in Ceylon. This has no reference to the Irish question. "Paddy," as some hon. Members will be aware, is rice, and paddy-growers are cultivators of rice-fields. The Paddy Tax presses severely on the poorest class of Cingalese cultivators—a loyal class of peasantry—who have a strong claim upon the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. The Paddy Tax is levied for the support of the general expenses of the Ceylon Government, and it is the only class of agriculture which pays such taxation. A planter may cultivate the cocoa-nut-palm, quinine, coffee, or tea, and no tax is payable thereon. I believe this question concerning the paddy-growers has been before the House on more than one occasion, and I should not have ventured to dwell upon the subject now, but for the fresh evidence which has recently been laid before the Legislative Council of Ceylon

1155
with reference to the sufferings of the poorer class of cultivators in the Island. The information on this subject from Mr. F. C. Fisher, Government Agent of Province of Uva, Ceylon, has been published in the Ceylon newspapers, and doubtless has been now laid before Her Majesty's Government. By the personal exertions of this gentleman, and at the special request of the Governor, this evidence was collected a short time ago and was put before the Governor, and by him submitted to the Legislative Council of Ceylon. I venture to quote the following extracts from Mr. Fisher's Report, dated October 31, 1890. He says:—
"Returning to Uva in 1887, after an absence of 17 years, I was quite shocked to see the change in the condition of the people, with which I had been well acquainted. The signs of general poverty were unmistakable, and some of the chiefs, even, with difficulty kept up appearances, while the poorer classes were ill-clothed and in many cases underfed."
Let me point out that it is air aggravation of the needy position of the cultivators that the Government, allowed arrears of the tax before 1882 to accumulate, then ordered the arrears and annual taxes of 5 years to be collected in 3½ years, at the very time when Ceylon was suffering from the ruin which had fallen upon coffee plantations through a parasitic disease (insects and fungus) which infected the plants. Nearly every coffee plantation was ruined, and the paddy-growers had hitherto relied almost entirely on the cultivation of small patches of coffee to supply the tax on their paddy-fields. Just at the time when Ceylon was suffering intensely from this coffee failure, I repeat the Government insisted on gathering in the arrears of taxation, and in cases of default land was ruthlessly confiscated and sold by public auction. Mr. F. C. Fisher made personal inquiries as to the result of this oppressive action, and in one district alone he mentions that the effect has been to deprive 2,930 heads of families of their possessions, and, taking the family average as five persons, 14,650 persons or 49 per cent. of the inhabitants of this one district, were reduced to the greatest distress. As the paddy-fields occur frequently in other districts throughout the Island it is not an over-estimate to suppose that in
1156
29,000 instances lands have by this action of the Government agents passed into the hands of Moormen, Tamils, and others. This is much to be regretted for many reasons. It is possible that the Colonial Office may intend to pass some measure for the amelioration of the sad condition of the rice growers in Ceylon; and the Governor (Sir A. Havelock), I am sure, weighing all the details put before him, will give judicious advice to Her Majesty's Government. The tax amounts to about a tenth of the produce of the fields, and some years ago this tenth was paid in kind; but in the belief that it would improve the position of the paddy-growers, the tax was commuted into money payments. This has been found to work strongly against the interest of the growers, because they have found difficulties in finding near markets for their produce, and through the unscrupulous action of middlemen, have had to suffer severe losses in their slender incomes. Proposals to abolish the Paddy Tax have been met by the objection that this can only be done by the substitution of a general Light Land Tax all over the Island. This may have to be carried out, but as the amount the tax yields is £75,000 annually, it is quite possible that some other source might be found for the income required. It is not necessary for me to enter into any detailed statement of the proper course to be taken. I am quite sure the Legislative Council could devise a fitting substitution should the tax be abolished. It has been proved that 5 per cent. duty which exists on imported rice for revenue purposes cannot be considered a protective tariff. I only bring the matter forward now in the hope that the Under Secretary for the Colonies will be able to give an assurance that the complaints of these impoverished peasantry of Ceylon will not be allowed to pass unheard. One other question arises in connection with the Defence Fund required from Ceylon. I believe that Her Majesty's Government have telegraphed that the sum required will, within a year or two, amount to £100,000, a heavy sum from so small a colony, and I hope the Government will re-consider their decision. The fact is, a few years ago, the Ceylon Government offered a reasonable sum

1157
towards the defence of the colony, and in doing so their conduct stood out in strong contrast to the attitude of other colonies, such as Jamaica, which steadily refused taxation for its own defence. Ceylon, however, offered to pay what was reasonable, and the inhabitants now feel that advantage is being taken of their loyalty by the Home Government. I hope it may be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to give some assurances of a favourable nature on this point. I daresay he has seen reports of language reported to have been used by gentlemen of responsible position in the Island, namely, that they fear more the rapacity of the Home Government than that of any enemy at all likely to attack Ceylon. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider these claims, which are urged on behalf of the people of one of the most loyal of our colonies.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: The hon. Member has not moved a reduction, and I am anxious to move the reduction, of which I have given notice, and to narrow the discussion upon the Colonial Vote. There are one or two other questions I should like to ask, though I have no wish to raise serious discussion upon matters which may be more adequately dealt with under the regular Votes in Supply—if we do reach Supply—before the closing days of the Session. With regard to the Paddy Tax, there are complications upon which I shall be glad if the Under Secretary can throw some light, but I must express my entire dissent from the idea that it is not the duty of Ceylon to pay for its own defence. I am very sorry that my hon. Friend should have seemed to express any sympathy with the impudent language—for so I must call it—of colonists who choose to consider the claim for their own defence a rapacious demand from the Home Government. India pays for her own defence, and there is no reason why Ceylon should not assist; and when reference is made to the action of other colonies, all I can say is, two blacks do not make a white. As a fact, Mauritius does pay handsomely for its defence, and so does Singapore and the Straits Settlements. Jamaica does not, but I hope influences will be brought to
1158
bear to induce a more reasonable attitude. But now I turn to another part of the world, and have to ask a question in reference to Newfoundland. We are promised Papers in reference to the fisheries dispute there, and, therefore, I will not raise that question now, only I will say that Her Majesty's Government are now following a course which is exactly that I would desire them to follow. But there is another matter I wish to refer to which may or may not be connected with the Newfoundland Fisheries dispute. We were taken by surprise the other day when an hon. Member asked what to me seemed a strange question, and received what I consider a somewhat startling answer. The question was whether Her Majesty's Government had in contemplation the guaranteeing a loan of £2,000,000 to Newfoundland. It was to be expected that the answer would have been that this was a rumour, only based upon imagination; but to my astonishment the answer was that under certain conditions the Government proposed to recommend Parliament to guarantee such a loan to the colony. Now, this is a serious matter, and it is surprising that this answer has not excited more public attention. I do not know another instance in which we have guaranteed a large loan for a self-governing colony. Under special circumstances, I believe we did guarantee a loan for Canada, but that was under very peculiar circumstances and in days long gone by. Of all colonies Newfoundland least deserves such a favour, because it has been influenced by a lot of speculators, who attempted, by blustering disloyalty, to force the Government into a collision with France. Although this is a Government of sops and bribes, I should be reluctant to believe that it would give a sop to Newfoundland to induce that colony to assent to the arbitration of the matters in dispute with France. I should like to know under what circumstances Her Majesty's Government are prepared to guarantee this loan, and whether the undertaking to give that guarantee has any connection with the proposal to refer the fisheries dispute to arbitration. There is another matter in connection with the Colonial Office as to which time presses. We

1159
have been told that Her Majesty's Government have already consented to give responsible government to the colony of Natal, and we have also been told that it is not an occasion in which Parliament can interfere. We are in fear, therefore, that the matter will be concluded before Parliament has had an opportunity of discussing it. I am glad to see that some hitch has arisen between the colony and Her Majesty's Government, and the matter may have to be referred home again, and it is perhaps not so pressing as it would otherwise be. But, however, the Under Secretary for the Colonies has declared that it is not a matter within the cognisance of Parliament, and, therefore, I may take this opportunity of expressing my view in relation to this matter. Her Majesty's Government are prepared to give a representative Government to Natal, and that means giving 37,000 whites—men, women, and children all told—absolute power over 500,000 natives. No provision for the protection of the coloured people is worth the paper it is written upon after we have given a colony self-government. We have never given such control before in our colonial history. When self-government was given to colonists in America, New Zealand, and Australia, the Aborigines were a mere handful compared to the white settlers. But a very different state of things prevail in South. Africa, and I think that any man who has followed the history of colonial affairs there will recognise the dangers that may arise from the colonial treatment of powerful native races and the necessity for our armed interposition in the troubles that may follow. At the same time, I should like to have some more information in regard to the Natal tariff, and I cannot but express my opinion that Her Majesty's Government seem to have handed themselves over body and soul, so far as South Africa is concerned, to Mr. Rhodes, in his several capacities of Premier of Cape Colony, head of the South Africa Company, and head speculator and company promoter in South Africa. On this subject I saw a letter recently in the Scotsman, from a gentleman with whom I do not always agree, Mr. Arnold Forster, and he puts this case very strongly. Then, again, I should like to
1160
have the view of the Government in reference to the continuation of the offices of Governor of the Cape and High Commissioner, in one person; and I fear that the High Commissioner loses that independence he should preserve. What has happened in regard to this question? You sent to Swaziland a Cape partizan, and he forced upon the Transvaal this highly protective Customs Union, so that Natal is obliged either to raise its high tariff or remain out in the cold. The Colonial Secretary admitted that that would be the effect of the operation. He admitted that if the Transvaal is forced into this union against its will-Natal must either admit its goods free or submit to a double tariff, to the ruin of its trade and revenue. I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £1,000, part of the item at the top of page 3, for the Colonial Office.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Item of £7,000, for the Colonial Office, be reduced by £1,000."—(Sir George Campbell.)
SIR R. LETHBRIDGE: I wish to suggest in one or two words to the right hon. Gentleman that there really is a true case of hardship in the matter raised by the hon. Member for Manchester, with reference to the imposition of any further tax or burden for military defence on the colonial funds of Ceylon. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy said there was a certain amount of rapacity exhibited by colonials in objecting to this payment for their own defence. The hon. Member is evidently not aware of the particular circumstances under which this military expenditure is imposed on the revenues of Ceylon. The chief reason for the imposition of the burden is that Ceylon has to provide for the defence of the great port of Trincomalee, which is not especially a Ceylon port in any degree. It is one of the head-quarters of the Imperial Navy in Indian waters. It is one of the most important ports for our commerce in the world; and it is regarded as a considerable hardship by-all classes of Her Majesty's subjects in Ceylon that they should be called upon to furnish so large a proportion of the funds for the military defence of what is simply a great headquarter station in

1161
Indian waters. I should like to say one word on another matter that was referred to by the hon. Member for Manchester, and that is the proposal that Her Majesty's Government should instruct the Government of Ceylon to abolish the Paddy Tax. People used to suppose that this was a tax on Irishmen in Ceylon, but, in reality, it is a tax on one of the great necessities of life—a tax on the rice consumed by the native population; everybody would be extremely glad if some means could be found of abolishing the tax—a means which would not impose greater burdens on the industry of the country in other directions. It seems to me that the hon. Member who objects to the tax has not suggested any means by which the vacuum occasioned by the abolition of that tax could be filled without seriously injuring the colony. It has been suggested that heavier burdens should be directly placed upon the land, but I can conceive nothing which would more seriously throw back the prosperity of the colony than such an attempt as that, and I trust Her Majesty's Government will not listen to any such suggestion. I should be most happy to join with the hon. Member in advocating any means of doing away with the Paddy Tax, if it can be shown that the colony revenues can do without that tax, without imposing something infinitely worse on the people.
MR. LABOUCHERE: As it is now nearly a quarter to 12 o'clock, I will postpone to a more favourable opportunity some criticisms I had intended to make with regard to the connection of the Government with the South Africa Company, than which a more scandalous financial company never existed since the days of the South Sea Bubble. The Government have encouraged unfortunate widows of clergymen and orphans to provide resources for this bogus company, and that adds another to the many reasons why it will be necessary to deprive this country of the glory of being governed by the present Administration at the next General Election.
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,): The Government fully recognise the great importance of the subject introduced
1162
by the hon. Member for Manchester. The late Governor of Ceylon appointed a local committee to consider the whole question of the Paddy Tax, and it is now under the consideration of the Secretary of State. The tax itself appears a heavy one; but, as the hon. Member for Kensington has pointed out, there is this great difficulty that, if it is taken away, another tax will have to be found to take its place. I may remind the hon Member that the tax was estimated to produce in 1890 nearly 1,000,000 rupees. The question of repealing the tax is not yet settled, and the Present Governor is considering the matter most carefully. As to the defence of Ceylon the hon. Member for Manchester says the colony suffers a hardship by having to contribute a considerable sum. I am not often in accord with the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, but in this, case I am. I think the colony ought to contribute to the cost of its own defences. The Secretary of State received a very important deputation from the colony not long ago, and pointed out that he did not see his way to releasing them from paying towards Imperial and colonial defence. It is said that Trincomalee is an important harbour, and that it is really the head-quarters of Her Majesty's Navy in the Indian Ocean. That is not the case. The principal harbour is Bombay; and even supposing that it were as important as it is said to be, that would not be a fair ground for relieving the colony from all necessity of contributing towards the cost of its own defence. As to another question raised by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, he seems to think that the action of the Government in granting a Constitution to Natal is on all fours with their action in regard to Western Australia.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: I said exactly the contrary.
*BARON H. DE WORMS: Then I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I would point out that it was necessary to submit the Western Australia Act to the House. In order to repeal an existing Act dealing with the disposition of the land in the colony——
SIR G. CAMPBELL: I do not dispute the question of law or the necessity of coming to this House. I spoke on the matter of expediency.
*BARON H. DE WORMS: There is a material difference between the two cases. In the matter of the Cape, when responsible Government was granted her in 1872, the procedure was precisely similar to that now proposed. The Imperial Parliament was not asked to intervene, and the matter never came before Parliament at all. We know from telegraphic information we have received that the Natal Constitution Bill is on its way here. We do not know the particulars of it, but we have every reason to believe that there are certain points in it with which Her Majesty's Government will be unable to agree. In all probability, when the Bill arrives here it will be referred back to Natal for alteration and revision. Her Majesty's Government, however, do not intend to go back from their consent to grant responsible Government to Natal provided due security is given for the protection of the interests of the coloured people. When those instructions are carried out to the satisfaction of Her Majesty's Government, then, and then only, will the consent of Her Majesty's Government be given to the Bill in question. The hon. Gentleman asks whether, prior to that consent being given, we will lay the Bill before the House. My answer is, No, we will follow the precedent set in the case of the Cape, and if hon. Members are not satisfied with the action of the Government in the matter, they can take us to task in the manner provided for by the forms of the House.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: Shall we have the Papers?
*BARON H. DE WORMS: I cannot pledge myself to present any. The Government will not withdraw their consent to the Bill if the conditions they have laid down in regard to the protection of the coloured population are complied with. I do not think the Committee would wish me to go into the question of the Customs Union at this late hour. I can only say that there is a Convention with regard to Swaziland, under which the Transvaal Government binds itself to certain terms for three years to come. The Union exists between Cape Colony, the Orange Free State and Bechuanaland, and the Government having agreed to
1164
it the hon. Member surely would not wish us to go beyond it. If within three years the Transvaal does not join the Union its terms can be abrogated.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: My mind is a great deal relieved by the statement that if the Bill is not considered satisfactory it will have to go back to Natal. If the Government does not give Parliament an opportunity of discussing the question, I hope that opportunity which we can take for ourselves will arise. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the circumstances under which responsible Government was given to the Cape. There are many people who think that is an example to be avoided, and that self government was given in that case without sufficient provision having been made for the interests of this country or for the interests of the natives. In the Cape you have a white population of something like 500,000. In Natal the coloured population out-numbers that of the white people by a great deal more than 10 to 1. I would point out that it is not the Transvaal that insists upon the part of the Convention relating to the Customs Union. The Transvaal would be delighted to get rid of that part of the Convention, the hardship which that State labours under in this respect having been brought to my notice by General Kruger. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to give us some explanation regarding the loan to be guaranteed to Newfoundland. Is the guarantee connected with the arbitration regarding the fisheries; and, if not, what are the circumstances which have led the Government to adopt the very unusual course of offering a guarantee to a particular colony?
BARON H. DE WORMS: What I said was that such proposals had been made, but no definite decision had been arrived at.
DR. CLARK: The question regarding the Transvaal is a very important one. If the Convention is put in force and the Transvaal joins the Customs Union, the railway will not pay working expenses, and Natal will probably be made bankrupt. We have not yet heard any reason why British people who have lent money to Natal should have their security taken away from them. It is not that the Transvaal desire it, because they

1165
have been forced into the agreement against their will. The reason why the Orange Free State joined the Customs Union was that the Cape Government gave it several millions of money and built all its railways. I should like to know why this agreement has been forced on the Transvaal to the injury of Natal. I differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir G. Campbell) in reference to guaranteeing responsible Government for Natal. I think that a responsible Government in Natal will be the best thing possible for Natal and for South Africa. I believe that if the people of Natal were compelled to pay for their own wars, the conflicts with native races would cease in the same way as such conflicts ceased in New Zealand, when the Imperial troops were withdrawn and the people were given to understand that in future they must pay for their own wars. One is always astonished at the ignorance of Her Majesty's Ministers. Everybody who reads the papers have seen the telegrams which have been published about the Bill, but the Government say they know nothing definitely about it. I regret very much to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that it is probable the Bill which has been adopted will not be sanctioned. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us the special points of interest which the Government desire to see conserved and which are not conserved by the Bill. Do they desire that the 30,000 Hindoos who are in the colony, and who are in about equal proportions with the white population, shall have a vote? Then in what position do the Government wish to place the 400,000 or 500,000 natives? Are they to have the vote in the same fashion as the natives have in the Cape Colony? If so, 99 per cent. of the people in Natal will repudiate your gift of responsible Government.
BARON H. DE WORMS: I must refer the hon. Member to the answer I have already given. The Bill is not yet in our hands. We may have seen reports about it, but it is obviously impossible for me to discuss the provisions of the measure with the imperfect knowledge at our disposal.
DR. CLARK: Why should you, before you get the Bill, practically censure the Natal Legislature for its action.
*BARON H. DE WORMS: I said that Her Majesty's Government have reason to believe that there are certain provisions in the Bill which they will not agree with. I decline to say what those provisions are, or to have them drawn from me by a process of cross-examination.
Question put, and negatived.
Original Question again proposed.
MR. KELLY: I wish to call attention to the position of a certain class of public servants known as Civil Service writers. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton on the 21st June, 1886, said there was a strong grievance in the case of the writers.
MR. H. H. FOWLER: I expressed that opinion before the Royal Commission was appointed.
MR. KELLY: I am aware that since reading the Report of the Royal Commission the right hon. Gentleman must have altered his opinions. Perhaps he will tell us the origin of the paragraph which specially deals with the question. Who are the writers? They are a body of men who are supposed to be employed on temporary service in the public offices and had to submit themselves to a certain examination—not a severe one, I admit—but still hard enough to permit of only 310 out of 1,280 passing-in 1881. What is the character of their work? They do work of the same description as that of the Second Division clerks, and they even teach the Lower Division clerks to do the work on which they are employed. Their pay is practically 10d. an hour, fixed on the supposition that the work of these writers shall be purely mechanical in its character. I am quite aware that I shall be corrected now, as last year, when I said that the great majority of these writers do not earn £100 a year. The right hon. Gentleman said they earned £150, but he was misinformed. I have no hesitation in repeating that the average income is less than £100. Many of those writers have been employed for 15 years in the same office. It has been admitted that a considerable proportion of them do work which it was never intended to be done by them. Previous to 1870 the heads of Departments had the power, and exercised it in every instance, of recommending

1167
writers for increase of pay. But the system of writers has always led to dissatisfaction, and it would be best to reduce the number of such clerks to a minimum. The Playfair Commission of 1874 reported against the system, and advised that the lowest class of permanent work should be entrusted to an organised class of properly paid clerks. As the result of this recommendation 535 men out of 2,000 received permanent appointments; and a similar course of action now would go far to satisfy the just claim of the Civil Service writers. Unfortunately, the system of Civil Service writers, condemned over and over again, still continued. Indeed, things went on much the same for 11 years, at the end of which period there was a Petition to the Treasury, backed up by 120 Members of this House, The result was the Treasury Minute of December 1st, 1886. If that had been carried out, the writers would have had no cause of complaint; but, as a matter of fact, the most limited interpretation was put upon that Minute, and no benefit whatever has been derived from it. And now I come to the Report of the Commission on the Civil Service Establishments, which declared that the writers had established no grievance which it was the duty of the State to remedy. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton is one of those who are responsible for that paragraph. I would invite the House to consider the meaning of this paragraph. It does not say that the Civil Service writers have no just claims or moral right to an improvement in their position; it merely says that the writers have established no grievance which it is the duty of the State to remedy. That is not the question. The question is whether they have been treated unjustly, and whether they have not by continuous service established a claim, not for justice only, but for some sort of liberal treatment. I should like to know the history of this paragraph in the Report, and how it came there. I am informed on good authority that it did not appear in the original draft, and that probably, if the Commissioners had thought the effect of it would be to injure the position of the writers, it would never have appeared. Taking it for what it is worth, the Playfair Commission
1168
reported against the present system and strongly in favour of a change under which the writers should be treated as a properly paid and organised set of clerks. [Cries of "Oh, oh!" from the Ministerial Benches.] It is rather hard for an hon. Member to be met by these continued interruptions from his own side, but it seems that no one ever receives support from the Government side of the House in pleading the cause of the poorer men. If I were speaking on behalf of the higher officials of the Service I should, no doubt, be well supported on the Government Benches. Let me, however, ask what is to be done under the Treasury Minute which was looked forward to with hope by the writers. As it is there are 11,000 writers, and of these only 82 have received permanent appointments in spite of the fact that several hundreds were recommended for such appointments by the heads of Departments, men who well know the work which the writers are capable of doing. Another grievance is that one of the great arguments against doing anything for the writers is the temporary character of their employment. Does the Committee think that if that were so elaborate provision would be made for 42 years of continuous service, including the rise of a man at a 1d. per hour more per year, which is to be continued up to £50 a year? Those writers suffer cruelly as compared with the Second Division Clerks, especially in the matter of sickness. The utmost sick leave to which a writer is entitled per year is 28 days, and he has 16 days given in three-quarters pay, after the 28 days he can get no leave at all, except by losing his pay altogether. In a recent case a man had a few days leave, but there being an infectious disease in his house he was bound to remain away from his employment for a period of six weeks, during the greater part of which he had to sacrifice his pay, and thereby was deprived of the means of providing bread for himself and family. Had this been the case of a Second Division clerk he might have stayed away six months add still received his pay. A more unjust distinction as between two classes of men it is almost impossible to conceive.

1169
I shall conclude by moving the reduction of this Vote by the sum of £100, and in doing so I would make this appeal to the Secretary to the Treasury: if the right hon. Gentleman will agree to the appointment of a Parliamentary Committee to inquire into the writers' claims, or if he will even undertake to make that inquiry himself, the writers will cheerfully, and with implicit confidence, abide the result of his or the Committee's determination.
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): I am sorry that my hon. Friend has used as an argument a statement that there is a disposition on the part of the House to treat one class of the Civil Service differently from another. I believe, from my Parliamentary experience, that there is no shadow of foundation for such a statement.
MR. KELLY: I spoke amidst constant interruptions last year on this subject.
*MR. JACKSON: But my hon. Friend chose a very curious time for bringing forward the subject.
MR. KELLY: I had no option in the matter.
*MR. JACKSON: But my hon. Friend will admit that there are times when the House is impatient even when he is addressing it. There are certain rules governing the Civil Service which must be obeyed, and consistently with these rules I am anxious to do what I can for the writers. They enter the Service as temporary servants, and most of them enter at an age when it is perfectly competent for them to enter for the regular examinations of the Civil Service. An additional period of years has even been given them in which to pass the examinations. Parliament has been very strict in insisting that the Civil Service should be entered only by competitive examination; and if the writers cannot pass these examinations the Government would not be right in passing incompetent men into the Service. The question having been so recently inquired into by the Royal Commission to which the hon. Member has referred, it is hardly necessary for the House again to constitute a Committee of Inquiry. I most certainly, so far as I am concerned, cannot undertake to make further inquiries than those I have
1170
made, and which I deem to have been sufficient. I know that in consequence of a Minute which I had written a considerable sum in excess of former amounts was distributed. My hon. Friend knows there is no class of labour so cheap, so badly paid, and in such large supply as that of men who do simply copying. My hon. Friend would lead the House to believe that these men only get 10d. an hour. He knows that is not the case.
MR. KELLY: I said that a certain number received 1s. an hour.
*MR. JACKSON: The hon. Gentleman, then, would have the House believe that very few of these officers get more than 1s. an hour. Taking the day's work at seven hours, at 1s. an hour, the week's wage would be 42s. Let us see what are the real facts. I have obtained from the Civil Service Commissioners a statement showing the earnings of 733 of these clerks, and I think that will modify the judgment and opinions of the hon. Member as to what proportion of the men get 10d. or 1s. an hour. I take it 10d. an hour amounts to £78 a year. Now, according to this Return there were 38 whose earnings were not more than £78 a year; 122 earned between £78 and £90; 156 between £90 and £100; 122 between £100 and £110; 120 between £110 and £120; 64 between £120 and £130; 35 between £130 and £140; 19 between £140 and £150; and 57 over £150 a year.
MR. KELLY: The right hon. Gentleman speaks an if these men work only seven hours a day; but, as I stated last year, men are slaving their lives out in order to earn £150. How much of the money he has referred to was paid for overtime?
*MR. JACKSON: I think my hon. Friend is aware that in a good many offices I have introduced the system of piece work, by which men are paid not for their time, but according to the amount of work they do. I again say I feel that this question has been thoroughly investigated, and I cannot promise to do more than I have done. It is true that the Heads of Departments did send in a large number of names of men who were recommended for increase of pay, and a Committee was appointed to examine the work of each man so recommended.

1171
When it was found he was doing work of a higher character than fairly belonged to his class, the pay was increased. I think full justice has been done. Not only have I frequently expressed sympathy with these men, but I have evidenced it in a practical form by adding largely to their incomes.
MR. CREMER: The right hon. Gentleman has given the Committee some valuable information as to the earnings of the "writers, but cannot he follow it up by ascertaining the number of hours worked by each man? If he does, it may turn out that the information he has given is somewhat misleading. From what I have heard, men often have to work far into the night in order to earn £100 or £150 a year, and then the money is hardly earned indeed. If the right hon. Gentleman will promise to get this information I hope the hon. Member for Camberwell will withdraw his Motion.
SIR J. PULESTON: I feel sure the right hon. Gentleman will have no difficulty in giving way to the appeal just made. There can be no question as to the desirability of getting this information. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman may do, the fact remains that the belief has been encouraged that the writers are permanent Civil Servants, and if we recognise this most of the difficulty may be overcome.
MR. JACKSON: I cannot undertake to do anything of the kind. It is quite impossible to ascertain how many hours these men worked.
MR. THEOBALD: I think the grievance of these writers is that they are called upon to do the work of second class clerks, but are not placed in the same category as those officials.
MR. CREMER: I do not think it is impossible to get the information. Surely each man knows perfectly well how many hours he works at home, and the right hon. Gentleman can easily obtain the number of hours worked in the office. These men consider, rightly or wrongly, that they have a grievance, and are anxious to get it redressed. I, too, am desirous of getting rid of the feeling of dissatisfaction
1172
which prevails among them. I believe the right hon. Gentleman is not disposed to treat them harshly, and, therefore, I hope he will get the information asked for.
MR. CONYBEARE: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give what we ask. These men, although entered as temporary servants, are not continued as such.
*MR. JACKSON: Indeed, they are.
MR. CONYBEARE: But they are liable to be dismissed at an hour's notice. Although they are temporary clerks they are required to do the work of permanent second class clerks. Some of these temporary clerks have been in the Service 42 years; I believe that, as a matter of fact, 90 per cent. have been in the Service upwards of 20 years. Will the right hon. Gentleman grant a Return showing the number of years these men have been employed? As to the dealing with the recommendations of Heads of Departments, what occurred was that the views of those gentlemen were simply overridden by a few minor officials. I think the hon. Member for Camberwell was perfectly justified in bringing this matter forward.
MR. KELLY: Reference has been made to the bonus system. May I point out that until a man has served eight years he gets no bonus, and after that he gets a bonus rising £1 10s. a year until it reaches the maximum of £50. Therefore, before he is entitled to the £50 bonus he must have served 42 years.
MR. JACKSON: The bonus plan was adopted on my suggestion, and I recommended the limit of £50.
Question put, and negatived.
Original Question again proposed.
MR. ROWNTREE: I shall not now enter at length into the subject of which I gave notice early in the evening; but in view of a future opportunity, when it can be adequately discussed, I wish to ask the President of the Local Government Board three questions. In the first place, why Quarter Session Boroughs are to be denied the reasons for the decision of the Local Government Board on their cases, whilst the Royal Commissioners, who were adjusting similar differences

1173
between the Counties and County Boroughs, were giving to the public clear and full reasons for their decisions? Secondly, is it really to be understood that the Department refused to the Quarter Session Boroughs affected not only the reasons of the decisions, but even the facts as they relate to other boroughs similarly situated? In that case I can only say the facts will be ascertained, but at an amount of trouble and inconvenience which I submit we should not be put to by a Public Department. And, thirdly, will the right hon. Gentleman lay on the Table coloured maps showing the result of the decisions of the Board?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): The hon. Gentleman asks me three questions. The first is, what is the basis upon which we have settled the financial relations between counties and Quarter Sessions boroughs with regard to main roads. The hon. Gentleman knows that any Quarter Sessions borough which is aggrieved with a decision on the part of the County Council with, regard to main roads within the borough may appeal to the Local Government Board. It is the duty of the Local Government Board, when such an appeal is made to it, to send down an Inspector to examine into the details of the case. The Inspector makes his Report to the Local Government Board, who, on that Report and after taking into consideration all the facts of the case, come to a decision. Then the hon. Gentleman asks on what principles we act. Well, we have to decide as to whether or not particular streets within the borough may be fairly considered to be main roads or not, and whether we shall so vary the order of the County Council as to include a larger mileage of main roads within the borough than the County Council think right. In deciding that question we have to consider whether the street which the borough desires to declare a main road is a street which is mainly used for local traffic, or whether there is a sufficient amount of through traffic to enable us to come to the conclusion that it is a main road. In the Scarborough case, the
1174
Local Government Board decided very much more favourably to the borough of Scarborough than to the County Council, as we included a greater length of street within the borough, as a main road, than the County Council wished us to do. I am very sorry we could not go the whole length the borough desired. What was desired by the borough was that a great length of street in the borough—amounting, if I remember rightly, to a mile and a half—should be declared to be a main road. It was represented to us that the traffic along that street was mainly of a local character, and that being so we considered that we should not be justified in throwing on the county the maintenance of that street. I think that was the only street in dispute.
MR. ROWNTREE: That is a mistake.
*MR. RITCHIE: Well I think there was also a short length of street coming from the harbour. The House wilt understand what is the kind of traffic in that case when I say that one statement made in support of the contention that the street should be mained was that something like 55 tons of coal was carried from the harbour outside the borough during the year. We did not consider that was a sufficient reason for making it a main road. Then the hon. Member asked whether coloured plans of these roads could be distributed among Members of this House. I do not think it desirable that that course should be followed. There are very few roads in dispute, and I think, on the whole, we have given satisfaction to the boroughs in the decisions we have-arrived at. I hardly think the House will desire that we should put the counties to the expense of providing coloured plans with regard to matters which are not of more than local interest.
MR. MONTAGU: Under other circumstances I might have asked par-mission to occupy a quarter of an hour of the time of the Committee, but at this late hour I will not ask for more than about five minutes. The Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to bring in a Bill to withdraw from circulation £30,000,000 to £40,000,000 of light gold, and replace

1175
it, probably, in part by small notes. I have advocated that course ever since I Lave been in the House, and I have also pointed ont to the Chancellor of the Exchequer certain defects in the gold coinage. I hope the Government will take this opportunity of remedying those defects, which are that the metal we use is too soft, and that we make no charge for gold coinage. No effect was given to my recommendations. I, therefore, paid a visit to the Master of the Mint in Paris, who fully confirmed my view with regard to the softness of our metal. I saw at the French Mint a most ingenious machine for testing the wear of coins. I had a working model of it prepared, and should be very willing to submit it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or to any hon. Members who take an interest in the question. The result of the testing by the machine is that we lose by wear and tear nearly one sovereign in every 2,000 more than we should do if we used gold 9–10ths fine instead of 11–12ths. In the machine a coin passes over substances such as it meets with in actual circulation. Such experiments ought to be tried here. One extraordinary result arrived at in the experiment is that coins wear away according to their weight, and not according to their surface. Therefore, our idea with regard to half-sovereigns has been entirely upset. Our idea was that two half-sovereigns exposed to the same influences as a sovereign would wear away quicker, but it is absolutely proved by these experiments that half-sovereigns do not wear away any quicker because of their size. If they do wear rapidly, it shows that half-sovereigns are more used by the public, which would be an argument in favour of retaining them. I make these observations because the Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated that 10s. notes may be issued in order that half-sovereigns may be withdrawn. I would protest against so useful a coin being withdrawn from circulation. I think that to coin a large mass of silver without an international arrangement would be a very hazardous speculation. I strongly recommend Her Majesty's Government to investigate the question of the wear of gold, and to consider the question of free coinage, which enables
1176
people to melt down half-sovereigns all over the world and pomrote a drain upon gold in this country.
Question put, and agreed to.

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1891–2.
6. £100, Ordnance Factories.
Resolutions to be reported to-morrow, at Two of the clock.
Committee to sit again to-morrow, at Two of the clock.

WAYS AND MEANS.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
1. Resolved, That, towards malting good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the Service of the years ending on the 31st day of March, 1890 and 1891, the sum of £249,800 10s. 11d. he granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
2. Resolved, That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the Service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1892, the sum of £3,917,103 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
Resolutions to be reported to-morrow, at Two of the clock.
Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
Bill read a second time, and committed for to-morrow, at Two of the clock.

POSSESSION OF GAME BILL.—(No. 226.)
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 1.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon "Wednesday, 17th June.

MOTION.

  SCOTCH EDUCATION CODE, 1891.
  MR. FINLAY: I beg to move—
  "That an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty, praying Her that Article 133 of the Scotch Education Code, 1891, be amended by adding at the end thereof the words 'or who are under 14 years of age.'"
  The limit age of the compulsory scale, as the House is aware, is 14, and after that

  1177
  age, whatever standard a boy may have reached, he cannot be compelled to attend school. As the Act at present stands, it exempts from the payment of fees all boys who have not yet passed the Fifth Standard. A boy may pass the Fifth Standard some time before he is 14. Looking at the Returns, it would appear that some boys pass the Fifth Standard at the ages of 10, 11, 12, or 13 As soon as a boy passes the Fifth Standard his parents have to pay fees, as the Act now stands, in respect of his continued attendance at school. It is thought by many that, in the case of the children of working men, it is quite sufficient that the parent should lose the wages which might be earned if his child were taken away from school, without having to bear the additional burden of the payment of fees merely because his child has passed the Fifth Standard. The practical effect of the existing provision of the Act must necessarily be somewhat to discourage the continued attendance at school of children who have made good progress with their books. I submit to the House that it is not necessary that there should be, so to speak, a sort of premium put upon backwardness—that it is not desirable to make the parent feel that if his child makes progress with his studies the result will be that he will have to pay fees from which he would have been exempt if the child had either been stupid or idle. I therefore propose that children shall be exempt from the payment of fees up to the age of 14, at whatever standard they may be. If an Amendment of this kind were carried, we should at last have reached a solid standing-ground in the matter of the payment of fees.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her that Article 33 be amended by adding at the end thereof the words 'or who are under 14 years of age.'"—
  MR. HOZIER: I do not suppose that for many a long year any measure has received so great a share of approval as the measure of the Government respecting free education in Scotland, and the best proof of that concurrence of approval is that
  1178
  on every platform in Scotland there is a sort of rivalry as to who deserves most credit for that measure. In my opinion, two names stand out prominently for special credit in connection with the measure. The name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who by his admirable management of finance enabled a large sum to be devoted to the purpose, for without the money we could have done nothing; and that of Mr. Craik, the Secretary of the Scotch Education Department, who evolved the scheme for carrying the proposals into practical effect, as without an equitable scheme the proposals would have been doomed to failure. Now, I cannot help feeling that those two benefactors would add considerably to the great benefits they have already conferred on Scotland if they could see their way to carrying into effect the proposal just made by my hon. Friend. At present education is free as far as it is compulsory. It is compulsory until Standard V. is passed or until a child reaches the age of 14. But a clever child passes Standard V. at the age of 11 or 12 or 13, and as a very valuable circular, issued by the Scotch Education Department, on the 27th of January, says—"The age shows a tendency to become lower year by year." The clever child, therefore, is only educated free up to the age of 11 or 12 or 13, while the duller child is educated free up to 14. The clever boy is thus handicapped, and it is proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Inverness to remove the handicap. As the circular of January 27th says—
  "Complaints have of late frequently been made that children leave school as soon as they have passed the minimum standard required by law for exemption."
  How is this difficulty to be met? Let me say at once that I will be no party to any further compulsion being put on the parents. The tendency to remove children from school is due to two causes. In the first place, the services of the children are needed at home, or the children are required as wage-earners for the family; and, in the second place, parents are naturally tempted to withdraw their children

  1179
  from school as soon as they are required to pay school fees. The circular of the 27th January proposes to establish a "merit certificate" to be obtained—
  "By an examination differing in kind, and not merely in degree, from that required for a bare pass in Standard V."
  The prospect of this certificate will act as an inducement to the parents to keep their children at school, as it will have a current value throughout the whole of Scotland, and will become a passport to special employment But there still remains the question of the payment of fees which acts as a temptation to parents to remove the children as soon as fees become exigible. I can well imagine that the Table on page 12 of the Return marked C.—6281 may be quoted to show that the children on whose behalf we speak are few in number: for it appears that 88·05 per cent. of the scholars in the public schools pay no fees, and no doubt a considerable proportion of those who do pay fees according to this Table pay fees in special fee-paying schools, which we do not propose to touch. Therefore, the proportion of those who at present pay fees in the regular schools is small. Even if we grant that, I do not think that in a matter of this importance we ought to be met with the axiom, "De minimis non curat lex." But, as a matter of fact, I think that we have a right to consider that those very figures afford a strong argument in favour of our contention, for we may fairly maintain that there would be an infinitely larger proportion of children paying fees in the higher standards if it were not for the tendency to remove children as soon as fees are exacted. To sum up, let us put no further compulsion upon the parents, but let us offer them every inducement to keep their children at school. I beg to second the Motion.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I have listened to the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, and to my hon. Friend
  1180
  behind me, with great interest and with considerable sympathy with the object they have in view. But I wish to point out that the Government have undertaken to make proposals with regard to education as affecting England, Scotland, and Wales in the course of the present Session, and that, therefore, it would be extremely inconvenient to affirm a portion of the programme before we are able to lay the whole of our plans before the House. If this Motion were carried, a very considerable burden would be imposed on the rates, because the amount assigned, so far as the Government contribution is concerned, is strictly limited. I hope that the proposal that the Government will have to make will entirely satisfy hon. Members on both sides of the House, and therefore I would ask my hon. and learned Friend to postpone this Motion. I will for this purpose move the adjournment of the Debate; and I will undertake that if the proposal we shall have to make with regard to education should not satisfy the hon. and learned Member and his friends, then we will give him an opportunity of resuming Debate on his Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. W. H. Smith.)
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: I do not wish to offer any opposition to the Motion for adjournment. I only wish to say that the proposition as put forward by the Mover and Seconder of the Resolution, does not meet the requirements of the case. It is not enough that clever boys should be educated free in the higher standards, the proper course is to free all the standards.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Debate adjourned till Monday, 13th April.
  It being after One of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
  House adjourned at half after One o'clock.

PROMOTION IN THE NAVY.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  *LORD SUDELEY, in rising to call attention to the block of promotion in the rank of lieutenants in the Royal Navy, and to ask what steps the Government propose to take to remedy it, said: My Lords, I am anxious to call your Lordships' attention to the block of promotion which exists at present in the list of lieutenants in the Royal Navy, and I wish to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to remove it, and especially what steps they propose to take to prevent it arising again. Your Lordships will remember that I ventured to bring this question before the House three years ago for discussion. On that occasion my noble Friend was able to announce that a small alteration had been made, and that a certain number of commanders had been added to the list. I am sorry to say, notwithstanding that was done at the time, but a slight amelioration was made, and that the discontent which then existed among the senior officers has very much increased. In saying this, I wish at once to state that I do not bring this matter forward in any way as an attack upon the Admiralty. It is no fault of the Admiralty that the present state of things exists; unfortunately they have inherited it. But when I say that I must also state that it is in my humble judgment absolutely essential that the question should be gone into very carefully, and that this terrible block which exists should, to a certain extent, and as far as possible, be removed, and that steps should be taken to see what can be done to prevent its arising in future. I should also like to say, that I do not in any way wish to say a word against the retiring scheme of Mr. Childers. I have always argued that that system of retirement was a great charter to the Navy. It was an enormous boon to the Service, and if occasionally some slight alterations have been found to be necessary, it is only
  1018
  certain small points which it has been found desirable should be carefully examined and altered, so that any friction that may arise may be put right, and the whole scheme be enabled to work properly. Unfortunately I am bound to admit that when Mr. Childers introduced that great retirement scheme he made in the opinion of a great many people one slight mistake in desiring to have in all ranks young officers, and he thought it would be possible to reduce the lieutenants to a very low list. He accordingly laid it down that the number of lieutenants should be 600. I am sorry to say that experience has proved that that is a mistake. That number has been found far below what is absolutely essential, and lately we have had it increased by 250. According to the present arrangements the list ought to be 1,000, of whom 800 are lieutenants, and 200 navigating lieutenants. It must be remembered that the lieutenants' list is the back-bone of the executive service of the Navy. It is from that branch that you must expect all your small craft to be commanded in time of war; and when you remember the enormous number of torpedo vessels and other small craft which you will want in time of war you will see at a glance how necessary it is to have a very large body of efficient lieutenants. But my Lords, there is another point in the matter. It is from this branch that all your commanders, all your captains, and all your Admirals in the future must be picked. If, unfortunately, any inefficiency exists, whether it is from want of proper training or from other causes, you may depend upon this: that sooner or later your great Naval Service, on which this country so much depends, must ere long find default. I am happy to say that from all I can find out from officers who are far better acquainted with the subject than I am, that the present body of lieutenants are a splendid picked body of men. They are officers thoroughly imbued with devotion to the great Service to which they belong, and with knowledge and efficiency in everything that is required for the Naval Service. Unfortunately, in the senior ranks, there is a great amount of discontent, and I am afraid I must admit it is a discontent and dissatisfaction which you could do nothing else than expect. Before I go

  1019
  into the question to show your Lordships how very old these lists have become, I should like to point out that in the opinion of the most competent judges it is well known that the lieutenant of 10 years' seniority has arrived at that point when he ought soon to be promoted. A lieutenant of 10 years means that he has also been for 10 years a midshipman and sub-lieutenant, so that he has had, practically, 23 years' service in the Navy. A lieutenant of 10 years' seniority is in a difficult position. In a few years more he must be retired. Indeed, for a year or two it is very difficult to know what employment to give him; but in addition to this a lieutenant of 10 years, if you do not promote him, sees that ere long he must be retired, there will then be no prospect of his attaining flag rank, and he naturally becomes discontented and dissatisfied. In former days a naval lieutenant was a man who, provided he was a thorough seaman and was able to work his ship well under sail and knew something of gunnery, was looked upon as a competent officer. In the present day a lieutenant is a very different person. He must be a skilled officer in every sense of the word: he must be a skilled engineer; he must be a skilled gunnery officer; he must be a skilled mechanic; he must be able to wield our large ironclads; he must be able to take a battalion of men on shore; and he must have a very considerable acquaintance with international law. In fact, a lieutenant is a very skilled officer if he has been properly trained, and it is at this point that you ought to select your men to fill the vacancies in your Commanders' List. If you do not do that you have not got the best men in the prime of life. Now, I should like to point out to your Lordships how very much older the list is becoming—taking it for granted, as I have attempted to show, that a lieutenant of 10 years is as old as he ought to be before being promoted. In 1871, two years after the retirement scheme was introduced, I find there were 79 lieutenants of over 10 years' seniority; in the year 1880 those numbers had gone up to 171; in 1885 they had gone up to 262; and in 1891, at the present time, they have gone up to 316. You have got over one-third of your lieutenants' list, composed of men who, in the
  1020
  opinion of all the most competent judges, are far too old and ought to be retired. Now, how is this to be done? How this is to be remedied is of course a very difficult matter. The average numbers of promotion from lieutenant to commander is only 23, and this number you cannot possibly increase. It can be proved to demonstration that now only two lieutenants out of every seven can possibly become commanders; and I apprehend there can be no doubt when you once get your list up to 1,000 that it will be only two out of 15 who will ever become commanders. This is most unsatisfactory to the officers, and I apprehend it is most detrimental to the Navy. Then the question arises as to the increase in the numbers of naval cadets. I know it is very often said, "Oh you need not trouble to supply that at all, the supply will always be equal to the demand, and it is perfectly immaterial, as far as that part of the question is concerned, whether the lieutenants are discontented or not." But, my Lords, I apprehend that is rather a mistaken view. Surely if parents and guardians gradually find out that a young lad going into the Navy has practically no chance of ever becoming an Admiral, if they see that he will have to wait until he is 40 before he has a chance of retirement, I cannot help thinking that before long you will find great difficulty in getting the number of naval cadets which you now find it so easy to obtain. A great many lieutenants have lately been promoted—or rather I ought not to say "a great many"—but those lieutenants who have been lately promoted, have been, in most instances, men of such seniority that they can never become Admirals. If you take the period of five years from 1886 to 1890, you will find that 136 lieutenants have been promoted. Of those only 15 were under the age of 34. Now, taking the commanders' list at six years and a half, and taking the captains' list at 15 years, a lieutenant of 34 must wait until he is 53 before he can be at the top of the captains' list. It is, therefore, perfectly clear that hardly any of these officers can ever become Admirals. Not only have you this great objection, but you have, from the economical point of view, a terrible state of things existing, because what you are really doing is

  1021
  that you are greatly increasing the cost of retirement; you are promoting officers who must have retired before they can become Admirals, and in that way you do very great harm to that charter of retirement which Mr. Childers brought forward. If you take the last batch for promotion you will find there were seven commanders and 11 lieutenants promoted, and then only one can ever hope to obtain flag rank. The youngest lieutenant promoted was 34 years and a-half old, the youngest commander was 39, and practically only one was ever likely to attain flag rank. Now it may be said: "This is all very well, but what possible remedy can you apply?" I know it is a matter of very great difficulty, and what I venture to say I do say with the greatest deference possible, but I know it is a matter of very serious importance, one that has to be faced, and this question divides itself into three points: first of all as to the small number of lieutenants; that small number which, I believe, at presentis only 837 instead of being 1,000, is due to the melancholy fact that many years ago the number of naval cadets was reduced. It was determined only to enter a smaller number, and the result has been this: that do what you will you must wait until you have reared up a larger number of midshipmen and sub-lieutenants. Until you have done that you cannot get your list up to 1,000. As regards that point I should like to ask my noble Friend whether the Admiralty are perfectly sure that the number of naval cadets now being entered will be sufficient to keep the list up to that point. I should also like to ask him whether they are thoroughly convinced that at no future time can such a terrible mistake occur again as that of reducing the number of naval cadets. It is possible that if this were done at any future date you would find in time of war, however much yon might rely upon your Merchant Navy for a certain number of reserve officers, that your efficiency as a Naval Power would be much deteriorated, and that you would be in a far worse position than your foreign rivals. As regards the second point, "the present discontent." I know well, among the senior lieutenants, they have one remedy in view: their idea is that you ought to increase the number of commanders and that you ought to give a certain number
  1022
  extra promotion. I venture humbly to think that if this were done it would be the greatest mistake that could possibly be made. I am inclined to think that what was done by the Admiralty three years ago was a mistake, and that if they increase still further the commanders' list they will be acting directly in the teeth of what Mr. Childers stated when he introduced his retirement scheme in 1870. I do not think anyone can wish that those higher ranks should be gradually increased again or that we should again see the Navy in the state it was in before 1870. What I should like to hear my noble Friend state boldly is this: that there is no intention of increasing the commanders' list, and as far as extra promotion is concerned it is absolutely impossible in the interest of the Service to give it to them. I know that will be a great blow to the senior lieutenants; I wish it were otherwise, but I am sure no one can look at the true interests of the Service without seeing that that ought not to be done. Well, then, what can be done? You have over 330 senior lieutenants, men who have in their youth looked forward as midshipmen to the day when they might become Admirals, but from no fault of their own, imbued as they are with the utmost zealousness, they find they cannot get promotion, but must linger on until they become 42 and then they are retired. You cannot say, "If we cannot promote them we will retire them," because, unfortunately, owing to that mistake in reducing the number of cadets you have not got a sufficient number of sub-lieutenants to fill their places. You dare not reduce your lieutenants' list below what it is; it is already too low and, therefore, do what you will, these unfortunate men must remain where they are. If that is the case, I think there is only one answer: that if you find from no fault of their own these men must remain in a position for which they are unfitted, I think the only thing you can do to alleviate that position is to give them such special increase of pay as may be desirable, and, as far as you can, to make them as happy and as comfortable as possible. In saying this I have no wish to suggest that you should give a large increase of pay or, indeed, any general increase whatever but I do think

  1023
  in common justice that you ought to do for these men in the way of pay what you are unable to do for them by way of promotion or retirement. We now come to the third question, and I think the third point is one which, perhaps, is even more important than the other two, and that is "The question of the future." What are you going to do in the future? You are increasing the number of cadets very largely, so that you may have 1,000 lieutenants. In a few years you will be in the position of finding that you have this larger body of men in the rank of lieutenants but the same number of promotions. You cannot increase the number of 23 promotions every year, however large your lieutenants' list may be. You have got only two men in 15 to be promoted in every case. This is a subject of the greatest difficulty, but I venture to think that the suggestion I threw out three years ago ought to be seriously considered and tried as an experiment. My suggestion was that the only way of meeting the difficulty was by an optional retirement of a limited number at an early age. When a man reaches 32, or even 30, you ought, with the consent of the Admiralty, to give him the power of an optional retirement. If you do this you will allow him at a comparatively early age to seek some other position in life before he becomes too old. I know it will be said in answer to this—"But your best men will go; your best men will be picked out for other appointments and you will lose them." I quite admit that is a danger, but it is a danger not at all to be compared to that of having an enormous body of men discontented and dissatisfied. If the Admiralty will look into the matter I think they will find that is the only solution of the difficulty and I do sincerely hope, in the interests of the Navy in future, that some such plan may be adopted. It is certainly cruel to allow young men to enter the Navy without telling them what their prospects are likely to be, and I think there can be nothing worse than to rear men up to the sea through all the hardships that they have to undergo, thinking they may possibly one day become Admirals, when they ought to know that there is only the smallest possible chance of their doing so. As regards the position
  1024
  of lieutenants, as they now exist, there are several matters which might be improved, and there are some questions occasionally arising which, I think, might be smoothed over in their interest. Thanks to the courtesy of my noble Friend and the Admiralty, I have been allowed to have the exact number of all the special allowances in the lieutenants' list. I find that the total number who have special allowances are 378; of those there were 145 senior lieutenants, 69 gunnery officers 127 navigating lieutenants, and 37 commanding torpedoes. Well that is payment by results, and I think there can be no doubt that a great deal of satisfaction might be given if you were largely to increase the number of those special allowances. The more efficient you make your officers, and the more you pay in that way the better it will be for the Service. But there is also another subject, and I am very glad to see my noble Friend Lord Sidmouth opposite, because he has on several occasions suggested that the number of interpreters in the Navy ought to be increased. He has very rightly pointed out that a knowledge of German and French is, in the Navy, of the utmost importance. I am sorry to say that although in the junior ranks an officer has to pass in French both as midshipmen on entering and also on passing their examination; still there is no encouragement given to them for keeping it up, and I have the best authority for stating that the knowledge of German and French is not kept up in any way as it ought to be in the Naval Service. In fact I am told on very good authority that there is hardly any foreign Navy in existence where the knowledge of foreign languages is not infinitely better maintained among its officers than in ours. I think this is a small point which might be very well looked into by the Admiralty, and if you can, by offering encouragement to those who know those languages, induce them to keep up their knowledge by giving them some little additional allowance, I think you will be doing a very good service. There is another suggestion I should like to make, and it is this: This matter, I am afraid, unless some special steps are taken will be again shelved. It is not a question only for members of the Admiralty;

  1025
  and aware as I am that it is a point of the most vital importance connected with the personnel of your Navy, I would venture to make a suggestion. Unfortunately, Naval Members of the Admiralty are so overwhelmed with the consideration of the details of the profession that we cannot expect them to give such matters as this their attention, and what I venture to suggest is this: that the First Lord of the Admiralty should appoint a Committee of some of the best men in the Navy, together with an accountant and an actuary, and that this question should be thoroughly solved. It must not be shelved. There are other points connected with this subject, but I will not weary your Lordships any more. I am sure your Lordships sympathise most deeply with these men who have been so long in the Service, and who now find that they have no chance of promotion. These officers have gone through considerable hardships; all of them have served for many years in foreign climates far away from all the pleasures and advantages of home life, and it is a most terrible ordeal for these men, when they come back from foreign service, when they have served for many years in the rank of lieutenant, to find not only that they cannot get their promotion but that you are obliged to keep them and cannot allow them to go. I assure your Lordships this is a most vital point. The Navy must be kept up to its full efficiency; but if the body of naval officers from whom you draw your supplies to command your Navy is not maintained in a state of efficiency, and if they are allowed to become discontented and dissatisfied, it will be a terrible thing for this country. I sincerely hope my noble Friend will be able to give a satisfactory reply.
  *THE EARL OF BELMORE: My Lords, I wish to say a few words generally in support of what has fallen from my noble and learned Friend opposite. In 1883 I brought forward the subject of the pay of naval lieutenants, and after I had done so, and I hope partly in consequence of that, my noble Friend Lord Northbrook and Lord George Hamilton did materially improve the position of the lieutenants as regards pay. I do not mean to follow my noble Friend opposite through all the various points he has raised; but I
  1026
  agree with him that it is not advisable to increase the number of commanders. I think doing so would only make a difficulty higher up the list. I do not know whether the figures he has given with regard to the age for promotion will always hold good; no doubt, generally speaking, they will hold good; but the time must come when a number of captains will be retired very closely together, that is those who approximate in age; and possibly some few men promoted after 34 may have the good fortune to become Admirals, although, unfortunately, most of them will not arrive at that rank. I hope we shall hear from the noble Lord who will reply on behalf of the Government that the Admiralty will take this matter up seriously, and see what can be done in it.
  *VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH: I think the noble Lords who have spoken have not at all exaggerated the importance of the question, and I do hope the Government will give it their serious attention. I cannot think why the Admiralty cannot do something in the way of improving the position of naval lieutenants, as my noble Friend has suggested, by giving them opportunities of employing themselves in the Profession on special duties. There is another matter in which they might be encouraged to become proficient in the interest of the Profession, and that is in connection with steam machinery. That is a matter which receives no kind of encouragement now, but I think it will eventually become one of the most important points in naval instruction. Many officers are now studying it, but they get no encouragement whatever for doing so, either in the way of promotion or of increased pay. Then I would make another suggestion. Why should not the Admiralty give to officers while serving as first lieutenants the position of brevet commanders? That would certainly be some little encouragement to them. There is nothing more disheartening to a man than to serve for 10, sometimes even 13, years without getting one single step in rank. Another point which I think the Admiralty ought to consider is the expediency of increasing the number of lieutenant-commanders, as the number of small vessels is increasing. I think it would be only just to those officers who have served so long

  1027
  an apprenticeship if a number of commanderships with brevet rank were given. I trust the noble Lord who is about to reply will tell us that the Admiralty are prepared to take these matters into consideration.
  *LORD ELPHINSTONE: My Lords, my noble Friend opposite raised the same question in the years 1887 and 1888, and I am very much afraid that the answer I must give him in 1891 must be to all intents and purposes almost the same as that which I gave him on the two previous occasions. The circumstances are not changed in any way whatever, as they existed then they exist now. The relative numbers on the list are slightly altered, but the circumstances are the same. Turn whichever way you will, look at this question in whichever way you will, you are met by this problem—how are you to pass a list of 1,000 lieutenants into a list of 270 commanders? By no human ingenuity can you do that—you cannot ensure that every one of them shall enter into commanders' rank. Upon that subject I think I cannot do better than quote the words which were used in the Debate on the former occasion, in 1888, by a noble Lord whom I do not see present, Lord Camperdown. He said—
  "With regard to the passing of 1,000 lieutenants on to the list of commanders, it is quite true it is impossible to promote 1,000 lieutenants into a list of 250 commanders, and, therefore, your Lordships must recognise at once as absolutely certain the fact, that a large number of lieutenants would never be promoted, and that by no scheme that human ingenuity could ever devise, would it ever be possible to effect that object."
  That is perfectly true; as his Lordship said, by no scheme which human ingenuity can devise, will you be able to pass a list of 1,000 lieutenants on to a list of, now, 270 commanders. My noble Friend spoke as if he was afraid there would be a falling off in the entries of naval cadets. Bat in spite of the uncertainty of promotion the Admiralty have no difficulty in this respect; on the contrary, the applications for entrance are larger than we can meet. In the Debate of 1888 the noble Lord said that that would be a very unfair argument to make use of, as no boy of 14 could know what he had to look forward to. But it so happens that I did not make
  1028
  use of that argument. However, if boys of 14 do not know what is before them, I hope that their parents and guardians do, and they accept the position and prospects for them Previous to 1886, as the noble Lord has said, the number of entries had fallen very considerably, they were very erratic. One year they were so many, and another year less, and another more; but since 1886 we have introduced a uniform number of entries, and 120 cadets are now entered every year on board the Britannia, which are all that can be accommodated on that ship: that is to say 240 altogether are as many as she can accommodate. Roughly speaking it takes 10 years for a newly-entered boy to become a lieutenant, but in consequence of the small number of entries in 1883–4–5, the number of lieutenants at this moment is actually diminishing, and will continue to do so until 1893, after which there will be a rapid rise, and at the end of 1895 the combined lists of lieutenants and navigating lieutenants should reach the maximum number of 1,000, which was decided upon in 1887. In order to maintain-that number, that is, 1,000 lieutenants, a smaller number of entries as naval cadets would suffice, probably 90 instead of 120, but to reduce the number to 90 would be to keep the sub-lieutenants' list at 220, or only just sufficient to feed the lieutenants' list. This would have a disastrous effect. It would reduce the average length of service of the sub-lieutenants to 2½ years, which, under the present course of instruction, would practically deprive the Fleet of their services in time of peace, and would be of great disadvantage to the young men themselves, as it would deprive them of any opportunity of gaining experience at sea Therefore, taking the number of lieutenants at 1,000, the full number of entries of naval cadets should continue to be 120, at all events, until the average length of service was 3½ to 4 years. That would in all probability permit some system of retirement to be carried on It may seem hard, and at the first blush you may say that it is very hard that a lieutenant should not be allowed to retire, even if he wishes to do so, before he is 40, but we have to consider at the Admiralty what are the requirements of

  1029
  the Service. We require the full number of 1,000 lieutenants, and until that number is reached we cannot permit retirement, except, of course, where there are special and exceptional circumstances. Where there are special circumstances in the cases, each of them would be inquired into by the Admiralty by itself; but at the present moment, with the list below its full strength, we cannot allow of any retirement. The noble Lord has suggested that retirement should be allowed, if they wish, at 32; but I would submit that, after the great expense to which the country has been put in the matter, this cannot be seriously advocated. These officers are educated by the State, and after the great expense to which the country is put in their education, they surely can hardly be permitted to retire at the age when their services are most valuable. At present the whole of the lieutenants are employed, and instead of the sub-lieutenants' list being of any assistance to the lieutenants' list, some four or five lieutenants are actually employed at this moment in doing sub-lieutenants' duty. I do not know whether the noble Lord is aware that the requirements of the Service have very largely increased of late. Taking the Mediterranean and Channel Fleets, we have 60 more lieutenants and navigating officers now employed in those two Fleets alone than two years ago. It is, therefore, perfectly clear that until the various lists are up to their full number there can be no question of voluntary retirement, and even then, when the lists are up to their full strength, I do not hold out the slightest prospect to my noble Friend that retirement at 32 should be allowed voluntarily on the part of lieutenants. For the reason that I gave just now, that they are being educated by the State, the Admiralty would not be justified in allowing them to leave at so early an age. I do not know whether the noble Lord opposite suggests that an officer claiming his retirement is to give up his retiring pay. If an officer is to have the right to claim retirement at 32, and to be put on half-pay, it would mean enormous increase to the retired pay-list of the Navy. It would probably amount to a very large sum. Again, are we to discriminate between the more valuable
  1030
  and the less valuable officers, and to allow the less valuable officer to get his retirement and to refuse retirement to the more valuable one? That would be a very bad course to adopt, and would be a premium upon inefficiency. Then I would like to point out that the position of lieutenants with regard to promotion is much more favourable now than at any time during the last 20 years. The proportion of promotions was formerly 1 in 15; previous to 1887, 2 in 9; since 1887, in consequence of the increased number of commanders, 2 in 7. Between 1870 and 1887 there were 418 promotions, or 20·9, or, roughly speaking, 21 a year; from 1888 to the present time there have been 30 a year. In selecting a batch of officers for promotion the Admiralty always take care to select a certain number who can become flag officers. But this difficulty of promotion is one that exists everywhere. It is not peculiar to the English Navy; it exists in the Navies of every foreign Power—they have all met with the same difficulty. But our average time for the service of sub-lieutenants is much less than that in any foreign Navy. Then as to pay, there was an increase given to the Service in 1888, and there are now many classes of extra pay which were not known formerly. My noble Friend suggests, I think, that we should give 2s. a day more after 12 years' service. Formerly the rate of pay was 10s. a day, and after 10 years' service the pay was increased to 12s. a day In 1888 an alteration was made; and after eight years' service a lieutenant received 12s., and after 10 years 14s. But, as I have said, there are a great number of classes of extra pay. The noble Lord went through them but he did not give the amounts. These extra or additional allowances mount up very considerably. A senior executive officer can receive from 2s. 6d. to 3s. 6d. a day extra; a gunnery lieutenant in the same way can receive from 1s. 6d. to 3s. 6d. extra; a navigating lieutenant 2s. 6d. a day extra, and a torpedo lieutenant 2s. a day extra. All that is in addition to the 14s. a day; so that really your Lordships will see the pay has been greatly improved of late years. But it is quite possible something may have to be done in the direction suggested by my noble Friend, but it is a matter

  1031
  requiring careful consideration, and it will not be by increasing the number of commanders. Then my noble Friend suggests that a Departmental Committee should be applied to inquire into the whole of this subject; he says that the naval Lords of the Admiralty are so thoroughly well employed that they would have no time to undertake it. Although it is quite true that the Admiralty are much occupied at present, they do propose making a further and a careful inquiry into the position of the lieutenants with a view, if possible, of improving it, not through the medium of a Committee, but within the Admiralty itself. The Admiralty are fully cognisant of the unfortunate position in which senior lieutenants are placed, and are most anxious, if possible, to improve their status. Therefore, the matter will be very shortly gone into. They recognise fully the zeal of these officers. And, now, there is only one other point on which I need touch, and that is the question of interpreters. As my noble Friend knows, in regard to that question of interpreters, French is compulsory on the Britannia and at the college. At Malta, the French and Italian masters have £100 a year; and payments per hour, per head, or per lesson are made at Alexandria, Halifax, Bermuda, the Cape, Mauritius, and Bombay, while the terms in China are under consideration. The Admiral or the senior officer on a station orders midshipmen to attend for instruction in these classes. They all receive a certain amount of pay. I need not trouble the House with the figures. On the Britannia prizes are given for French every second term—the first of £2 10s., and five others of £1 10s., while every fourth term there are three of £5 each, and five of £2 10s. each. Afloat, at the annual examination of acting sub-lieutenants and midshipmen, there are prizes for French—one of £10, one of £5, and five of £3; for German, one of £10, and one of £5; and for Italian and Spanish, the same prizes as for German. This scheme of prizes was only started last October, so that I can give no statistics yet as to how it is operating. I should add that any officer who may go abroad for the study of a foreign language is allowed full pay for a period of four months, provided he passes an
  1032
  examination to the satisfaction of the Civil Service Commissioners on his return, and if appointed to a ship as interpreter for European languages, will receive 2s. 6d. a day in addition to his other allowances, if appointed interpreter in Oriental languages, 1s. 6d. a day in addition. I think I have now gone through all the questions which have been put to me. I am not quite prepared to answer my noble Friend Lord Sidmouth's question as to brevet rank off-hand at this moment, but I think I have sufficiently answered all the other points.
  *THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: My Lords, as I happen to be the only Peer present who has had anything to do with the administration of the Navy, I wish to say a few words upon this subject. In the first place I must express my entire concurrence with the noble and gallant Lord who has just addressed your Lordships, and with the noble Lord who has introduced the subject in regard to the very valuable, and in many cases, distinguished, services of the lieutenants. There can be no doubt they are among the finest and best officers in Her Majesty's Navy. Also I wish to say that there is no one who has had to fill the office of First Lord of the Admiralty who has not felt the extreme difficulty of selecting for promotion to the rank of commander from the lieutenants' list. As the noble Lord representing the Admiralty has said, it is impossible for every lieutenant to be promoted, and it is still more impossible for every lieutenant to become a post-captain or an Admiral. At the same time, from what the noble Lord has told your Lordships, it appears that at the present time the proportion of lieutenants promoted to the rank of commander is greater than it has been of late years, and, doubtless, the lieutenants are in a better position than they were some years ago. I hold that it is most desirable that the lieutenants who are now serving should not be debarred from the prospect of promotion, even though they should have arrived at an advanced age. Although it is not possible for them to become Admirals they may do good service as commanders and post-captains. At the same time, as the noble Lord has truly said, it is necessary in the interests of the Navy that a certain number of

  1033
  younger officers should be promoted, and I believe the First Lord has always opportunities of giving promotion to young officers who distinguish themselves in the scientific branches of the Service. Now, I quite agree with the noble Lord who has spoken on behalf of the Admiralty, and I differ from the noble Lord behind me, who introduced the subject, with respect to the proposal of a voluntary retirement of lieutenants at the age of 32. I think if the Naval Administration were to adopt any such course as that, there would be exactly the same difficulty in the Navy as there has been in the Army; and there would be a number of young men in the prime of life, probably some of the best officers in the Navy, hanging about without employment, having taken small pensions, and therefore I cannot think that is a proposal which should be adopted by the Admiralty. I must say, in this matter, that such a proposal would be a very lame conclusion to come to. I think your Lordships will have gathered from the speeches you have heard that it is almost impossible to propose any real solution of the difficulty; and, perhaps, on the whole, the right view is that taken by the noble Lord representing the Admiralty, that the difficulty might be met by making an addition to the pay of officers in certain cases. That was done some years ago; if necessary you can do it again, and the Admiralty will no doubt, if desirable, adopt that course. But I have been struck with an anomaly in the speeches to-night. While my noble Friend complained of the block in the lieutenants' list, which numbers now between 800 and 900, and said it was quite wrong to increase the commanders' list for the very good reason that the commanders would not have employment, yet at the same time he said it would be a good thing to increase the number of naval cadets. And the noble Lord representing the Admiralty has said that the number of naval cadets now appointed is somewhat more than is necessary to keep up the lieutenants' list to the number of 1,000. Your Lordships will see at once that the steps token to increase the number of naval cadets, and to bring up the lieutenants' list to 1,000, must increase the difficulty which exists in the promotion of lieutenants. Out of 1,000
  1034
  lieutenants there must, of course, be a smaller proportion promoted than are promoted now. Therefore, it seems to me that, instead of the Admiralty deserving to be congratulated upon having increased the number of naval cadets, it is very questionable whether the course they have taken is a wise one. It may be a popular step for the moment, but will it not be sowing the seeds of greater difficulties in the future? I must confess I was disappointed in the speech of the noble Lord representing the Admiralty. There has, no doubt, been a great increase in the Navy during the last nine or ten years, and that increase has necessarily required an enlargement of the Executive list—at any rate, of the lieutenants' list. It appears to me this is precisely the time when a question, which has been under the consideration of naval officers of great distinction for many years, should now be prominently brought forward and taken into consideration by the Admiralty—I mean, the question whether the full list of lieutenants is to be still made up from entries of naval cadets, or whether the time has not arrived for the same course to be followed in the Navy as has been adopted for many years in the Army, namely, to admit to the commissioned ranks of the Service some number of warrant officers. Warrant officers now receive a very high education, and they are a very valuable body of men who, as it seems to me, cannot long be left without their legitimate ambition being satisfied in that manner. I think that would be a statesmanlike way of looking at this question, and a proper recognition of merit and service. The Admiralty should consider, I think, whether they ought to depend entirely upon the entries of naval cadets, or whether, on the other hand, there ought not to be some other way of increasing the lieutenants' list than from the growing list of naval cadets, which must involve, if the present course of entering 120 per annum is continued, all the difficulties which have been referred to. This question is a very difficult one, and I have great confidence in the Board of Admiralty at the present time giving every consideration to this and other naval questions. I venture to throw out this suggestion, as it appears to me the only real solution of a long-standing

  1035
  difficulty which has not yet been solved.

  CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
  Moved, "That the Lord Foxford (E. Limerick) be appointed to take the chair in the Committee of the Whole House this day in the absence of the Earl of Morley."—(The Lord President, V. Cranbrook.)
  Motion agreed to.

EAST INDIA OFFICERS' BILL [H.L.] (No. 49.)

  THIRD READING.
  Bill read 3a (according to order).
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount CROSS): My Lords, I have an Amendment to add by way of a new clause. A question has been suggested whether the illness of a Governor General or other officers, and the necessity of their coming home, might be considered a public or a sufficient ground. It has, therefore, been thought necessary to introduce a new clause in order to make that quite clear. The members of the Council and Lieutenant Governors can all come home on sick leave at the present moment, and this is only for the purpose of putting the other members on the same footing.
  Moved, after Clause 2, to insert the following Clause:—
  3. "It shall be lawful for the Secretary of State in Council to grant to any of the several officers specified in the Second Schedule to this Act leave of absence from his duties under medical certificate for a period not exceeding six months; and the absence, whether in or out of India, of any such officer upon leave under medical certificate as aforesaid, shall not be deemed in law a resignation and avoidance of his office or offices or employment, but such officer during such absence on leave under medical certificate shall retain his office or offices, and shall, on his return to and resumption of his duties, receive half his salary for the period of such absence, but if his absence shall exceed six months his office or offices shall be vacated."—(Viscount Cross.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Verbal Consequential Amendments agreed to.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION BILL. (No. 62.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  *LORD THRING: I have to ask your Lordships to read this Bill a second time. It is, in effect, little more than a declaratory Bill. It removes certain difficulties out of the way of the County Councils. Its first object is to declare that County Councils may unite for the purpose of establishing schools for technical education by removing the difficulties which might arise in many cases if they were confined to their own districts. This is obviously expedient, because several Councils can form a great school for the benefit of their united counties, instead of single counties forming schools for their own districts only. The next object is very similar. It is, that County Councils may give scholarships outside their own counties. It would really amount almost to an absurdity to compel a County Council to grant a scholarship to, perhaps, a bad school within its own district when it might make that grant for a good school without its boundaries. The 3rd clause is merely declaratory. It is simply to remove doubts as to the capacity of County Councils to carry over money to a suspense account until they have agreed what scheme of technical education they will adopt. I may say that I have been in doubt whether the counties have not this power under the existing law; but if they have not this clause is absolutely necessary, as most of the County Councils have not yet made their plans, and they must have time to complete them. This Bill has been passed unanimously by the House of Commons; it is assented to by Her Majesty's Government; and I think, therefore, I may ask your Lordships to grant it a Second Reading.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK): My Lords, I have great pleasure in supporting the Bill of the noble and learned Lord. The only remark I need make upon it is that the last clause has, I believe, been drawn by the authorities of the Local Government Board itself; and the proposal there made is rather to

  1037
  explain and expand the old Act with regard to technical instruction. I hope your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

REGISTRATION OF CERTAIN WRITS (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 61.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  *THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess of LOTHIAN): My Lords, I would ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill. It is a purely technical measure. It is to remove some doubts which have arisen in reference to the Local Government of Scotland Act, 1889, in certain details. Some doubt has been expressed whether under one of the sections the registration of writs relating to districts, transferred by the Boundary Commissioners under the Act from one county to another, can be properly made in the Register of Sasines, and the Bill proposes to postpone the dates of Orders for a year from the time mentioned in the Act, the object being to enable them to come into effect at the same time. With that short explanation, I have to ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

  SEED POTATOES SUPPLY (IRELAND) ACT, 1890, AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 58.)
  House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.
DURATION OF SPEECHES BILL.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  *LORD DENMAN, in rising to call the attention of the House to the peculiar circumstances under which the Clerk of the Parliaments refused to insert a notice by the Lord Denman, said: My Lords, owing to the peculiar circumstances attending the preparation of the Bill which I had the honour to present to your Lordships'
  1038
  through my being unable to read, I was obliged to employ an amanuensis, and what I thought the most objectionable part of the Bill was left out. I begged the printer to send me a proof, but he did not do so. The words which were left out were "when necessary to limit." Now, my Lords, I have had great practical experience in this House, and I have seldom heard in it any speech which I should have wished to be shortened; but there is so much said about not detaining your Lordships, and noble Lords still go on without knowing how long they are speaking, that really I think the quiet announcement or ascertainment of the length of a speech could do no harm and could offend no one. The other night the noble Lord the Earl of Dunraven spoke for three-quarters of an hour, but I am sure if my Bill had passed the noble Marquess who opposed him would not have got up to prevent him going on. As during the last few Sessions the Lord Chancellor has fully established the Rule that the Order to read a Bill a second time is a reality, I humbly submit that that Rule should now prevail. The newspapers report that a Bill is rejected, but the Motion for the rejection of a Bill is a different thing from a Motion for its Second Reading. The noble Marquess thought I was trespassing very much in interfering alone with Government measures which he wished to be carried; but, really, to postpone a Motion for 10 months does seem to me to be a very severe mode of treating so old a person as myself. I think some little indulgence should be given to the age of one who has been a constant supporter of Her Majesty's Government, and one who wishes to be respectful to every Member of this House. I stated that I would move this as a matter of privilege; but not seeing it in the list as a Notice, I did not dare to move. My Motion was that the Order for the postponement of the Second Reading of the Duration of Speeches Bill should be rescinded. That was a proceeding which the Lord Chancellor thought not impossible, as it appeared that some Bills had been put in and had been read a second time when the House was not sitting. My Lords, I am not afraid of offending the memory of those who are gone, because I only speak the truth—De mortuis nil nisi verum. The

  1039
  origin of all the difficulty about Second Readings was that Lord John Russell, being hampered with the Reform Bill in 1856, at first put it off for three months to a time when he knew the House would not be sitting. I would now have ventured to move that the Motion for reading the Bill a second time passed on the last occasion be rescinded; but as it has not been placed on the Paper, I would only ask that it might be put on the Paper with notice at some day after Easter that the reasonableness of the proposal might be considered. Since that time I may be allowed to mention that a measure has been introduced on the subject into the House of Commons; but only 116 voted upon it, 72 being against the Second Reading, and 44 for it. It does really seem to me that as this is a mode of expediting the business of Parliament, which has been so very successful in other Assemblies, it ought to be followed here, and I hope your Lordships will not make it impossible for this Bill to be carried this Session. In the other House the hon. Member has declared that he will bring in the Bill next Session, but that may be at some distance yet, and it certainly would be a convenience if such a measure were passed. It has been stated that I entirely base my Bill upon the meetings of working men on the railway at Derby. They have the Scripture read to them while they are eating their breakfasts, and at the end of half an hour the organ is played, but the speaker always manages to conclude before that time. With regard to that being a libel upon this House I say nothing; bat I thought it was very severe, and I bought up every copy I could of the magazine in which it appeared in Derby and in London. But I must say this, in reference to speeches in this House: The noble Marquess at the head of the Government is always short and always interesting. I quite agree with that; but, at the same time, I must remind your Lordships that his speeches very often act as a dinner bell, for directly they are concluded all the Members present go out. My intentions are honest, and I do not like being cut short, as I feel I am. I could not hear the question proposed, and therefore I could do nothing but protest against it afterwards. The Standing Order of this
  1040
  House is that no Member shall speak a second time except to explain some part of his speech. Now, we often have replies upon Motions touching upon the speeches of those who oppose the Movers, and it really is very necessary for the purpose of debate that there should be some notice given of the opposition to any measure. One may not be always suppressed. I certainly remember when at Eton the late Premier Marquess of this country, Lord Winchester, putting my head under water; and he kept it there until I really did not know whether it would come up again; however, I may say he has been a great friend of mine ever since—he was then Lord Wiltshire, and we were always afterwards the best of friends. I hope when I wish to speak on such a subject as that of Sheriffs with which I am thoroughly well acquainted, I shall not be obliged to retire speechless as happened on one occasion, because it is perfectly well known that when 8 o'clock approaches nobody will hear any speech made. The noble Lord, Earl Wemyss, spoke until a quarter to 8, and then adjourned the House, and the next day the Earl of Dunraven spoke, and in that way two whole evenings were taken up. I had come up myself on this very Bill as to the Duration of Speeches being the first in the Order of the Day, and I desired to speak, but the noble Lord the Secretary of the Colonies came and told me I was quite wrong. I really wish that the speeches might begin later and be carried on in a more uniform manner. I beg to put myself in the hands of the House, and I am entirely at their mercy.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, I do not know whether it is necessary to go into the noble Lord's defence of his Bill. It certainly shows the working of a very sensitive conscience that he should bring in a Bill against the length of speeches, and I can only hope that he may be successful, at all events, if not in this Chamber, in "another place." But I do not believe that any other person has found the Debates in this House too long. The real point to which the noble Lord directs our attention is one affecting the position of the Clerk at the Table,

  1041
  and it is one which is rather interesting to this House, because it raises a constitutional difficulty. The noble Lord put down on the Paper a Motion for taking up the Bill at an earlier period than 10 months. There is no doubt that in the other House the Speaker would not have allowed that Motion to appear, and if it had appeared he would not have put it to the House. But in this House we have such a traditional distrust of the nominee of the Crown, who sits on the Woolsack, that in order to preserve our independence we give him no power whatever. I have always thought that is a mistake, because it lands us in this difficulty: that we have nobody who has the duty of determining the business of our House. I really think in these circumstances it is impossible to find fault with the Clerk at the Table for removing Motions from the Paper which are obviously such as the Speaker of the House of Commons would not admit, and which the Lord Chancellor in this Chamber would not admit if he had the power that is possessed by the Speaker of the House of Commons. It is an anomalous way of arriving at the result, but I think the Clerk at the Table did what was quite right in removing the notice from the Notice Paper.
  *LORD DENMAN: I merely wish to ask the House if I may put a Motion upon the Paper for next Session to rescind the Order for putting off the Second Reading of this Bill for so long a period as 10 months?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Next Session? Oh, certainly.
  *LORD DENMAN: Then I may put a notice on the Paper that this Resolution for the Second Reading at the end of 10 months be rescinded?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord must give Notice of Motion.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Lord is entitled to give notice of what he likes by word of mouth, but, of course, if it is out of Order the House will not proceed to the consideration of it. I apprehend if it is grossly out of Order the noble Lord is not entitled to have it put upon the Notice Paper.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I quite agree with what the noble Marquess has said upon the subject of the noble Lord's Motion.

SEIZURE OF A BRITISH SHIP BY THE PORTUGUESE IN AFRICA.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I wish to ask the noble Marquess whether he has any information as to the reported seizure of an English steamer by the Portuguese Authorities in South Africa?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The transition from the last subject is severe. We have no information other than is before the public, and well known. The circumstances which are most required to be known in order to judge of the character of the act of the Portuguese are not known to us yet. As far as I can see, if the ship was engaged in landing arms in territory which is undoubtedly Portuguese, the Portuguese had a right to arrest the ship if smuggling. But if the ship as stated in one account, was simply coming down the river, I doubt very much whether any ground for arresting her on the part of the Portuguese can be shown. But we must inquire into the circumstances more thoroughly before we can express any opinion upon the question.
  House adjourned at ten minutes before Six o'clock, till Tomorrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.