Sitting of 4 March 1892

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The House met at Two of the clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  MANCHESTER, SHEFFIELD, AND LINCOLNSHIRE RAILWAY (EXTENSION TO LONDON, &c.) BILL (by Order.)
  SELECT COMMITTEE. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [3rd March],
  "That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of Seven Members, Four to be nominated by the House and Three by the Committee of Selection.
  "That, subject to the Rules, Orders, and Proceedings of this House, all Petitions against the Bill presented on or before the 27th February last be referred to the Committee; that such of the Petitioners as pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, Agents, or Witnesses, be heard upon their Petitions if they think fit and Counsel heard in support of the Bill.
  "That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  "That Four be the quorum."—(Mr. Boulnois.)
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. BOULNOIS: Lest it should be thought that I take too much upon myself in moving this Motion that the Bill be referred to a special Committee, let me say at once that I speak on behalf of a very large number of my constituents and also on behalf of the Local Authority, the Vestry of St. Marylebone, which is very seriously affected by the Bill. I may say also that I speak on behalf of the—shall I say the late or the new?—London County Council. It matters little which I call it. I can express the unanimous opinion of the Council. The Bill read a second time yesterday is probably the same Bill which was rejected by the Select Committee last year, but it has been brought in this time in a much more aggravated form, and it is likely to injure, if I may use the expression, a very much larger area than was contemplated last year. It affects

  9
  a larger amount of property, and, to an increased extent, affects the comfort of a large number of people in the district. It was proposed by the Bill of last Session that the station should occupy 30 or 35 acres at the most, but it is now proposed that the station for passengers' goods, coals, minerals, and animals, shall occupy some 75 acres. So far as I know, the controversy this year is narrowed to a fairly small point. Last year, we know, there was considerable opposition to the Bill from the North, but we now hear a great deal about that opposition having been abandoned; and it seems that really the matters that will go before any Committee the House may decide upon will be the approach to London and the terminus in London. Those whom I have the honour to represent in this matter urge nothing whatever against the new line to and from the North; that new line may be necessary so far as they know, but that is a matter I do not wish to bring before the attention of the House. But what we do ask is that such a gigantic scheme as this—I think I should be right in saying this unprecedented scheme—should receive the most serious attention of the House and the Committee appointed by the House, in order that the wishes of the whole of the Metropolis may be considered before a determination is arrived at. It may be said that what I ask could very well be secured in the ordinary Select Committee. But I have to reply in answer to that that a great number of persons who are most seriously affected by the Bill could not, so far as I know, be heard before a Select Committee. I hold in ray hand a Petition to the House, signed by owners, lessees, and occupiers of lands and house property in the parishes of St. Marylebone and St. John's Wood, to the number of 3,000, and, of course, many of these who have signed are not scheduled. Their property is not proposed to be taken, but it will be seriously affected, and I think it is desirable that these persons should have a locus standi before the Committee. There are strong reasons to be urged why these persons should have an opportunity of expressing their views. I must shortly refer to the Report of the Committee which
  10
  sat on the Bill last Session, and it will be in the recollection of the House that after the Bill had been read a second time, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) moved an Instruction to the Committee—
  "That they have power to take evidence, and to report to the House whether the site of the terminus proposed in the Bill is the best which can be devised in the interest of the people of London."
  That Instruction went before the Select Committee, and the Committee sat, I think, 31 days taking evidence. They prepared a special Report. It is not a very long Report, and I deem it my duty to read it that the House may appreciate the exact position. This is what the Committee say in their special Report—
  "The Members of the Committee endeavoured in the course of their inquiry to carry out the intention of the Instruction, and various witnesses gave them considerable assistance in the attempt. But, in the absence of the definite plans which would be furnished by a rival scheme, they found it impossible to arrive at anything more than a prim â facie opinion in regard to the alternative sites suggested, or to come to any conclusion concerning them. Hence, while they were enabled to form an estimate of the merits and demerits of the proposal for a terminus on the site of Boscobel Gardens, they could not say whether such site was or was not the best that could be devised in the interest of the people of London. They would respectfully submit to the House that this conclusion was inevitable, and that experience may justify some hesitation in the adoption hereafter of Instructions unaccompanied by adequate means for their perfect fulfilment."
  ("Hear, hear!") I am glad to hear that cheer. The House will see that here was an Instruction sent to the Select Committee without giving the Committee adequate means for the fulfilment of the Instruction; and so I say there is a special reason for the appointment of a special Committee for the purpose of considering this Bill, because I propose that this special Committee shall have power to send for witnesses and papers and take evidence such as an ordinary Select Committee cannot take. Then the special Report goes on—
  "The evidence presented to the Committee has satisfied them that the introduction, by whatever route, of another line like that proposed by the Sheffield Company, must present serious, though probably not insurmountable difficulties;

  11
  while the access to any site that may ultimately be determined on, and the congestion of traffic upon the already over-crowded streets, must render urgent the construction of new and wider thoroughfares, especially between the Northern and Southern parts of London."
  Now that is the most important paragraph in the Report. For instance, we shall all feel how much benefit a new street would confer on Londoners which would go from the Northern terminus across Holborn and Southampton Row to Charing Cross. There would be a good opportunity for carrying out a scheme of the kind if the promoters had not been so pertinacious in adopting the same route this year. No doubt if a great scheme of that kind were produced the London County Council would be willing to meet the promoters in the carrying out of so desirable an object. The Report proceeds—
  "In view of these considerations, and of the important railway projects for which Parliamentary sanction has been given, but the powers for which have not yet been exercised, and of the probability of further demands for railway access to London, the Committee submit that if, in the opinion of the House, it is desirable that Parliament should be more fully informed upon the important and complex questions involved in and incidental to the Instruction, the House may with advantage consider the expediency of instituting an exhaustive inquiry by a Joint Committee of the two Houses of Parliament, with the assistance of the Government Departments, and of the Local Authorities interested, into the general subject of railway access into London from the provinces, and the communication between the several Northern termini and the Metropolitan and Southern railways, as well as into the effect of the increasing passenger, goods, and mineral traffic upon the main thoroughfares by which the various stations are approached. Such a Joint Committee rendered important and somewhat analogous service in the Session of 1864, in continuation of the inquiry undertaken in the previous year by a Committee of the House of Lords, which Committee was instructed then, as it is suggested a Joint Committee might be in like manner instructed now, to consider what provision can be made for securing such a comprehensive system with the greatest advantage to the public, and the least inconvenience to the local arrangements of the Metropolis."
  Now, I ask, is that Report to be waste paper? ("Yes.") "Yes," says an hon. Member; but, seriously, I ask what is the good of setting a Committee to work and receiving its Report if it is to be put into a pigeon hole and never seen again? Is it to be absolutely disregarded, and is the hon. Baronet the Member for Hythe (Sir E. Watkin)
  12
  to be allowed to introduce again the same Bill which a year ago called forth this Report? On this Report of the Select Committee the London County Council considered the position, took into consideration the whole subject, especially with reference to the congested state of the streets and thoroughfares. Well, I think I may say that in this particular matter, which is within the province and jurisdiction of the London County Council—I know Members on this side of the House are sometimes inclined to cavil at what the London County Council does or does not do—in this matter, at least, the interests of the people of London are protected. I say this Report supports the proposition I now make. Such a Committee as I propose will have power to send for evidence, so that the utmost light may be thrown on the scheme proposed. In the paper circulated by the promoters they say this is an ordinary Railway Bill. I say it is not an ordinary Railway Bill; it is a very extraordinary Bill, and is, I say, absolutely without precedent. I suppose it is at least 30 years since a great trunk line came into the Metropolis—I think the Midland was the last. We all recollect that the great trunk lines—all, with one exception—came in upon ground which was practically unoccupied, and certainly did not touch valuable residential property. The Midland came through a slum, and the Charing Cross Railway took houses and streets that it was a good thing to get rid of. But this proposal will destroy very good residential property, and those who are opposed to this maintain that a very much better way of getting into London could be found. I did hope that the representation made by the London County Council to the Board of Trade that this matter should be considered by a Joint Committee of the Lords and Commons would have been entertained by the President of the Board of Trade, and that he would have been able to accede to the request, and I still hope that during this Debate we may have an expression of opinion as to this most serious subject from the right hon. Gentleman, for I believe that if ever there was a question in which the Department should take an interest it is this of a new

  13
  terminus for London. It is an opportunity that should not be lost. All I ask is that the House should declare that this question should be properly considered—and I say this without any disparagement to ordinary Committees—by a stronger tribunal. If the older railways had now to come into London they would not choose the sites where now they have their termini, and some of the companies would be the first to admit that the sites are extremely inconvenient. I say now, that it is proposed to bring a new trunk line into London, we may, unless we take great care, make a mistake it will not be very easy for us to recover from. It is because I wish to prevent such mistakes being renewed and perpetuated I ask the House to send the Bill for thorough examination to a special Committee.
  MR. SEAGER HUNT: I rise to second the proposition of my hon. Friend, who has dealt with the subject so fully and exhaustively that I need say but a few words. As representing a constituency which will be materially affected, I am bound to say that the question of site for the station is one that should be more fully inquired into than it will be by a Select Committee. As a fact, I do not think that the question of site has been gone into at all, because, as we find from their Report, the Committee of last year found themselves powerless to come to any conclusion concerning alternative sites. Nearly 100 acres of land are required for station and goods yards, and when we consider that the formation of this terminus will require the demolition of over 1,000 houses in the neighbourhood, and the displacement of over 10,000 people; when we consider that this displacement will ruin hundreds of trades people; when we consider that by bringing this big station so much to the front the value of surrounding property will be materially deteriorated and its value as first-class property destroyed, when we consider that the selection of site last year was deemed to be a matter of the utmost importance, then I say that importance is increased now by the fact that an enlarged area is required, and the incomplete inquiry of last year should be resumed before a tribunal
  14
  able to give a final opinion on the subject, and as the suggestion for a Joint Committee of both Houses has not been adopted, the next best means of examination is by a Hybrid Committee.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of Seven Members, Four to be nominated by the House and Three by the Committee of Selection.
  That, subject to the Rules, Orders, and Proceedings of this House, all Petitions against the Bill presented on or before the 27th February last be referred to the Committee; that such of the Petitioners as pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, Agents, or Witnesses, be heard upon their Petitions if they think fit, and Counsel heard in support of the Bill.
  That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  That Four be the quorum."—(Mr. Boulnois.)
  MR. HENEAGE: The question now before us is a very narrow one; it is whether the Bill shall be sent in the ordinary course to the trusted Committee of the House, or whether it should be sent, on an unprecedented Motion, to a Hybrid Committee under the same conditions as to an ordinary Committee. I would venture to point out that this Motion has been somewhat altered since it was first put upon the Paper. As it was first put upon the Paper it would have taken in a vast amount of evidence, which may have been rejected by the Referees. As it is now drawn it runs—
  "That subject to the Rules, Orders, and Proceedings of this House, all Petitions against the Bill presented on or before the 27th February last be referred to the Committee."
  I hope the House will not accede to the proposal of the hon. Member for Marylebone (Mr. Boulnois), because I think to do so would be to cast an unjust slur on the traditional Committee of the House. I assert that there no cause has been shown by either of the hon. Members why we should practically pass a vote of want of confidence in a Committee which has hitherto enjoyed the confidence of the House. The Bill is a perfectly ordinary Railway Bill, and the only difference between it and any other Railway Bill is its magnitude and the vast interests behind it. This Bill is practically unopposed from one end of the line to the other till it

  15
  reaches London. It has the unanimous support of every town in its course, and no Corporation appears against it; it has also the support of all the districts through which it passes. The fact that the Bill affects interests from Manchester on the west to Grimsby on the east gives all the more reason why it should be disposed of as soon as possible, and why the promoters should not be put to the enormous cost of last year by an Instruction to the Committee, which the hon. Member for Hythe accepted in order to save the time of the House, perhaps without due appreciation of the effect it would have on the Bill in Committee. Last year the Bill was opposed by the Great Northern Railway, but now it not only has the benevolent support of the Great Northern Railway, but it has the great advantage that the two companies have entered into arrangements for the interchange of traffic at through rates, which will be of the greatest possible benefit to all the towns and districts through which either railway passes. It is no part of my duty, as speaking for those interested in the promotion of the Bill, to say one word as to the reasons for the rejection of the Bill last year. That will, no doubt, be dealt with by the Chairman of the Committee to which it was referred, but I have never found any fault with the decision of that Committee. I think they were given an impossible task, as it was perfectly impossible for them to fulfil the requirements which the Instruction imposed on them. I think that is shown by the fact that the Special Report indicates that it was rejected on account of that Instruction; there is nothing in the Report to show that it was rejected on its merits. That Report has no bearing whatever on the question now before us. Hon. Members, though they appear to have no confidence in a Private Bill Committee of this House, have immense confidence in the opinion of one half of it. The third paragraph to which they have alluded is the one on which the Committee were equally divided. That paragraph did not suggest that one single railway should bear the cost of inquiry into the want of further access into London, and the communication between the Northern
  16
  and Southern railways, but that the Government should take up the inquiry, at the public expense, into the whole question of access to London and the communication between the Northern and Southern railways, and if that recommendation had been carried out there might have been some reason for saying that this Bill should be suspended until that Committee had reported. But as the Government have not adopted the recommendation it would be exceedingly unjust to put the whole expense of the inquiry on to the promoters of this Bill, which is exactly what this Resolution would do. I should be very glad to hear what the Members of that Committee have to say on this subject, but I feel certain that they never intended that the cost of the suggested inquiry should be thrown on one railway. The hon. Member for Marylebone (Mr. Boulnois) referred to the last railway that obtained access to London. That was the Midland Railway, in, I think, 1864. The hon. Member said that did not disturb many residential houses.
  MR. BOULNOIS: I said "high-class residential houses."
  MR. HENEAGE: The houses are of a somewhat varied class, especially in St. John's Wood; whilst the Midland Railway went through, I believe, a churchyard, which perhaps the hon. Member will admit is a highly respectable residential property. The real question before us is, what is to be gained by sending this Bill to a Hybrid Committee? There is nothing to be gained, because the Bill is to be sent under the same conditions as to an ordinary Committee; but there is a great deal to lose. Members of a Private Bill Committee are obliged by the Standing Orders to attend continuously, and hear not only the evidence, but the cross-examination, which is often much the most important, but in a Hybrid Committee there is no continuous attendance. There are seven Members of whom any four may form a quorum, and you may have a different four at every sitting, and some of them may never attend at all until they come to consider the Report, and then their votes are of equal value to those of the Members who attended all

  17
  through. This Committee would be no better fitted to deal with the Bill than the Committee of which my hon. Friend the Member for Hanley (Mr. Woodall) was Chairman last year. That Committee had power to ask for papers, and I venture to say that all the papers were then produced. I would ask the House not to accede to the proposal made by the hon. Member for Marylebone (Mr. Boulnois). I would ask the House to reject this proposal, and to send the Bill in the ordinary course before the regular Railway Bill Committee. It will there have fair and thorough inquiry, and all those who have locus standi will be heard, and I hope the House will not allow the Bill to be frustrated by this dilatory and unprecedented Motion.
  (2.43.) THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY,): This Bill is not solely a Metropolitan question. Great Corporations and large populations are waiting anxiously for the decision of the House on the matter. I may be told that the question of the support of these bodies is more for the Committee upstairs than for the House, and for the stage of Second Reading. But I venture to point out to the House, in the interests of the progress of its own Business, that that objection applies even more strongly to Motions of a really dilatory kind such as this, proceeding from quarters representing those who, in fact, have locus standi on the Bill. I entreat the House, therefore, to refuse to entertain at this stage objections of this kind, and to say that it should have been taken at an earlier stage, and should not now be raised on the part of those who are given the fullest opportunity of being heard under the ordinary proceedings of the Committee.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) is under the impression that by referring this matter to a Hybrid Committee we should be casting a slur on the ordinary Committees of this House. But the House has been in the habit of referring Bills to Hybrid Committees, and I have known Railway Bills to be so referred over and over
  18
  again, and no one has ever suggested that a slur was cast on the ordinary Committee. This is a question of great magnitude and vast importance; surely, therefore, it is not unreasonable to ask that it may be referred to a Committee of somewhat more than ordinary importance, which shall be able to take a wider view of the matter than usual. My right hon. Friend referred to the great expense the company was put to by the Instruction of last year, and suggested that all the cost was due to that cause. I think he was entirely mistaken. The Bill was then opposed by other railways, and especially by the Great Northern Railway, and at least nine-tenths of the time and cost of the inquiry were incurred totally independently of the London question now before the House. The hon. Gentleman opposite said that this was not merely a Metropolitan question. I have always said I am not opposed to this railway on principle—I think it most desirable, in the interests of the North of England and the Midland Counties, that the line should be brought into London—but what I say is that access to London is a Metropolitan question, on which it is desirable that London should be considered. I have never gone a step further, and have always said that if the Committee should conclude that the interests of other towns should be considered in preference to London, I should be content with their decision. I ask that in the consideration of this question we should not lose sight of the interests of London, and that opportunity should be given for the consideration of proposals alternative to the one now before the House. It cannot be denied that London opinion, as a whole, is opposed to the present proposal. The London County Council are averse to it, and a committee of that Council petitioned in the strongest form against the site. The matter was referred to a Select Committee with the Instruction I ventured to propose, on the ground that a Select Committee was not ordinarily able to consider the question of sites. The House and the promoters of the Bill accepted that Instruction, and it went without dissent from any quarter of the House. The

  19
  Committee appear to have gone as fully as they could into the matter, and in their Report to the House admitted that they were under great difficulties in going fully into it in consequence of their want of authority and full power of inquiry. In a special Report they treated the matter as one of serious importance to London, and deserving of further inquiry. They recommended that the whole question of access to London from fresh railways should be considered by a Joint Committee of both Houses, with a view to the general interest of the question. I think it would have been well if that course had been adopted. It rests, however, with the Government to make a Motion to that effect—a private Member cannot. Under the circumstances, the hon. Member has, on the whole, adopted the best course that he could adopt in making his Motion. I refrained from moving the same Resolution as last year, as it seemed to me that the House would hardly adopt that course. The hon. Member's Motion is now confined to the proposal that the Bill should go to a Hybrid Committee, and I cannot but conceive that, on the whole, that is the best course to take. I should be satisfied with that course, especially if it came before the Members of the Committee of last year. In face of the very strong Report presented by the Committee last year is it sufficient to allow this Bill to go in the ordinary way to a Select Committee? That Report pointed distinctly to wider inquiry owing to the importance of the question of the access of railways to London, and I think it would only be in accord with the recommendation of that Committee if this Bill were now referred to a Hybrid Committee.
  SIR R. H. PAGET: I hope the House will decline to entertain this proposal. This is an important question of procedure; and if I ask under what Standing Order this procedure takes place, I am told there is no Standing Order at all. It is a habit growing up in the House which ought not to be given frequent effect to. This House has by Standing Order made provision, by the appointment of Select Committees and other methods, for dealing with such matters as Railway Bills,
  20
  and I venture to say the decisions of these tribunals are accepted by the House as, on the whole, satisfactory. This Motion seeks to put aside the ordinary procedure of the House, as provided in the Standing Orders, and to introduce something of a novel character. These Hybrid Committees are of recent creation. I venture to say, Sir, that it will be within your recollection—certainly within mine—that the first proposal for such a Committee was in 1863, when the result of the Division was unfavourable to the proposal. I would point out that there are this Session three Bills referred to Hybrid Committees, and there is a question of referring a fourth. All this is setting aside the ordinary procedure under the Standing Orders, and giving them the go-by as insufficient for the purpose. It has been pointed out that a Hybrid Committee labours under difficulties; its quorum is to be four out of seven Members. No one could say that an inquiry by such a tribunal would be so efficient as where all the Members of the Committee are bound to be present day by day. The hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) has alluded to his Instruction. I venture to say that a more unfortunate Instruction was never given to a Committee, and the misfortune of it is evident from the Report of the Committee which dealt with the Bill. What they say to the House of Commons is practically this—"You have given us instructions which we cannot carry out. You invite us to undertake an impossible task; you invite us to make a selection of various spots for a site when there are no alternatives." An alternative site is talked of; where is it? There is no such thing. It is impossible for any Committee to address itself to the consideration of a question so vague and uncertain as that in the Instruction of last year. The hon. Member for Marylebone (Mr. Boulnois) says that he does not intend to proceed with his Motion for the Instruction. That is not of so much importance as this Motion, which demands the extraordinary appointment of a tribunal other than the usual one. If there were reason for saying that the ordinary tribunal was insufficient and had not

  21
  powers, and was hampered by limitations, so that they would not have a fair field and opportunity, and that something should be done to enlarge their powers, that might be a matter worthy of consideration; but by this method you set up a novel tribunal which, from the rules that govern their proceedings and attendance, must have inferior opportunities of arriving at a conclusion. I believe it to be entirely without precedent to refer a single Railway Bill to a Committee of this kind, and for these reasons I think the proposal ought not to be acceded to. A Hybrid Committee with powers limited by Instructions as here professed is another departure from the mischievous principle of Hybrid Committees generally.
  MR. WOODALL: I listened with great interest to the very lucid argument of the hon. Member for Marylebone (Mr. Boulnois), as I was anxious to ascertain what recommendations on the reference of this Bill to a Hybrid Committee he would suggest other than those which we had last year acting under the instructions of the House. It appears to me that the hon. Member invites the House to repeat the experiment of last year, and my experience of that Committee Room does not lead me to encourage the House to repeat that experiment. Perhaps the House would like to hear from me, as Chairman of that Committee, one or two words on the points in connection with the Bill. The House was invited, on the proposal of the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), in recognition of certain exceptional characteristics of the Bill—its interest to an important residential suburb; the fact that the population would be disturbed; and that gardens and open spaces would be occupied—to say that it was desirable that the Committee should have the opportunity and authority to endeavour to ascertain whether a better site could be obtained in the interests of London. Well, Sir, the House is aware that under the ordinary Standing Orders, Committees are precluded from hearing alternative plans; and yet I suppose whenever a Committee has before it a case which establishes
  22
  a great public need, the Committee will always desire to know whether the manner in which that need is proposed to be satisfied is the best, and offers the minimum of disturbance in the attainment of that end. We, on the other hand, were enabled to overrule the ordinary procedure of Committees and were actually instructed, if possible, to find an alternative plan for entering London, and I can only say all the Members on the Committee endeavoured to carry out that Instruction, and we acknowledge in the Report that we received considerable assistance in that task. We were invited to consider one particular alternative terminus. We found, for example, that while the Baker Street site excited almost universal antagonism on the part of owners and occupiers, not only on the ground proposed to be taken, but over a widely extended area, and was fiercely opposed by the Vestry and the County Council, there was another site very strongly recommended to us by the St. Pancras Vestry and supported by the London County Council. Under your special instructions the Committee were enabled to hear evidence, and all that could be said, in favour of that site; but the House will see that we could get no further than a prima facie case, because we were unable to hear what were the engineering difficulties of access, and what would be the opinion of a very numerous class of owners and of occupying tenants, who would be displaced in getting that access. The Report of the Committee, therefore, offers a word of warning to the House with regard to instructions of that kind. We have stated that we were able only to form a definite opinion upon the merits of the particular plan proposed by the promoters; but we said at the same time that, inasmuch as we had no sufficient evidence, we were unable to say whether the Boscobel Garden site was the best that could be devised in the interests of the people of London. I will ask the attention of the House to a passage in our Report, which I believe was adopted unanimously. We say—
  "This conclusion was unavoidable. Out experience may justify some hesitation in the adoption hereafter of instructions unaccompanied by any adequate means for their proper fulfilment."

  23
  The House may ask what are the adequate means that it is proposed to give by the Committee which is now proposed? The hon. Member suggests that a Hybrid Committee would have power to send for persons and papers. But an ordinary Committee has power, if it requires, or desires, to hear evidence, even unwilling evidence, by applying to you for the necessary authority, and that power is usually granted; but certainly in our experience it did not occur to us that there was any evidence which might have helped the Committee of last year in forming a judgment, and which was denied to us by the operations of the ordinary Rule. Therefore I do not see why an ordinary Committee is not competent to deal with the matter. The late Committee heard much of the desirability of affording opportunities of access to London from all sides, and specially of the advisability of establishing better modes of communication between the Northern and Southern lines; and the Committee reported that if Parliament were disposed to deal with so large a question it should be undertaken as a public duty at the public cost, and that I should not be again imposed upon the promoters of any single scheme. I have no doubt at all that it was very hard last year upon the promoters that they should be put to such expense while these wide inquiries were being made at their cost, and I do not hesitate to say that, in my opinion, it would be unfair to put them to the same expense again. I confine my observations to the London terminus; and since the suggestions were not carried out at the time, the House will not expect to see how far our opinions were influenced by those instructions. I am rejoiced, however, to hear that some parts which were contentious in the Bill of last year have been modified, and that others have totally disappeared; and I venture to say that the labours of the Committee of last year will not be altogether thrown away. With the modification that it might be an Instruction to the new Committee to take into consideration the evidence of the old one, I think that the ordinary Committee would be a sufficient tribunal for doing justice to all the interests concerned.
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON: I can speak on behalf of the artizan classes in the East End of London which I represent, and I certainly can say that they are distinctly in favour of seeing this railway coming to London. We all know perfectly well that in the construction of any such railway as this a very large amount of work would have to be done; that a very large amount of accumulated wealth will have to be expended, and that in the carrying out of these necessary works the artizan classes in the East End of London, who are at present only partially employed, will share in the benefits. I therefore deprecate in the strongest fashion any obstructive Motion of this kind as to the appointment of a Hybrid Committee. We have been told by my hon. Friend the Member for Marylebone that St. John's Wood is of a unique character. Well, possibly it is; but I differ from him, for this reason: that St. John's Wood does not constitute the whole of London.
  MR. SEAGER HUNT: I did not say that St. John's Wood was of a unique character.
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON: I will read the hon. Member's words. He spoke of "the unique character of the locality," and I say that St. John's Wood is not the whole of London. I have listened to the arguments of the hon. Member for Marylebone, an din his entire speech he has not shown a single shred of argument against the Bill worthy of being nailed to the mast. I am certain that if this Bill is passed we shall have a railway that would give greater convenience to the public desiring access to London; and as to the inconvenience that is foreshadowed by the railway, I would ask my hon. Friends whether they really believe in their hearts that it will be an inconvenience? Why, the inconvenience would be perfectly infinitesimal. Who are they that would be inconvenienced? I am sure if they were not resident in Marylebone those who now object to the railway on the ground of inconvenience would vote for the railway, and possibly we might find in them its strongest supporters. We have been also told that any railway coming into London will interfere very seriously with residential property.

  25
  Now, I can remember a good many railways and when they were constructed, and I think that they much improved the localities through which they passed, sweeping away unsavoury slums, and in many other ways effecting good. You cannot say that the Midland, or the London and North-Western, or the Great Western did any harm in this respect, but rather that they have increased the value of property in many respects, and considerably so in many quarters close to the stations. This I think is the most futile argument that could be used as against this railway. But we have been told that the promoters have altered their plans, and that, therefore, the introduction of the railway would destroy open spaces, inasmuch as they propose to take, instead of 30 acres, 75 acres for their terminus. If we were told that they would take 100 acres, or 150 acres, I should be all the more pleased, as I believe it would be ultimately only for the general interest, so that argument against the Bill founded upon interference with open spaces cannot be admitted. I hope the House will not vote for this Hybrid Committee. It is only brought forward for the purpose of burking the Bill, and I am satisfied that if this Bill goes to an ordinary Committee, and that it is there passed and recommended to the House, you will be doing a great benefit to the East End of London, the dense population of which is now so largely deprived of employment, and who are all only too anxiously awaiting the passing of the measure.
  EARL COMPTON: I wish to offer a word of explanation with regard to what is called the obstructive policy of those who are anxious to send this Bill to a Hybrid Committee. So far as I am concerned—and I think I can answer for others—we are not opposed in any way whatever to this measure; on the contrary, we are extremely anxious that there should be another line brought into London from the North. As for myself personally, I can approach the consideration of this question from opposite ends of the line. As a Representative of a Yorkshire constituency, I must say I am as much concerned as those who
  26
  have spoken against a Hybrid Committee. With regard to this end of the line, and the interests of those affected by it, I approach the measure as a member of your almost defunct County Council. Now I should like to explain to the House the view of the London County Council in this matter. They also wish for another railway to be brought into London, as they are extremely anxious to see a healthy competition between railway companies; and they are well aware that it is for the interests of London that we should have a distinct line to the manufacturing and agricultural districts in Yorkshire, instead of having, as at present, the traffic going into the hands of several companies. But, at the same time, the London County Council were bound to look into the matter with the greater care when they found that the actual proposed plan laid before the County Council by the promoters was not one which could be accepted by anybody who looked at the affair from a London point of view. It was not a question as to whether the terminus was in exactly the right place or not. It is known that any railway terminus must cause some inconvenience to someone, and in all probability to many. But the point was whether the actual plan was a good one. We have been told that an ordinary Committee can decide this matter as well as, if not better than, a Hybrid Committee. I believe that that is the view of the majority of the House. Well, I am agreed now to vote against the proposal of a Hybrid Committee if I am given clearly to understand one point, and one point only—Has the ordinary Committee the same powers, and as much power to have witnesses before it; has it as much authority to inquire into the matter, to take a wider view of the subject, or has it a narrower power than a Hybrid Committee? That is an easy question to answer. If they would have the same powers as a Hybrid Committee, I, for one, would vote against the Hybrid Committee. But I have been given to understand by all to whom I have spoken that the Hybrid Committee would undoubtedly have a wider scope for action or for inquiry, and also that it would have fuller authority, so that it would therefore be able, in my opinion, to come to

  27
  a wiser decision. I believe the Committee last year was restrained in certain directions from making inquiries which were thought necessary. I understand from observations that have been made that they had not had before them evidence, or that they had not had before them proper evidence as regards engineering—
  MR. WOODALL: What I say is that it was perfectly impossible to hear objections from the London County Council and others until they had gone through the ordinary course, and had evidence of engineers, so as to challenge objections of those who might be concerned in carrying the matter out.
  EARL COMPTON: I understood the speech of the hon. Member was against the Instruction, and not against the Hybrid Committee. The whole question is as to whether an ordinary Committee has full power to inquire into a question of such great magnitude, and I believe the County Council would have come to the same decision as I have if they were assured positively that the ordinary Committee would have the same authority as the Hybrid Committee. We have been told that a Hybrid Committee would last longer, and that this is a dilatory Motion. But why would it last longer? Because it would take more evidence, and because there would be a deeper and more thoroughly searching inquiry into this matter. So that, at least, injury would not be done to the ratepayers of London, who are anxious to have this line as speedily as possible. Until I get an assurance that an ordinary Committee will have as great powers as a Hybrid Committee, I shall vote for the Motion of the hon. Member for Marylebone.
  MR. MUNDELLA: There are few hon. Members who have given to this matter more serious attention than myself, and few who can speak with greater confidence upon it, having spent many years of my life in Leicester, having for so long represented Sheffield in this House, having been approached by various important bodies upon the subject and knowing as I do every inch of the ground which the proposed line will traverse. The whole people of the district are most
  28
  anxious for the passing of the Bill, and I can assure this House that it would be very difficult indeed to describe the surprise and pain which was felt by the working classes last year when this Bill was rejected. There are hon. Members sitting upon the Government Benches and hon. Members upon both sides of the House who, when they went to their constituents after the Bill was rejected, had to use the language of apology and of regret, and to express a hope that the promoters would introduce the Bill this year, as they were full sure that the House would pass it. What has been the result? Nearly all the Local Authorities from one end of the line to the other have petitioned in favour of this Bill. I have myself presented Petitions from important bodies in the district I represent in favour of the measure, the latest being only last week—from the Cutlers' Company. Furthermore, I spent my holidays in Nottingham, and there the Town Clerk and some members of the Corporation waited upon me in reference to the Bill, asking me to give it all the assistance in my power. Knowing as I do how valuable this line is for the great industrial population that it would accommodate, I do hope that it will not be rejected a second time by this House, in the interest of, and out of regard for high-class residential property, and that this House will not a second time impose conditions upon the Committee that will but delay the consideration of such an important question; will extend the scope of the inquiry, and so over-lay the evidence that the Bill will again, by dilatory tactics, be got rid of. What was the effect of the Instruction of last year? I believe that the highest authorities in this House are of opinion that a more ridiculous Instruction was never given to a Committee. To the Committee itself it was a most embarrassing Instruction, and the result was that they had had to receive an enormous amount of evidence which interfered with the consideration of the whole question, and cost the promoters of the Bill about £20,000. Surely, if there is to be any question of inquiry as to what is to be done in the future with tramways and with railways coming to London, such

  29
  a matter ought not to stand upon a single Bill; it ought not to be fought out by one company such as the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Company; they ought not to be asked to meet all the objections to be brought forward upon such a question; it ought to be done by the Board of Works or by the Board of Trade promoting a public inquiry, and I think the Board of Trade is far too wise to undertake such a business. Why, I ask, should not this Bill go direct to an ordinary Committee? It would be a slur upon a Committee of this House to say that they could not consider a question such as this, and that the Bill could not be sent to one of those Committees. I know of no instance, except one, where, in a railway scheme the question of the parks came in, and a Bill was referred not to an ordinary but to a Hybrid Committee; but I never have known an instance where an ordinary proposal like this was sent to anything but an ordinary Committee. I ask the House to do all it can for our domestic industries, and I can only say that it is worth the serious consideration of the House from this point of view. We are getting on to a period, as every man must be aware, of considerable depression, and it is of the utmost importance that we should do all we can for the industries of the country. Here is a great undertaking, an undertaking desired by a great industrial population, upon whom it will confer enormous advantages, which will bring the resources of Yorkshire in direct communication with London, and in Nottingham will open up a district which has no direct communication with us; which will be of great service to the industrial districts through which the line will pass, besides being of immense advantage to a large and wide agricultural country. It will come, very unfortunately, in a time of great depression. I know this is not an argument to be considered by itself, as the Bill should, of course, be considered upon its merits; but when £3,000,000 is to be spent upon labour, why, I ask, will this House always throw obstacles of this kind in the way, when, instead of doing so, they should encourage it? and I trust that in this
  30
  instance they will not interfere with the usual customs of the House.
  MR. AINSLIE: I think that many of the matters referred to in this discussion are matters which would be much better left to a Second Reading Debate. The question of how far the Committee of last year was influenced by the Instruction of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford is one which, I think, has been amply answered by the Report of the Committee itself. They found it so impracticable, so expensive, and so bewildering that they had the utmost difficulty in coming to a decision upon the main points I hope that the four or six hon. Members who may form the Select Committee will be found quite as capable of coming to a decision on this Bill as the Committee of last year, and able to come to a more favour, able decision than we were. I think there should be no difficulty thrown in the way of that Committee by any action of this House, which action, in my opinion, is only a side-wind, and not a direct negative to the question. The difficulty that appears to me to be put before the House is whether the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway should have the burden of the general inquiry thrown upon their shoulders or not. We must remember that precedents are very easily made. This House will be making one, and it cannot afterwards be very easily set aside; and how will any Railway Company in days to come apply for powers to construct a railway or any other industrial undertaking if by any chance a similar costly experiment, such as this, may be thrown upon their shoulders? I hope the House will give no assent to this proposal. The whole question with respect to sites was discussed and fought out in the Committee last year. If any other site had been suggested it might have diverted that railway from the course which it was taking. Then we should still less have been able to say that that was the best site in London. We had no alternative before us but what was brought by the kind intervention of gentlemen interested in seeing a railway brought to London; and I think the Committee recognised

  31
  that liberality on their part. And no alternative was suggested that in any way diverted the main course of the railway. If the House sends the Bill upstairs it should take care to send it to a Select, and not to a Hybrid, Committee.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. COURTNEY,): I shall not trespass on the time of the House for more than a few minutes. I assure the House that I have not that facility in coming to a conclusion which seems to be enjoyed by most of the Gentlemen who have participated in the Debate. Most of these hon. Members have no difficulty whatever in seeing their way as to what should be done. I confess I cannot regard this as a question in which no doubt exists, because the question between the promoters and the persons affected by the course of the line—the question, I may say, between the parties—raises questions of great Metropolitan interest; and the London County Council, as representing the general interests of the Metropolis, as distinguished from the particular interest, from the interests of persons who may be immediately affected by the construction of the line, has strongly recommended a particular course to be taken with respect to this Bill. We treat this body of the County Council in a very bad way. We beat them or praise them according as they do or do not do what we like them to do. In such matters as relate to proposed railway extension, the opinion of the County Council ought to have great weight with us; and if they say the Bill should not be sent before an ordinary Committee, and press for a reference to a Committee with larger powers, a great deal of attention ought to be paid to their representation. Well, but the question does not end there. This Bill was referred to an ordinary Committee last year; but it was referred to an ordinary Committee plus an Instruction—an Instruction which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield has characterised as ridiculous, and which was agreed to with unanimity by the House. I felt at the time the difficulty of that Instruction, and I hope its subsequent history will operate as a warning
  32
  to prevent Members from giving Instructions to Committees which they are incapable of giving proper effect to. The Committee spent a great deal of time over the general merits of the Bill and a great deal of time over the Instruction also; and they made a special Report that they were incapable of doing the business that we entrusted to them—that if it was to be done at all, it must be done independently of every one of the particular powers put forward. I think the Report, even if it was not corroborated by the action of the Chairman of the Committee, and the hon. Member opposite, and other hon. Members who have spoken in this Debate with respect to this Report and the opinion of all the four Members of Committee—I think the Report is conclusive as to the impolicy of recommending this Bill to be sent to a Hybrid Committee, because, though a Hybrid Committee might have larger powers than an ordinary Committee, it would not have larger powers than an ordinary Committee has plus that Instruction—it would not have larger powers than the Committee which was intrusted with the examination of the same question; and then the question which would simply arise is this—Will we get this question better examined into by four Members, each of whom recognises a constant responsibility for his action, or by seven Members, some of whom may attend and some of whom may stay away? On the whole, if it has not got that examination at the hands of the Committee which the House last year recommended as the only way for considering this question, I think we had better follow the ordinary course and refer it to an ordinary Committee instead of referring it to a Hybrid Committee. I think that something might be said in favour of referring it to a Joint Committee of both Houses, because there are matters involved in this question which ought not to be examined into at the sole expense of one projected company. The question will have to be examined on other occasions in a Grand Committee. It is admittedly a question of considerable difficulty to decide. It is not now the question before us; but, in regard to the question before us, I cannot help thinking, though I do so

  33
  with some hesitation and reluctance, that we shall do wisely in referring this matter to an ordinary instead of to a Hybrid Committee.
  MR. T. H. BOLTON: I quite recognise the right of great towns like Nottingham and Sheffield to be heard upon a question of this character. At the same time, I think some of us who represent North and North-Western districts of this Metropolis, through whose districts this railway will come, have also a right to be heard in this discussion. I quite agree with what the noble Lord the Member for Barnsley said, that there is no disposition factiously to stand in the way of bringing this new railway to London; but those living in the districts through which the railway is to come, and the people in London generally, desire that such conditions may be imposed on the Railway Company as they think necessary in their interests and in the interests of the Metropolis at large. We feel that the question has got into somewhat an unfortunate position at the present time. It was hoped last Session that the Instruction moved would have enabled the Committee to consider the questions which we think should be considered in connection with this Bill. First, as to the displacement of population and the compensation to be given by the Railway Company for the advantages acquired; secondly, the question of an alternative site for the station; and, thirdly, the larger question as to the general accommodation of London with reference to the making of this line. But we find that under the Instruction these matters were not considered. How it was that the Committee of last Session came to the conclusion they did, and found that the Preamble of the Bill was not proved, having regard to what the Chairman of the Committee and other Members say here to-day, I cannot understand. They were wrong in their decision then, or they have altered their minds. What I venture to suggest to the House is that the questions which the County Council have formulated are very large and important questions for the working-class population of London. In connection with the making of this railway many of us
  34
  think that Parliament ought to impose conditions for the better accommodation of the working classes and the people of London. We think that when powers are given to Railway Companies to take miles of streets and large areas of populated land there should be special conditions imposed to give special accommodation and special facilities to the public in return for the great advantages conceded. I rise for the purpose of supporting the proposition made by my hon. Friend the Member for Marylebone, and I cordially agree with what the noble Lord said in support of the proposal. I do not oppose the line of railway coming to London, but I hope the House will decide that the Bill shall go to a strong Committee of experienced Members, and I believe that the public will have more confidence in such a Committee than in an ordinary Committee. (Cries of "Divide!")
  MR. BOULNOIS: I feel it would not be right for me to go against the authorities of the House in this matter, and therefore I shall, with your permission, Sir, withdraw my Motion.
  MR. PAULTON: I only desire to say one word. There appears to be a general impression that the Bill was rejected by the Committee last year merely and entirely on account of the Instruction. I think my Colleagues in the Committee last year will agree with me in assuring the House that this falls far short of what took place. The Bill was thrown out entirely on its merits.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill committed.

QUESTIONS.

  VACCINATION.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAM: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the repeated prosecutions in Gloucestershire of parents conscientiously objecting to vaccination, notably in the case of Mr. Owen Watts, of Stow-in-the-Wold, who has been repeatedly fined for the same children,

  35
  he will call the attention of the Guardians concerned to the Evesham Letter, and will recommend the observance of the suggestions made in that Letter?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): I do not know anything about the circumstances stated in the question of the hon. Gentleman. As regards the fines imposed at Petty Sessions on Mr. Owen Watts, I have already sent the letter of Mr. Owen Watts to the Guardians.

  THE CASE OF PATRICK M'BRIEN.
  MR. JOHN J. CLANCY (for Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND,): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that at a Petty Sessions Court held in Derrygonnelly, county Fermanagh, Ireland, on Friday, 26th February, before Messrs. G. A. Maloney, R.M., John Kerr, J.P., and James Gordon, J.P., a man named Patrick M'Brien was fined five shillings and costs for drunkenness, on the complaint of Head Constable Jack, supported by District Inspector Tappin; is he aware that the defendant, two sergeants, and two constables of the Royal Irish Constabulary with two civilian witnesses all swore that M'Brien was not drunk when arrested, and that other members of the Royal Irish Constabulary with several civilian witnesses were prepared to swear that M'Brien was sober when Head Constable Jack arrested him on the charge of drunkenness, but that the Magistrates investigating the case refused to hear what these witnesses had to prove; and, under all the circumstances, will the Lord Lieutenant order a sworn inquiry to be held touching all the facts connected with this case?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JACKSON,): I understand that in the case referred to in the question of the hon. Member such testimony was given on behalf of the accused. The Magistrates, however, appear to have been satisfied that the charge was proved, and inflicted a fine of five shillings and costs. The Lord Lieutenant approves of the decision of the Magistrates.

  CLOGHEEN PETTY SESSIONS.
  MR. CONDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state how often Petty Sessions are held in Clogheen (County Tipperary), and how many times during the last twelve months the clerk had to adjourn the Sessions there, owing to the non-attendance of Magistrates?
  MR. JACKSON: The Clogheen Petty Sessions, County Tipperary, are fixed to be held fortnightly. During the last twelve months these Petty Sessions were adjourned on four occasions owing to the non-attendance of Magistrates.

  AMERICAN SCHOOLS IN TURKEY.
  MR. LEVESON GOWER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has observed the statement in the Dâily News of 2nd March, that the British Embassy at Constantinople has just agreed to a General Order of the Porte, under which many notices have been served for closing American schools in Turkey unless they obtain official permits within short fixed periods; and whether, if this be so, in view of the prejudicial effect which such an Order would probably result in to British as well as to American schools in Turkey, the Government will direct Her Majesty's Ambassador to make representations to the Porte with a view to securing the free and unimpeded working and development of such schools?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,): The statement referred to by the hon. Gentleman is not correct. Representations have already been made to the Porte, claiming for British subjects their full rights, secured by the Treaties, in the matter of their religious and educational pursuits. Her Majesty's Representative is acting in this matter in full concert with the American Minister.

  THE EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant

  37
  of Ireland if he can now state whether he will introduce as a separate Government measure the 1st and 2nd clauses of the Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Bill, or a Bill containing similar provisions calculated to effect the object aimed at by those clauses?
  MR. JACKSON: With regard to the 1st clause of the Bill referred to, I have already expressed an opinion in reply to a question in this House. The 2nd clause is one which the Government could not accept.
  MR. CLANCY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what is his objection to the 1st clause?
  MR. JACKSON: With regard to the 1st clause, I stated, in answer to a question that was put to me, that if I had evidence that landlords and tenants desiring to come to an agreement had been shut out by the expiration of time under Clause 13 of the Land Purchase Act, I could consider whether we could not introduce a Bill giving some extension of time to the clause.
  MR. SEXTON: As this is a matter of some importance, I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman will assist us by indicating the nature and form of evidence he would require—what is the nature of the evidence required—in order that the Government should introduce a Bill. Would he be satisfied if Irish Members were to give him the information that may enable him to judge?
  MR. JACKSON: Well, Sir, of course I should pay great respect to the information supplied to me by Irish Members, or by those who have any information on the subject. Perhaps it is not necessary for me to indicate further the nature of the information; but if any evidence is brought before me I will give the matter most careful consideration.
  MR. SEXTON: What I mean to urge upon the attention of the right hon. Gentleman is this: Will it be indispensable that the right hon. Gentleman should be convinced by the evidence of landlords themselves that the time ought to be extended?
  MR. JACKSON: I am quite sure I should not feel justified in asking the House for leave to bring in a Bill, or in asking the House to pass it,
  38
  unless I was pretty well convinced that my doing so would lead to some practical result. If I had evidence that would convince me that it would lead to some practical result, I certainly would bring in a Bill to extend the time.
  MR. CLANCY: Does it not occur to the right hon. Gentleman that the fact of leaving the matter doubtful will have the effect of preventing landlords and tenants from coming to agreements?
  MR. JACKSON: No, Sir. On the contrary, I think the faction taken to keep the matter open has tended rather in the direction of preventing agreements being come to.

  THE PROPOSED RIFLE RANGE AT PORTMARNOCK.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he has considered the memorial presented to him from the fishermen, owners of property, and other inhabitants of Howth Baldoyle and Malahide, in the county of Dublin, against the proposal to establish a rifle range and Military camp at Portmarnock; and, if so, whether he will state the decision at which he has arrived on the subject?
  THE SECRETAEY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): Yes, Sir; this subject has been considered by the War Office, and I have to say that before proceeding further there shall be held an inquiry on or near the spot, at which all objections can be fully heard.

  STEAM TRAWLERS IN GALWAY BAY.
  MR. DONAL SULLIVAN (for Mr. PINKERTON,): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that about two months ago an order was made by the Fishery Board excluding steam trawlers from the outer bay, and prohibiting them from coming within a line drawn from Hag's Head, on the Clare coast, to Eeragh Island Lighthouse, off Arran, and continued from the lighthouse to Golam Head Tower, on the Connemara coast, and why that order has not been enforced; and if he would explain why the trawlers were expelled a few weeks ago, and why were they re-admitted?
  MR. JACKSON: It is the case that the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries made a bye-law on the 14th December, 1891, prohibiting steam-trawling in Galway Bay inside the limits indicated in the question. Certain further steps were then necessary on the part of the Inspectors, who ultimately submitted the bye-law on the 22nd ultimo for the approval of the Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council. The enforcement of the bye-law awaits their decision.
  MR. A. WEBB () (for Mr. PINKERTON,): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been directed to the resolutions passed at a public meeting in Claddagh (Galway), on the 21st instant, in which they complain of the poverty to which the Claddagh fishermen have been reduced owing to the permission of trawling in Galway Bay, and call upon the Fishery Board to fix limits for trawling, also recommend the appointment by the Congested Districts Board of a fishery school in Galway for the promotion of deep-sea fishing on the west coast; and whether the Government have any intention of taking action to see that something is done to relieve the present distress of those fishermen, and prevent, if possible, its further recurrence?
  MR. JACKSON: The hon. Member was good enough to send a newspaper containing copies of the resolutions referred to. The Inspectors of Fisheries propose, as I have just stated in reply to the previous question, to prohibit steam trawling within certain limits in Galway Bay. But they do not, as at present advised, see reason to prohibit trawling from sailing vessels. As regards the particular case of the Claddagh fishermen, I would remind the hon. Member that in 1885, on the representation of the then Lord Lieutenant (Lord Carnarvon), the Government arranged with the Admiralty for the use of a cutter, to be employed in the instruction in fishing of the men of the Royal Naval Reserve of Claddagh, the Treasury sanctioning an expenditure of £150 to meet the cost of the requisite gear and instruction. This well-intentioned project, however, fell through, as the men declined to avail themselves of it unless
  40
  they were granted a sum of money in addition to the practical benefits they would have derived—a demand which could not be complied with.

  THE SUICIDE OF MR. CLEARY.
  MR. DONAL SULLIVAN () (for Mr. J. JORDAN,): I beg to ask the Postmaster General if his attention has been called to the suicide of Mr. Cleary, of the General Post Office, Dublin, and to the rider to the verdict of the Coroner's jury that Mr. Cleary had been harshly treated by the Post Office Authorities; if this harsh treatment was due to the fact that Mr. Cleary had drawn attention to excessive hours which some of the employés were compelled to work; if previous to that time Mr. Cleary had been always highly recommended by his superiors; and if, under the circumstances, an inquiry will be granted in order to ascertain whether his death is to be attributed to the ill-treatment to which he was subjected; and, if so, whether some grant may be made to assist his family?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): Mr. Cleary, who held the position of clerk in the sorting office of the Dublin Post Office, committed suicide on the 23rd November last. At the inquest the Coroner's jury added to their verdict a rider that Mr. Cleary had been harshly treated by the Department. As a matter of fact, he had not been treated harshly, and the only event which could have been referred to occurred nine months previously, namely, in February, 1891, when Mr. Cleary was reprimanded and cautioned for unduly delaying the orders of his immediate superior officers, and had no reference whatever to excessive hours of duty; but this reprimand did not stand in the way of his advancement, inasmuch as in the August following he was promoted from an overseership to a clerkship, whereby, besides receiving some slight increase of pay, his official status was considerably improved. He appears, indeed, to have thought that he ought to have been promoted to an assistant superintendentship, but for that post he was not considered to be qualified. Had he not borne a good character generally he would not have

  41
  received the promotion he did. The widow was left with nine children. There is no fund from which she could receive a grant. I am informed that she is not in distress. The three eldest children have been given employment in the Dublin Post Office, while the remainder are too young to work.
  MR. D. SULLIVAN: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he would lay the correspondence in this case on the Table of the House?
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: No, Sir. I think there is no occasion to lay the correspondence on the Table of the House. I have looked most carefully into this case, but I could ascertain nothing calling for further inquiry. This poor man suffered from what the doctor called nervous depression; he was under the doctor's care for that state of health in the year previous to the occurrence of the reprimand, and the doctor strongly advised him to take a considerable period of leave for the benefit of his health. But out of regard for his family, and lest they might suffer from his loss of pay, he unfortunately refused to take the leave.
  MR. SEXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether he cannot provide a gratuity for the widow and nine children?
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: No, Sir. There is no fund out of which they could be given a gratuity. I am glad to say that the three children are receiving at present 37s. a week.
  MR. SEXTON: The right hon. Gentleman says there is no fund out of which a gratuity could be paid. But surely the House could order the granting of a small gratuity to the widow and children?
  DR. TANNEE: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether the nervous depression from which this gentleman suffered was not the result of long hours?
  [No answer was returned.]

  RAILWAY COMPARTMENTS FOR WOMEN.
  MR. WEBB: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that it is not always possible for women travelling alone to find, especially at crowded railway stations,
  42
  room in compartments reserved for women only, and that aggravated assaults upon women in railway compartments occur from time to time; and whether the Board of Trade would urge upon Railway Companies the desirability, as carriages come under repair, and as new ones are constructed, of arranging that a portion of the partition dividing compartments one from the other should be constructed of glass?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): I am not aware that there is any general deficiency in the accommodation for women travelling alone; none such appears to me disclosed in the Correspondence on the subject presented to Parliament in 1888; nor am I of opinion that the expedient suggested by the hon. Member would have such support from the travelling public as to justify me in pressing it on the notice of the Railway Companies.

  THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1889.
  MR. ANGUS SUTHERLAND: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will explain how it is that, although by Section 56, Sub-section (b), of "The Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889," a County Council is not empowered to promote any Bill in Parliament, or to incur or charge any expense in relation thereto, save only a Bill for confirming a Provisional Order made under or in pursuance of the provisions of any Act of Parliament, the County Council of Lanarkshire is empowered to promote the Lanarkshire (Middle Ward District) Water Bill, 1892, seeing that they have no Provisional Order for that purpose?
  SIR C. J. PEARSON: By the Local Government (Scotland) Act a County Council is not empowered to promote any Bill in Parliament to the effect of charging the rates with the expenses incurred except in the case of Bills confirming Provisional Orders. There is however, nothing in that Act to prevent a County Council from promoting a Bill if the members are prepared to run the risk of being found personally liable for their expenditure in doing so.

  SCOTCH LAW OF SETTLEMENT.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a report in the Irish News of the 29th ult., of the proceedings at the meeting of the Board of Guardians, held at Newtownards, on the 27th ult.; whether he is aware that William Spiers, a feeble old man of 70 years of age, reached the Newtownards Workhouse on the previous day, having been sent there from Scotland in charge of an escort on a pauper extradition order of the Scotch authorities; that Spiers informed the Board that at the age of five years he had left Donaghadee where he was born, and that he had worked ever since in Scotland, having been in one employment 30 years, and that, when ill and in hospital on the previous Tuesday evening, he was notified, without any warning, that he must go off to Ireland, and he was so ill on the passage that he thought he would not live; whether he is aware that, as a rule, Irishmen who spend their time working in England are not sent home to die in Irish workhouses in their old age; and whether he will introduce a Bill to prevent the forcible deportation from Scotland to Irish workhouses of destitute persons whose life-work has been spent in that country?
  MR. JACKSON: I have seen the newspaper report of the case which the hon. Member was good enough to send me. It differs in some details from the report received from the Clerk of the Union. It appears that the removal warrant had certified that the man had not acquired a settlement in Scotland and that his health would not suffer by removal. I am aware the existing law sometimes operates with apparent harshness; but I fear it would not be practicable at the present time to introduce legislation in the matter.

  CONSTRUCTION OF A PIER AT BALLYBUNION.
  MR. CLANCY: On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for North Meath (Mr. Mahony), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a public meeting recently
  44
  held at Ballybunion, County Kerry, at which a resolution was passed asking the Congested Districts Board to undertake the construction of a small pier for the purpose of affording a landing place for fishing boats; and, whether he will urge upon the Congested Districts Board the advisability of holding a local inquiry into the subject?
  MR. JACKSON: The attention of the Congested Districts Board has been called to the resolution referred to, and they propose to make local inquiry in the matter.

  THE CONVICT MATTHEW KINSELLA.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, considering the declaration made by Edward Andrews, the father of the boy who was killed, and the strong feeling entertained by a large number of people in Dublin as to the innocence of Matthew Kinsella, who has already served ten years' penal servitude, he will now cause fresh inquiry to be made into the circumstances under which he was convicted, with the view of remitting the remainder of his sentence?
  MR. JACKSON: Sir, the case of the convict referred to has already been under the consideration of two successive Lord Lieutenants, including the present Viceroy. They decided that the law must take its course; any new facts, however, that may be embodied in a memorial to the Lord Lieutenant will, I have no doubt, receive his Excellency's careful consideration.

  THE DEATH OF P. W. NALLY.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the death of P. W. Nally in Mountjoy Gaol, whether the Coroner of the City of Dublin has been asked for copies of the depositions taken at the inquest; and, if not, what steps he proposes to take in order to have a copy of the evidence and verdict laid upon the Table of the House?
  MR. JACKSON: No application has been made, I understand, to the Coroner for a copy of the depositions referred to. The Government are not in possession of any official report of the proceedings, and I cannot take upon

  45
  myself the responsibility of laying upon the Table copies of documents as to which there is no official cognizance of the facts.
  MR. SEXTON: Do the Government intend to make application to the Coroner for copies of the depositions?
  MR. JACKSON: It was not contemplated to ask the Coroner. I am not aware of any precedent for such a course. If the depositions were put upon the Table by the Government it would put them in the position of vouching for them, which they cannot do.
  MR. SEXTON: I did not ask the Government to vouch for them. What I ask is that they should apply to the Coroner for a copy of the depositions taken at the inquest, these depositions being very material for the debate that we intend to raise.
  MR. JACKSON: I have already said, Sir, that I am not aware of any precedent for applying to the Coroner for a copy of such document. If they did, the Government would make themselves responsible for laying on the Table these documents, of the accuracy of which they cannot be certain.
  MR. SEXTON: I wish to give notice that such statements before the Coroner were made upon oath. I shall at the earliest opportunity move for the production of these documents.
  MR. MACNEILL: I should like to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether in criminal trials depositions are not, as a matter of course, given to the counsel on both sides; and also, I should like to ask, whether it is not possible to have a trial upon the Coroner's inquisition without any Grand Jury at all?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): Yes, Sir; but that is a course which has been disused for many years alike in England and in Ireland There is no obligation imposed by law on the Coroners to prepare or furnish copies of depositions unless an indictment be found on the Coroner's inquisition, in which case, and in which case only, is a Coroner bound to supply written copies of the depositions. In this case no obligation lies.
  MR. MACNEILL: Has no application been made to the Coroner?
  MR. JACKSON: I have already said no.

  THE APPOINTMENT OF LADY SUB-COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Treasury have sanctioned the appointment of four lady Sub-Commissioners to assist the Labour Commission; and whether it is intended that Ireland shall have a representative on this Sub-Committee; and, if so, can he give the name of the lady it is intended to appoint?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I understand the names have been submitted by the Labour Commissioners to the Home Office, and that they have approved of the appointment of certain lady Sub-Commissioners. None of the Sub-Commissioners who have been selected represent any particular district, but one is an Irish woman, with a knowledge of Irish industries.

  THE CROFTERS OF BENDAMPH.
  DR. CLARK: On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Dr. M'Donald) I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that the crofters on Lord Lovelace's estate of Bendamph, in Ross-shire, have made (early in 1887) applications to the Crofters' Commission to fix fair rents for them; that Mr. J. Anderson, solicitor, of Inverness, Lord Lovelace's agent, thereafter sent to the Commission a letter purporting to be a withdrawal of said applications, signed as "for and as duly authorised by" the crofters; and that whether, in consequence, the Crofters' Commission dismissed said applications without entering into the merits of the cases; whether complaints have reached him that the Commission still refuses a hearing to these crofters, notwithstanding depositions by them forwarded to the Commission that they gave no authority to Mr. Anderson or any other person to withdraw the said applications; whether he can see his way to

  47
  insist on the Crofters' Commissioners to proceed and judge of and determine in the applications in ordinary form; and whether the Government propose to take any steps to prevent Mr. Anderson, who is a Procurator Fiscal, and other Government officials in the Highlands, from acting as landlords' agents?
  SIR C. J. PEARSON: As the differences between Lord Lovelace and these crofters form the grounds of a depending action in the Court of Session, I am precluded from entering into the matters dealt with in the first three paragraphs of the question. In reply to the last paragraph, I have to repeat what has frequently been stated in this House, that whenever an opportunity is afforded the question of restricting Procurators Fiscal from carrying on private practice is always considered.

  TRAWLING IN SCOTTISH WATERS.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he can state what is the nature of the addition which has recently been made to the Marine police intended to check trawling within Scottish waters?
  SIR C. J. PEARSON: In answer to the hon. Member's question, I have to state that an additional gunboat has been placed at the disposal of the Fishery Board for the prevention of trawling in the closed waters.
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: On that question, may I ask the Lord Advocate whether he can tell us the name of the gunboat and what is her speed?
  SIR C.J. PEARSON: No, Sir. I must ask for notice of that question.
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: Then I give notice.

  ARMY ESTIMATES.
  MR. HANBURY: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has yet decided, and if so, when, to present to the House the evidence of Lord Wantage's Committee; further, whether it is really the fact that he intends to bring forward the Army Estimates on Monday without that Report—which cannot take long to produce, and which contains most important matter for consideration, and without which we cannot
  48
  have an adequate debate—being in the hands of Members generally?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: What the hon. Gentleman has said refers to a private conversation. I did receive one advance copy of the evidence on Wednesday last, and I at once decided, after a cursory glance, that there was no reason why we should not present it to the House. I have no control as to the time when it will be presented, but it will be presented as soon as possible, though I am afraid not before Monday.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT: Is it not usual, before the Army Estimates are taken, and before we are asked to form an opinion as to the Army, that certain information should be furnished. We have not had the Recruiting Report; we have not had the annual Army numbers, and in the present condition of things it is very desirable that we should have those Returns.
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Of course all the usual information will be presented before the Estimates are taken. I thought the Report to which my hon. Friend alludes was on the Table. If not, it ought certainly to be distributed tomorrow. As to the Report of Lord Wantage's Committee, it will be sent out as soon as possible.
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN (, &c.): No reflection lies upon the right hon. Gentleman as to what he has done, but seeing this important evidence can only be in our hands, perhaps, at the beginning of next week at the very earliest, I should like to ask him whether it is absolutely necessary that the Army Estimates should be taken on Monday, and whether some other branch of the Estimates could not then be proceeded with?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I think, Sir, that, looking to the exigencies of the Public Service, the Army Estimates must be taken next week; but if the right hon. Gentleman wishes not to discuss Lord Wantage's Report until he has the evidence another opportunity will arise.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I should like to ask my right hon. Friend whether the evidence contained in the Report of Lord

  49
  Wantage's Committee does not bear directly on the Vote for men; and, if so, whether it will be possible for the House thoroughly to discuss the Vote for men in the absence of that Report; and, further, whether it would be possible to postpone the Vote for a few days until the House would have in its possession the latest and amplest information with regard to the actual physical composition of the Army?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am sure my noble Friend will appreciate the situation. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian pointed out yesterday that it is usual and practically obligatory on the Government to bring on the first Votes in respect of the Government Services on a Monday or a Thursday. The Navy Estimates cannot be brought on next week because they are not printed, and therefore they cannot be brought forward until Monday week. There are only next Monday and Thursday and the following Monday and Thursday available as ordinary Government nights, in which the Estimates will have to be passed, and I am afraid it would be impossible for us to do otherwise than take the Army Estimates then, as the Navy Estimates are not ready. But, Sir, I will do my best to see whether I cannot meet what is a perfectly legitimate wish on the part of my noble Friend and others that at all events they should have some information as to the Report of Lord Wantage's Committee.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The right hon. Gentleman says the Estimates are not printed. Why are they not printed? There is a Rule of this House that the principal Estimates shall be laid upon the Table within ten days of the opening of Committee of Supply. The ten days have elapsed long ago; and why these Estimates are not presented, and why the Navy Estimates are not printed, are matters that we should inquire into, because there has been a distinct breach of the Rules and Orders of this House.
  MR. E. STANHOPE: It is within my own knowledge that the Estimates have been laid upon the Table, but the delay in getting them made available to hon. Members has arisen because we have not been able to get them out of the printers' hands. There has been
  50
  greater delay than usual on the part of the printers this year, and we have great cause of complaint on that head.

  THE SMALL HOLDINGS BILL.
  MR. CHANNING: I should like to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now state the day when the Small Holdings Bill will be taken?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The intention of the Government is to read the Bill a second time so soon as we get through the necessary business of the Estimates. But that must not be taken as a specific pledge.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAM: Will notice be given when the Bill is to be taken?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no doubt adequate notice will be given.

MOTION.
SALMON FISHERIES (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
Select Committee nominated of,—Mr. Cox, Sir John Ellis, Mr. Finucane, Mr. Hayden, Mr. Hozier, Mr. Macartney, Mr. John O'Connor, Mr. O'Neill, Mr. Pinkerton, Mr. T. W. Russell, Mr. Seton-Karr, Dr. Tanner, and Mr. Tomlinson.
Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
Ordered, That Five be the quorum.—(Mr. O'Neill)
SALMON FISHERIES (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT (No. 2.) BILL.
On Motion of Mr. Seton-Karr, Bill to amend the Law relating to Salmon Fisheries in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Seton-Karr and Mr. John Kelly.
Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 209.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1891–2 (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES).
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1891–2 (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES).

    CLASS V.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £20,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March,

    51
    1892, as a Grant in Aid of the Cost of Preliminary Surveys for a Railway from the Coast to Lake Victoria Nyanza."
    MR. LABOUCHERE: We have taken tonight pretty nearly two hours in fixing which particular parish should have the honour of the terminus of a new railroad to London. In these circumstances I do not think it is unfair or unreasonable if we demand that there should be full and ample discussion on the matter of this railroad in Africa. The Government were asked to state, last night, the financial position of the British East Africa Chartered Company. They did not do so. I stated facts which I had obtained from the Company itself. I believe a great many Members do not know how a Chartered Company is formed; well, I will tell them. A Petition is presented to the Lords in Council, an advertisement is put in the Gazette, calling upon anyone to state objections, and this, of course, elicits no reply, as nobody takes the Gazette. The Charter is then given, a deed of settlement is drawn up between the Company and the Treasury, and this deed of settlement forms, to all intents and purposes, the Articles of Association for a Limited Company. Therefore the Chartered Company is a Limited Liability Company, with the addition of the halo which arises from the Government having approved of it. But there is an exception. By the Limited Liability Law, a company is obliged to deposit a list of its shareholders every year at Somerset House, and anyone can go there and look over that list of shareholders, and ascertain whether the shares have been transferred or not. In the case of a Chartered Company you cannot do this, because they are not obliged to deposit any list of shareholders. I do not know why an exception has been made in their favour, but there it is. Well, Sir, in May, 1887, a certain number of gentlemen obtained a concession from the Sultan of Zanzibar extending over a length of coast line of 150 miles and about 10 miles in depth. This concession gave them practically absolute sovereignty over this district; power to administer it, to levy taxes, & c. In September, 1888, that is to say
    52
    a little more than a year afterwards, application was made for a Charter by the Company, and the facts upon which the application was based were these: that this concession had been obtained from the Sultan of Zanzibar; also, that preliminary agreements had been or were being made with the tribes landward of Zanzibar within the sphere of British influence, and that certain gentlemen had subscribed £250,000. Having got a Charter they issued a prospectus and asked for a further sum of £250,000. In connection with this matter the prospectus urges the financial advantages of this Company, and I find this curious clause—
    "It is proposed at once to construct a light railway which, with steamers to be placed on the River Tana and the Victoria Nyanza, will probably draw the trade of the interior for a distance of several hundred miles to the Company's seaports. Coasting steamers will also, if advisable, be provided to develop local traffic between these ports."
    Therefore, Mr. Courtney, this prospectus was issued as that of a purely commercial and financial company, and the money was asked for on the plea that it was intended to construct a railway out of which, when constructed, a good, deal of money was to be made. I have heard much of the philanthropy of the gentlemen who subscribed the £250,000. Well, in one sense, we are all philanthropists, though we like to unite philanthropy with business. I have no doubt these gentlemen desire to civilise Africa, and to benefit their fellow men, and to a certain extent they were, no doubt, influenced by these general philanthropic views; but, unquestionably, beyond that there was the opinion that while in this, as in all speculative matters, money might be lost, on the other hand a considerable profit might be returned. In fact, if you examine this Deed of Settlement you will see that what I say is borne out. It deals with the large returns to be made, and is the old story of the founders' shares. These were to receive a large share of the profits after 8 per cent. had been paid to the misguided people who provided the £250,000. While I am perfectly ready to believe in the philanthropic objects of those who did invest their money in this Company, I am bound to say, having read all the documents, that I find no

    53
    philanthropy there, and, that being so, I presume it was a commercial speculation. The main object of these philanthropists was said to be the suppression of slavery, but the Committee will be surprised to hear that only two clauses in the Charter relate to slavery. The first is Clause 10, which provides that—
    "The Company shall to the best of its power discourage and, so far as may be practicable, and as may be consistent with existing Treaties between non-African Powers and Zanzibar, abolish by degrees any system of Slave Trade or domestic servitude in the Company's territories."
    That is not much. But there is a still more remarkable clause—Clause 26—
    "For the more effectual prevention of the Slave Trade the Company may, notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, levy within the territories administered by the Company, other than their Zanzibar territory, a tax on caravans and porters, or carriers carrying merchandise or other goods passing through the Company's territories."
    Their mode of putting down slavery is, because these men are slaves, to obtain from Her Majesty's Government the right to levy a tax on any unfortunate African laid hold of and used as a carrier. Now, Sir, what has the Company done since 1888? The Secretary of the Company, in writing to me, in reply to my inquiries, says this—
    "They have since then been occupied in exploring and in negotiating Treaties with the Chiefs within the sphere of British influence, which have resulted in placing the whole country from the coast to Uganda under British control. These operations have so occupied the attention of the Company as to have hitherto prevented the Company entering into any trading whatsoever on its own account."
    All, therefore, the Company has done has been to make Treaties within the sphere, in order to place the whole country from the coast to Uganda under British control. I should like to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer accepts that statement that they have placed the whole of the country under British control? We have had statements from Captain Lugard that between Uganda and the coast fierce tribes inhabit the land, including the Masai, who are especially bloodthirsty. According to the statement made by the Board of Directors, the company hopes to bring about excellent things
    54
    in this territory between Uganda and the coast—
    "By keeping in cheek the marauding and bloodthirsty Masai tribe, who at present lay waste large tracts of land, to the terror of the people."
    What people?
    An hon. MEMBER: What is the date of that?
    MR. LABOUCHERE: June, 1889. We have it from Captain Lugard, and we know perfectly well that these men are there at the present moment; and, in regard to these Treaties, I should like to know whether there has been a Treaty with the Masai. This land belongs to these tribes. They maybe bloodthirsty, they may be savages, or what you like; but you have no right to go into the country and drive off the inhabitants because you are pleased to call them bloodthirsty, and establish yourselves there. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian asked, "Where are your Treaties and your maps?" The right hon. Gentleman had not seen, or I think he would have quoted, Article III. of the Charter of the East Africa Company. Article III. says—
    "Provided that none of the powers of this our Charter shall be exercised under or in relation to any grant, concession, agreement, or Treaty as aforesaid, until a copy of such grant, concession, agreement, or Treaty, in such form and with such maps or particulars as our Secretary of State approves, and verified as he requires, has been transmitted to him, and he has signified his approval thereof, either absolutely or subject to any conditions or reservations."
    We have the fact that, unless this Company has not acted up to its Charter, all these Treaties and maps have been submitted to the Foreign Secretary. Why are they not given to us? Why are we not to have these facts? Why are we to grope about in order to get some data to enable us to form a conclusion on this matter? There has been a most deliberate intention on the part of the Government and the East Africa Company to conceal from us the facts that were in their own possession. Where are these Treaties and maps?
    An hon. MEMBER: You never asked for them.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: We ought to have them without asking for them. Either Lord Salisbury has not got them; or if he has got them, it is almost criminal on the part of Lord Salisbury not to have submitted them to the House. Not only have we not had these maps, but we have not got the Report of Captain Lugard. Hon. Gentlemen seem to think this is a private communication of Captain Lugard. That gentleman goes out there, and, being an independent man, of independent judgment, he writes home an honest and full Report. This Report is important in regard to the question whether it is desirable to have a railway there or not; but we are not given the Report, and it is by a mere accident that a gentleman on this side of the House, having got hold of the Report, was able to call attention to it, otherwise we should never have known of its existence. When we are asked to go into partnership with this Company, we want to have openly stated in this House everything that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has obtained from the Company in order that we may form our judgment. We are asked to consent to this thing upon what I must term general, vague clap-trap in regard to missionaries and the Slave Trade. We are abused if we do not consent to this Vote, as if we were opposed to the suppression of the Slave Trade. But when we are asked to vote money for the suppression of the Slave Trade, surely we are entitled to have all the data before us to enable us to form an opinion whether this investment of money will aid in any way in suppressing the Slave Trade, and that we have not got. The Chancellor of the Exchequer falls back on the Brussels Conference. The right hon. Gentleman does not remember that the statement he cited from the Brussels Conference is merely declaratory. It is an expression of opinion—a pious opinion—and it binds no one. Railroads were only one of the means which it was suggested all countries should take in order to suppress the Slave Trade. If you were to have a great net-work of railroads all over Africa you would undoubtedly suppress the Slave Trade, but the question is whether this one
    56
    particular railroad would do anything to suppress the Slave Trade. And yet we are absolutely told unless we vote a large sum of money for a preliminary survey, we are hypocrites and base persons, swaggering before Europe as philanthropists. I have the greatest doubt and suspicion of anyone who comes forward in this House and begins by telling us he is a philanthropist. I know what has been done in the name of philanthropy; and while I esteem philanthropists, I look upon them with great doubt and suspicion when they want guarantees and subsidies. The data we have before us show that this railroad would be no sort of advantage in the suppression of the Slave Trade. Captain Lugard tells us there is no Slave Trade in Uganda. You have the external Slave Trade and the internal Slave Trade. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen has pointed out that this railway would in no sort of way put a stop to the external Slave Trade. I do protest against what has been said by Lord Salisbury and the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, that, by giving the Vote asked for, we should save money, because we should be able to suppress the gunboats that are now on the coast. There was an absolute mala fides in the statement. We should not be able to suppress the gunboats, and I sincerely trust we shall not do so. I should like to know how many European employés of the East Africa Company there are at present in Uganda? Yon have Captain Lugard and six or ten employés of the Company at Uganda civilising the place with the Monarch there, and two or three million inhabitants. And because these six or ten gentlemen are up there, we are told this Company has enlarged the sphere of the Empire so greatly that it is terrible to think that these gentlemen should have to come back unless we built a railroad for them. We talk of a subsidy and guarantee; but do hon. Members think that is all we shall have to pay for the railroad? I will assume the railroad is built, and that we send up troops and drive off these Masai; what will happen afterwards? Captain Lugard says there is nothing to convey by the railroad—there is only a little ivory. It costs £300 per ton to carry goods to the

    57
    coast at present, and the Under Secretary says if the railroad is made only £3 per ton would be charged. Where are you to get your market if you are to pay £3 for the carriage of a ton of maize or other produce from Uganda to the coast? I should like to quote a passage from an article which appeared in the Times of the 28th September, 1891, and which has been sent to Members, I presume, by the Company itself. It says—
    "Not only is there a large body of converts divided into opposing camps and identified, more or less, with native chiefs and native quarrels, who retain so much of the old Adam that only the tact and firmness of Captain Lugard has hindered them from flying at one another's throats. Besides the animosities engendered by novel ideas and influences among the partially civilised, there is the furious hatred aroused in the neighbouring Mahomedan populations. The same stuff with which the Mahdi invaded Egypt is available in any quantity for a fanatical onslaught upon all who have departed in any degree from the religion or customs of their fathers."
    I opposed the Suakin Railway, and ultimately Her Majesty's Government gave up making it. I did not want that railway, simply because I knew that if it were constructed we should have to send an army to Khartoum. If we build this railway by going through the country of the bloodthirsty Masai, we shall have to send an army to defend these people from the inroad of a power as strong as that of the Mahdi, and then we shall have to prevent these very remarkable Christians from cutting each other's throats. As a matter of fact, the great mass of the Christians in Uganda are Roman Catholics. Now the Catholics, who are in a majority of the Protestants, are opposed to this railway. It is true there are a number of Protestant missionaries, but I do not believe, whether they are Protestant missionaries or not, it is the mission of the State to spend money or build railroads in order to prevent these Protestant missionaries cutting the throats of the Roman Catholic missionaries, nor is it their business to prevent the Catholic missionaries cutting the throats of the Protestant missionaries. The blood of the saints is the seed of the Church. I respect a missionary, the man who goes among those uncivilised tribes—if it is his view that he will benefit the natives
    58
    by offering them Christianity—but I do not respect the missionary who is always quarrelling with other missionaries, and in order that he may have his goods sent up clamours for a railway and an army to defend him. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's defence is this: It is true that we do not know whether the railway will be built, but we ought to obtain information on the point. My answer is that you have already had a Report. We were told by the Member for Dover that we were all agreed this survey should be made and we were practically agreed to make the railroad. The Member for Dover can hardly be considered a private Member, as he is the Secretary to the First Lord of the Treasury. I should like to know what the First Lord says to the statement of his Secretary. Is it the opinion of the hon. Gentleman, or are we to believe that, having the privilege of personal intercourse with the First Lord, he assumes this is the view taken by the First Lord? There is only one other point in regard to this, and that is the outrageous conduct of Lord Salisbury. Last Session the Supplementary Estimate was not pressed because it was contentious, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby protested against it being taken. But what did Lord Salisbury do? He did not wait to consult the House. No sooner was the House up than Lord Salisbury commenced an interesting correspondence with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and someone pointed out what a wise man the Chancellor of the Exchequer was because he insisted upon a survey before the railway was made. I would not put that forward as an indication of wisdom. He only did what would be done by the greatest fool. We are presented with the correspondence between Lord Salisbury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Now I have always considered there is a strong objection to the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary being the same man. It would have been rank rebellion for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have refused what Lord Salisbury asked. Therefore I may take it this was practically forced upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As a diligent guardian of the Public Purse the Chancellor of the Exchequer was opposed to it;

    59
    besides, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as a gentleman of singular acuteness of mind, must have considered it very improper to induce a company to spend money on a pledge that he would get it from Parliament. I do not know how long the world has existed, but it has existed many thousands of years; no one has yet made a survey, and the place has so far got on very well without it; but we are asked to believe they could not wait another winter. I hope the Committee will seriously consider this matter, and first get an absolute assurance from the First Lord that in no sort of way, directly or indirectly, is there any species of pledge, expectation, or belief founded upon this Vote for the survey, that the railway will be made. Secondly, I would suggest that it would be well and more decent to put off this Vote until we are furnished with this Report of Captain Lugard's and these maps and Treaties which are now in the possession of the Foreign Office. I do not say whether I am for or against this railway. So far as I can judge from the insufficient data possessed, it will be of no advantage in the way of putting down the Slave Trade. I have every desire that the Slave Trade should be put down. But I remembered that this country will only spend a certain sum of money in suppressing the Slave Trade, and I am anxious that all money devoted to the purpose shall be usefully used. Those who come forward in this loose, wild, reckless way without giving details how the money is to be spent, are not the best friends of those who wish to kill the traffic, and hon. Gentlemen opposite have no right to assert that those who object to this railroad are opposed to the putting down of the Slave Trade. When fair and honest proposals are made to suppress the Slave Trade we shall be reminded of the expenditure of £2,000,000 on this railroad. We cannot consent to this Vote. The whole thing is a base and systematic job, and we do not believe it will put down the Slave Trade.
    SIR J. KENNAWAY: I shall not follow the hon. Gentleman in ms remarks as to this Company. We have the assurance
    60
    of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that before this money is handed over, he will take care to satisfy himself that the Company are in a position to fulfil the intentions of the Government. Nor shall I discuss what is the status of the missionaries; but an attack has been made upon men who have gone forth with their lives in their hands and laid down their lives, and have lived in the country for years.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: That is not what I did. I read from an article sent by the Company as to what the missionaries were doing, and that they were only prevented from cutting each others' throats by Captain Lugard. I said I did respect the missionaries who went forth on their own account, but that it was not the business of the State to interfere.
    SIR J. KENNAWAY: The State has never been asked to interfere on their behalf. But for 16 years these missionaries have been in the country, and that is an element which will have weight with the people of this country I can certainly say, as representing the Society which sent them there, and spent over £200,000 in forming what is admitted to be the only Christian State in Africa, that we believe the expenditure has been well made, that we do not regret it, and that we are anxious to extend the work we have done, and we do not ask the protection of the State for it. But this money can only be asked for on the ground of the suppression of the Slave Trade, and I quite agree with the right hon. Member for Midlothian that this ought not to be made a Party question. That is easy to say, but there is a tendency to drift into Party considerations, as was evidenced when the Slave Circular, which embraced the policy of both Parties, was made the medium of a violent Party attack. I heartily endorse the expression of the right hon. Gentleman, and hope that many on that side of the House will vote for this sum. Whatever maybe the feeling in the House, the suppression of the Slave Trade is very dear to people outside, and they will not tolerate these, as some of them are, fanciful objections to whatever is proposed in that direction. As Lord Salisbury said in his speech at the Mansion House:—"What interests

    61
    the people of this country most is how far we can suppress the Slave Trade in Africa." A hundred years ago we were actively engaged in the Slave Trade, and it was only in 1833 that the Slave Trade was made illegal. The trade was then carried on on the West Coast of Africa, and we spent large sums of money on cruisers to check it, but it was only put an end to 20 years ago. It then broke out on the East Coast, and a Committee of this House, in 1872 considered the question. The result was Sir Bartle Frere's mission to Zanzibar, and a system was adopted which for a time put a serious cheek on the trade. Later on interest in the question revived, and at a great meeting at St. James's Hall, under the presidency of Earl Granville, Cardinal Lavigerie spoke, and a resolution was passed urging the Government to concert with the other Powers in Africa to take measures to stop the trade. Lord Salisbury then wrote a despatch urging that a Conference should be summoned at Brussels, but the time was inopportune. Then came in this House, from one whose name is intimately connected with the Slave Trade, the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. S. C. Buxton)—who I am sorry is prevented by domestic affliction from being present to support this Motion—a Resolution, which I seconded, and which was unanimously carried, that an Address should be presented to Her Majesty to ask the Signatory Powers to meet in Conference to devise such measures as should be effectual for the suppression of the Slave Trade. Then came the Brussels Conference, which marked a great advance in the public opinion of Europe. That Conference pledged the Signatory Powers to do certain things, and I think these things having been done deliberately should be carried out. The Powers were pledged to put an end to the crime and devastation caused by the Slave Trade, and suggestions were made as to the construction of roads and railways giving easy access to inland waters. It was provided that they might delegate their powers to companies, but that they would be, nevertheless, responsible for the fulfilment of the engagements they contracted. Germany advanced large sums to their company, and subsidised steamboat
    62
    lines and guaranteed interest on a railway. We all know the liberality of the King of the Belgians, and his subjects also subscribed for a railway and guaranteed the interest on another. Portugal also has established a railway. Great Britain is the only nation which has done nothing at all in regard to the matter beyond the expenditure on the squadron, the sacrifice of life and money in connection with which is a serious consideration. Hon. Gentlemen think a great deal of £20,000, but they think nothing of £200,000 a year. I do not say that the squadron should be put down, but I think there should be some ratio between the stop put to the Slave Trade and that expenditure. Happily, the British East Africa Company has done something to uphold the national honour, and is deserving of the thanks of the country. While they might have remained on the coast and made a great deal of money, they pushed forward to Uganda, so that it should not be left to Germany, and sent forward Captain Lugard. I hope we shall see the despatch, and then we shall find how greatly we have benefited by their action. They cannot, however, carry on the operations unless this railway is made—the cost is so enormous. If it be made, the cost of bringing down to the coast coffee and other valuable goods—for the country is very rich—will be much reduced. If it be not made, the Company will not suffer, but the prestige of this country will. It has been suggested that the Company is practically bankrupt. They have ample means to carry on their operations of the coast, where the Customs Duties already amount to £6,000 a-year, and if other concessions, which I think they have a right to ask, are granted, they will get a good return for their capital outlay. The Company is under no obligation to carry on this work in the interior; that obligation is Imperial, and what they have done has been for the benefit of this country. We are now asked to go forward a very small step. If we were asked to sanction the construction of the railway at once there would be some force in the objections to the Vote, but we are simply asked for this survey, which

    63
    will give us great information and assist the country generally, by letting us know what the value of the interior districts is, and how far we can go in carrying out the policy of the Brussels Conference. It is true that it is not a slave-trading country, but all the porterage is done by human agency, and, therefore, if the railway were made there would be a large diminution of the Slave Trade. I do not think there is a shadow of doubt that we ought to go forward in this matter; that we are bound in honour to do so. A few years ago we heard a great deal from the right hon. Member for Midlothian to the effect that we ought to act always with the concert of Europe and with the mandate of Europe. The concert of Europe was attained at the Brussels Conference, and the mandate was given. If the right hon. Gentleman were here he would admit that that concert ought not to be thrown over or treated lightly, and that we ought to do anything reasonable and practicable as an earnest of what we would do afterwards when we see it to be safe and prudent and likely to attain the object we have in view—the suppression of the Slave Trade. It is all very well to expect other people to go in and do our work. We obtained our great Empire of India through a Company. There was no question there of putting down a great evil, such as the Slave Trade, and therefore there was no question at the time of the interference of the Government. But here we have a policy to be carried out, a duty to do. I hope we shall, at all events, take this first step, and wait and see how far we can safely follow it up afterwards.
    SIR LEWIS PELLY: So many allusions have been made to the British East Africa Company that I think some official connected with it should offer a few remarks for the purpose of removing the principal misapprehensions which undoubtedly obtain in various parts of the House. I think there is a confusion of thought concerning the relations of the Government with the Company. I claim for the Company that our origin and our development
    64
    have been wholly apart from the past policy of the Government. The present policy of the Government resulted in the intervention of Germany in Africa; till that happened nothing was done. When that took place Lord Granville had his attention drawn to it, and he got into communication with the German authorities, went in for delimitation and spheres of influence; Lord Salisbury's Government carried on that policy, and thence came the General Act of Brussels. But supposing the Government had never touched that policy the Company would still have been in existence; and it is still able to go on along the shore lines if it restrains itself from endeavouring to do Imperial work. To my certain knowledge the idea of attempting to suppress the Slave Trade by civilising means in East Africa, rather than by force at sea, was submitted to Government 31 years ago, for I submitted it myself in a despatch dated 17th February, 1862. So much impressed was I with the necessity of that change in policy, that I declined—after, I fear, committing considerable destruction at sea—to go on with the sea policy of force; and I resigned my appointment and returned to India. To my certain knowledge, 16 years ago Sir William Mackinnon spoke to me on this subject. I said it was a good idea, but that the Government would not carry it into practice, and I did not want anything more to do with it. Later on, however, the East Africa Company was formed by certain gentlemen putting down £250,000, and then appealing to the public to see if the public would come forward for purposes of profit, with, I think, another million. Thus a nucleus was formed; and yet it is said that this was not philanthropy. I believe the heart's desire of this country—England, Scotland, and Ireland—is to extend our sphere of trade and root out the Slave Trade everywhere. You may stifle the railway, but that will not ruin the Company, nor will it root out the idea of trade and anti-slavery in this country. Empire never stands still, and empire founded largely on trade least of all. I will now, Sir, proceed to glance at the Brussels Act. It was stated that the Act was only declaratory and bound the signatories

    65
    to nothing. Article 1 states that the object of this Act is—
    "The construction of roads, and particularly railways connecting the advanced stations with the coast and making easy access to inland waters."
    Article 4 declares that—
    "The States exercising sovereign powers or protectorates in Africa may in all cases delegate to Companies, provided with charters, all or a portion of the engagements which they assume in virtue of Article 3. They remain, nevertheless, directly responsible for the engagements which they contract by the present Act, and guarantee the execution thereof."
    Then it is pretended that this only relates to the protectorate, to a ten mile strip along the shore. Does it not? Why then does the Act speak of advanced posts, railways, and steamers on Lake Victoria? It is pretended that a sphere of influence does not commit the Government under the Act. If the sphere of influence had remained a mere paper document it might have been so, but in the course of time Treaties have been concluded in that sphere of influence. I hold in my hand a list of 78 Treaties entered into with various chieftains between the coast line and the Victoria Nyanza, placing districts and tribes under our Protectorate. Now, when you entered into those engagements you accepted all the responsibilities connected with them, and I only ask to be permitted to read one.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Will those be presented?
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I want to ask the hon. Member if these Papers will be presented, as it is a Rule of the House when Papers are read that they should be presented. Will these Treaties be presented or not?
    SIR L. PELLY: I do not know. The right hon. Gentleman should address himself to the Government for an answer to that question. I will read one of them. This is the form of Treaty 4:—
    "Let it be known to all whom it may concern that — has placed himself and all his territories, countries, peoples, and subjects under the protection, rule, and government of the Imperial British East Africa Company, and has ceded to the said Company all his sovereign rights and rights of government over all his territories, countries, peoples, and subjects, and that the said Company
    66
    have assumed the said rights so ceded to them as aforesaid, and that the said Company hereby grant their protection and the benefit of their rule and government to him, his territories, countries, peoples, and subjects, and hereby authorise him to use the flag of the said Company as a sign of their protection."
    But that is not all. Having entered into those Treaties, the Company issued a Proclamation, from which I take the following extract:—
    "It has been reported to me that the Wanika and Giriama tribes are now making war upon each other and selling their captives into slavery. These tribes are free people, who have made Treaties with and placed themselves under the jurisdiction of this Company. Notice is therefore hereby given, that the following 13 tribes are all under the protection of this Company. No man, woman, or child belonging to any of these tribes can be held as a slave, and any so held will, on appealing to the Company, be at once liberated, and no compensation whatever can be claimed, or will be paid to the holder of such a person."
    Now, we have heard a great deal in the course of this Debate about Uganda, and reference has been largely made to the Report of Captain Lugard. There seems to be a certain amount of mystery about that Report. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian quoted largely from it. I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman is not now in his place, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, who leads the Party in the absence of his chief, would be able to tell the House whether the Report was not given them by one of the Directors, so that there is no desire on the part of the Company to reserve any information. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, is that the case? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian, spoke a great deal about the terminus to the railway being in Uganda. I venture to point out that the railway is not going to Uganda. It is going to some point on the Eastern shores of the Victoria Nyanza. The Victoria Nyanza is called a lake, but it is a "lake" covering an area of 27,000 square miles, and I think 27,000 square miles of water area might fairly be called a sea. At one point on the North-West is Uganda. It might as well be said that there is an objection to constructing a railway from London to Holyhead for the purpose of supplying Ireland because

    67
    there happened to be an attempt at revolution in some place like Cork. The cases are parallel. The right hon. Gentleman says, "A map—give us a map." A map has been hanging for a long time in the Tea Room; there is another large map in the office of the East Africa Company, and every concern and almost every office all over London is hung with maps and illustrations of East Africa. The right hon. Gentleman has been walking through London for the last five months, and he must have seen several of them. Some importance has been given to the statements of Captain Lugard with respect to Uganda. Now it must be remembered that Captain Lugard went there soon after a state of civil war, and he submitted in his Report his first impressions. Countries are not usually in a very prosperous condition after civil war, but we have a more recent Report with respect to Uganda, and it tends to show that everything in the country is settling down. In proof of that statement I may quote from the latest Despatch from one of the administrators in Uganda, dated 4th October. This is from Captain Williams, who was a lieutenant of Captain Lugard, and is the present administrator of the Company in Uganda. Captain Williams writes:—
    "Mt. Kampala, Uganda, 4th October, 1891. I am advised by my counsellors of both parties that it will come right, and that if I keep Mengo quiet the rest will follow. There is no doubt that the country is slowly and surely settling down. My personal influence (I trust I may not be considered guilty of foolish self praise) is daily becoming stronger, and no serious matter is decided on without the chiefs of both parties coming to me for counsel and advice. I am prepared to stake my reputation on the success of my work in this country."
    A good deal has been said about slavery. One hon. Member says there is no slavery in Uganda, and it has been stated that there was no slavery existing in the territories under the British sphere of influence. Let us see. As a matter of fact, there is a colony of slaves at Juba, numbering between 40,000 and 60,000; there is a second colony at Witu of between 5,000 and 6,000, and there is a third colony of between 4,000 and 6,000 at Holodoyo, about 80 miles from Mombasa. I
    68
    would ask the Committee to listen to an extract from the Report of Mr. Jackson, the first of the Company's officers who went to the Victoria Nyanza:—
    "Leaving"—so and so—"on the 10th, we crossed the river, and entered Kitosh. This is the principal slave and cattle lifting ground of the Swahili and Arab traders. These traders go up to Kavirondi simply for this reason, and because food is cheap. A caravan will go to a place like Mumyas, and stop there for several months, living at the expense of the good-natured and hospitable natives; in the meantime they will have been two or three raids into the Wanipi country between Mumyas and Msala, on the lake, all slaves falling to them as their share, and when their time is up, knowing they have no spare men to carry food, as they have a large stock of ivory buried at Njemps or Kanassia to carry down to the coast, they return to Baringo viâ Kitosh Maragwet, at the foot of Chibehingnani and Elgeyo, stealing all the cattle as food, and kidnapping all the women and children they can. From Machakos we brought up a Kitosh woman who had been taken in a raid by the last Arab caravan, under Abdullabin-Hamis, of Mombasa—the same man who gave me so much trouble in Ukambani. This woman we restored to her own people. We had relied on getting food every day as we went along in Kitosh, to save our breaking into the food we were carrying—a matter of four days out. Directly we approached the first village we found all the doors barricaded, and everyone in a great state of alarm. At the camp just outside the village of the principal chief, Majamja by name, we tried to induce the people to sell us food, but were unable to do so; and the women could not be induced to come into camp. At one village we were told by the headman that his people were really too frightened to come and sell us food, as they had been so harassed and treacherously treated by the Swahilis. Their custom is to profess the greatest friendship for the people, and encourage the women and children to come into camp by giving good prices for their flour. &c., and then, at a given signal, to surround the camp, secure all the women and children, and shoot down any men who may offer resistance."
    But we have another and I think a very excellent witness as to the existence of slavery in those territories. It is that very well-known paper called Truth. On 23rd January in that paper there appeared an extract from the letter of a correspondent in East Africa, whom the editor described as—
    "A gentleman whose statements may be taken without hesitation, and who has had ample opportunity of learning the truth about the East Africa Company's territories."
    He says—

    69
    "These slaves form the currency with which the Waganda and other tribes pay the Twahili traders for the imported goods. Slaves have been the staple article of exchange."
    and so forth. I trust that in the few remarks I have offered I have refuted some, at all events, of the mis-statements which have been made upon this subject.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I have listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down, and I must certainly say that he is the first person who has offered us any information whatever on the subject we are discussing. The only criticism that I should make on the speech of the hon. Member is that it was too short, and the information was too fragmentary. The documents to which the hon. Member has referred were the very documents which we wanted to see, and which I and those beside me desired to see placed upon the Table of the House. But the hon. Member has not given us the whole of the documents; he has cut them short with a "so forth," and that is not exactly the form—
    SIR L. PELLY: That was because I could not pronounce the names they contained.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: As the hon. Member holds the title deeds of this great Empire he should ascertain how to pronounce the names of its various divisions. The hon. Member has referred to the Report of Captain Williams, made in October last. But it is these documents to which the hon. Member has been referring that we ask for; these are the things we want to know; these are the things the Government ought to have learned from the Company; the Company ought to have given them to the Government, and the Government ought to have communicated them to the House. We are very much obliged, I must at the same time say, to the hon. Member for the information he has given to the Committee. He has spoken in a tone which everybody will appreciate; but I wish to point out to the hon. Member and to the Committee that the matters of which he has given us only a skeleton, are precisely the matters which we want to know, and they are precisely
    70
    things which hon. Members are entitled absolutely to know before we commit ourselves to a policy the results of which it is impossible for us to foresee. I hope that in what I am about to say I shall in no way depart from the principle—following what my right hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian has stated—that this is not to be treated as a Party question. I hope I shall say nothing to import a spirit of that kind into the discussion. Everybody must feel the force of what was said by the right hon. Gentleman that we are now at the "parting of the ways;" we quite appreciate the importance of the matter, and that it is incumbent on the House to consider fully and carefully what course we are commencing in connection with this matter. In the first place, I should like to make an observation as to what our position as a civilized nation is with reference to these territories. It has been stated that we came under certain obligations by this Act of the Conference of Brussels in respect to the territories which were under British influence. But such a matter could in no way come within the purview of the Conference of Brussels. That Conference had no relation whatever, nor could it have, to this territory or this railway; but, as a matter of fact, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen pointed out the other night, the Conference of Brussels related only to questions concerning Sovereignty and Protectorate. The hon. Member for Dover said this was mere quibbling, and that a sphere of influence might be in the same position. We all know that a sphere of influence is absolutely different in all its character and in all its consequences either from Sovereignty or from a Protectorate. The men who drew up the Act of the Conference of Brussels—I do not blame the hon. Member for Dover—but they, at least, were diplomats, knowing something of the principles of International Law, and they were not the men to make such a blunder as to include spheres of influence in a document of that nature. They were defining what people ought to do under circumstances where they had the right and where they had the means of doing it, and therefore they imposed those duties upon men who had a Sovereignty

    71
    and who had a Protectorate. But the sphere of influence gives you no power to do—no right to do—this thing. A sphere of influence confers no right, no authority over the people; a sphere of influence confers no right or authority over the land of any kind. Here is an Act for the prevention and punishment of offences committed by British subjects in a foreign territory—an Act passed in the tune of Lord Palmerston's Government, when the relations of this country to foreign nations and uncivilised nations seem to have been a good deal better understood than they are understood at the Foreign Office at the present day. It provides for the prevention and punishment of crimes and outrages likely to be committed by British subjects within that territory, not being within the jurisdiction of any civilised Government. Now, mark that. The Statute provides for the establishment of Magistrates in order to punish Her Majesty's subjects within the jurisdiction, and continues—
    "Nothing herein or in any such commission or commissions contained shall extend, or be construed to extend, or invest Her Majesty with any claim or title whatsoever, dominion or sovereignty, over any such territory as aforesaid, or to derogate from the rights of the tribe or people inhabiting such territory or the Chief or ruler of any such territory or dominion."
    You have no authority, you have no right whatever, within those lands which are not under your sovereignty or protectorate, except such as in any particular spot may have been given you by Treaty with any particular Chief. That is what a sphere of influence is. That the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Foreign Office should have so totally misapprehended this matter as to conceive that a sphere of influence should be confounded with protectorate or sovereignty is a thing which I confess fills me with astonishment. Now, mark what is the consequence of this. Every act of force you commit against a native within a sphere of influence is an unlawful assault; every acre of land you take is a robbery; every native you kill is a murder, because you have no right and no authority against these men. That is the result of the question of a sphere of influence. Now, I come to another point, and that is—What is this
    72
    territory within the sphere of influence which you propose to open up by this railway? Now, that is exactly what the Government ought to have told us, and what they have not told us. I admit that the hon. Member who has just sat down was quite frank about the Company. He made no concealment. There was no pretence about private and confidential communications. This Report of Captain Lugard was sent to me by one of the Company last July. Well, I said—
    "I have sufficient Parliamentary experience of railways, and my answer is that if you proposed to achieve such a work as that in any Parliamentary Committee that ever sat, the Preamble of the Bill would be thrown out."
    And that is the fact with reference to this Report of Captain Lugard. Well, now, what is his Report? I want to call the attention of the House to certain parts of his Report. The early part of the Report gives an account of his traversing the territory between Mombasa and the Lake; and a very miserable territory it must be, part of it! I do not think that can be disputed. There is some good land, and some very, very miserable land. There are some good spots, of course, round Mombasa. But what right have you to that territory? The other night the Chancellor of the Exchequer said we had Treaties with them all. He did not know the name of the country, he said; he could not pronounce the name—and surely I may be excused when even officials of the company cannot do so; and I want to know how far that is correct, and how far it is true that we have any rights at all there? We are told by Captain Lugard that through a considerable part of this territory—and that the most dangerous part of this territory—you have no Treaty at all; because the men there are so hostile to the Masai that they have not only made no Treaty, but under no circumstances will they make any Treaty with you. But, then, the object of this railway is to go to Uganda. ("No, no!") Yes; but not a word did the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs say to contradict it. He opened his case, if I may use a professional term, by showing that the whole object of the railway was to go to the "pearl of

    73
    Africa—Uganda." He described Uganda as an Arcadia to which British colonists were to go. You stated the other night that Uganda was the "pearl of Africa." It is quite true that the railway, as we all know, does not actually terminate in Uganda; but Uganda is the objective to which the railway is to move. Everybody knows that Uganda is the headquarters of the Company, and that the Company operates in that direction, and the object of the railway is to go to Uganda, though it goes to the Lake too. The first part of Captain Lugard's Report shows one thing which is very important. Captain Lugard's Report shows that he had the greatest difficulty to go there at all, because he could not get porters, and when he got porters they deserted. What are you going to do with porters who desert you? Are you going to flog them, or shoot them, as was unfortunately done in your dealings with Tippoo Tib, just because these men were slaves? When these men were overworked you flogged them; when they deserted you, you shot them. Is that the course you are going to take in the case of this railway? Is that the course this railway is to take? I say that any man who will read this Report of Captain Lugard will see with what difficulty, even with a handful of men, he got to Uganda at all; and he will see how impossible it is that this railway should ever be made except by forced labour. That is the first observation I make upon this Report, Well, then he gets to Uganda with great difficulty, having first—there is not a word of all this in the speech of the Under Secretary. You would suppose, to hear the Under Secretary, that it was like driving from here to Hyde Park, going from Mombasa up to Uganda, instead of its being an expedition of the greatest difficulty, and to a great extent the greatest danger;—then when he got to Uganda—the headquarters of the Company—Captain Lugard went there for the purpose of making a Treaty. We hear a great deal of these Treaties, as one hon. Member said. How are these Treaties obtained? Read Captain Lugard's Report for an account of the Treaty with the King at Uganda, whose name
    74
    I find it difficult to pronounce—I am not ashamed of this, for the gentleman who is a Director of the Company finds himself a difficulty in pronouncing it. But he goes up and he wants a Treaty from the King of Uganda. Now, mind, that is the keystone of your whole position. That is your title to be there as I understand it—so far as we have got any information at all—your title at Uganda to do anything at all depends upon your Treaty with this King; and this Treaty is forced upon this man. He does not voluntarily enter into the Treaty at all; and this is the way in which the Company obtains it, according to Captain Lugard himself:—
    "A warm discussion arose on many points; then the chiefs were for signing, but the King held back and giggled and fooled; he demanded time. I replied by rapping the table and, speaking loudly, said he must sign now. I threatened to leave the next day if he did not, and possibly to go to his enemies, the Wa Nyoro. I pointed out to him that he had lost the southern half of his kingdom to the Germans by his previous delay, and that he would lose yet more if he delayed now. He was, I think, scared at my manner, and trembled very visibly, and was on the point of signing, when a rabble with guns, which crowded the door-way, threatened to shoot the first man who signed, shouting that they were selling their country."
    These men knew perfectly well that the object of the Treaty was to sign away the lands that belonged to them. This is the way this Treaty was made:—
    "So far as I know," Captain Lugard continues, "these belonged to neither party. I thought it a ruse of the King at the time, but I am now inclined to believe it was genuine. They began by cocking their guns and putting in cartridges. I had increased my Soudanese escort to 20 men, and they were drawn up on one side with bayonets. Seeing that an immediate signature was hopeless, I said that to-morrow being Christmas Day, we would not act upon it, but that on the day following I must have his reply."
    This is a Christian, I believe, but of the Catholic persuasion, and therefore he is not favourably viewed by the Protestant party, or the Anti-Catholic party.
    "On Christmas Day there was much excitement and discussion, and a fight seemed imminent; but late at night I heard that the Catholic Chiefs had agreed to sign, and that the King would do so too."
    The House will know when they read this Report what goes on in

    75
    Uganda; in this Christian colony there is something like the Thirty Years' War in France.
    "On Christmas Day, the 26th," continues Captain Lugard, "the whole burza came into the camp. In explanation of the course of action I pursued, I must explain that in my opinion Mwanga was a coward and an irresolute bully, with whom it would be better to show a firm, strong hand, and he would accord the position which one took of oneself."
    This is the spirit in which this Treaty was forced on the unfortunate King.
    "This estimate proved correct, and I was troubled by no impertinent questions regarding the number of men and guns I had brought. At the first interview he seemed greatly relieved and pleased at my tone; for while acting in a somewhat high-handed way, I was careful to be excessively polite in the matter."
    And the Treaty was signed; and then you will not be surprised to learn after that that the first thing the King did was to take and repudiate a Treaty which he had made under these circumstances. And so it is reported by Captain Lugard. And then Captain Lugard gives an imperfect account of this Treaty, which, after all, is the Charter of your rights at Uganda. He says—
    "I have succeeded in securing the registration of arms with some difficulty, and the abolition of the Slave Trade was readily agreed to, being practically non-existent now."
    That is the opinion of Captain Lugard. There were isolated caravans found, one of which Captain Lugard met himself. I daresay there are few points in Africa where that is not the case; but where it is asserted that this is a slave-trading territory, the only information we have on the subject is that Captain Lugard had no difficulty whatever in securing the abolition of the Slave Trade, because it was practically non-existent. Then he goes on to describe what happened to this ornamental Treaty—
    "Taking a lesson also probably from the fact that Dr. Peters, in spite of his show of scarlet and gold lace, &c., had been disowned by his Government, and his Treaty disavowed, they inserted in the codicil to their Treaty that if a greater man than I myself should arrive they would make a new Treaty."
    This is the information, private and confidential, sent to Her Majesty's Government by the Agent of this Company on the subject of the actual condition of things at Uganda, and of what is going on there:—
    76
    "No sooner had the Treaty been signed than the King began to repent his act, and sent a paper for me to sign, stating that all the States therein named should be subject to Uganda, together with other stipulations of a vague nature. I declined to sign it, but made many explanations.…. Consequently, to the present day (4th January), I have managed to avoid another interview, and hope to do so until I have the Treaty safely on its way to the coast."
    And then, having signed this Treaty—which is to give you control of Uganda itself, the valuable document upon which your authority rests—this is what Captain Lugard says:—
    "The heathen and the lawless party, and the King and his party, I knew to be against me. The Catholics were not well disposed, and the Protestants were bitterly disappointed that I had not espoused their side, and had treated them exactly as I did the Catholics."
    That is Captain Lugard's description of the actual condition of things in Uganda. Then he says—and this is his position after he has signed this Treaty, and after he has established these firm and friendly relations—
    "Such is the position of affairs on this date, and you will perceive that the position I occupy is full of great difficulty. The constant worry and anxiety is most harassing.… Meanwhile, my expedition will be reduced to starvation, and I may have to evacuate the country, in which case the Protestants will follow; as the Catholics cannot hold their own alone against the Mahommedans, the country will be left to anarchy.… I therefore await the arrival of the promised re-inforcements with anxiety, and I shall doubtless find means to hold out till they come."
    That is his position after signing a Treaty with the King. Then he proceeds to say—
    "Above all, a force is needed strong enough to overawe both parties and the King.… A force of some 500 drilled men at least will be required to keep Uganda under control until the country is quieted, after which they will be further required towards Unyoro, and against the Mahdi, &c. It is, moreover, imperative that more officials should be sent up without delay. I would recommend the appointment of a Resident (who will have to be a very capable man with both tact and decision) with an assistant and a clerk, also an officer to undertake formation of an army, registration of arms, &c.; and at least two others for service in outlying districts."
    Now, Sir, that is the condition of Uganda, and what is the Uganda which is known by all these factions. "The Pearl of Africa," says the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
    MR. J. W. LOWTHER: That was a quotation from Stanley.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Very well, I will tell you what their own agent said about Uganda. The Company's agent said this—
    "As regards the value of Uganda to the Company, I hold the opinion which seems to me to be shared alike by the English and French missionaries, the Germans, and Messrs. Jackson and Gedge, that Uganda, per se, has been much over-rated. At present there appears to be few or no products suitable for exportation except ivory, and that almost entirely comes from the Tributary States. Nor can the country, I understand, supply much labour for the construction of outside works. The recent wars have decimated the population, and at present, and for a long time hence, the labour must remain a monopoly of the King and chiefs."
    In a word, therefore, you are not going to get labour in, and you are not going to get exports from, Uganda. Now, let me read a little further—
    "Uganda, however, as a road to the territories lying towards Albert Nyanza must always remain an important acquisition, and if the country can repay some part of the money expended on it the outlay will not be wasted. The people of Busoga, are at least as intelligent. I think, as the Waganda. The King informed me that Usoga was the 'cooking pot of Uganda,' without which his country could not exist. It is not divided up into factions or spoilt by the veneer of civilisation which has been the bane of Uganda."
    Therefore, Sir, this pearl of Africa is only valuable as a road to somewhere else. And let me call the attention of the Committee to the remarkable sentence in which he suggests that yon should leave the pearl of Africa and go to a place not divided into factions or spoilt by the veneer of civilisation which has been the bane of Uganda. This is the result of three years' work on the part of the East Africa Company. Their own agent says it has brought to Uganda the veneer of civilisation which has been its bane. He suggests that you should remove from there. Why? On account of the infinite and inevitable danger with which the whole of this territory is menaced, and which will require military operations of the most tremendous magnitude to defend or support it. On this point he says—
    "I have no means whatever of estimating the strength of parties in the country, but I have heard it said that there are about 3,600 guns, on what basis of calculation I am not
    78
    aware. The Arabs, I was told by an Arab prisoner here, number about 200, but the Waganda Mahommedans, I am informed, muster some 2,000 guns and a very large body of spearmen.
    And what is the conclusion at which Captain Lugard, after his examination of the condition of things, arrived, an I what is it he recommends to his Company? Here is what he says is absolutely necessary if you are to hold Uganda at all, and you are going to make this railway to get to Uganda—
    "A line of frontier forts with an organised system of defence I look upon as a necessity sooner or later against the wave of Mahommedan fanaticism and power from the north, which is encroaching further and further south, and must some time come into collision with the influences of European civilisation, which, happily for Africa, are spreading inwards from the south, east, and west. When the two waves meet, Islam from the north British influence from the south and east, it will be of vital importance, not only to the territorial interests of the Company, but to the cause of civilisation and Christianity, that the Company be found ready to meet force with force, complete and organised in itself, up to its furthest frontier."
    Since then Captain Lugard has had to fight. Then, Sir, he goes on to say—
    "Within the limits of this frontier would be enclosed a vast territory, the development of which will tax the resources of the Company to the uttermost; and meanwhile the battle can be fought out between the rival sects of the Mahdi and Sennoussi, and an opportunity may then offer for an advantageous advance, when the forces of Islam are divided against themselves. Doubtless the directors are in possession of more accurate information than it is possible for me to obtain here. I may, however, mention that I was informed by Dr. Shulhmann of the report that the forces of Sennoussi are slowly advancing southwards, sweeping all before them."
    Then on the North you have the Mahdists who drove Emin from Wadelei, and the followers of Sennoussi another Mahommedan race, who are sweeping all before them. This is what Captain Lugard says:—
    "They are hostile to the Mahdists, and are still more antagonistic than the latter to the white men and Christians. This information I have from Emin Pasha. Their organisation and equipment is wonderful, and they have enormous stores of ammunition, breechloading rifles, cannon, and steamers.… In view of these contingencies it will be necessary to send up several pieces of artillery (say 2-pounder Hotchkiss or Nordenfelt) capable of commanding the passages of the Nile and an extensive area of lake shore, and of sinking any craft or steamer."
    Sir, that is the terminus of this railway.
    MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: The railway does not go there. It is a railway to the Lakes.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Now we are getting information by degrees from the Company. The Foreign Office opened this as the case of a railway to Uganda.
    MR. J. W. LOWTHER: I beg the light hon. Gentleman's pardon. I never did anything of the sort. I said it was proposed that the railway should go from Mombasa on the coast to the eastern border of the lake, and that then it would be possible to place steamers on the lake that would not only reach Uganda but the rich territories co-terminous with it.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I heard the whole of the speech of the hon. Gentleman, and I read it again this morning. He held out as a recommendation of his enterprise that it led to the suppression of slavery in Uganda, which he described as a most fertile region, and a most desirable place for colonisation. Let us get rid of Uganda at all events. I take it that Uganda is repudiated.
    MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: May I explain. I have never suggested that Uganda is to be rejected or excluded. The effect of my interruption was that the railway was a railway to the Lakes as a great collecting point, and that Uganda was a mere trifle to them.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I am coming to the final recommendation of Captain Lugard. He says the final Treaty with the King—and, mark you, there are two Sovereigns there: There is the King of Uganda, with whom you have made a Treaty, and there is the King of Unyoro, with whom you have not only not made a Treaty, but whom you have been fighting. Of this latter Captain Lugard says that he is undoubtedly antagonistic to the British, and feared and hated them; that he is doing, and will do, all in his power to thwart the Company's Resident Agent, and that, therefore, there appeared almost a deadlock which might at any moment lead to war unless the force at the command of the Resident were so powerful as to command obedience to his decisions. Now, here come the
    80
    practical recommendations of Captain Lugard—of whom, by his Reports and from his actions, I have formed the very highest opinion of his integrity, his intelligence, his industry, and his courage. This is what he says:—
    "In this difficulty it has occurred to me that it may possibly be better to transfer the centre of European control and administration to a new position, around which would spring up law and order."
    Now, Sir, if that is not advice to abandon Uganda I do not know what is; but that is the Report sent to my friend and to myself to prove that it would be a good thing to make this railway. It did not have that effect on my mind. There has been another Report since then, but it has not been sent to us. It is confidential between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Company, and the only conclusion I can draw is that the second Report is a good deal worse than the first. If better, we should have had it. But though that Report is private and confidential to this House, it is not so to the Times. In the Times a week ago there appeared three columns of, I will not say garbled, but of most favourable, extracts from that Report. Now, in that Report of 2nd August, last year, the following statement occurs:—
    "Then on the borders of the country was the large and well-armed body of expelled Mahomedans, watching their opportunity to rush in and take possession of the divided house; and outside all was the hostile and powerful country of Unyoro, where King Kabba Rega was the bitter enemy both of Uganda and of the English."
    That was the situation on the borders of Uganda.
    "Fortunately, in the end of January Captain Lugard was joined by Captain Williams with reinforcements, and additional rifles and ammunition also arrived."
    Then a number of warlike operations are described which seem to have been thought necessary, but these details I will not read. But, Sir, we have heard a great deal about the missionaries and about the admirable services they have rendered to peace and order and Christianity. This is what Captain Lugard says about the missionaries:—
    "Mr. Stokes, formerly a missionary in Uganda, who had given up that vocation to marry a native wife and become a trader, turned up shortly after the above episode. He

    81
    had abundant supplies of powder and goods at the south shore of the lake, some of them sent to Captain Lugard by the Company. Mr. Stokes had shown himself somewhat indifferent to British interests and to the interests of humanity. He had joined the Germans, and had shown no scruples in importing large quantities of powder and guns, though he knew well these would be used in slave-raiding, and, probably enough, against his own countrymen. Captain Lugard, however, succeeded in convincing Mr. Stokes that he ought to deliver over his powder and guns and other goods to the British garrison, and not to the natives; of course he would be paid for them. But when he left Uganda his good resolutions faded, and he sent word back from the south shore of the lake that he declined to deliver over his ammunition to Captain Lugard. The latter points out the vast mischief done by the free importation of ammunition and guns into Central Africa. There are many tons of powder stored by the native chiefs in the countries around the lake, and in Uganda and the neighbouring countries there are thousands of rifles."
    So much for what the ex-missionary has done there. Then there is another remarkable piece of diplomacy. The King appears to be a Christian of the Catholic persuasion, and it was thought his son and heir was too much under Catholic influences. Here is what Captain Lugard says:—
    "The King is subject to the Catholic influence, and with every disposition to make allowances it is evident that their loyalty to the British suzerainty is not above suspicion. The heir to the Throne, a boy, is at present being trained in seclusion by the Catholic missionaries, and it is a matter for serious consideration whether, in the interests of the country and of British supremacy, he should not be taken out of his present position and educated under English supervision at the coast."
    So, because you do not approve of the religious opinions of the King of Uganda you are going to take the Heir to the Throne and kidnap him and make a good Protestant of him down at the coast. To complete the picture of the happy condition of Uganda, it is also reported by Captain Lugard that Emin Pasha, for whom money and lives were sacrificed, in order to rescue him when he did not want to be rescued, has gone into this country, and has a most powerful and warlike influence against you there. This is the condition of things in a place which was opened out as a kind of Arcadia the other night by the Government, they knowing perfectly well of this condition of things, and allowing the House to believe
    82
    that the matter could be easily disposed of. On the argument of economy it is said if you make a railway you will not want troops and forts. This railway can only be made by men with Winchester repeating rifles in their hands. The Report of Captain Lugard shows that you cannot make a telegraph system in that country because the tribes carry off the wire. If you have this railway made it is quite obvious you must have platelayers with rifles every 100 yards along the line, and not only when you make it, but to prevent it being pulled up. You say it is to rival the Slave Traders—you talk of it as if you were going to run them off the line like a rival omnibus. You will do nothing of the kind. If you did, why they would pull up a quarter-mile of your railway every week, simply because you are interfering with a trade in which they have an enormous interest, and which they are determined to protect. I will assume that the Slave Trade exists, though it is extremely doubtful. In my opinion, the making of this line will tend a great deal more to promote Slavery than it will do to destroy it. The greatest proof of that is given by a letter written by the agent of the Society for putting down the Slave Trade. He pointed out that whenever you attempt to get what is called free labour it is always practical slavery. If you want the letter you will find it in the Times on 1st. March We know perfectly well that when Stanley wanted porters he went to Tippoo Tib. It is said that this is going to afford a field for English colonisation. What title are you going to give to your colony? Where are you going to get your title from? In my opinion, the argument is entirely impossible to maintain, even though it is defended on the ground of missionary enterprise. The missionaries in the past have done great works of their own. That was when they went in old days with their lives in their hands. Men like Livingstone did not bring conquering armies and Hotchkiss and Nordenfeldt guns with them. It was not in such a way that Christianity won its way into those countries. In my opinion, missionaries will never have less influence

    83
    amongst heathen people than when they go as the camp followers of filibustering armies. Well, we ask as to the financial condition of the Company. You have told us nothing. I do not know whether you know anything about it. In old days, when England gave Charters to a company like the East India Company, it did not subsidise an insolvent company—it received sums of millions from the East India Company for the Charters that it renewed. This seems to me the most extraordinary transaction that you are embarking in. Who is going to carry out this survey? It is the Company. You say you appoint an engineer, but the whole of the expedition is to be managed by the Company, and if they engage in such horrors as those which almost obliterate the memory of the Stanley Expedition, who is to be responsible? It is the money of the English people voted by the House of Commons, but it is not by the Government of England. What I venture to say is this: that in this matter of immense importance, involving such tremendous consequences, in this parting of the ways, Her Majesty's Government have not behaved fairly to the House of Commons or to the country. The proper course would have been the course adopted in old days of the Charters of the India Company, namely, to appoint a great Committee of this House, to have laid before it all information, and to have said, "These are our objects, our methods, our means, our views." That was the way in which Governments before have dealt with the House of Commons. They did not attempt to smuggle through a Vote of this kind. They did not commit the House and the country in the Recess to expenditure of this kind before it knew it. That was not the manner in which great questions of this description have hitherto been dealt with by English Governments. Sir, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said—I was glad to hear it—and it was, in fact, a repudiation of the wild doctrines of hon. Members below them—that this is a small matter, that it involves nothing else except a survey, and that everything else is open. I take note of that statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He does
    84
    not mean to be committed by this Vote to anything beyond this survey, on which money has been spent or partly spent. Well, Sir, that, of course, is a very considerable relief. I am glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made that declaration. If the question had presented itself in another form, we might have moved for a Committee of this House to inquire into the whole matter. On the form of the Vote we cannot make a Motion of this kind. We must take the matter as it is, not as a Party matter, but as a small matter of paying for this survey. My right hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian has disclaimed responsibility for the ulterior consequences in this matter. The responsibility for those consequences must rest with Her Majesty's Government. It cannot rest with us. It cannot rest with the House of Commons, because neither to us nor to the House of Commons have the Government vouchsafed that information that would justify us in affirming or in negativing this Vote.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): Mr. Courtney, I do not know that I ever remember hearing a more remarkable termination to a speech than that which has just been made. According to the right hon. Gentleman we are embarking on a policy which is not going to diminish the Slave Trade, but which is going to promote the Slave Trade. According to him, this is part of an arrangement in which filibusters are going to lead the way for missionaries, and after that description, and after the conception that he has given us of the state of things in Uganda, and of the objects in view generally, the right hon. Gentleman ends up by saying that the railway, if it should be made, is a small matter.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Is it?
    MR. GOSCHEN: No; the right hon. Gentleman himself said it was a small matter, and asked whether it was worth while taking the opinion of the House upon it. I think this is to be regretted extremely. I hope there are hon. Gentlemen who will insist on taking the opinion of the House. We want to know to what extent we have support in this House with regard to

    85
    the general policy. We want to know how many Members will endorse the speech which has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman. That speech, I think, was full from the very beginning to the end of a dread of that enterprise which has characterised English effort in Africa. According to him, if he had responsibility, the first thing to be done would be to write a despatch to the German Foreign Minister to say that our country had been entirely in the wrong, that it is Emin Pasha or Dr. Peters who ought to open up these tracts of African territory, to which I understand English enterprise has put in some claim.
    DR. CLARK: "British!"
    MR. GOSCHEN: Yes, "British" certainly, because there is no part of Britain which takes so much interest in this enterprise as Scotland. The most distinguished names amongst the names of missionaries are Scottish. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian I suppose knows that the chairman of his own committee in Midlothian—who is a strong Radical and a great personal adherent of the right hon. Gentleman himself—wrote to a meeting which was held in support of this survey expressing his entire adhesion to our views. I think the right hon. Gentleman's position will fail to get any support in North Britain for the policy which has been shadowed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby. There is very little time at my disposal, but there are three or four points which I think I can deal with. The right hon. Gentleman treats the matter as if the idea of a railway was some monstrous conception that had lately been borne in upon a portion of the British public, or upon Her Majesty's Government. Does he not know that the Government of which he was a Member had cognisance of the fact that a railway might possibly be contemplated? The right hon. Gentleman perhaps has forgotten that Lord Granville wrote with regard to this very point. There is a despatch from Lord Granville in which he speaks of the construction of a railway. He writes to our Ambassador at Berlin—
    86
    "I should wish your Excellency, while speaking in this sense to the Chancellor, to inform him that a scheme has been started in this country, under which, if it is realised, the efforts of German enterprise may be supported indirectly by British enterprise. You will explain that some prominent capitalists have originated a plan for a British settlement in the country between the coast and the Lakes, which are the sources of the White Nile, and for its connection with the coast by a railway. In order to obtain a fair security for their outlay, they propose to endeavour to procure concessions from the Sultan of a comprehensive character."
    What a different tone there is in these words to that which has marked the statement of the right hon. Gentleman! There is encouragement to British enterprise. There is no scoffing at the railway. I presume the right hon. Gentleman and his friends had got some information upon the subject, or they would not have been likely to mention such a fact in their negotiations with the Germans as that British enterprise intended to connect the lakes with the coast. So much for the novelty of the idea. The main point of the right hon. Gentleman's argument, I think, rested on the description by Captain Lugard of the state of things in Uganda. He treated the matter from this point of view, and, I think, so did the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian—as if Captain Lugard's Report was the foundation upon which those who were in favour of the construction of a railway had formed their views. Supposing that; we had officially laid that Report upon the Table, then the right hon. Gentleman would have said, "This is the evidence you put before a Committee of the House of Commons to examine into the question of a railway, to see whether you can pass the Preamble." But we do not rest upon the Report of Captain Lugard. That is the essence of our case. The Report of Captain Lugard contains much valuable information, but he is not the only traveller who has passed over there, nor is he the latest traveller. I believe that during the last year the constant passing of the caravans of the East African Company from the coast to the Lakes has already produced a marked effect upon the pacification of the country generally. Now, here, I hope without any offence, I must find fault with the

    87
    spirit of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He has spoken as if this Company had designs upon the lands of the tribes it passes over—as if it were a kind of plundering company at best.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I said one of the great objects was that it should promote colonisation—the settlement of British settlers.
    MR. GOSCHEN: Quite so; but there are two ways of getting land. One is by taking it, and the other is by paying for it. There is the great merit of the East Africa Company, by which they have already rendered great service to civilisation. They have introduced the custom of paying for eveything on liberal terms wherever they pass. That is why their caravans have passed safely over certain tracks where formerly travellers used to be attacked. The right hon. Member for Midlothian made a point of Dr. Peters' Expedition.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I did not make a point of that. I made a point of the judgment given by Sir G. Molesworth, which refers to Dr. Peters' Expedition.
    MR. GOSCHEN: Well then, I shall make the same observation with regard to Sir Guildford Molesworth's judgment. Dr. Peters, it is known, had rough methods, which created great hostility; but the East Africa Company have from the beginning followed the policy which they have inherited from those Scotsmen who have been engaged in missionary enterprise, and who have taken so much part in the organisation of this country. That policy has already produced such discipline in the country that large numbers of porters are able to pass now over places where before it was impossible for them to travel in safety. Many of the dangers pointed out are already in the way of being remedied. Another point raised is that the Slave Trade does not exist in these regions. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby has unintentionally misled the House by his use of the word Uganda. Uganda used in a special sense applies to the territory lying north of the lake, but it is otherwise used for a large territory extending along both sides of the lake. Whether the Slave Trade exists in Mengo, the capital of Uganda, or not,
    88
    is a separate question; but on the map which was officially laid before the Brussels Conference, the various slave routes are marked out, and three of those routes are marked on that map as passing through the territory of the Imperial Company. The hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce) has said there are no slave caravan routes through the British sphere, but I have seen maps showing that there are these caravan routes, and that throughout the territory all round Lake Victoria Nyanza are clustered numerous spots where slave raiding mainly exists. In fact, in the country on both sides of Lake Nyanza are places whence the slave hunters derive their best profits. They carry on the traffic in slaves partly, no doubt, through the German sphere; but if we stop the trade at its source—if we have a steamer on the lake—we have the means in our hands to do a great deal of good. The fact that the Slave Trade does exist on both sides of the Victoria Nyanza was recognised at the Brussels Conference in the most distinct manner. The last point, and an important point, raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Gladstone) and also by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt), as to the position in which we shall be placed by means of this survey, is one with regard to our action in uncivilised countries. It would seem, from the right hon. Gentlemen's speeches, that there never has been an armed survey in any part of the world. Why, every caravan in Africa travels with arms and is accompanied by armed men, and yet it is suggested that it is wrong to have an armed survey because that would give the surveying party the appearance of belligerents. But they must be protected by armed men. Their object is not to take away the land from the natives. The natives suffer under the harrowing of Bedouins—for that is what the Masai tribes really are—and no doubt all the native tribes along the line of railway will be most grateful for the comparative safety introduced. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby does not recognise that—he does not seem to think that the mere building

    89
    of a railway and the presence of civilised men will be protection to vast numbers of the native tribes along the route. It is suggested that the surveying party may act unjustly towards the natives. Well, in that respect the East African Company have a blameless record. No case has ever been shown where they have acted with precipitancy in such matters, but if this were so the right hon. Gentleman may know that in 1889 an Order in Council was passed for dealing with this class of cases and giving power to establish Commissioners having jurisdiction to try crimes committed in those countries.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Are they established?
    MR. GOSCHEN: I am not, aware, but I do know that all preparations have been made. I assure the right hon. Gentleman I do not mention this in a controversial spirit, and I hope it will give him some satisfaction in regard to this matter.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I suppose there will be no objection to produce that Order in Council?
    MR. GOSCHEN: Certainly not. All Orders in Council are published, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware. Special precautions have been taken in these later times in dealing with these semi-civilised countries. Now I hope we have shown that we had no wish to take the House by surprise, and I trust the Division will show on which side the sympathy of the House is.
    DR. CLARKrose—
    Mr. A. J. BALFOUR rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but the CHAIRMAN withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
    Debate resumed.
    DR. CLARK: There are still one or two points requiring explanation why it is that this private Company, which thought the occupation of these East African lands such a good investment, should not carry out the pledges upon which the Charter was obtained; why they now ask for £20,000 to make a survey, though they have their Charter, and though they have privileges and concessions from the Sultan of Zanzibar. I hoped that
    90
    the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Burdett-Coutts), who, I understand, is a Director and Shareholder in the Company, would have given us some of the information asked for.
    MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: I have risen four times.
    DR. CLARK: I hope on Monday the hon. Member will have his opportunity. I thoroughly sympathise with the object the Government have in view, and I may point out how the object may be carried out effectually. Water carriage must be availed of if we want to develop the trade of Africa in a cheap and economical manner.
    (6.50.) Mr. A. J. BALFOUR rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    (6.53.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 206; Noes 126.—(Div. List, No. 21.)
    Question put accordingly.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £20,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1892, as a Grant in Aid of the Cost of Preliminary Surveys for a Railway from the Coast to Lake Victoria Nyanza."
    MR. MORTON: (speaking from his seat with head covered): I desire to ask your ruling, Mr. Courtney, whether a Director of the Chartered Company may vote in this Division?
    THE CHAIRMAN: That is not a question for the Chairman of the Committee to decide.
    MR. MACNEILL(speaking seated with head covered): Is it a question for the Speaker to decide whether or not an hon. Gentleman, having a special pecuniary interest in a company, can vote in a Division in which the interest of that company is concerned?
    THE CHAIRMAN: That is a matter that has been questioned in the House.
    MR. MACNEILL: Not on this occasion, Mr. Courtney, with all respect.
    THE CHAIRMAN: It is no part of the functions of the Chairman of the Committee to decide that question.
    (7.5.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 211; Noes 113.—(Div. List, No. 22.)
    It being after Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House at Nine of the clock.

  EVENING SITTING.
  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.
  SUPPLY.
  Resolved, That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee.—(Mr. Akers-Donglas.)
ORDER OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  ACCESS TO MOUNTAINS (SCOTLAND).
  MR. BRYCE: Although the Resolution I propose to move to-night embodies a principle which has been often submitted to the House, sometimes in the form of a Motion, sometimes in the form of a Bill, and once in the form of a Bill it was on a Second Reading agreed to nemine contradicente, there has never been a Debate, because on that occasion those hon. Gentlemen who did not agree with the principle of the measure were endeavouring to prevent you, Mr. Speaker, from finding 40 Members present. It seems, therefore, right that I should take the opportunity of explaining what it is the Resolution contains, and what it does not contain. There has been a good deal of misunderstanding with regard to the proposal, and it is well to explain at once that the Resolution is not in any way directed against sport or sporting. With sport or sportsmen we have for the purposes of to-night nothing to do. I might go so far as to admit that the red deer gasping out its life on the sod is a more beautiful object than the same red deer bounding along with all the grace and vigour of life, and yet the argument in favour of my Resolution
  92
  would be equally strong. It is not against sporting I direct the Resolution, and neither has it anything to do with the general policy of deer forests. That is a question which has been more than once debated; it is a question of great importance, but it is not the question involved here now. All I ask to-night is to bring forward the grievance and suffering caused to the people of Scotland, and in a lesser degree to the people of other parts of the United Kingdom, by their exclusion from their right to enjoy the scenery of their own country, and to seek healthy recreation and exercise on their own mountains and moors. The grievance, no doubt, is greatest in Scotland. It is not too much to say that all over the Highlands the hills are completely closed. The Counties of Ross and Inverness are half occupied by deer forests, and I think there are ten counties altogether in which deer forests exist. They cover large portions of the Counties of Sutherland, Argyll, and Perth, and extend into several other counties. There are many mountains in Scotland as to which we have heard complaints of interference with harmless pedestrians—Ben Nevis, Ben Wyvis, Ben Alder, and many other parts of the Highlands. But complaints are most numerous respecting the country round Braemar—a district known to yourself, Mr. Speaker, as it is to many hon. Members. It is a district of unequalled beauty of its own peculiar character, and from its height above the sea, and its open valleys, it is a sort of natural sanatorium, to which persons who desire the best air and the most bracing climatic conditions are advised to resort. Braemar, however, is one of the places where the process of sealing up the country is carried furthest. It is hardly possible to stir off the roads in the neighbourhood of Braemar without being confronted by a ghillie, and threatened with proceedings by interdict. Even those superb mountains between the source of the Dee and the Valley of the Spey are so closed that one is obliged to stalk ghillies as the ghillies stalk the deer. I dare say the attention of hon. Members has been called more particularly to Braemar by what befell there last

  93
  autumn, when a well-known and frequently-used footpath over a beautifully-wooded hill was closed, although it had been used without interruption by the people of Braemar and visitors for a great number of years. The wantonness of that act shows the kind of spirit which has unfortunately taken possession of some Highland proprietors and still more so of the agents of the proprietors, because it is more often the action of the agents or factors than that of proprietors which is blameworthy. I hope that the impression made by the closing of this pathway, the only walk in the neighbourhood except the dusty high road, has roused the feeling of the people of Scotland, and to some extent, I hope, of the people of England, to a sense of the hardships visitors to Scotland have to undergo, and to the kind of spirit in which landlordism exercises its rights. But there is a still worse case in Scotland than this at Braemar—that of the American millionaire who has joined deer forest to deer forest, and formed a sort of enclave of wilderness in the Counties of Ross and Inverness, stretching almost from sea to sea for nearly 40 miles. Along the borders of this wilderness an army or cordon of ghillies is stationed to carry out the orders of the proprietor, and so strictly are these orders carried out that when the pet lamb of a tenant strayed within the boundary the animal was seized, and proceedings were taken against the tenant. The attempt to exclude people from the hills is used indiscriminately, whatever the object or purpose of the pedestrian may be. If the object was merely to keep off people in pursuit of game something might be said, but it is not so. The geologist, the botanist, the painter, or the simple pedestrian, who desires to climb the hills and enjoy mountain air and scenery, though he is not rich enough to go to Switzerland, all are treated with equal severity, and even when a man humbles himself to ask permission to do that which he ought to be able to claim as a right, he usually meets with a refusal. I find that in 1884, when the Crofter Commission reported, there were about 2,000,000 acres held as deer forests, and I find now, in the eight years which have elapsed since 1884,
  94
  about 386,000 acres have been added by the creation of new deer forests, although the Crofter Commission reported that no further deer forests ought to be created. So it is hardly necessary to say the grievance is not only severe, but every day growing in extent. Although the grievance is greater in the Highlands, it is by no means confined to the Highlands. I have heard stories from a great many other parts of Scotland where the same policy of exclusion is pursued. Footpaths on the Kilpatrick Hills, on the Clyde, near Bowling, have been closed by proprietors; and in other parts of the Lowlands, such as the Pentland Hills, similar complaints have been made. Indeed, there is scarcely any district where such complaints have not been heard. In England and Wales the case is not so bad, but I have heard of the initiation of a similar policy in the Lake District and in certain parts of Wales. Therefore, I think, although the case is perhaps hardest on the Scottish people, it is desirable to ask the House to affirm the principle generally for the whole of the United Kingdom. There are two parts of the grievance which we very much feel as regards the hardship complained of. One of them is this: that these Highlands, so far as I know, are the only country in the world where an attempt is made to interfere with the right of the people to walk freely over uncultivated ground. I have climbed mountains in almost every country—("Holland?")—no, not in Holland—I have travelled in almost every country where mountains are found, and I have made inquiries but I have never heard of a single instance in which the pedestrian, the artist, or the man of science has been prevented from freely walking where he wished, not even in those countries where the pursuit of game is most actively followed. In the Tyrol, in Corinthia, in the Styrian Alps, or wherever the sport of chamois hunting is carried on, there has never been an attempt to exclude pedestrians. I dare say hon. Members may remember the story of King Victor Emanuel, who was very fond of the sport of pursuing the wild Alpine goat. Occasionally it happened that members of the Alpine Club or other visitors

  95
  managed to climb a mountain on the day when the King proposed shooting there. All that the King did when he knew of such a party being in the neighbourhood was to send a messenger with his compliments asking them if they could make it convenient to go up another peak because he had arranged to shoot in that particular district. I believe our countrymen were always found willing to fall in with the wishes of the King, and I have no doubt any good mountaineer would be willing to do the like. I cite this to show that even in the case of a King, and in reference to a sport confined to a few spots, the King did not think of claiming a right, but simply asked as a favour that people would defer their visit to a peak from a particular day. Another division of our grievance is this: that in Scotland, at any rate—though I think it applies to all mountainous parts of the United Kingdom—it is practically a new grievance. Eighty years ago everybody could go freely wherever he desired over the mountains and moors of Scotland. Eighty years ago was the time when Scott made Highland scenery familiar to the world, the time when Wordsworth displayed the effect of his sympathetic studies of nature, and it was just at that time when Scott and Wordsworth's poems exercised such powerful spiritual and moral influences on the people that the policy of debarring people from the search after the truths of nature and intercourse with nature began to be pursued. Until 80 years ago no attempt was made to exclude people from wandering freely over the mountains of Scotland. I am informed by friends familiar with Scottish law that there is no case in our law books of an attempt to interdict any person from walking over open moors or mountain, except of recent date, but in the presence of two distinguished Scottish legal officers I do not give it as an opinion of my own—I only say that high Scottish authorities have so informed me. It was not until 1843 that deer forests began to any considerable extent to be formed, and only within the last 30 or 40 years has the practice of strict exclusion been adopted. It will not surprise the House to learn that this attempt to
  96
  shut people out from their own property, as I hold it to be, has created a very strong feeling in Scotland, and this has been evinced in petitions presented to this House. Of course I know there is a disposition to underrate petitions as a method of expressing public opinion, and it is said that powerful amalgamations can readily produce petitions, but when the people have no organisation at all, where the petitions have been nothing but the natural and spontaneous voice of the people, it is fair to attach some weight to them. There have been presented during the last few years a very large number of Petitions which deserve the utmost respect. Among many such Petitions I may mention, in addition to those from the inhabitants of districts affected, Petitions from the inhabitants of Edinburgh, Dundee, Paisley, Dunfermline, Inverness, and other towns in favour of the Bill. The Convention of the Scottish Royal Burghs have repeatedly petitioned in its favour, and similar requests have been made by the Royal Scottish Academy of Arts, the Society of Painters in Water Colours, the Glasgow Philosophical Society, and the Glasgow Geological Society. The only Petition ever presented against the Bill came from the now extinct body called the Scottish Commissioners of Supply, a body representing nobody but themselves. Since the Commissioners of Supply ceased to exist from the operation of the Local Government Act, no petition has been presented against the measure. When the County Councils came into being, one of the first actions of the Sutherlandshire Council was to send up a Petition in favour of the Bill. Although this is a serious inconvenience to those who visit Scotland for exercise and recreation, it is a far more serious grievance to the poor people who live there, and most of all to the poor crofter, who finds himself debarred from what his fathers enjoyed, and finds himself hemmed in very often by barbed wire fences from going on land which, by right and equity, is the property of the clan, although the title is vested in the landlord. It is a grievance severely felt that they should be excluded from what has been recognised as the property of the clan, and

  97
  cannot venture to lodge a visitor who desires to climb the mountains. Perhaps English Members may ask, or Irish Members may ask, how it is that this exclusion is effected? It is not effected by any directly criminal process, but in a no less effectual way by the process of bringing what is called an interdict. [Mr. ADDISON: A what?] An interdict, or what we should here call an injunction—the hon. and learned Member will understand that term. The effect of an interdict is to prevent persons against whom it is obtained from going on the land in question, and a breach of the interdict amounts to the offence of contempt of Court, and may subject the person who commits it to imprisonment. It is, therefore, in its second stage a very effective measure, and by that process, the right, if it exists, is largely enforced. But there is another way in practice, cheaper and even more effectual, and that is to station stalwart ghillies in the path with orders to prevent pedestrians from making the ascent of a mountain. Some people may say—"If you are confident of the justice of your right, you should oppose force to force, and knock down the ghillie who obstructs your way. (Hear, hear.) Some hon. Members cheer that view of the position, but I think the House will admit that that amounts to what is called "counsel of perfection." We are not all prepared for a bout of fisticuffs with a strong ghillie as the prelude to a mountain walk, and though it is true a geologist may be armed with his hammer, the appliances of the botanist and the brushes of the painter are suitable only for peaceful pursuits. I am bound to say, we must find some better remedy to prevent or avenge the wrongs of the pedestrian than to recommend the use of force. What is this remedy to be? It used to be said—"All that is wanted is to make this subject known, and good feeling will do the rest." But, Sir, we have waited a good many years for this good feeling on the part of landlords, and we discern no sign of its appearance. I do not mean to imply that the landowner is worse than the sporting tenant. This tenant, who comes from England, is probably as
  98
  intolerant as the proprietor. The only available remedy is to be found in legislation. The only remedy is to declare that the people have the right and ought to have the power to go freely over the mountains and glens of their own country. I have endeavoured in several years, and with the chances of the ballot steadily against me, to carry out this scheme of introducing a Bill providing the means by which the rights of the public should be vindicated, with provisions to prevent any abuse of those rights. I do not for a moment deny that the right of access might be abused by malicious or mischievous persons, and I think it is quite right to take precautions against such abuse of the right. I may mention what some of the precautions I proposed to take were. My Bill proposed to enact that, for purposes of recreation, for scientific or artistic study, it should be possible to go freely on uncultivated mountain land, but that this should not apply to the case of any land occupied or in immediate proximity to a dwelling house, or to plantations of young trees which might be damaged. Nor should it apply where persons went in pursuit of game, nor should it authorise any person to take a dog or to carry firearms. It would not entitle a person to look for eggs—hon. Members will recognise the scrupulous care presiding over every part of the measure—it should not be lawful to destroy the roots of any plants or shrubs, or to disturb any sheep or cattle so as to cause damage to the owner, and generally it should not apply to anything of a malicious or vexatious intent. Now these I think were ample provisions, but of course if any other provision could be shown to be necessary it would only be proper to give it full consideration. I confess having made full inquiry among landowners, sportsmen, and sheep farmers. I did not hear of any other precaution necessary beyond these, but naturally one desires to meet all reasonable objections, so far as is consistent with the substantial value of such a measure. I ought to mention some of the objections which are urged against the proposal. One of these is that it will injure sport, and

  99
  this I see is the objection taken by the noble Lord (Lord Elcho) in the Amendment he has given notice of. Well, I have consulted a good many friends who happen to be deer-stalkers, and one or two who own valuable deer forests and have pursued the sport for many years, and they do not believe that any substantial harm will be done by passing such a Bill. It is admitted there will be no harm done to grouse shooting, the only question that can arise is in reference to deer-stalking, and I have the opinion of deer-stalkers that no substantial harm will be done, if indeed an additional zest is not added, making it a little more difficult to pursue the sport. They scout the idea of the noble Lord that this will, in some cases, render deer forests totally valueless. However, I am bound to say that advocating this on principle, as I do, I do not rest my case on the fact that my proposal will not injure sport. If it can be shown that it will injure sport, still I say the people are entitled to this right all the same. The next objection to my proposal is that it affects the rights of property, and some compensation ought to be awarded to those whose property is so affected. I do not want to go into a discussion of this very difficult question, but I may point out in a plain and simple way that property in land is of a very different character from every other kind of property. Land is not property for our unlimited and unqualified use. Land is necessary so that we may live upon it and from it, and that people may enjoy it in a variety of ways; and I deny, therefore, that there exists, or is recognised by our law or in natural justice, such a thing as an unlimited power of exclusion. The power of exclusion has always been taken to be limited by reasonable conditions and the nature of the case. The power of exclusion was originally granted for two purposes only. One was for the cultivation of the soil, and the other was to enable persons in the immediate proximity of their residences to have a certain amount of privacy. But when we come to uncultivated land, and especially uncultivated land which is not used to any great extent for purposes of pasture,
  100
  but is mere mountain land, the reasons for exclusion utterly vanish. There is no such thing in the old customs of this country as the right of exclusion for purposes of the mere pleasure of the individual; and there is no ground in law or reason for excluding persons from a mountain, the right having there no value except to prevent other people enjoying themselves. That, I think, is a sufficiently clear distinction between the purposes for which the right has always been recognised and the purposes for which it ought not to be recognised. Unfortunately the Courts ignore that distinction, and I do not deny that the Courts of England, Scotland, and Ireland have in recent years granted actions for trespass and interdict to prevent persons going on uncultivated mountain land. This was done without having received the substantial assent of the people, whose rights were being practically filched away from them by the Courts. The time has come when we must assert what we believe to be the paramount rights of the nation. If anyone says that is dangerous to the rights of property, I will answer by saying that the real danger comes from the selfish and reckless, and even perverse and spiteful, use of the rights which the law has allowed. If there is any danger to property, it is because persons have declined to recognise the reasonable and equitable limitations within which those rights ought to be exercised. It, therefore, appears to me that there is in this case no claim for compensation for two reasons. In the first place, if ever there was a case of unearned increment, it is in the case of deer forests. They had no value for sporting purposes 70 or 80 years ago. Why have they now? Partly because a passion for renting a deer forest has sprung up, and there are wealthy people who like to enjoy themselves in that way, and because railways and steamboats have made it easy to get to these happy hunting grounds—made it easy for the wealth of England to get to the moorlands of Scotland. The landlord, who has received much more than his grandfather ever expected to receive, must not complain if that enormous unearned increment were, after all these years, somewhat

  101
  diminished by the resumption of their rights by the people. The other ground we take is, that whatever right the landlord has ever had is subject to what, I believe, lawyers call the rights of "eminent domain" in the people, and that paramount right must be taken to rank over all dealing in land, and we must not be asked to pay compensation for what we have never given away. I notice on the Paper that there are two Amendments to be moved to this Resolution, in the event of its becoming a substantive Motion. One is by my hon. Friend the Member for Partick (Mr. Parker Smith), and the other by the noble Lord the Member for Ipswich (Lord Elcho), a constituency in the neighbourhood of which there does not exist any mountain. Both Amendments mark an advance, for they both admit that there is a grievance; hitherto we have always been met with a direct negative. I cannot understand the meaning of the Amendment of my hon. Friend, unless it is to be an excuse for voting against my Motion. He does not deny that there are grounds for altering the present law, and then goes on to say that we should take measures for defining and protecting the existing rights of the people. I wish he had told us what he thinks those existing rights to be. Does he refer to rights of way? If he does, I can tell him we are not affected by them, for we are by no means content to be kept to a specified limited path in the centre of a mountain. If, for instance, I were going to the top of a mountain, and saw in the distance the cliffs overhanging a loch, I am not to be prevented from going to that loch because it happens to be in a deer forest and off the footpath. That destroys all the sense of joyous freedom which constitutes a great part of the enjoyment of fine scenery. Then there is another reason—these rights of way in Scotland have, to a large extent, disappeared. At one time there were rights of way over all the uncultivated parts of Scotland, and there were certain tracks, called drove roads, which were particularly known as being the common routes of traffic. With few exceptions these drove roads have perished, the landlords have taken
  102
  them away, and we find the expenses too great to come forward and rescue the remaining rights in the Courts of Law. Many that were in use 80 years ago have so gone out of use that we cannot furnish sufficient evidence of them in a Court of Session. Therefore, rights of way are by no means sufficient to satisfy our claims. My hon. Friend desires us to take measures. Will he tell us what the measures are? Until he does so, I must refuse to be led away by vague and shadowy hints from the definite proposal before the House. The noble Lord has a larger proposal. He is a little bolder than my hon. Friend, and I believe the reason is that he is not a Scotch Member. It is a little significant that no Scotch Member can be found to come forward with a negative proposal. The noble Lord proposes an Amendment which is not addressed to this Resolution at all; it is addressed to a Bill. It says that any measure which indiscriminately grants public rights requires certain safeguards. The time for that would be when the Bill embodying my Resolution is brought in, and I hope before long we shall have a chance of bringing in such a Bill. I do not admit, however, the allegation which he has put on the Paper, that the value of sporting rights would be injured, or that people or the sheep farmers would suffer. I have taken some pains to ascertain the views of the sheep farmers with regard to such a proposal as this. They think it would do no harm; what they suffer from most is the dogs kept by the keepers. I think, therefore, the Amendment of the noble Lord is intended to defeat by a side-wind an issue which he is afraid to meet openly. I cannot help remarking that the exclusion of the people from the enjoyment of the mountains of Scotland began just at the time when the love of nature and of the sciences of nature had been most widely and fully developed. The scenery of our country has been filched away from us just when we have begun to prize it more than ever before. It coincided with the greatest change that has ever passed over our people—the growth of huge cities and

  103
  dense populations in many places outside those cities—and this change has made far greater than before the need for the opportunity of enjoying nature and places where health may be regained by bracing air and exercise, and where the jaded mind can rest in silence and in solitude. It is at this very time when these needs are so deeply felt, that the thoughtlessness or selfishness of the few has debarred the lover of scenery and science from those enjoyments and pleasures they desire. It is, I believe, impossible to overestimate the worth of these pleasures to people like ourselves—people in whom education, expanding every year, stimulates the taste for poetry and beauty. Man does not live by bread alone. The Creator speaks to his creatures through his works, and appointed the grandeur and loveliness of the mountains and glens and the silence of the moorlands lying open under the eye of Heaven to have their fitting influence on the thoughts of men, stirring their nature and touching their imaginations, chasing away cares and the dull monotony of every-day life, and opening up new and inexhaustible sources of enjoyment and delight. It is on behalf of these enjoyments, and those who need them most, and in the hope of preserving for the people one of the most precious parts of their national inheritance, that I ask the House to agree to this Resolution.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: It is a difficult matter for an Englishman and Scotchman to explain to the foreigner that we cannot walk where we please to enjoy our native land. In Switzerland we can ascend the mountains and enjoy the valleys, but the foreigner coming to Scotland will find the part which he expected to enjoy closed to him. We have got into a kind of numb condition, and look upon these acts and restrictions as a kind of inevitable law of nature, for which there is no reversal possible. But that evil has been growing so rapidly that public opinion has at last been aroused, and we are in
  104
  Scotland getting up an agitation for what I may call the restitution of our conjugal rights to the soil of our country. My hon. Friend has long waited for the opportunity to bring this matter forward, and having got it he has made such good use of it that the position of Seconder becomes both easy and difficult. Easy because he might be well content without saying anything, yet difficult if he attempts to enter into the questions which my hon. Friend has so well and ably discussed. Light and air are two of the greatest necessaries of life. Light was taxed at one period of our history; there has been no attempt to tax air, because the process would be so difficult. If it were possible to reduce the air we breathe to a commercial commodity, we should soon have joint stock companies to deal with it, as in gas and water, and paying dividends more or less large—generally large. What is now going on in Scotland is the nearest approach to that which can happen. By the action of a number of interested persons we find that the lungs of our country are sealed and the reservoirs of fresh air which we ought to enjoy freely are closed by certain conditions of private enterprise. I believe some of our opponents are sufficiently audacious to say there is no public feeling on this question in Scotland. There may not be in Ipswich or the Partick Division of Glasgow, but if they would come to the North of Scotland, to Braemar, they would soon be persuaded that there is a very strong feeling on the question. If any Southerner going to the North to look for a seat is not sound on what is called "Bryce's Bill," he may as well pack up his carpet bag and make immediate use of his return ticket, a sadder and probably a wiser man. The feelings of the country are very deeply stirred indeed, and the difficulties placed in the way of those going to that part of the country for the purposes of art and natural history are very great indeed. I can tell the House of an artist of my acquaintance who was taken into his lodge by a gamekeeper. The latter, however, soon became uneasy as to the danger he ran, so the artist went to the noble owner himself, thanked him

  105
  for the permission he supposed the noble Lord had given for him to live with the keeper, and asked if he might sketch in the neighbourhood. The noble Lord, in a somewhat gruff manner, said, "You may sketch so long as you don't go off the road. The right of way is public property." As he was leaving he heard a henchman say to the keeper, "I don't think these kind of people ought to be allowed to come into the country at all." That is the feeling of the keepers—morbid suspicion of strangers and outsiders. We have heard of the American invasion, and of the growth of the deer forests in the last few years, and we know that at this very moment there are about 2,500,000 acres under deer forests in Scotland, and it is from this part of the country, which comprises the most enjoyable and health-giving districts of Scotland, that the people are most rigidly excluded. What should we say if Regent's Park, Windsor Park, or Hyde Park were devoted to some sport—real or imaginary—and tourists and those who wanted health were rigidly excluded? My hon. Friend has well pointed out that the danger to sport under these proposals would be infinitesimal, if it existed at all. I have the honour to be the proprietor of a mountain from which nobody has been excluded, but it is only grouse moor and not deer forest, so I can only speak from the point of view of grouse. The stalking part of a deer forest is usually, however, so far away from the parts selected by tourists that the danger of injury to the sport would be infinitesimal; but if there should be, sport must give way to the necessities of public convenience. The danger to sheep farming is, I should think, purely imaginary, except during lambing time, and that is not the time when tourists are at all likely to be in the neighbourhood. I believe that grouse driving has done a certain amount of harm to sheep farms; but speaking for many of my constituents, who are large sheep farmers, I should say that the idea of danger from tourists may be entirely put aside. We are told that the proposal is to be opposed in the interests of the rights of property. Of course,
  106
  those rights must be sustained, and nobody can be more zealous than I am for sustaining those rights, but it is just possible that the point may come when private rights may become public wrongs. We know cases where the State has interfered under the good old blessed word "compensation," but we know that this kind of property is really no property at all. Game is not property. I am one of those who have always defended the Game Laws, because I believe they are accompanied by many advantages under proper conditions; but I have always felt that rights in game can only be defended when they do not entrench on the enjoyment of other people, or in any way interfere with industrial rights. I think, therefore, in the interests of sport and the rights of property, it is time some concession were made in the direction indicated by the Motion. This proposal, which will eventually be embodied in a Bill, is hedged around with so many protections in regard to the rights of property that I do not see how anyone can object to the proposals it shadows forth. I think that by adopting it a good deal of the irritation will be allayed, and a great deal of the agitation now beginning, and which will be stronger in future, will be prevented. I hope we shall have a good Division, and that the people of Scotland will be able tomorrow, by the names in that Division, to see who are their friends and who are their foes.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, legislation is needed for the purpose of securing the right of the public to enjoy free access to uncultivated Mountains and Moorlands, especially in Scotland, subject to proper provisions for preventing any abuse of such right,"—(Mr. Bryce,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  COLONEL MALCOLM: I can inform the hon. Member who has just sat down that if

  107
  he went over certain parts of the Alps he would find himself the object of very great interest and considerable pursuit from certain individuals who answer to game-keepers in this country, and who would not permit that freedom of access that he suggests in the glaciers of that part of the country. But, moreover, I think he must have forgotten, in the few words he said with regard to the proposal, the suggestion or statement made by a predecessor of his in the representation of Aberdeenshire. I was in the House a good many years ago when there was a Committee on the subject of the Game Laws, and one of the Members was Mr. M'Combie, who was a well-known agriculturist in Aberdeenshire. After listening to the evidence, he thought that the Game Laws should be abolished, but that a stringent trespass-law should be substituted. Such was the opinion of an experienced and well-known agriculturist. I would point out to the Mover of the Resolution that I could agree with him that man does not live by bread alone—I think he lives by mutton as well, and I think he will find very great difficulty in carrying out the safeguards which he proposes. My only difficulty with regard to this Motion is the latter part, "subject to proper provisions for preventing any abuse of such right." He said just now that he intended that the people having such access to these mountains should not be allowed to disturb any sheep or cattle—I think that is the way he put it.
  MR. BRYCE: I said I would not justify any disturbance of sheep or cattle so as to cause damage to the owner.
  COLONEL MALCOLM: If he causes damage to the sheep or cattle I suppose he causes damage to the owner. I want to know how he thinks it possible on our Highland hills to protect the farmer in any such way. I have had more or less to do with sheep farming all my life, and I, with many other gentlemen, are pretty well cognisant
  108
  of the manners and customs of those animals on the whole; and I think that any one who has walked up on those hills, even for sketching purposes, or anything else, and has come suddenly up with a band of sheep that are not in the habit of seeing strangers—and I should like to see how you are to make the sheep on the Highland hills cognisant of strangers—any such person will readily recognise the danger. It is the very essence of the difficulty, and anyone who knows the habits of these animals will see the difficulty. The Mover of the Resolution did object to the greatest possible safeguard, and that is that when people wish to go to any well-known point of view, or to see anything of that sort, that they should be confined to a particular line or pathway. But anyone who knows anything of the habits of animals will know that to see people constantly coming upon them will make them habituated to the presence of strangers; that they would very soon lose their fears, and that the sheep would not run in the way they do at the present moment. Hon. Gentlemen may laugh, but I am speaking particularly of a district where I do not suppose any man was ever turned back in his life as long as he was not doing positive mischief. It is all very well for gentlemen to say they do not go to the hills when the ewes are in lamb. We do not have lambs in the Highlands the same time as they do down here. It is far later in the year, and consequently if people go to the hills, and a good many people go to the Highlands, they will, if this Resolution is passed, without proper safeguards, do the mischief the right hon. Gentleman very properly wishes to avoid. But why apply this to Scotland and not extend it to Great Britain? Anyone who knows how sheep are apt to feed across the march or boundary will see their danger. If shepherds intrude upon them they do it quietly, and take care not to disturb the sheep suddenly. There may be ewes amongst those unfortunate animals heavy in lamb. At all events, they may be heavy with their fleeces; they rush off when frightened by strangers coming

  109
  suddenly upon them, tumble into the march burn or ditch, and perish. This is one of the great dangers when three or four strangers come suddenly, when climbing a hill, upon a number of sheep. If a shepherd turns the sheep back he is bound to see that nothing of that sort happens, and if it does he is bound to lift them out. Your casual stranger knows nothing about it, and does nothing of the kind, and that is one of the dangers that I see. But there is yet another point which I wish to lay before the House about this proposal which I do not know how far the hon. Member wishes to apply it. He says this is mere mountain land. But mere mountain land may be very good pasture; and the best of it in many places is being fenced in order to enable the stock on the farm to be kept more separate, and the farm be worked with better success. Wire fences have now been introduced to the saving of labour and cost, and how are you to prevent people climbing up mountain sides, throwing down those fences which are now coming into general use in the Highlands. I suppose it is not one of the objects of this proposal to prevent the enclosure of Highland farms, and give vested rights to the public to walk over them in any direction they please. I suppose he does not propose to deal with future enclosures, so that if it was necessary to enclose a hill the Bill should not interfere—
  MR. BRYCE: I cannot answer that point without going into a discussion, and therefore I ask the hon. and gallant Member not to understand any such thing at all.
  COLONEL MALCOLM: This matter, however, I suppose will be dealt with if the Resolution is carried, and a Bill brought in to give practical effect to it. I suppose the hon. Member does not wish to make the unfortunate farmers liable for the acts of their own cattle. That is a danger which might arise, for some of the Highland cows resent incursions of the kind proposed, and a considerable risk of injury might be incurred by people
  110
  strolling about in rather bright dresses. As regards scientific research, no one, I suppose, is anxious to interfere with that in any way; but I must confess, from my own experience, that it would be a very long time before I told a stranger prowling about where there was a rare flower, a rare fern, or a rare bird nesting. I have seen the result of giving such information to quasi-scientific people, who think it necessary not to cherish but to destroy everything that is rare and beautiful. I have suffered myself from that in my own immediate neighbourhood, where, one of the rarest ferns having been found out, it was carted away and exterminated by persons of the description I have alluded to. I admit that that is a thing which the hon. Member for Aberdeen said he would net encourage and that he was anxious to discourage. My main object in rising was to point out some difficulties in the way of carrying a Bill founded upon this Resolution into practical effect; and I do think that we should be very careful, while endeavouring to give pleasure to some, not to inflict damage upon people who are endeavouring to earn a livelihood in a fair and proper manner upon those mountain farms.
  SIR JOHN KINLOCH: I must say that, the sentimental side of this question having been fully treated, I am desirous of approaching it from the point of £ s. d., and in the most practical form. This cry of free access is not very much a pressing question with residents who live near these mountains. It is more a question with tourists who pay summer visits to Scotland and who are interested in this question. Scotland is becoming year by year more a health resort, and increase in the number of these visitors is to Scotland matter of great importance. It brings to us a great amount of wealth, and it is from that point I wish to consider it. Why they come to

  111
  Scotland is because, of course, of its many attractions in the way of scenery and as a health resort, and those tourists naturally seek the advantages proposed in this Resolution; they require the liberty of going about upon our mountains. But, according to the present state of the law, the mountain attractions and other places of resort might be arbitrarily closed to visitors any moment by exclusive proprietors. Take the Highland villages, why they are practically at the mercy of the proprietors, as in the case of Braemar. This present liability to be closed of the health resorts and mountains and waterfalls of Scotland has the effect of keeping back the summer visitors, who are a great source of wealth, and it stands to reason that these tourists should be encouraged. We have another class of men who bring in an enormous amount of wealth; these are the sportsmen, and I think we should come to some settlement, so that there should be no conflict between the two classes. We Scotchmen look closely to the £ s. d., and it is by practically taking up the question that no conflict would arise. A general idea seems to prevail that these visitors go about seeking what damage they can do. I have never found tourists in Scotland of that kind; they are the most reasonable of people, and only too ready to adopt any suggestions made to them. As to the matter about grouse moors, I appeal to all practical men who know what grouse shooting in Scotland is, and I am sure they can tell the House that such proposals as are contained in the Resolution will not do harm to grouse. No amount of access can do any harm, as they are not there in the nesting season. With regard to the disturbance of sheep grazing, I think it is a most extraordinary argument to be brought forward, especially by sportsmen. Ask any farmer whether he would not have a tourist in preference to a sportsman. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones, and that argument should not have been used. As to deer forests we know they are not popular, but in a well-conducted deer forest a proprietor who has common sense never prevents men going on it.
  112
  They do no harm, and the bulk—all but the few who wished to assert themselves to the utmost—the bulk of the proprietors in Scotland have allowed the people to go through their deer forests. I am sure if visitors and tourists are only treated civilly they will do no harm. I therefore support this Motion, and strongly recommend the Conservatives on the other side of the House to pass it into law. English and Scotch tourists when they are refused access to, and are turned away from, the deer forests, they go back home and say, "These deer forests are a perfect curse." But if the law was altered they would go back home in a very different frame of mind, protesting against deer forests being done away with.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I think that nothing must have astonished the hon. Member who brought forward this Motion so much as the character of the opposition to it. There are on the Paper two notices of opposition to the hon. Member's Motion—one by the hon. Member for Partick. I do not see the hon. Member for Partick in his place. I do not know what the cause of his absence may be; but I regret that he is not here, for I am anxious to hear him support his Amendment. He is a member of the Eights of Way Society in Edinburgh, and by his Amendment he seems to indicate that if a settlement were arrived at on the Eights of Way question, that might be a prelude to a settlement of the question raised by the Member for Aberdeen. I am perfectly willing to allow, with the hon. Member for Partick, that if we had a better and more satisfactory system of asserting rights with regard to rights of way in Scotland, a good deal of the Motion proposed by the hon. Member for Aberdeen would not be necessary; but there is no doubt in the world that however perfect a system we may have of asserting rights of way, rights to

  113
  footpaths, &c, we should not in that way have settled the question raised by the hon. Member for Aberdeen. There is another Motion of opposition down on the Paper, and that is in the name of the noble Lord the Member for Ipswich. I am rather surprised that the noble Lord has not yet risen, as I observe he has collected a number of Blue Books in order to back up, no doubt, the speech he intends to deliver, and I am almost tempted to go across the House and consult the documents reposing on that Bench. But after the speech delivered by the hon. Member for Aberdeen the noble Lord the Member for Ipswich executed what has been described this afternoon as a détour. He went out of that door and re-appeared in that door, and has been in a position almost behind your Chair, Mr. Speaker, ever since, and I observe that he had not been at any trouble to move the Motion which stands in his name. I am sure all of us, especially all the Scotch Members, are very curious to learn what the noble Lord has really to say in support of his Motion, because the noble Lord deals in a very large way with every possible form of opposition that may be offered to this Motion. I do not think the opposition of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Argyllshire is such as to do very much harm to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, because practically it comes to this: that the sheep in Argyllshire are not conversant with strangers. Substantially the whole gist of his argument against the Motion was that possibly 300 or 400 sheep on the hills of Argyllshire, not being conversant with strangers, might run into a ditch and receive considerable damage. But he was reasonable enough to allow that any such possible danger which might ensue from the incursions of these strangers might easily be provided for, and was provided for, by the Bill which the hon. Member has introduced into this House on several occasions. I am bound to state, from what we have already seen in this Debate, the House will gather a very clear interpretation of what the feeling of Scotland is on this subject. There is in Scotland no opposition whatever
  114
  to the proposal of my hon. Friend. The opinion in Scotland is absolutely unanimous on the subject. Two or three years ago, in the year 1887 I think it was, all through the summer season at the railway station at Helensburgh, which is situated on the borders of the Highlands, there was always lying at the book-stalls there a Petition in favour of my hon. Friend's Bill; and the reason for that was this—the Leader of the House laughs and sneers at the illustration I am giving—but what was the reason of it? The reason of it was this: that the shooting tenants within the last twelve years had prevented the growing population in that neighbourhood from the access they had to the hill country around. I will give another instance. On the Western side of Ross-shire, as is well-known, and has been already alluded to by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, a certain gentleman has annexed an enormous extent of territory, which he has put into deer forest. A great deal of blame has been laid on the shoulders of this gentleman, not unjustly I am bound to state; but still I may observe that a certain amount of blame ought to be put on the shoulders of the Highland landlords who have given him the rights which he enjoys, by which he excludes the public from this large extent of land. ("Hear, hear!") I am glad the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord agrees with me in that. In 1881 this gentleman had come almost within touch of the Western Coast on the verge of Loch Duich. Up to that year the public had practically free access to the Falls of the Glomak, the highest water-fall in Great Britain, and one of the most interesting sights in Scotland. This gentleman the following year extended his territory westward, and included in his forest this very interesting waterfall; and from that time to this every obstacle has been thrown in the way of visitors to the country visiting that which undoubtedly is a point of very great interest. Already the hon. Member for Aberdeen has alluded to the "pet lamb" case, which also occurred on the shore of Loch Duich. Before I sit down, in support of what has been stated

  115
  by the hon. Member for East Perthshire, I wish to assure the House that opinion is overwhelmingly in favour of this subject not only in the country districts, but also amongst all the towns and cities of Scotland. There is no subject on which they feel more keenly. I hope, therefore, that it will not be long before their views, put in the form of a Resolution, shall be carried out in legislation.
  LORD ELCHO: I am flattered to find that a great deal more interest has been taken in the Amendment I have put upon the Paper than in the Question that is now before the House. My Amendment was only to be moved if the hon. Member for Aberdeen's Motion became a Substantive Question; and as it has not yet become a Substantive Question of course I cannot move it. The hon. Member for Aberdeen for his Motion to-night has been the recipient of a great deal of sympathy because he had not the opportunity before of bringing this question before the House. But I should like to remind the hon. Member that in the year 1888, I think it was, his Motion was down on the Paper for discussion. It was not in the form of a Resolution, but a Bill; and many of us were interested in that Bill. We came down to the House at about ten minutes past 9 o'clock, and though I am willing to admit that we were not all actuated by benevolent motives towards the proposal of the hon. Member, we were surprised to find that not only had the Second Reading of the Bill been carried without a word from the hon. Member, but a great many other measures had also been carried. I could not help feeling that if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby had been present at that moment we might have heard something about a dirty trick; but the right hon. Gentleman was not present on the occasion. Now I am not going to move the Motion which is down on the Paper in my name at
  116
  all, because it would be out of order for me to do so. But I should like to say a few words and ask the hon. Member about the safeguards which he proposes to introduce into his Bill. I should not be in the least afraid of defending the question of deer forests if I had the opportunity. The deer forests were attacked and were examined into by a Royal Commission, and the Royal Commission reported entirely and absolutely in their favour. It was said that the population had been displaced to make way for the deer, but that was denied before the Royal Commission; it was also disproved that the pasture was deteriorated by the evidence taken by commission; and it was that the deer forests did not do any harm to the country, but did good to the community at large. It was shown that deer forests employed a large number of people, who, if there were no deer forests, would not be employed at all. It was shown that on 50 deer farms in the last 40 years over £2,500,000 had been laid out by the owners and lessees in making fences, planting, and making paths and roads. And, above all, it was shown that owing to the deer forests the rates in Scotland were infinitely less than if the deer forests were abolished. I have had a great deal of conversation with landlords, proprietors, and lessees of shooting, and they agree with me that in the large majority of cases the deer forests will not be materially injured if the proposal of the hon. Member for Aberdeen be carried out. I am perfectly willing to admit that I can conceive cases in which deer forests would be benefited rather than otherwise; but if any hon. Member said that his deer forest would be benefited by this proposal, I would look with grave suspicion on the manner in which his forest was conducted. The hon. Member spoke in a most moderate and fair manner in introducing his Bill, and I can only say that I have no sympathy whatever with any proprietor or lessee who did anything unnecessary to keep tourists or people off their property; and I say that I can conceive no instance in which a resident proprietor would be justified in keeping tourists off his forest when the stalking season was

  117
  not going on. The stalking season only lasts six weeks, and I believe in that time incalculable harm may be done by allowing people to roam at large over a forest. We have to deal not only with the ordinary tourist, but we must remember that the Scotch people are a social, not to say a convivial, people. There are field clubs, and also in parts of Scotland what are called Alpine clubs, in which the members make ascents of neighbouring hills accompanied and preceded by bag-pipes. I should like to know whether the hon. Member would be prepared to exclude these weapons of offence; because, although I believe the blowing or playing of the bagpipes is an invigorating and healthy amusement, I cannot help thinking that it would have a disastrous effect upon the unaccustomed ears of the red deer in the forests. We have been asked why we should not have the same liberties in Scotland as are enjoyed in Switzerland. I should like to remind the House that in Switzerland the people live upon the tourists and grow fat upon the tourists; and although yon may go up the mountains there is hardly a grotto, there is hardly a water-fall which you have not to pay to see; and if you want to hear the echo or to hear the horn blow you have to pay extra for it. The consequence is that the frequented parts of Switzerland have been converted into a sort of glorified tea-garden. But in Scotland it would not be the same at all. The Scotch people who come to tour in the Highlands would not bring money at all. There would be no chance of the population growing fat upon them. They would bring nothing with them, and they would leave nothing behind them. The family paper and broken ginger beer bottles are the only traces that are left behind them. I have to apologise to the House for having spoken, because I had not the slightest intention of doing so tonight. I admit I was drawn by the hon. Member for Edinburgh. I can only say as regards the general spirit of the hon. Member's loyal wish that greater facilities should be given in Scotland to tourists to see the natural beauties of Scotland, nobody
  118
  is more anxious to see further facilities extended to them than I am.
  MR. A. SUTHERLAND: I have listened to the speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down with very great interest. He made the remarkable statement that the deer forests have been approved entirely by the Royal Commission. I presume he means the Commission presided over by Lord Lothian. Is he aware that the Commission recommended that the deer forests should cease from that date?
  LORD ELCHO: No.
  MR. A. SUTHERLAND: Yes, there was a very strong recommendation to that effect. I am perfectly prepared to ground my statement on that Report.
  LORD ELCHO: Read it.
  MR. A. SUTHERLAND: I have not got it. I did not come prepared to debate this question over and over again. The noble Lord referred to Switzerland, and said that in Switzerland there was a great lot of money made out of tourists. I hope that the noble Lord was not serious when he said that the Scotch tourists did not bring money with them and were not remunerative, because, if he was, the landlords of Scotland would only seize upon them and make remunerative use of them. He also made reference to the fact that the members of certain societies in Scotland were preceded by bag-pipes. I do not know what view the noble Lord may hold with regard to this; but it is a remarkable fact that the great part of the bag-pipe playing is not native, but kept up by the class the noble Lord has championed in this House. And it has become a bye-word that if a man is seen posing in this theatrical manner he is always said to be an Englishman or a foreigner. It is no argument to say that the deer forests pay such a large proportion of the rates in Scotland. The deer forests pay so great a proportion of the rates simply because such an extent of the land is under

  119
  them. Any argument of that character simply amounts to this: that if a rational distribution of that land was given to the people for the purpose of cultivation its value would be increased tenfold. I know instances of people paying 30s. or £2 an acre for land whose agricultural value was only worth twopence in many parts of Scotland. If the land which is occupied by deer forests were divided amongst the people for the purpose of grazing, it would pay very much more than it does now. Under all the circumstances of the case, I am astonished at the moderation of the hon. Member for Aberdeen. I fully agree with what the hon. Member for East Perthshire said. The hon. Gentleman speaks with authority upon this subject, being a landlord himself in Scotland, and he says that it is the interest of the landlords that moderate measures like this should be accepted. I, myself, look upon this question simply as an adjunct of a much larger question. Sir, 80 years ago was an interesting time in the history of the Highlands, for it was then that there took place the famous clearances with which this House and the country are familiar.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY,): Sir, the Resolution before the House has been discussed from what I may characterise as two different points of view, and I think that perhaps those hon. Gentlemen opposite who were so anxious for the appearance of the noble Lord the Member for Ipswich to take part in this Debate will find the explanation of his somewhat tardy appearance in the reflection that after all his Amendment is not, perhaps, so very different from the Resolution as might at first sight be suggested. In the eyes of the impartial spectator it is not so very different, and it is in an attitude of impartiality that the Government would wish to approach the discussion of this question. This Resolution begins by affirming the fact of the need for securing to the public the right of access to mountains and moorlands, and especially
  120
  in Scotland. That is a fact that does not admit of absolute proof, but is rather to be determined by the experience of those of us who are most familiar with the country. To a large extent the view is based upon what I must call sentiment. I do not use the word "sentiment" in any sneering sense. I entirely sympathise with the sentiment for the enjoyment of his native scenery that has been so eloquently described by the hon. Gentleman opposite. But, in so far as it rests upon the idea that there has been in the past, or that there is now, any great practice of exclusion from the mountains or moorlands of Scotland, I must honestly say that that opinion is exaggerated. There are three classes interested in this matter. These are (1) the inhabitants; (2) the persons who follow scientific pursuits; and (3) that much larger class who go out for the purposes of fresh air and recreation. As regards the inhabitants, I should say that their familiarity with their native hills is a proof that they have not been excluded from them. As regards the second class, it has not been attempted to be shown that there ever has existed one single case where a person wishing to pursue scientific research and making application in the proper quarter has been refused. And, Sir, with regard to the third class, I cannot help thinking that those most familiar with Scotland will not deny that they have greater facilities than the speech of the hon. Gentleman opposite has given the House to understand. I cannot assent to some of the expressions of the hon. Member that the Highlands of Scotland are completely closed, and that if permission was asked it was generally refused. The best-known and the highest mountains—Ben Nevis and Ben Lomond—have recognised paths to the top, by which the public are free to go. If they prefer health resorts, such as Pitlochry and Braemar, which have been instanced as the worst in this respect, they will find that there is more freedom in those places than the House has been led to suppose. Even in Braemar, to which the hon. Member opposite particularly referred, it is the fact that, except during one short season, persons are allowed to go through

  121
  the forests if only they ask permission and are accompanied by a forester. There is another class of evidence which shows that there have been given greater facilities than the hon. Member would have the House believe. The hon. Member has referred to the absence of ancient cases of trespass by way of interdict on uncultivated grounds. But the law books of Scotland are just as silent in those cases in recent years. I entirely agree with them, because in Scotland there is not in any true sense a law of trespass at all, and the law, such as it is, has been administered by the Courts with a remarkably lenient hand. Speaking with a somewhat extended experience of the Courts, I may say that I have never been engaged in any case of the kind. The hon. Member referred to the "pet lamb" case. He could not have quoted a worse instance. I had the honour of being counsel for the "pet lamb," and it was not from my advocacy, but from the inherent strength of the case, that the animal came off victorious and crowned with costs. Now, Sir, although I think the grievance has been exaggerated, I do not at the same time doubt that there is a certain and I will admit a genuine grievance that people are not allowed to go on the hills when they would do no harm; and, personally, the only feeling I have against the Resolution is a feeling of regret that it should be necessary to invoke legislation to do what liberality and good sense on the one hand and gratitude and good feeling on the other might very well do for themselves. But, Sir, it is always necessary, not only to affirm that there is a disease, but to see that the remedy is not worse than the disease. I hasten to assure the hon. Gentleman opposite that the House has no doubt of his bona fides on this question. But it is just here that an unqualified and unexplained acceptance by the Government of his Resolution may be misapprehended. He was fortunate in starting this question, and starting it with a very attractive title which has now passed out of his hands. Hon. Members who know anything of Scotland will be aware that there is a certain class of questioner whose desire to put a candidate
  122
  at a difficulty is greater than his thirst for information. I am afraid the hon. Gentleman's Access to Mountains Resolution has become part of the stock-in-trade of the ordinary and unimaginative heckler. It is put forward by that class of person because they think that an unqualified answer in the negative would savour not at all of that platform generosity which gives away with lavish hand everything in the world save that which belongs to the speaker himself. If it was in the interests even of sport alone, I should not hesitate to appeal to the feelings of the hon. Gentleman who proposed this Resolution. But, Sir, we cannot touch sport without also touching a much larger question, and that is the economic value of the Highlands. That is a subject into which, obviously, I cannot go. But I should like to say, in reference to some remarks of a metaphysical character that fell from the hon. Gentleman in regard to land, that he thought it necessary to point out that he drew a distinction between property in land and other sorts of property, because he said land was limited in quantity. But I cannot help thinking that if the hon. Member comes to work the matter out he will find that not land alone, but every other form of property, is limited in quantity. It is not difficult to show that any form of property is only what has been got from the land plus a certain amount of labour put upon it. Therefore, Sir, I cannot see that the so-called paucity of land is any good reason for its special treatment. The hon. Member went on to say that land only deserved the protection it enjoyed for two reasons—the promotion of cultivation and the maintaining of privacy. As to the promotion of cultivation we are all agreed, and it is not in question; but as regards the maintaining of privacy, if it is the only other reason, it will practically go against the theory of private property in land altogether, except in so far as needed for a man's dwelling and no more.
  MR. BRYCE: I spoke not with regard to a general theory, but with regard to the right of exclusion.
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: I should ask him to argue out his doctrine, not now, but in the silence of his own chamber, and see that if he cannot carry it to its logical conclusion, then there is no reason to treat these sporting rights differently from other rights of property. You cannot touch the sporting rights without seeing that the economic value of the Highlands is exceedingly large. I will give the House a few figures. In the county to which I personally belong, the County of Perth, I find that, out of 445 grouse moors, 225 shootings are let at a rental of no less than £32,000. The other 220 are either unlet, or I have been unable to ascertain the rents. On the other hand, take the deer forests. The rental of the deer forests is about £110,000 a year. You cannot take these figures alone. Everyone who has any experience of a shooting lodge knows very well the rule that you may pretty well double your rent if you want to find your yearly expense; and that one-half, which does not flow into the pockets of the landlord, flows into the pockets of the people of the district. When I reflect upon this and upon the other views of which the hon. Member for Sutherlandshire was the spokesman, I do not think it is too much to ask the House to say that this is really a grave question. I appeal to hon. Members—I will not, after last night, say responsible Members—but I appeal to Members who are likely to shape the course of future legislation to say that the necessity for safeguards must be entirely apparent. And I am inclined to be emboldened in this matter by noticing that the hon. Member for Aberdeen has this year preferred to approach the House by way of Resolution instead of by a Bill. I draw from that—though, of course, I may be wrong—the conclusion that the so-called safeguards which the hon. Member embodied in his Bill of last year would not be entirely effective for his purpose. The hon. Member for Aberdeen shakes his head, but I cannot pay the hon. Gentleman the ill compliment of supposing that he wishes to capture the House by substituting safeguards which he and
  124
  we understand in a different sense. Sir, I will conclude by saying that the attitude of the Government is to accept the Resolution of the hon. Member, but, at the same time, to reserve to themselves entire freedom of judgment as to the sufficiency of the privileges which may be put into any future legislation under the declaration that they do recognise the important interests involved and will not permit them to be unduly sacrificed. I have to thank the House for the way it has listened to me. My diffidence has not been so great as my fear that I would not adequately state the views of the Government in expressing their sympathy and also their hope that, in gratifying the legitimate wishes of a wide section of the public, they should not allow the concession thus made to be turned and distorted into an engine of confiscation and oppression.
  SIR HORACE DAVEY: I congratulate the House upon the accession to its debating strength of my hon. and learned Friend, and I am exceedingly glad it has fallen to his lot to express the concurrence of the Government in the views enunciated by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen. The hon. and learned Gentleman admits the existence of a grievance, but I understood him to say, and very fairly indeed to say, that the Government reserves to itself entire freedom as to the nature and extent of the safeguards, which any Bill intended to give effect to the Resolution should contain. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked why my hon. Friend did not proceed by Bill, and I can only answer that when the hon. and learned Gentleman is better acquainted with the procedure of this House he will find a reply to his question. Sir, whilst admitting that there was a grievance, the hon. and learned Gentleman said there were not many cases in which in the Scotch Courts interdict had been applied for. I should like to ask him whether it is not the case that of late years the law, not of distress but of interdict, has not been more rigidly enforced than was ever done before?

  125
  People grumble and submit rather than resist the interdict. The acceptance of the Resolution of my hon. Friend is exceedingly gratifying. There are no doubt difficulties with regard to sheep farms and also respecting deer forests, as the noble Lord the Member for Ipswich has pointed out. But there is nothing about deer forests in this Resolution, and there is no desire to restrict the continuation of sport.
  MR. ROBY: I only rise, Sir, to claim that England shall share in this Resolution. In a populous part of Lancashire, not far from Rochdale, I have been stopped from going over a hill in May on the ground that I might interfere with the grouse, and on my remonstrating with the gamekeeper on his keeping the inhabitants from going over a wild part of their immediate neighbourhood, the only answer I got was that if I went at Christmas time I should not be able to disturb much. Now, this affords an example which I only hope will stop the idea that there is no need for legislation in the case of grouse-moors. It has been said by the Solicitor General for Scotland that he thought this should be done without legislation. Legislation is not intended for the many who use their property rightly and reasonably, but for the few who do not do so. I do hope that any legislation upon this subject will have regard not only to deer forests in Scotland, but to all moorlands and uncultivated hills in England and Wales, so that people may not be prevented from enjoying a harmless recreation, and one which can do no injury to the rights of the landowners.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON (, &c.): In rising to say a few words on this subject, I should like in the first place to congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Scotland on his speech this evening, and I trust that his career in this House, so happily begun, will be one of great success. But I should like to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will announce that it is the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill dealing with the subject of this Motion?
  126
  The Motion states that there is need for legislation of this kind; the Motion has been accepted by the Government; and it would be to Members of the House a matter of great interest to know that the Government, as it has opportunity, will take action upon it. The right hon. Gentleman has himself some practical acquaintance with this question. I am not going into the question of deer forests, because that does not form the subject of our Debate to-night. It deals only with the inconvenience which has resulted from the establishment of deer forests, and which should be put an end to by legislation. I believe there is no desire in any part of the House to create difficulties in regard to deer forests where they are not injurious to the general interests of the community; and in many parts of the country deer forests will not be affected by such legislation as this Motion suggests. The right hon. Gentleman knows deer forests as well as myself, and he knows that in the greater part of the country no great difficulty will be created by the legislation proposed. But I would like to make one practical suggestion with regard to the restrictions in connection with legislation of this kind. There have been two proposals made—one that existing rights of way should be safeguarded, and that additional rights of way should be obtained where required; the other, that of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen. Now, I think some very simple restrictions will be all that is necessary to obviate objection to legislation on the lines proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen. The ordinary tourist, I am confident, would do no harm in the Highlands. He would come probably in greater numbers, and I think, contrary to the opinion of the noble Lord opposite, he would leave a good deal of money behind him, whether he was a Scotch, an English, or an Irish tourist. The only person who I think would be likely to do any harm is the village poacher. There are always one or two professional poachers in the village, and I think there should always be a power to interdict a man convicted of misdemeanour, such as a

  127
  known poacher, at the discretion of the Sheriff. With that simple precaution I do not think there could be much objection to the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, and I hope the First Lord of the Treasury will be able to give us some promise on the subject.
  MR. MATHER: I also think something should be done by way of legislation that would enable tourists like myself and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take advantage of the scenery of our native land. Both of us can speak from personal experience at Braemar last autumn, when visitors were excluded from ancient paths leading to the mountains, that great intolerance is shown by landowners. The tendency on the part of the old landowners to exclude the people has led to a similar tendency on the part of the nouveaux riches; and it requires to be checked by such legislation as has been foreshadowed this evening. We Englishmen feel this exclusion from the Highlands and the moorlands of our country. Looking forward to the fact that before many years are past we shall have a much more enlightened industrial class who will be able more and more to enjoy and understand the beauties of nature, it seems to me that Parliament should now make some effort to enable them to enjoy those privileges without in the least encroaching upon the rights of the landowners. I was much struck with one result of the exclusive habit which has sprung up in the district of Braemar, where I found the villagers were debarred from obtaining fresh milk for their children, and had to use Swiss milk, because the pasture fields in the valleys were wanted to grow fodder for the winter feed of the deer.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTER: After the speech of the Solicitor General for Scotland I shall only trouble the House with one or two observations. I am sure anybody who has been in Scotland must know that this is a somewhat sentimental grievance,
  128
  with the exception of some instances, which I am sure hon. Gentlemen on this side deplore as much as hon. Gentlemen opposite do. I know that Mr. Winans has very grossly abused his proprietary rights in the Highlands, and I hope the legislation which may ensue from this Debate will prevent that in the future. But with that exception, and probably a few other exceptions, we have at present great liberty to get on to the mountains in Scotland, and I believe there is nobody who will prevent you going upon the Scottish grouse moors or to the top of any hill if you see fit. No doubt during a part of the year when the deer should be protected you are not allowed to go on the deer forests. I do trust that the observations of the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Roby) may not indicate the way in which we shall legislate in this House. He said we must invariably legislate because a few people do a wrong thing, but we ought to be careful, in my humble opinion, in that respect, for if you legislate to prevent a few people doing a wrong thing you may by such means injure a vast number of people who are not doing a wrong thing at all. If legislation does ensue from this Resolution, the probability is that more tourists will go to Scotland, but I trust the legislation will not be of such a character as to spoil and destroy legitimate sport in Scotland, because no doubt it brings vast sums of money there, and to that extent it is a great advantage to that country, as well as enabling Englishmen and people all over the country to enjoy a great deal of healthy recreation.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Resolved, That in the opinion of this House, legislation is needed for the purpose of securing the right of the public to enjoy free access to uncultivated mountains and moorlands, especially in Scotland, subject to proper provisions for preventing any abuse of such right.
  SUPPLY—Committee upon Monday next.

  PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE.
  MOTION FOR LEAVE. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [26th February], "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Procedure with respect to Private Bills in Scotland and Ireland."
  Debate resumed.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON (, &c.): I really hope this Debate may be carried on at a time when some expression can be given to the feeling of hon. Members on this Bill. It is now very late in the evening—between 15 and 20 minutes to midnight, when the Debate must close. The Bill is one of great importance and involves a principle of great magnitude, and I trust the First Lord of the Treasury will bring it on at some time when we can have an opportunity of giving some expression to our view on the subject. I beg to move the Adjournment of the Debate.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Munro Ferguson.)
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to support the Motion of the hon. Gentleman. The Irish Members regard the measure as one of great importance; and, after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) on the occasion of the previous Debate, they had no opportunity of speaking upon it. I trust, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will accede to the Motion.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I cannot help thinking that this habit of desiring a prolonged Debate on the First Reading of a Bill is very detrimental to the rapid progress of Public Business. It is not obligatory on the Government to bring in a Bill with a statement at all. The Rules of the House enable any Member, being a Member of the Government, or private Member, in
  130
  charge of a Bill, to bring it in before the ordinary Public Business commences, with a short statement, to which one short reply is made, and then the House has to decide whether the Bill be read a first time or not. I personally desired to take that course, but at the request of the right hon. Member for the Stirling Burghs (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman), who assured me that he did not believe that any lengthened Debate would be required on this subject, but that the House would like to hear an explanation of the Bill, in order that when it was printed its provisions might be better understood, I certainly did waive the right I possessed and did bring in a Bill with a statement; but I confess that I think that hon. Gentlemen are a little abusing the privileges which I do not deny are granted them by the Rules of the House when they insist on discussing at length a Bill which they have not seen in print, which they cannot rightly understand, however clear I may have been in introducing the Bill, and which they are necessarily bound to debate, more or less, in the dark. I would, therefore, respectfully press both the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Munro Ferguson), who made this Motion, and the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) who seconded it, that they should permit the Motion they have made to be withdrawn, and the Bill read a first time, and on the Second Reading and in Committee they will have ample opportunity of discussing the principles involved, and of considering and amending the Bill in Committee.
  MR. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN (, &c.): The right hon. Gentleman has accurately enough stated what occurred on the previous occasion. He expressed to me the desire on his part to bring in this Bill without a statement at the commencement of Public Business, or at any rate without the opportunity for discussion, and I told him that I thought that course would not be satisfactory, and that I did not believe there would be any protracted debate if it

  131
  were introduced in the ordinary way. But the right hon. Gentleman has jumped to the conclusion that there is going to be a detailed discussion of the measure at this stage. I do not know that he has any ground for that supposition.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If all the Irish and Scottish Members discuss it.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: If all the Irish and Scottish Members were to discuss it, of course it would be a detailed discussion; but I think there is no ground for that expectation. What does he offer supposing we act on his proposal to-night? He offered us the merest fragment of the evening on the former occasion, when the Motion came on very much by chance. I then made a few remarks, which I do not think he will regard as too long, and then there were five or 10 minutes before 12 o'clock, which were occupied by the hon. Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy). I think to add to that fragment of time this other small fragment to-night would not be an adequate discussion. Speaking for myself, and as regards my own influence with my Scottish colleagues with whom I usually act, I think I may safely say that I think there would be no desire to have a Second Reading Debate on the introduction of the Bill; but that is another thing from the stinted Debate which the right hon. Gentleman desires.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I agree to the Motion.
  Motion agreed to.
  Debate further adjourned till Tuesday next, at Two of the clock.

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1891–2 (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES).
  Resolutions [3rd March] reported.
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1891–2 (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES).

    CLASS V.
    1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £22,600, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1892, for the Expenses of Her Majesty's Embassies and Missions Abroad."
    2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,610, be granted to Her Majesty, to
    132
    defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1892, for the Expenses of the High Coumissioner for South Africa."
    Resolutions agreed to.

  CHURCHES AND SITES (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 89.)
  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  COLONEL NOLAN: Objection may be taken that this Bill is not printed; but the fact is, this is a Bill which has been before the House frequently. Occasionally the Bill has passed a Second Reading, and I really think the House might give it a Second Reading now, and take the discussion on it in Committee. I do not want to make a speech, but I want to point out that Ministers have never really opposed the principle of this Bill. I hope the Ministry will allow the Bill to pass now.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Colonel Nolan.)
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): I should be very happy to respond to the invitation of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to tell him whether I thought there was any objection to this Bill, if I had had the advantage of seeing the Bill.
  COLONEL NOLAN: It is the same as last year.
  MR. MADDEN: But I really think even an Irish Attorney General cannot be expected to give his opinion on a Bill that he has not seen. I am certain that the topics suggested by the title of the Bill are not so absolutely non-contentious as to simplify the matter. I therefore think the hon. and gallant Gentleman will see that his request is a little unreasonable.
  MR. KELLY: If the hon. Member will withdraw the Bill, he will spare the House some trouble, because I scarcely think the House can consider a Bill which has not been printed. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.
  MR. SEXTON: I wish to ask whether it is in order to move a Bill which has not been printed?
  COLONEL NOLAN: Yes, it is.
  MR. SPEAKER: I think the time of the House is being waited. I hope the House will not proceed further.
  Debate adjourned till Monday next.

  COMPULSORY SALE OF LAND (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 51.)
  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. KELLY: May I ask the House whether it is going to consider the provisions of a Bill which introduces a perfectly novel principle? Will the House, at a few minutes before 12 o'clock, consider a Bill which gives a certain number of tenants upon an estate the right to force landlords to sell to them. If we are going to have the compulsory sale of land let us have a proper discussion about it. This Bill is contrary to the spirit of the Act of last year, and it involves a principle which has never been successfully put before this House, and I hope never will be. I therefore beg to move the adjournment of the Debate.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned,"—(Mr. Kelly,)—put, and agreed to.
  Debate adjourned till Monday next.

  LABOURERS' (IRELAND) ALLOTMENTS BILL—(No. 94.)
  As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.

  SAVINGS BANKS.
  Return ordered—
  "From each Savings Bank in England and Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, containing, in columns, the names of the Officers, their respective salaries, and other allowahces, if any; the amount of security each gives; the number of accounts remaining open; the total amount owing to Depositors; the total amount invested with the Commissioners for the
  134
  Reduction of the National Debt; the rate of interest paid to Depositors on the various amounts of deposit, and the average rate of interest on all accounts; the total amount of Government Stock standing to the credit of Depositors; and the total amount of the separate Surplus Fund, on the 20th day of November 1891; the rate per centum per annum on the capital of the Bank for the expenses of management: the annual number of receipts from Depositors; the annual number of payments; the average amount of receipts; the average amount of payments; the number and amount of annuities granted; the annual expenses of management, inclusive of all payments and salaries, for the year ended the 20th day of November 1891; also the year in which business commenced in each Bank, and the name of the day or days, and the number of hours in the week, on which the Banks are open for the deposit and withdrawal of momeys; including in such Return a list of all such Savings Banks as, under the provisions of the Act 26 Vic. c. 14, or otherwise, have been closed and have transferred their funds, or any part thereof, to the Post Office Savings Banks; showing, in each case, the number of such Banks, as well as the number and amount of Depositors' accounts so transferred, and the amount of compensation, if any, made to all or any of the Officers of such Banks respectively; and showing also the years in which such Banks were respectively opened and closed, and the number and amount of their Depositors' balances, and the number of days and hours in each week on which the same Banks were open for public business at the close of the year next preceding the date of such closing; distinguishing the same, as in the form of the Return, for each separate county, as well as collectively, for England and Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, and for the United Kingdom (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 272, of Session 1890–91)."—(Mr. Maclure.)

  THEATRES AND PLACES OF ENTERTAINMENT.
  Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the operation of Acts of Parliament relating to the licensing and regulating of Theatres and Places of Public Entertainment, and to consider and report any alterations in the Law which may appear desirable.—(Mr. Secretary Matthews.)

  KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS (HOUSE OF COMMONS).
  Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to control the arrangements for the Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms, in the department of the Serjeant-at-Arms attending this House.
  Ordered, That the Committee do consist of Sixteen Members.
  The Committee was accordingly nominated of,—Mr. H. Anstruther, Lord Burghley, Mr. Broadhurst, Mr. William Corbet, Mr. Cremer, Mr. Flower, Mr. Fellowes, General Goldsworthy,

  135
  Colonel Hamilton, Mr. Sidney Herbert, Mr. Lafone, Mr. Loder, Colonel Malcolm, Mr. William M'Arthur, Mr. John O'Connor, and Dr. Tanner.
  Ordered, That Five be the quorum.—(Mr. Sidney Herbert.)

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Select Committee do consist of Seventeen Members."—(Sir Richard Temple.)
  COLONEL NOLAN: It happens that the Irish Members with whom I act have no representation on this Committee, but we are entitled to some infinitesimal part of representation, something like three-fourths of a Member, and we expect to get a full Member, though of course, if the proportion were less than half, we should not expect representation. Now, we have in the hon. Member for North Leitrim (Mr. Conway) a gentleman who, with the exception of the hon. Baronet who makes this Motion, has qualifications for the consideration of this question beyond any other Member of the House. We wish to be represented by the hon. Member for North Leitrim, and I think our request ought to be acceded to. No doubt the hon. Baronet may get up and say he will be happy to have the name of the hon. Member added later, but I know there will be a difficulty in the way unless we settle it when the 17 Members are agreed upon. If I can get an assurance from the two hon. Gentleman who usually manage these preliminary points, I do not wish to take up further time. It is but a small Irish grievance, and it is not a question as between Parties. We are entitled to two Members, and the second Member ought to be the hon. Member for North Leitrim.
  SIR RICHARD TEMPLE: I may explain that I have been requested to omit the name of the hon. Member for the Gorton Division (Mr. Mather) from the nominations to this Committee, and to substitute the name of the hon. Member for North Leitrim, whose qualifications are undoubted.
  COLONEL NOLAN: Does the Secretary to the Treasury assent to this?
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLASassented.
  MR. SPEAKER: The Motion for the nomination of the hon. Member for North Leitrim will be put on the Paper.
  MR. KELLY: I think the Committee will suffer from the loss of the services of the hon. Member for the Gorton Division. The Motion now is that the Committee should consist of 17 Members, but I think it ought to consist of 18, and then the name of the hon. Member for North Leitrim could be added, than whom no man in the House can give the Committee more valuable assistance, and we might still have the services of the hon. Member for the Gorton Division.
  SIR RICHARD TEMPLE: No, I am afraid that would disturb the proportions. I cannot agree to that.
  Motion agreed to.
  The Committee was accordingly nominated, of—Mr. Arthur Acland, Mr. Bartley, Mr. Baumann, Mr. Causton, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Thomas Ellis, Sir Julian Goldsmid, Mr. John Kelly, Mr. W. F. Lawrence, Mr. Lawson, Sir Richard Paget, Mr. Francis Powell, Mr. Rowntree, Mr. John Talbot, Sir Richard Temple, and Mr. Tuite.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Five be the quorum.—(Sir Richard Temple.)

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1891–2.
  Estimate presented,—of Sums required to be voted for the service of the year ending 31st March, 1892, in addition to the Sums already provided in the Estimates presented in the current year [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 100.]

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1892–3.
  Estimate presented,—showing the several services for which a Vote on Account is required for the year ending 31st March, 1893 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 101.]
  House adjourned at ten minutes after Twelve o'clock.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL ELECTION.
QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, I rise to ask the Lord Privy Seal a question of which I have given him private notice. It has reference to a document, which I hold in my hand, which has been signed by the noble Earl among other people, and which contains a statement to which my attention has been called for the first time, as to which the noble Earl is responsible. Now this document is an electioneering document intended to influence the election of the London County Council in Chelsea to-morrow; and it contains the following statement—
"The County Council rate has already been increased from 10d. to 13d. in the £1";
2
and the question I wish to ask the noble Earl is how he propose to substantiate this statement—the noble Earl having signed the document. My Lords, one does not expect rigid accuracy perhaps in an electioneering document; but the noble Earl holds an exceedingly high position, and any statement endorsed by him would naturally have great weight with the inhabitants of Chelsea; and I, my Lords, as an inhabitant of Chelsea myself, and as taking a deep interest in that election, would like to know what authority the noble Earl can produce for that statement. I am, of course, perfectly certain that the noble Earl would not deliberately make any statement which he did not consider accurate. I am perfectly certain that he would wish to fight this battle, as he would wish to fight any other, with absolute fairness; but this statement as to the 3d. increase in the rates has been, I need hardly remind your Lordships, abundantly proved to be entirely without any foundation at all in

3
fact. My Lords, this statement is based on a speech made by Sir Henry James in St. James's Hall, in which no doubt he said that the London County Council had increased the rates by 3d. in the £1; but Sir Henry James made a speech last night in Chelsea Town Hall in which he practically withdrew that statement, and admitted that it was inaccurate. Sir Henry James's words, as reported, were "If I am mistaken, I am sorry." Well, the plain English of that is that Sir Henry James is perfectly aware that he was mistaken—("Oh, oh!")—and, of course, if he was mistaken, he was sorry. I see noble Lords opposite laughing; but I suppose they will acknowledge the authority of Sir John Lubbock on that subject, who wrote a letter to the Times (I do not know whether it has escaped the notice of the noble Earl opposite), in which he goes into detail with regard to the figures, and shows that the increase, so far from being 3d. in the £1, is under 1d., and that statement has been adopted by responsible politicians like Mr. John Morley, and has been adopted by the Chairman of the Finance Committee of the London County Council; and, at the end of the first year of our proceedings, Lord Lingen himself said that in 1889–90 there was practically no increase in the rates at all; and since that time the increase has been under a ½d. in the £1. I do not mean to say that a ½d. in the £1 is the whole increase; because there are various items to be added—some on one side, and some on the other; but the long and short of it is that we have Sir John Lubbock's authority, and the authority of the present Chairman of the Finance Committee of the London County Council—besides the authority of other persons—to the effect that the increase in the rates, for which the London County Council is responsible, is not 3d., but is about nine-tenths of a penny. I do not think I need go into the detailed statements which show my accuracy in this matter; but, if the noble Earl wishes to know the ins and outs of it, I have the documents before me; I am ready to give him any information in my power; and I now beg to ask the noble Earl the question of which I have given him notice.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl CADOGAN): My Lords, I am extremely obliged to my noble Friend for the kind manner in which he has alluded to myself, and I can assure him that, neither with regard to this election nor any other, should I wish to take any step, or become responsible for any statement, which was not absolutely fair, and, in my opinion, accurate and just. But I was somewhat disappointed that the noble Lord did not, while he was speaking, proceed in any way to justify the extremely unusual course which he has taken. The noble Lord was kind enough to write me a letter which I received at 2 o'clock to-day, informing me that he proposed to ask me this question—that is to say, that he wished to ask me upon what authority I had joined in making the statement to which he refers; or, to use his own words, what foundation there was for this statement. Now, my Lords, I imagine that no one in this House, or elsewhere, can have very much doubt as to the real object of the noble Lord in the course which he has taken; but I would remind him that it is possible to spread the net too much in the sight of a bird; and it is quite impossible that I can be expected, at two hours' notice, to enter before your Lordships into an examination of the financial course of the County Council during the past three years. There are two preliminary objections which I should wish to take. In the first place, as I said before—and I will not enlarge upon it—I consider that such notice as the noble Lord has given of this question is wholly inadequate; in the second place, I wish to say that I cannot recognise the right of the noble Lord to ask me a question of this character in my place in Parliament. I did not sign the paper in question in my capacity as a Minister of the Crown; I signed it purely in my private capacity; and I do not believe it is usually the practice, either here or in the other House of Parliament, that one Member of the House should rise, and, after having given private notice, question any other Member of the House upon any opinions—pious or otherwise—to which he may have given expression. My

5
Lords, as I said before, it is obviously impossible that I should enter into the controversy which has been raging for some time past upon the subject of the finance of the County Council. I would point to the fact that this controversy is not only between those of the public who differ with the policy of the County Council and the County Council as a whole; it is a controversy in which the members of the County Council have themselves been engaged, and in which, so far as I have been able to see, very opposite opinions have been held within that County Council. The noble Lord informs me that certain statements which were made by Sir Henry James in his speech in St. James's Hall on the 24th ultimo, were recalled by him in a speech that he made last night. I am sorry to say that I have not had time to read Sir Henry James's speech of last night; but I do not think myself it is very likely that on further examination we shall find that Sir Henry James has done anything of the kind. I studied very carefully that portion of his speech in St. James's Hall which referred to the financial policy of the County Council; and I have, so far as I am able, studied also the various statements which have been made on authority, and from which alone we, the outside public, are able to judge of that financial policy; and, so far as I am concerned, I am bound to say that not only do I consider that Sir Henry James's statement was as concise, and as accurate, and as telling as it was possible for any statement to be, but that I still am ready to maintain that the accuracy of the facts, as stated by Sir Henry James in St. James's Hall, is absolutely complete; and I for one—as the noble Lord has given me the opportunity of doing so at this Table—am quite prepared to say that I will abide entirely by the statement made in the circular to which he has alluded. My Lords, I do not know that I have anything further to say to the noble Lord. I believe he has really stated my case by referring your Lordships to the speech of Sir Henry James. Upon that speech, as the resumé of our case, I am prepared to rest; and I can only trust that the opinions which I have ventured to express in Chelsea will be endorsed to-morrow by
6
the majority of the electors in that district.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I observe that my noble Friend opposite has taken the opportunity of making a little election speech at the conclusion of his observations; but I am not going to follow his example. As one of the outside public, with all my respect for Sir Henry James (and it is very great) I think that the authority of the late Chairman of the London County Council, Sir John Lubbock, who unfortunately does not take the same political view as I do of affairs generally, is a higher one than that of any outsider; and I am rather surprised to find my noble Friend preferring the assertions of Sir Henry James, which I may remind him rest on Mr. Fardell's statement. And to be quite just, I will repeat what I understand his speech of last night to be. He said, "My statement was based upon Mr. Fardell's statement, and, if Mr. Fardell has made a mistake, then I am very sorry I have fallen into the mistake." But I think, whether Mr. Fardell said one thing or another, (and I really do not know what he did say) Sir John Lubbock's authority is so extremely high in this matter, having been until now Chairman of the County Council, that those who may share the views of my noble Friend behind me (Lord Monkswell) are quite justified in viewing with a great deal of scepticism this statement put forward it appears to the electors of Chelsea, even though it is backed by my noble Friend opposite; and I think that, on examination, the noble Earl will find that probably Sir John Lubbock's calculation is more to be trusted than those of any other person.
EARL CADOGAN: Might I ask my learned Friend opposite what Sir Henry James stated last night? Did he say that all his statements were founded on Mr. Fardell's?
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I merely wish to be perfectly fair to Sir Henry James in alluding to him. I read the speech, feeling an interest of course in what he said; and what he said—as reported, mind—was this:
"My statements rested upon Mr. Fardell's statements, and, if he has been mistaken in his statement, I am very sorry that I have followed them, and I should of course withdraw them."

7
Sir Henry James, apparently, did not take it upon himself to say that, upon his own examination, he had come to those conclusions, but that they were based on Mr. Fardell's statement. But I must guard myself by saying again that I am merely referring to the newspaper report—I am not asserting its accuracy. I merely wished to be perfectly fair to Sir Henry James.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK): My Lords, does not this rather tend to prove that your Lordships' House is hardly the place in which to go into a discussion on the County Council election on a private notice, of which we know nothing, suddenly, and on a question of finance of which we know perhaps less? I do hope this will not occur again.

ELECTRIC AND CABLE RAILWAY BILLS.
Commons Message considered (according to order):
Moved, "That this House do concur in the following Resolution communicated by the Commons; viz., 'That a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider the best method of dealing with the Electric and Cable Railway Schemes proposed to be sanctioned within the limits of the Metropolis by Bills introduced, or to be introduced, in the present Session, and to report their opinion as to whether underground railways worked by electricity or cable traction are calculated to afford sufficient accommodation for the present and probable future traffic; as to whether any, and which, of the schemes propose satisfactory lines of route; as to the terms and conditions under which the subsoil should be appropriated; whether any, and, if any, what schemes should not be proceeded with during the present Session.'"—(The Lord Balfour.)
Motion agreed to; and a Message sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

ARCHDEACONRY OF CORNWALL BILL. [H.L.]—(No. 5.)
Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

PRESENTATION TO BENEFICES BILL. [H.L.]—(No. 24.)
Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before Five o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.