Sitting of 30 July 1894

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  WEST RIDING RIVERS CONSERVANCY BILL.

    LORDS AMENDMENTS.
    SIR F. S. POWELLsaid, that this Bill contained some very important Amendments made in the other House, which it was desirable that this House should have an opportunity of considering. He, therefore, proposed that the Lords' Amendments should be considered on Friday.
    Lords Amendments to be considered upon Friday.

  QUESTIONS.

    COLONIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS.
    SIR A. ROLLIT:I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Commercial Treaties with Belgium and Germany prevent, or not, differential fiscal treatment by Great Britain in favour of its colonies, by the colonies in favour of Great Britain, or by the colonies in favour of each other?
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,):Article 15 of the Treaty of July 23, 1862, between Great Britain and Belgium is as follows:—
    "Articles the produce and manufactures of Belgium shall not be subject in British Colonies to other or higher duties than those which are or may be imposed on similar articles of British origin."

    1239
    Article 7 of the Treaty between Great Britain and the Zollverein of May, 30, 1860, is as follows:—
    "The stipulation of the preceding Articles 1 to 6 (they contain the whole of the Treaty) shall also be applied to the Colonies and foreign Possessions of Her Britannic Majesty. In those Colonies and Possessions the produce of the States of the Zollverein shall not be subject to any higher or other Import Duties than the produce of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or of any other country, of the like kind; nor shall the exportation from those Colonies or Possessions to the Zollverein be subject to any higher or other duties than the exportation to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland."
    The general effect of these stipulations in regard to Import Duties, on the points mentioned in the question, are understood to be as follows: (1) They do not prevent differential treatment by the United Kingdom in favour of British Colonies. (2) They do prevent differential treatment by British Colonies in favour of the United Kingdom. (3) They do not prevent differential treatment by British Colonies in favour of each other.
    COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT:Will the Under Secretary say whether Her Majesty's Government have decided to give notice to terminate the clause in these two Treaties, which thus limits the extension of Inter-British trade?
    SIR E. GREY:That is a large question of general policy, and I cannot make any statement.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES:Is the view just stated by the hon. Baronet identical with that held by the other Governments concerned? Has there been any divergence of opinion?
    SIR E. GREY:There is no necessity on our part for denouncing the Treaties for any purpose.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES:I was not speaking of denouncing the Treaty. I want to know has the hon. Baronet expounded the view of the effect of the Treaties held by the other Governments concerned?
    SIR E. GREY:I do not think there is any doubt that the explanation is founded on what the Treaties say, but that particular interpretation has not been discussed.

    PAUPER CHILDREN.
    MR. S. SMITH:I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state
    1240
    the total number of pauper children in this country, the number of pauper children emigrated to the colonies during the last 12 months, and the number of pauper children who have been boarded out during the same period?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. SHAW-LEFEVRE,):The total number of pauper children in this country on the 1st of January last was 249,000, of whom 60,800 were receiving indoor relief. The number whose emigration was authorised by the Local Government Board during the year 1893 was 360. The number boarded out on the 1st of January last was 5,465.

    FOREIGN PRISON-MADE BRUSHES IN GREAT BRITAIN.
    COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT:I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has received a resolution from the brush-makers of Dalkeith, N.B., as to the hardships caused to their trade by the free importation of foreign-made prison brush-ware, and calling attention to the fact that by the importation of criminal-made goods many respectable men and women are being driven into the ranks of the unemployed; and if he will use his influence with the Government either to bring forward legislation upon this subject or to give time for the discussion of the Importation of Prison-Made Goods Bill?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BRYCE,):I have seen the resolution referred to by my hon. Friend. No information is given, however, tending to establish the accuracy of the statements which it contains. As I have previously informed the House, inquiries are being conducted through the Foreign Office on this subject. So far as those inquiries have gone, they lead me to believe that the quantity of prison-made brushware imported is infinitesimally small in proportion to the amount of goods of this kind placed on the home market, and cannot substantially affect British brush-makers. Under these circumstances, there seems to be no reason for asking the House to devote a part of its scanty time to the hon. Member's Bill.
    COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT:I must ask my right hon. Friend when the Report from the British Ambassador in Berlin on this subject is to be laid before Parliament; and whether he is aware that according to the skilled calculations of Mr. Byers, the well-known brush manufacturer in Dumfriesshire, a brush which costs the British manufacturer 7s. 5½d. per dozen to produce is made in German prisons and sold at the doors of English and Scotch brush factories for 3s. 6d. per dozen?
    MR. BRYCEsaid, he could not state when the Report would be ready. Inquiries were being made in different foreign countries, but he trusted that it would be laid on the Table before long.
    COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT:May I have cognizance of the Report received from the British Embassy at Berlin? It was promised me by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor.
    MR. MUNDELLA:No; I made no such promise. I said that inquiries were being made, and as soon as we obtained the result I would communicate it to the House.
    COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT:If the Report is being kept back, will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to have cognizance of it?
    MR. BRYCE:It is not being kept back from the House, but it has been thought undesirable to present only partial facts.
    COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT:I will communicate with the right hon. Gentleman.

    ISSUE OF WARRANTS AND SUMMONSES IN IRELAND.
    MR. T. M. HEALY:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the fact that, in consequence of an alleged assault about the ownership of land, a warrant was issued by the Resident Magistrate in Tulla, County Clare, for the instant arrest of a young man of respectable family named O'Dwyer, who was brought three miles from his home and harvest work to give bail for his appearance; whether in the County Limerick revolver-firing case the Resident Magistrate suspended the warrant of arrest against a bailiff until
    1242
    the day of Petty Sessions; whether in the Birr military case no warrant was issued by the Resident Magistrate against the officers charged with assaulting females, but issued a summons; is there any regulation to secure uniformity of practice in these cases; and do the Government intend to take any notice of the Resident Magistrate's action in Mr. O'Dwyer's case, whereby a young man, who was ultimately only put under a rule of bail, and that against the protest of some of the Local Justices, was taken from his harvesting and subjected to inconvenience?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,):The facts are stated with substantial accuracy in the question. It is desirable, but difficult, to secure uniformity of action, as it is in the discretion of the Judges to whom a complaint of an indictable offence is made to issue a warrant on sworn information, or a summons. That discretion would be more wisely exercised by issuing a summons where there is no apprehension of the accused absconding. In the case referred to in the last paragraph it seems clear that the proceeding by warrant and arrest inflicted unnecessary hardship, though I am informed the only local Justice present neither protested nor dissented as alleged. The matter will receive my attention.

    THE INSPECTORSHIP OF METALLIFEROUS MINES IN CUMBERLAND.
    MR. J. W. LOWTHER:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether Mr. William Leek, Postmaster at Cleator Moor, has been appointed Assistant Inspector of Metalliferous Mines in the Cumberland district; (2) whether the same qualifications are necessary for an Assistant Inspectorship of Mines as are required for Inspectorships; and, if so, whether in respect of the limitation of age and of previous employment underground, Mr. Leck possesses the necessary qualifications; (3) and whether this is the same gentleman with respect to whom a coroner's jury, in 1888, found a verdict that there had been great, but not criminal, neglect on his part, in the matter of the deaths by suffocation of three men in the pits of the Cleator Iron Ore Company?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,):(1) The answer to the first paragraph is, yes. (2) The inspection of metalliferous mines is in most districts performed by the Inspectors and Assistant Inspectors of Coal Mines as a subsidiary part of their duties; but for the appointment of Inspector of Metalliferous Mines per se, no limit of age or qualification as to previous employment underground has as yet been prescribed, the few appointments of the kind having been conferred on gentlemen who, on account of their training and experience, have been considered qualified to hold them. (3.) Mr. Leck is one of the three gentlemen who, as officials of the Cleator Ore Mines, were concerned in the case referred to in the third paragraph. I was aware of this case when I appointed Mr. Leck, and, after carefully considering it, I came to the conclusion that the circumstances were not such as to disqualify him. These circumstances were within the knowledge of the large number of persons engaged in the mining industry in the district as employers and employed, who urged me to appoint Mr. Leck.

    SOUTH MEATH VOTING LIST.
    MR. JORDAN:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that four persons, appearing on the voters' list for South Meath Division, Summerhill Polling District for 1893, were objected to at Revision Sessions, and their names struck out—namely, No. 57, Owen Brennan; No. 424, Peter Kiernan; No. 177, Thomas Darby; No. 669, Laurence Weir; and that, notwithstanding the decision of the Revising Barrister disallowing their votes, these persons appear on the voters' list for 1894, numbered respectively, No. 48, No. 372, No. 155, No. 746; who is responsible for this transaction; is he aware that two persons in the same polling district—namely, Michael Gogerty and Peter Kennedy, appeared on the Register for 1893, numbered 304 and 421; and, although they were not objected to nor struck off by the Revising Barrister, their names do not appear on the list for 1894; whether he will ascertain if the four wrongly allowed on and the two wrongly struck off the list belong
    1244
    to different political Parties; and whether, as the majority in this division was narrow, strict inquiry into the circumstances will be ordered?
    MR. J. MORLEY:The Clerk of the Crown and Peace informs me that none of the names mentioned in the first paragraph were struck off at the Revision Sessions held in 1893, nor did Laurence Weir appear on the Register for that year as No. 669. All the names appear on the Register for 1894. The reply to the third paragraph is in the affirmative, and the Clerk of the Crown and Peace states that the omission of the two names from the Register for 1894 could only have occurred through a printer's error, as he prepared the Register from the revised lists very carefully. When the omission of these two names was pointed out to him he wrote to the printer for the original copy furnished from his office, but received no reply to his communication. He is not aware to what political Party any of the persons last named belong.
    MR. T. M. HEALY:I should like to explain it was not intended by putting this question to cast any reflection on the Clerk of the Peace for Meath. Although he is a strong Conservative we think him quite incapable of anything of the kind. But I have a list of 10 cases in another district, as to which I shall have to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman.

    TORPEDO CATCHER FLUES.
    MR. GOURLEY:I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is intended to alter the flues of the torpedo catchers Hornet and Havock so as to prevent the emission of such dense masses of smoke and flame as was witnessed at the manœuvres in Stokes Bay on Saturday the 14th July; whether it is a fact that on board the Hornet men were continually employed in throwing water over the boats hung in davits near the funnels, to prevent them from being destroyed by the flames; and will he state the description of coal used, and also if he is aware that vessels have been offered to the Admiralty constructed with smoke-consuming apparatus; if so, why this system has not been adopted?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir U. KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTH,):The following information has been received from Commander Torlesse, late of the Havock and now of the Hornet, in relation to the question of my hon. Friend. He says—
    "I presume the Havock is meant. The Hornet has never used water for the purpose indicated, nor was she troubled with flame (from her funnels). No trouble has been experienced in the Hornet from flame (from the funnels), but in the Havock at full speed a good deal of flame has been produced at times. No special Report has been made, as it was considered that more experience in stoking would reduce the flame. I have seen Commander Farquhar of the Havock, who states that his object in having water thrown over the boat (on July 14) was to prevent cinders from the funnels from burning small holes in the canvas cover of the boat."
    Commander Torlesse adds—
    "I had never regarded the boat as in danger of catching fire, but merely used the water as a precaution against damage."
    Further practice and experience will probably show whether it will be necessary to make a small alteration in the funnels of the Havock, in order to prevent any undue smoke or flame. The best hand-picked Welsh coal is used. No smoke-consuming apparatus has hitherto been submitted to the Admiralty which is considered suitable for naval purposes.

    BRITISH REPRESENTATION AT RABAT
    MR. GOURLEY:I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that at the City of Rabat, in Morocco, Great Britain is only represented by a Vice Consul, whilst the same Vice Consul holds for and represents Germany with the rank of Consul; and whether, seeing that Rabat is one of the leading commercial ports of Morocco, the Government will place the British Representative upon a par with that of the German Empire?
    SIR E. GREY:The fact is as stated. It would not be possible, however, to alter the status of the Vice Consul at Rabat without further changes in the arrangement of the service at Morocco, which has just been carefully organised. The hon. Member will, therefore, I hope, understand that the refusal to make the change which he asks does not arise from any tendency to underrate the services of Mr. Frost, the value of which I am very glad to take this opportunity of admitting.

    GUNNERS' PAY IN THE NAVY.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES:I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can state what the qualification is respectively for a seaman gunner, for a captain of a gun, and for a captain of a turret, and what pay is attached to each of these ratings; whether any steps are taken to ensure that men who have once qualified for these ratings retain their efficiency; whether they are put through any kind of daily aiming practice, and a record kept of the results; and, if not, what tests of efficiency are applied to them, and at what intervals; whether the Admiralty will consider the desirability of increasing the efficiency of men of these ratings, as marksmen, by increased practice, either of aiming, or of practice with Morris tubes, or both, accompanied by a system of increased pay according to the results attained; and whether, having regard to the very great importance, as regards the fighting power of the ship, of the duties devolving on a captain of a turret, the Admiralty will reconsider, with a view to its increase, either in the manner suggested or otherwise, the pay attached to that rating?
    SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH:The information asked for in the first paragraph is given at pages 916 and 917 of the Queen's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions. The reply to paragraph 2 is in the affirmative. Men are frequently exercised at aiming practice, which sufficiently tests their efficiency. A record of results obtained at target practice is kept. The various target practices prescribed by the Regulations, both from guns and Morris gun tubes, are carried out continuously throughout the year; and it is not practicable to add to them without interfering with other important duties. It is not intended to establish a system of increased pay by results, nor to make any increase in the additional pay already given to men holding the rating of "captain of a turret."
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES:Is it a fact that every shot fired by a captain of a turret is worth £164, and yet he only gets 3d. per day?
    SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH:In addition to what he gets as instructor?
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES:In addition to his ratings?
    SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH:I must ask for notice of the question as to the cost of the shots fired.

    PROSECUTIONS OF ANTI-VACCINATIONISTS.
    MR. CHANNING:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the repeated prosecutions of Mr. H. Binder before the Oundle Bench of Magistrates for non-compliance with Orders to vaccinate the same child; whether it appears that H. Binder was convicted and fined on 31st July, 1890, 28th August, 1890, 22nd March, 1894, and 14th June, 1894, in respect of Orders to vaccinate the same child; and whether, having regard to the course adopted in these cases, he will direct the fines to be repaid?
    MR. ASQUITH:I am informed that two Orders have been made (in July, 1890, and March, 1894) for the vaccination of Mr. Binder's child, the defendant in each case being required to pay costs, and that he has been convicted and fined (in August, 1890, and June, 1894) for non-compliance with each Order. As I have frequently stated, I regret these repeated prosecutions in respect of the same child, but in the present state of the law I have no power to interfere.
    MR. CHANNING:Am I, then, misinformed as to the statement made, that the right hon. Gentleman has ordered the remission of fines in cases where they have been inflicted for the same child?
    MR. ASQUITH:So far as my information goes, I have never ordered the remission of fines except where there has been subsequent evidence of the vaccination of the child. I do not feel that I am entitled in the present state of the law to order such remission, although I much regret their infliction.

    EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS IN IRELAND.
    MR. T. M. HEALY:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland why the Annual Report of the Proceedings of the Educational Endowments (Ireland) Commission, which has been published every year since 1886, at the end of the current year or beginning of the next, was not so
    1248
    published in 1892–3; why has the Erasmus Smith Endowment, worth £10,014 a year, been left for nine years unsettled; is he aware that Erasmus Smith, in his indenture under Cromwell and in his charter under Charles II., expressly provided that his endowment should be used to give free, intermediate, University, and, in a limited sense, primary education to the children of all his tenants on all his Irish estates, and to 20 other poor children within two English miles of each of his grammar schools at Galway, Drogheda, and Tipperary; can he state how many pupils are now receiving intermediate education in the Erasmus Smith grammar schools, and how many are receiving Erasmus Smith exhibitions in Trinity College; also how many of the pupils in his grammar schools and how many enjoying his exhibitions in Trinity College are children of his tenants on his Irish estates, or other poor children born within two English miles of his grammar schools at Galway, Drogheda, and Tipperary; is he aware that the children of nearly all the 2,000 tenants on the estate formerly held by Erasmus Smith are deprived of the free, intermediate, and University education which was expressly provided for them; will he explain why the scheme was not adopted which, on behalf of the tenants' children and other poor children on all the Erasmus Smith estates, was put before the Educational Endowments Commissions, on the principle of a Mixed Central Board and Mixed Boards for all the districts in which the estates lie, on which Protestants of all denominations were offered a larger representation than their relative numbers and relative contributions of rent entitled them; and can any steps be taken to secure the benefit of the charity to the children of Catholics as well as Protestants?
    MR. J. MORLEY:The statutory powers of the Educational Endowments (Ireland) Commission expired on March 31st, 1893, and have since been continued by Orders in Council. The final Report will be presented before the end of the current year, and will cover the whole period from the date of the last Report to the completion of the business of the Commission. The annual value of the Erasmus Smith endowment, which does not appear to exceed £7,000,

    1249
    has not yet been fully dealt with, for the reasons explained in my reply to the question of the hon. Member for South Kilkenny on the 23rd inst. The governors of the Erasmus Smith grammar schools have courteously informed me that there are 94 pupils attending the school at Galway, 53 at Drogheda, and 38 at the Tipperary school. There are 35 past pupils of these schools receiving Erasmus Smith exhibitions in Trinity College. Several proposals are under the consideration of the Commissioners. The chief difficulty in framing a scheme is caused by the necessity of having regard to the intentions of the founder as to religion, and at the same time extending the benefit of the charity to Roman Catholics as well as Protestants. If no scheme can be framed under the Educational Endowments Act the administration of the charity can only be altered by Act of Parliament.
    MR. T. M. HEALY:May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the practical result of these nine years doing nothing since the Act was passed is that £7,000 a year has been solely spent on Protestant pupils; and whether it is not reasonable, after nine years, that the unfortunate Catholics of Ireland should get some share of it?
    MR. J. MORLEY:I am afraid I have not examined the question closely enough to have the right to an opinion; but if the facts are as stated, they would lead to the conclusion mentioned by my hon. Friend.
    MR. T. M. HEALY:If there is a proposal to continue this Act in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act of this year I will certainly oppose it.

    MODEL FARMS IN IRELAND.
    MR. T. M. HEALY:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) if a Return could be prepared for the use of the Select Committee on the Irish Land Acts showing the number, area, and situation of the Irish model farms under the National Education Board, the rent paid for each acreably and in bulk, the Poor Law valuation, the average rates and taxes, the amount paid for labor on each farm annually, the nature of the soil, the cost of implements and equipment, and improvements, including any fine or price paid to acquire the lauds, the amount of
    1250
    profit or loss on each farm annually, giving details of prices paid for seeds, manure, &c., and the prices received for produce, or where this is consumed by pupils the value thereof, and any other details calculated to present a view of the profits of scientific agriculture on the 20 farms worked by the Government in Ireland; (2) is he aware that the Annual Reports of the Education Commissioners down to 1874 contained more information as to the management of these farms than subsequently, and that the details asked for are now shown in the farm books; (3) is there any Treasury audit; and (4) what system of book-keeping is maintained on these farms?
    MR. J. MORLEY:(1) There are now only two model farms (not 20, as stated in the question) worked by the Commissioners of National Education, one at Glasnevin, Dublin, and the other in Cork. The number in the year 1874 of model farms vested in the National Board was 21; but a Treasury Departmental Committee of that year, acting upon a previous recommendation of the Powis Commission, recommended the abolition of the model farms except the two referred to, and this recommendation was carried out. The Return indicated will be prepared in respect of the two remaining farms, and will be furnished in the course of a few days. It is to be observed, however, that the main object of maintaining these farms is not so much to show the profits of scientific agriculture as, with due regard to economy, to train young men in the theory and practice of agriculture and young women in dairying. These pupils are boarded at the establishments, many of them free of charge. (2) Information regarding the two model farms is published by the Commissioners in their Annual Reports, and the Appendix to these Annual Reports contains very full Reports by the Agricultural Superintendent. Possibly my hon. and learned Friend has not seen these latter Reports. (3) The accounts are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General. (4) The ordinary system of commercial book-keeping is followed.

    POST OFFICE PATRONAGE IN WALES.
    MR. SPICER (&c.):I beg to ask the Postmaster General, in view of the fact that during the last two and

    1251
    a-half years 14 Post Office officials from the North Wales District have been appointed to postmasterships, and during the same period only four officers from the South Wales District have been appointed to similar positions, and that the Shrewsbury office alone has received more of these appointments than all the South Wales offices, will he take steps to ensure that the South Wales officials shall receive their proper share of these appointments; and will he issue instructions that in future all applications for postmasterships shall be sent direct to London instead of being sent through the local officials, and that, in London, the most suitable candidates shall be selected, and their superior officers then be asked for a Special Report as to their qualifications, &c., and thus do away with the habit (which now largely prevails) of the postmasters failing to recommend their best clerks, because they do not wish to spare them?
    THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY,):These appointments are not given according to districts, and if one district has received more than another it is a mere accident. I always look carefully into these cases myself, and select the candidate who, in my judgment, is the fittest for the particular post to be filled. The mode of procedure suggested is not feasible, the information necessary with a view to selection being only to be obtained locally. As regards the habit to which my hon. Friend refers as largely prevailing, I am certainly not aware of it; but if he will send me any particulars justifying the statement, I will have inquiry made.

    CEMETERY CONSECRATION IN CARDIGANSHIRE.
    MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received communications for two years past from the Vicar of Llanddewi-Brefi, County Cardigan, complaining that the Burial Board refuse to consecrate a portion of the cemetery as required by law, although the churchyard is filled, and the Vicar cannot use the cemetery unless a portion is consecrated; and whether he will take steps to compel the Burial Board to carry out the law?
    MR. ASQUITH:Yes. The papers in the case are about to be sent to the Treasury Solicitor, to advise if any, and what, proceedings ought to be taken.

    RHUDDLAN SCHOOL, ST. ASAPH.
    MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN:I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether it is a fact that pressure has been put upon the managers of Rhuddlan School, near St. Asaph, to make various alterations which will cost at least £100; whether it is true that among the demands made is the building of a new porch; whether there is any need for this; is he aware that the Department threatened last February the withdrawal of the grant unless its demands were complied with within 12 months, and that the parish is a poor one, and there will be considerable difficulty in raising the money; and whether he will be prepared to reconsider the demand, and to give more time for their execution?
    THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND,):Certain defects, which include deficient cloakroom accommodation, were pointed out in the last Annual Report on this school, and the managers were told that they should be remedied as soon as possible. But these had nothing to do with the notice as to withdrawal of grant, which was a first formal warning for inefficient instruction under Article 86 of the Code, and had no connection with the buildings.
    MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN:Do I understand that the withdrawal of the grant will not depend upon whether the changes are made within 12 months from last February?
    MR. ACLAND:This was what is called a first warning as to the character of the instruction given. That leads to the withdrawal of the grant in very few cases. The question of the buildings will be considered on quite a different basis.

    POST OFFICE ENVELOPES.
    MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN:I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that the envelopes sold by the Post Office with the 2½d. embossed stamp for use abroad are so transparent that every word of the letters which they contain can easily be read

    1253
    through them; and if he will endeavor to remedy this defect?
    MR. A. MORLEY:I have noticed the defect mentioned, and I shall be glad to take steps for remedying it as soon as the present supply of envelopes is exhausted. The hon. Member is probably aware that the object has been to make the envelopes light in weight, so as to leave as much as possible of the ½ ounce for the contents.

    FORT WILLIAM RAILWAY STATION.
    DR. MACGREGOR:I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that the West Highland Railway Company are constructing their station at Fort William in a position and on a site other than that which was originally intended; whether he is aware that serious inconvenience is caused to the people of Fort William by the present proceedings of the Railway Company; and will he use his good offices with the Company to induce them to erect their station in a more suitable situation which is easily available?
    MR. BRYCE:My attention has been called to this matter, and an Inspecting Officer of the Board has recently visited the locality. He is of opinion that the site originally proposed at the Fort would have been a better one than that which the Company have chosen The Company urge, however, that it is necessary to have a pier station for the purpose of bringing passengers alongside the boats. A possible solution of the difficulty would be to have the main station at or near the Fort, and to work a tramroad from thence to the pier. The Board will communicate with the Company on the matter.
    DR. MACGREGOR:Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the recommendation is carried out?
    MR. BRYCE:We can only send it to the Company.

    THE CLANRICARDE ESTATE.
    MR. ROCHE:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Lord Clanricarde refused to allow the evicted tenants to remain on the land attached to the church, and by an injunction order had 29 families re-
    1254
    moved on the 1st of this month; whether he is aware that he used threats to those tenants who were on their holdings if they would give shelter to any of the evicted; whether a tenant named Michael Flanery, who was evicted about four years ago, and who had recently gone back to his farm, had allowed an evicted tenant named Fahy to occupy an outhouse in his yard, and, immediately after doing so, he was visited by the bailiff, and warned that, if he did not turn Fahy and his family out, he would be immediately served with a writ for the rent of his farm during the years that the was out of occupation, and, in consequence of such threat, Fahy had to leave; whether he is aware that Fahy next got shelter from a tenant named Michael Hogan, and the moment Clanricarde heard of it the bailiff visited him, and threatened to take legal proceedings if he allowed Fahy to remain in his house; and whether he will state how much it costs the British taxpayer to give Clanricarde protection in proceedings of this character?
    MR. J. MORLEY:It is a fact that in January, 1892, Lord Clanricarde obtained an injunction requiring the removal of huts from the chapel grounds at Looscaun. This injunction was confirmed by the Court of Appeal. Subsequently the defendants decided not to prosecute the further appeal which had been taken to the House of Lords and agreed to remove the huts. In accordance with this agreement 29 huts were removed early this month. The estate bailiff appears to have warned some of the tenants not to give shelter to the evicted tenants. The statements in the third and fourth paragraphs appear to be in the main accurate though I am informed the warning was given to Hogan before the evicted tenant went to live with him. The bailiff got no protection when warning tenants not to accommodate the evicted tenants.
    MR. J. DILLON:Can the right hon. Gentleman answer the last paragraph?
    MR. J. MORLEY:As the bailiff was not under protection there were no costs incurred on this occasion.

    HOUSE CONSTRUCTION AT HAMPSTEAD.
    MR. WEIR:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that in the construction of newly-

    1255
    built houses at Frognal, Hampstead, mortar shown by analysis to be composed of earthy and organic matters, and from which lime is practically absent, has been used, and that the external or enclosing walls of basements which abut against the earth have not been protected by material impervious to moisture; and whether, under the bye-laws approved by the Home Secretary on the 19th October, 1891, he can take any steps to prevent builders from constructing, and district surveyors from passing, houses of a similarly defective character in the County of London?
    MR. ASQUITH:I must refer my hon. Friend to the London County Council with regard to the details mentioned in this question. The bye-laws referred to were prepared by the London County Council, and approved by the Home Secretary in October, 1891, but the question of their enforcement is entirely outside my jurisdiction.

    INSANITARY DWELLINGS IN SUTHER-LANDSHIRE.
    MR. WEIR:I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that, in a case tried at Dornoch, in December last, the County Medical Officer and the County Sanitary Inspector of Sutherland-shire, and the County Sanitary Inspector of Ross and Cromarty, and other witnesses, concurred in deponing that the dwelling-house occupied by Angus MacKay, farm servant, at Creich Mains, Sutherlandshire, the property of the Duke of Sutherland, was, in September, 1893, by reason of its proximity to the cattle fold of the farm, and to a cesspool, and on other grounds, unfit for human habitation; whether he is aware that MacKay was obliged to leave the house and sue his employer for his wages; and that Sheriff Substitute Mackenzie decided in his favor and against his employer for his wages, while, on appeal, Sheriff Principal Johnson and the Judges of the Second Division of the Court of Session decided in favor of the employer; and whether he will introduce a measure to protect the interests of farm servants and their families in similar cases?
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR,&c.):I have seen a newspaper report of the case, and the facts are substantially as stated in the first two paragraphs of the question.
    1256
    The decision of the Court was to the effect that it was not proved that the dwelling house in question was in such an insanitary condition as to render it unfit for habitation, and that consequently Mackay was not justified in leaving it, but in giving judgment the Lord Justice Clerk stated that the case was one involving some difficulty, although a considerable part of the evidence, particularly that of one of the Sanitary Inspectors, was not such as could receive attention. The question of the enforcement of the provisions of the Public Health Acts in Highland counties undoubtedly involves serious difficulties, which are receiving the attention of the Local Authorities and of the Government.

    BUILDING BYE-LAWS IN THE METROPOLIS.
    MR. WEIR:I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in the bye-laws now being prepared by, or for the approval of, the Local Government Board, a bye-law will be inserted to require builders to carry off the surface water from the sites of newly-built dwelling-houses in the County of London?
    MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE:The bye-laws referred to are probably those which the County Council have prepared and which are now being further considered by them. These bye-laws are proposed to be made under Section 202 of the Metropolis Management Act, 1855; but it does not appear to the Local Government Board that that section empowers the County Council to provide for the matters referred to in the question.

    INEBRIATES' RETREAT AT WALSALL.
    MR. BUCHANAN:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether serious complaints have reached the Home Office with regard to the management of the Retreat for Inebriates at Old Park Hall, Walsall; (2) whether his attention has been directed to a recent case in which the licensee, having received a patient under the Act, employed him as his coachman, and knowingly allowed him on several occasions to put up his horse at a public-house; and (3) whether, for this and other contraventions of the Rules for licensed retreats issued by the Home Office, he will prosecute the

    1257
    licensee, or oppose the renewal of his licence, or take such steps as will prevent the recurrence of such grave irregularities in the future?
    MR. ASQUITH:The answer to the first two paragraphs is in the affirmative. I have forwarded the papers to the Local Authority, with whom the power of renewing the licence rests, as a case well deserving their attention.

    TRINITY INFANTS' SCHOOL, DARWEN.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE:I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the Department have refused to recognize for the grant half the accommodation of Trinity Infants' School, Darwen; whether he is aware that an improvement in the condemned room was made in 1889, and that the managers have received no complaint from the Department since 1888 until 1892, and that, in 1893, the managers promised to provide new accommodation; whether the plans of a new school have been submitted and approved; and whether, under these circumstances, he will reconsider the decision of the Department to diminish the grant to this school by a sum of £50?
    MR. ACLAND:I have inquired into the case, and I find the facts to be as stated; but Her Majesty's Inspector informs me that at each of his visits between 1888 and 1882 the unsuitability of the room in question, which is only 9½ ft. high and badly ventilated, was mentioned to the managers. A recent letter from the official correspondent of the school (dated July 24th) states that the new school will be very nearly if not quite, completed by November next; and, on the understanding that the managers will carry out this undertaking, I will not enforce the reduction of the accommodation during the current school year.

    THREATENING NOTICE IN CLARE.
    MR. MACARTNEY:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Constabulary has been called to a placard, signed "Vengeance," threatening Colonel John O'Callaghan, and warning the men of Clare to beware of Colonel Jack and his son, and advising them to boycott their hay; whether he is
    1258
    aware that these placards have been posted near Colonel O'Callaghan's residence; and what steps have been taken to protect Colonel O'Callaghan's property from injury?
    MR. J. MORLEY:Copies of the placard referred to have been found by, the police posted in various parts of the district and also close to the residence of Colonel O'Callaghan. He has 12 men from the locality cutting his meadows at present, and two of these commenced work since the posting of the notices. Ample protection is afforded to him and his property.

    LUNATICS IN BELFAST WORKHOUSE.
    MR. SEXTON:On behalf of the hon. Member for South Down, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the Report of Dr. Plunkett O'Farrell, Inspector of Lunacy, on the lunatic department of the Belfast Workhouse, whether his attention has been called to the Report of the Sub-Committee appointed by the Board of Guardians to investigate the statements made by Dr. O'Farrell; whether this Sub-Committee have now practically adopted the Report of the Inspector as to the state of the lunatic department, the necessity for additional attendants, the desirability of appointing in future only trained persons as attendants, the improvement of the day-room, and the removal of the present offensive closets; and whether, considering the overcrowded state of the place, anything will be done to provide increased accommodation in the interest of the afflicted inmates?
    MR. J. MORLEY:The Guardians have practically adopted the recommendations of Dr. O'Farrell, and have submitted to the Local Government Board plans of extensive additions to the work house for the accommodation of lunatics, at an estimated cost of over £6,000. These plans have been approved of by the Local Government Board, and the Guardians are now considering the question of carrying on the works.

    FEMALE ASSISTANT TEACHERS IN IRELAND.
    MR. SEXTON:On behalf of the hon. Member for South Down, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, he is

    1259
    aware that female assistant teachers under the National Board in Ireland are paid 10s. per annum under third class salary, no matter what their classification is, whereas male assistant teachers are paid full third class salary, although the former are quite as responsible for the literary proficiency of their divisions of schools as are the latter, and are besides solely responsible for a very extended course of instruction in needlework; whether this state of affairs was aggravated in 1892 by disallowing the female assistants the 20 per cent. on those 10s.; what reason there was for first establishing this difference; and whether any reason now exists for continuing it; if not, whether provision will be made to abolish this anomalous disparity?
    MR. J. MORLEY:Assistant teachers, males and females, are paid fixed salaries, not class salaries. This principle was laid down by the Government in 1879, when they fixed the salary for a male assistant at £35, and for a female assistant at £27. The rate of £35 for a male assistant happened to be coincident with the third class salary for male principals; but that for female assistants did not coincide with any class salary. In some cases, that is, of mixed schools under principal male teachers, it is quite true that the female assistants have necessarily the entire charge of the needlework. It is not so in schools where the principals are females. The Education Act of 1892, which increased the salaries, distinguishes between "class salaries" and the "salaries of assistant teachers," in awarding 20 per cent. augmentation of salary to both. The female assistants receive the full augmentation of salary allowed to them by the Act—namely, the 20 per cent. added to the £27 fixed salary. The Commissioners inform me that it has not hitherto occurred to them that the matter referred to called for action on their part, and that as it would cost much to accomplish, the Treasury would resist any change.

    THE ADMINISTRATION OF CYPRUS.
    ADMIRAL FIELD:I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the attention of the Secretary of State for the Colonies has been called to the
    1260
    Report on Cyprus, issued recently, where it is stated (page 51) by District Commissioner at Limassol that the abolition of the post of Mudir is much to be regretted; that he frequently feels the needs of such assistance, having 112 villages to communicate with; and, further, he considers that officials of this class should reside in the sub-districts of Limassol and Kilani; whether any attention will be paid to this strong expression of opinion by the District Commissioner; and whether his observations on the discontent of the Muktars at their insufficient remuneration, and his previous Report on the subject, will lead to their grievances being redressed as far as possible?
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON,):Mr. Michell's complaint that he has not as much assistance as he considers that he ought to have has been noted. But this is a not infrequent complaint on the part of public servants; and it is one upon which the Government must reserve its liberty of action to deal with according to the merits of the case and the means at its disposal. As regards the village Muchtars, of whom there are probably 800 or 900 in the Island, their position and rights had been recently regulated by a law of the Local Legislature, and I cannot say whether anything can be done to meet their alleged grievances; but the Secretary of State will ask the High Commissioner for a Report on the passage in Mr. Michell's Report to which the hon. and gallant Member has called attention.

    CAPE ANDREA.
    ADMIRAL FIELD:I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the Report on Cyprus recently issued (page 49) by District Commissioner at Famagusta relative to the Lights on the Island, in which the Commissioner states that an additional light is sorely needed at Cape Andrea, the northernmost point in the island, and he hoped before long ships will be provided with this means of protection from this exposed and dangerous spot; and whether any steps have been taken to supply the deficiency complained of?
    MR. BRYCE:Yes, Sir; I have seen the Report referred to. The lighting of the coast of Cyprus is undertaken not by the Board of Trade but by and at the expense of the Cyprus Government. The Board have already advised in the matter of the existing lights on the Island, and, when applied to, will advise in the matter of any future light.
    ADMIRAL FIELD:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Board of Trade are responsible for Indian and Colonial lights? Will he indicate his opinion to the Governor of the Island that a light is needed?
    MR. BRYCEthought they were hardly entitled to obtrude their opinion on the subject unless they were asked for it. No doubt the Cyprus Government would consider the Report.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES:Are not the Board of Trade responsible for the lights at Sombrero Island and the Bahamas?
    MR. BRYCE:That is a different matter altogether. The position of Cyprus is a very peculiar one.

    ANDERBY CHURCH SCHOOL, LINCOLNSHIRE.
    MR. TALBOT:I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether there is at Anderby Church School, Lincolnshire, a porch which is used as a cloakroom; whether, nevertheless, the Department have ordered an additional porch and cloakroom, either separate or combined; whether the existing porch measures 7½ feet by 51½ feet; and whether that is sufficient for a school with an average attendance of 36?
    MR. ACLAND:The existing porch at this school measures 7½ feet by 4½ feet, and was considered by Her Majesty's Inspector to be insufficient. The managers have submitted plans for a new porch and cloakroom combined, which are now under consideration. The present porch seems hardly large enough for a cloakroom, even for so small a school, but if the managers press to be allowed to retain it unaltered I will consider the matter further.

    SALMON FISHING PROSECUTIONS AT OBAN.
    SIR D. MACFARLANE:I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether
    1262
    his attention has been called to the case of Colin Carmichael, Colin M'Intyre, John Mackenzie, and Donald M'Tavish, of Oban, who were tried on the 1st of August, 1893, on a charge of fishing for salmon, and fined £3 8s. 9d. each, including costs, or 14 days' imprisonment; whether he is aware that Mackenzie and M'Tavish paid their fines; that M'Intyre and Carmichael, being unable to do so, offered themselves at the expiry of 14 days to undergo the alternative of imprisonment; and that the sentence of imprisonment was held over these two men until the end of June this year, when they were suddenly apprehended and put in prison; and whether it is lawful or according to practice to keep a sentence of this kind hanging over men for nearly a year?
    MR. J. B. BALFOUR:My information is that Mackenzie and M'Tavish paid their tines, and that M'Intyre and Carmichael failed to do so, but that in the course of last winter they offered to undergo the sentence of imprisonment, to which the Governor of the gaol declined to give effect, as he had no warrant. They were recently apprehended and lodged in prison. The course which has been taken is certainly very unusual, and I have communicated with the Clerk to the District Board to ask for further explanation. I may remind my hon. Friend that prosecutions of this kind do not precede at the instance of the Crown.

    LOCH TARBERT FISHERIES.
    SIR D. MACFARLANE:I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if his attention has been called to the refusal of Mr. Campbell, of Jura, to allow fishermen to land on the shores of Loch Tarbert, Jura, material for the curing of fish, and thus practically prohibit the fishing industry in that neighborhood; and if landed proprietors are entitled to refuse the use of the foreshores to fishermen and fish curers?
    MR. J. B. BALFOUR:I have no further information in regard to the facts than is conveyed in the question, but I may say that fishermen have by statute a right to use any land adjoining the sea shore, which may be at the time waste and uncultivated, for purposes incidental to the conduct of their enterprise.
    SIR D. MACFARLANEasked if a proprietor was not liable to a penalty of £100 for refusing permission to the fishermen?
    MR. J. B. BALFOUR:I am not aware of that.

    THE COREAN DIFFICULTY.
    SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT:I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any reply has been received from the Governments of China and Japan to the offer of mediation made by Her Majesty's Government; and whether he can give the House any information as to the alleged outbreak of hostilities?
    SIR E. GREY:No offer of mediation has been made, but Her Majesty's Government have in concert with other Powers, given friendly advice both at Pekin and Tokio in the interests of peace. We have not heard that war has been declared; but some Japanese war vessels have captured a Chinese vessel and sunk a transport. Accounts as to the origin of this encounter are conflicting.

    THE REGISTRATION OF CYCLES.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that in cases of accident in public thoroughfares, in which persons riding bicycles and tricycles are concerned, such persons frequently give a false name and address; and whether he will consider the propriety of taking such measures as may be open to him to cause all bicycles and tricycles to be registered and numbered in such a way and under such conditions as would ensure the identification of their owners, either by such a system as is now applied to hackney carriages, or otherwise?
    MR. ASQUITH:I have no doubt that false names and addresses are sometimes given by persons riding bicycles and tricycles. I have before stated that the proposal to number cycles, with a view to their easy identification, is worthy of consideration; but from the growing number of this class of vehicle, and the rapidity with which they change hands, the question is surrounded with practical difficulties.

    LORD LIEUTENANCY OF LIMERICK.
    MR. O'KEEFFE:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state at what time the appointment to the vacant position of Lord Lieutenant and Custos Rotulorum for Limerick will be announced?
    MR. J. MORLEY:I hope that it will be announced very shortly.

    WAGES IN GOVERNMENT DOCKYARDS.
    SIR G. BADEN-POWELL:I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, in regard to the new Regulations for work and wages in the Government Dockyards, whether the Government has entered into an agreement, virtual or actual, that, in the case of day work rates, no person is to receive a less sum in wages for the reduced 48-hour week than was formerly paid for the 50 or 51-hour week; whether this standard of "what was formerly paid" is definitely adopted, as minimum rate of wages; and whether this standard is to be maintained without reference to the current rate of wages paid in such employments should that rate fall below this standard?
    THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. E. ROBERTSON,):(1) The Admiralty Instructions issued in the dockyards are—
    "In the case of all men and women paid on day pay rates no person is to receive less money for working 48 hours per week than for working (as heretofore) a mean of 50⅓ and 51 hours respectively."
    (2.)The standard weekly wage formerly paid to each man before the 48-hours working week was introduced has been adopted as a minimum rate of wages. (3.) The standard of wages in the Government Dockyards is maintained at the same authorised rate, irrespective of any fall in the rate of wages in the private trade.

    ZOBEHR PASHA.
    SIR G. BADEN-POWELL:I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the claims of Zobehr Pasha for compensation in regard to property in territories, rights over which have now been ceded by Her Majesty's Government in

    1265
    the Congo Treaty; whether such compensation was specifically promised by the late General Gordon, with the knowledge of Lord Cromer, on condition that Zobehr Pasha was proved not to have written a certain letter then in the possession of the Government; whether these claims have ever been fully investigated and reported upon by the judicial adviser of the Egyptian Government; and whether Her Majesty's Government will undertake that an independent judicial Commission shall issue to investigate and determine these claims, and thus carry out the undertaking entered into by the late General Gordon?
    SIR E. GREY:Her Majesty's Government are not aware of Zobehr Pasha having any claims in regard to territories affected by the Agreement of May 12 between Great Britain and the King of the Belgians, as Sovereign of the Congo State. As regards Zobehr's claim to compensation for property which was confiscated by the Egyptian Government 15 years ago, General Gordon did undertake to recommend that he should be compensated if it were proved that a certain letter, of which General Gordon had seen the original and retained copies, did not exist, and that his property had been unjustifiably confiscated. The Report of the interview at which this statement was made, which took place in Lord Cromer's presence, will be found in Egypt, No. 12,1884, pages 40 and 41. Her Majesty's Government are not aware whether these claims have been referred to the Judicial Advisers of the Egyptian Government, but they see no ground for their interference in respect of these claims of Zobehr Pasha, an Egyptian subject, against the Government.

    THE EXPLOSION IN THE SOLENT.
    SIR G. BADEN-POWELL:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in reference to the recent explosion on the Brambles, which caused such a lamentable loss of eight lives among the Cowes Trinity House employés, whether it is the general practice of the Trinity House still to use time fuses in the removal of wrecks by means of explosives instead of electric firing; what is the certified training in dealing with explosives required in the superintending officials; and what will
    1266
    be the character of the inquiry into this disaster?
    MR. ASQUITH:Colonel Ford, one of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Explosives, by my direction, is at present conducting an inquiry, under the Explosives Act, into all the circumstances attending this accident. The question of the kind of fuse employed and the competency of those superintending the operations will form part of the inquiry, and as soon as the Report is completed it will, as is usual in such cases, be laid before Parliament without delay.

    BAR PRACTICE AT QUARTER SESSIONS.
    MR. WEIR:On behalf of the hon. Member for Peterborough, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there is any Rule to prevent barristers whose fathers are Chairmen of Quarter Sessions practicing at such sessions?
    MR. ASQUITH:I am not aware of any such Rule which prevents barristers from practicing before their fathers.

    LEIGHLINBRIDGE (COUNTY CARLOW) NATIONAL SCHOOL.
    DR. KENNY:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will grant the Return asked for in Notice of Motion this day, in reference to the Leighlinbridge (County Carlow) Female National School?
    MR. J. MORLEY:I have no objection to this Return.
    MR. T. M. HEALY:Is it proposed to give in this Return as a State Paper the "Report of the National Teachers' (Ireland) Organization on the dismissal of the female teachers of the Leighlinbridge National School"?
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, this Return was a matter which the Commissioners of National Education thought in their judgment should be granted, and they thought the head in the Return referred to was quite fair to be included.

    WAGES AT THE ROYAL VICTORIA YARD AT DEPTFORD.
    MR. FISHER:On behalf of the hon. Member for Deptford, I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether the coopers employed under the Admiralty, particularly those in the

    1267
    Royal Victoria Yard at Deptford, have, as the result of a Memorial requesting an increase of wages, been paid since 26th March last until Friday 20th July at the rate of 5s. a day for day-work instead of 4s. 4d., the rate previous to their Memorial; and whether orders have lately been issued that these men's pay be at once reduced to the former rate of 4s. 4d.; if so, for what reason has any change been made?
    MR. E. ROBERTSON:The large majority of the coopers, although only receiving 4s. 4d. a day substantive pay, are in receipt of pay for piece-work, earning up to 42s. a week, but the rate of pay on which their pensions had been calculated was 4s. 4d. a day, or 26s. a week. The Treasury have lately consented to this rate being raised for pension purposes to 30s. a week in the case of men earning an average of that amount. A misunderstanding arose in communicating this decision to the Yard who have actually paid the men 5s. a day for those days on which they were not working piece-work. It has been necessary to correct this mistake.

    RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE IN HYDE PARK.
    MR. W. JOHNSTON:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the attacks make in Hyde Park on Mr. Job Williams, on Thursday night the 26th instant, by Roman Catholic mobs, in consequence of his utterances concerning Roman Catholicism; and whether freedom of speech, which is extended there to the expression of all manner of opinions, will also be secured to those who deal with questions of a controversial character affecting the doctrines and principles of the Reformation?
    MR. ASQUITH:For some two or three weeks ago Mr. Williams has held meetings in Hyde Park, in which he denounces in strong language the Roman Catholic religion. At the same time, another gentleman has spoken at another meeting and denounced the Protestant religion. [Mr. W. JOHNSTON: That is only fair.] Mr. Williams appears to have commenced the controversy and to have used strong language, and it became necessary for the police to interfere in order to prevent violence. As far as the
    1268
    Regulations of the park with regard to public meetings are concerned freedom of speech will be secured as far as possible.
    MR. W. JOHNSTON:Have any attacks been made upon the speakers who have denounced Protestantism?
    [No answer was given.]

    NAVAL SERVICE ON THE AUSTRALIAN STATION.
    MR. GOURLEY:I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that considerable anonymous discontent exists among the crews of the Curacoa, Rapid, and Lizard, in consequence of their being compulsorily detained on the Australian Station beyond the usual period; whether the Admiralty have received any information that one of the vessels, the Curacoa, is in an unsea-worthy condition, and must be docked before returning home; and will he state when these ships were last docked, and the tenour of the Report as to their condition in hulls and machinery?
    SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH:"Anonymous discontent" seems a somewhat nebulous phrase. But if anonymous letters have reached my hon. Friend, I would suggest to him that it is not desirable in the best interests of our Navy to give public currency to such un vouched complaints, of which, obviously, the Admiralty can take no notice. No reason exists for any discontent, as I showed by the answer which I gave on June 1 to a question on the same subject from my hon. Friend. The Curaçoa is in a seaworthy condition, otherwise she would not have been retained on the station. She and the Lizard were last docked in November, 1893; the Rapid in November, 1892. They are all sheathed vessels. Their hulls and machinery have all been reported in good condition.

    THE VENTILATION OF THE HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.
    MR. WEIR:I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if he will state whether the gases from the drainage of the Houses of Parliament are still liberated into the upcast shaft which ventilates the Chamber, notwithstanding the alterations and improvements which were made consequent upon the 1891

    1269
    Report; whether his attention has been called to the evidence of Mr. John Taylor, Surveyor to the Office of Works, before the Select Committee on House of Commons (Ventilation), 1891, in which he stated that there might sometimes be a back draught, and sewer gas would then come down the shaft, and that there are occasions when the current is distinctly downwards in a shaft; whether he is aware that the vitiated air from the building generally and sewer gas in the upcast shaft has, under certain conditions, a tendency to enter the Chamber, to the detriment of the health of the Members and the officials; and whether steps will be taken to remedy this serious state of matters during the Recess?
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. H. GLADSTONE,):It is a fact that vitiated air from a part of the drainage system of the Houses of Parliament is liberated into the upcast shaft which draws off the foul air from this Chamber. But since the recent remodeling of the drainage the furnaces in the exhaust shafts are kept burning day and night throughout the year, maintaining a constant and powerful upward current. There is now, therefore, no tendency whatever for any vitiated air or sewer gas to enter the Chamber from the upcast shaft in any state of the atmosphere. Mr. Taylor explains to me that his evidence in 1891 had reference only to what might occur in a shaft in which an upward current is not constantly maintained by artificial means.

    PROSECUTIONS FOR DRUNKENNESS AT BOYLE.
    MR. TULLY:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that it is the practice of the police in the township of Boyle to prosecute in the Petty Sessions Court persons guilty within the township of drunkenness and other offences against the Towns Improvement (Ireland) Acts, but whose places of residence are outside the town; and whether, as the fines go to relieve the town rates when the prosecutions are brought in the Town Court, he will direct the Constabulary to bring cases of this nature in the Borough Court, in accordance with the provisions of "The Towns Improvement (Ireland) Act, 1854"?
    MR. J. MORLEY:The rule is that in cases where the offender lives outside the town, or the address is unknown, the police prosecute in their own name before the Magistrates in Petty Sessions, and not in the Town Court All other offences are tried before the Town Court. This rule operates generally throughout Ireland, and I am advised that it should not be altered.

    NEW LONDONDERRY ASYLUM.
    SIR T. LEA:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether the Committee from the Board of Control, when visiting the sites at Dungiven and Derry for the proposed new asylum, did on that occasion inspect the site offered at Coleraine; and, if not, will he explain why; (2) if the site at Coleraine has been recommended as the most suitable by eeveral representative bodies in the county as the most central in County Londonderry; (3) whether he is aware that the Grand Jury and other bodies in the county are nearly unanimous in their opposition to the site proposed at Granshaw; (4) and if, under these circumstances, the Board of Control will hold a public inquiry into the matter before deciding where the asylum should be built?
    MR. J. MORLEY:The Board of Control is making careful inquiry relative to the sites offered for the new asylum. The Committee appointed by the Board to visit sites inspected only that which had been recommended by the Board of Governors at Granshaw, and those at Dungiven and Limavady, which had been brought under their notice by persons interested in those localities. (2) No site at Coleraine was recommended as the most suitable and central in the County Londonderry, but if the inquiry which is being made as to the most convenient and suitable position for an asylum for the district renders it desirable an inspection will be made of the site offered near that town. (3) The Board has not been informed that the Grand Jury and other bodies in the county are nearly unanimous in their opposition to the site proposed at Granshaw. (4) The Board does not consider it will be necessary to hold a public inquiry into the matter, but will give any

    1271
    representation made to it on the subject the most careful consideration.

    THE GUBERNADOR EXPLOSION.
    SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT:I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Brazilian Government have given any compensation for the death of the three British naval officers who were killed in September, 1893, by the explosion on Gubernador Island?
    SIR E. GREY:The Brazilian Government have not given any compensation for the death of the three officers referred to. It is impossible to deal with this claim until the cause of the explosion is known, and we are still waiting for a Report of what can be ascertained.
    SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT:Have the British Government asked for compensation?
    SIR E. GREY:We inquired as to the cause of the explosion, and were told that it was an accident. Unless other information is obtained, we cannot claim compensation.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,):I beg to give notice that to-morrow I will move a Resolution with the view of expediting the proceedings on the Evicted Tenants Bill. The terms of the Resolution I will lay on the Table of the House in the course of the afternoon, so that hon. Members will be able to make themselves acquainted with the details of its terms.
    MR. THORNTON:Will the House sit on Monday next?
    SIR W. HARCOURT:I am afraid we cannot take Bank Holidays yet.
    MR. J. LOWTHER:Will the Resolution be the first business, and will the Report on the Vote on Account follow it?
    SIR W. HARCOURT:Yes.
    MR. CHAPLIN:I would remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that on the last occasion when a Vote on Account was taken, the Debate was brought to a close by the application of the Closure when an Amendment, practically amounting to a Vote of Censure on one of the Ministers, was about to be brought on, and I would
    1272
    ask whether, if the occasion should arise to-day, an opportunity will be given to Members of the Opposition for bringing forward such a Motion?
    SIR W. HARCOURT:If there is to be a Vote of Censure on the Government, it can be put early, so that the decision of the House may be taken upon it.
    MR. CHAPLIN:In the event of the Motion for which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given notice taking up a large part of the time of the House, and probably occupying the greater part of to-morrow, will adequate time be given for the discussion of the Report stage of the Vote on Account?
    SIR W. HARCOURT:I am notable to give more time to-morrow than will be available on that day, because the Report stage must be concluded to-morrow in order that Her Majesty's consent to it may be obtained on Wednesday.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL:May I ask when the Government proposes to go on with the Evicted Tenants Bill?
    SIR W. HARCOURT:Immediately after the Vote on Account—on Wednesday.

MOTION.
  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND) (LEIGHLINBRIDGE FEMALE SCHOOL).

    MOTION FOR A RETURN.
    DR. KENNYmoved for copies of the following Papers:—

    "(a)Report of the National Teachers' (Ireland) Organization on the dismissal of the female teacher of the Leighlinbridge (County Carlow) National School;

    (b)Copy of Complaint which the manager of said school, the Rev. J. Connolly, P.P., made to the Commissioners of National Education (Ireland) on publication of said Reports;

    (c)Copy of Communication addressed by the secretaries of the National Board to the school managers of the three teachers whose conduct was complained of;

    (d)Copies of the Explanations offered by those teachers, and also of the Communications from their managers on the same subject; and

    (e)Minute of the Action taken by the Board in regard to those teachers, with the date on which the cases were decided."

    MR. T. M. HEALYobjected that some of the information proposed to be included in the Return was

    1273
    non-official, and be thought that an opportunity should be given to the other side to state their case.
    DR. KENNYsaid, he could not understand the opposition. The National Board was quite willing to grant the Return. The only reason could be to exclude some portion of light upon a matter which had caused a great deal of anxiety to persons solicitous for the well-being of a large class of Her Majesty's subjects.
    MR. J. MORLEY:I was informed at first there was some objection to a portion of this Return, and in consequence of that I intended to take into consideration the granting it. But I have since learned that the objection locally is not a strong one, and, therefore, I have agreed to the Return.
    Motion agreed to.

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.

    SUPPLY—COMMITTEE.
    SUPPLY,—considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)

    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1894–5.

      THIRD VOTE ON ACCOUNT.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a further sum, not exceeding £3,583,150, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charges for the following Civil Service and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1895, namely:—

    CIVIL SERVICES

      CLASS I.
      £

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

      3,000

      Peterhead Harbour

      3,000

      Rates on Government Property

      10,000

      Public Works and Buildings, Ireland

      20,000

      Railways, Ireland

      20,000

      CLASS II.
      United Kingdom and Ireland—

      House of Lords, Offices

      7,000

      House of Commons, Offices

      7,000

      Treasury and Subordinate Departments?

      10,000

      Home Office and Subordinate Departments

      10,000

      Foreign Office

      7,000

      Colonial Office

      5,000

      Privy Council Office and Subordinate Departments

      1,000

      CLASS III.
      United Kingdom and England:—

      Law Charges

      12,000

      Miscellaneous Legal Expenses

      3,000

      Supreme Court of Judicature

      30,000

      Land Registry

      1,000

      County Courts

      2,000

      Police Courts (London and Sheerness)

      1,000

      Police, England and Wales

      5,000

      Prisons, England and the Colonies

      60,000

      Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Great Britain

      - -

      Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum

      4,000

      Scotland:—

      Law Charges and Courts of Law

      10,000

      Register House, Edinburgh

      3,500

      Crofters Commission

      1,000

      Prisons, Scotland

      10,000

      Ireland—

      Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions

      6,000

      Supreme Court of Judicature, and other Legal Departments

      12,000

      Land Commission

      10,000

      County Court Officers, &c.

      16,000

      Dublin Metropolitan Police, &c.

      10,000

      Constabulary

      150,000

      Prisons, Ireland

      15,000

      Reformatory and Industrial Schools

      - -

      Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum

      - -

      CLASS IV.
      United Kingdom and England—

      £

      Public Education, England and Wales

      850,000

      Science and Art Department, United Kingdom

      100,000

      British Museum

      10,000

      National Gallery

      - -

      National Portrait Gallery

      - -

      Scientific Investigations, &c., United Kingdom

      - -

      Universities and Colleges, Great Britain, and Intermediate Education, Wales

      - -

      London University

      - -

      Scotland—

      Public Education

      50,000

      National Gallery

      500

      Ireland—

      Public Education

      50,000

      Endowed Schools Commissioners

      - -

      National Gallery

      400

      Queen's Colleges

      500

      CLASS V.
      Diplomatic Services and Consular Services

      30,000

      Slave Trade Services

      - -

      Colonial Services, including South Africa

      20,000

      Subsidies to Telegraph Companies, &c.

      5,000

      CLASS VI.
      Superannuation and Retired Allowances

      50,000

      Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions, &c.

      - -

      Savings Banks and Friendly Societies Deficiency

      - -

      Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances, Great Britain

      500

      Pauper Lunatics, Ireland

      - -

      Hospitals and Charities, Ireland

      7,000

      CLASS VII.
      Temporary Commissions

      2,500

      Miscellaneous Expenses

      250

      Diseases of Animals

      50,000

      Highlands and Islands of Scotland

      5,000

      Repayments to the Local Loans Fund

      - -

      Hobart (Tasmania) Exhibition, 1894–5

      - -

      Total for Civil Services

      £1,903,150

      REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
      Customs

      130,000

      Inland Revenue

      300,000

      Post Office

      1,000,000

      Post Office Packet Service

      - -

      Post Office Telegraphs

      250,000

      Total for Revenue Departments

      £1,680,000

      Grand Total

      £3,583,150

      SIR A. ROLLITsaid, he wished to call particular attention to the question of rates of Government property, and in order to raise the point he would move to reduce the Vote by £100. Recently the House had been discussing the question of the comparative taxation of real and personal property, and an adjustment had been made which had commended itself to the general feeling of the House by the equalisation of duties in respect of it. But there were still some anomalies, and among those was the complaint of real property that it was subject to undue pressure in respect of local taxation. He thought there was a primâ facie case for inquiry into this matter, and he hoped after the pledge of the Secretary for India a conclusion fair to both real and personal property would be arrived at. But there were other anomalies which hardly needed inquiry so palpable were they, and among these was the necessity of resorting to a different system in connection with the rating of real property. It had often been said in the course of discussions in the House on labour and other questions that the Government should set an example, and he would ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he did not think that in relation to the rating of Government property a better example might be set by the State, with a view to the better adjustment of the burdens of local taxation on real property. It was said with truth that the Government were in possession of a peculiar and very profitable privilege in assessing the value of their own property so far as local rates were concerned. Of course, if the values were not properly assessed other owners of real property had to bear an undue proportion of the local burdens. The valuations were made by the Treasury valuer, and, from a recent Return presented to the House, the under-valuations of property belonging to Government were such as grievously to affect other owners of real property. There were some typical instances which indicated a very vast difference of opinion between the Treasury Valuer and the valuers for the Local Authorities. The complaint came not only from individual owners of real estate, but also from the London County Council, and certainly if the figures which had been published were correct there could be no doubt whatever

      1277
      that the under-valuation of Government properties cast a heavy burden on other owners of property. Every parish in London contained more or less Government property, and was consequently more or less affected by its under-valuation. He would take four or five instances and leave it to the Committee to say whether or not these Government properties were properly valued. His first case was Somerset House. The Government valuation of the site and buildings was £7,000 a year, whereas the County Council valuation of the site only was no less than £27,450—or, practically, four times the amount fixed by the Treasury Valuer. The Government valuation of the British Museum was £3,500 a year for site and buildings, as against the County Council valuation for the site alone of £14,700 a year; the Government valuation of the National Gallery for site and buildings was £2,000 a year, while the County Council valuation for the site alone was £6,880; in the case of the Treasury buildings the respective valuations were £5,800, against £15,386, and in the case of the Foreign Office and adjoining Government buildings £11,600, against £32,530. These figures spoke for themselves. No one who was at all familiar with the value of property in London could conceive that the valuation by the Government for rating purposes could be contended for as fair in any instance. Speaking generally, it seemed to him that the conclusion at which he had arrived—namely, that most Government property was undervalued by three-fourths of its true value—was right, and that it was a matter which called loudly for redress and readjustment. He had felt bound to draw attention to this matter in the interests of ratepayers generally, and he therefore proposed to move the reduction of the Vote by £100.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Item (Class I., Vote 13), of £10,000, for rates on Government Property, be reduced by £100."—(Sir A. Rollit.)
      SIR J. GOLDSMIDsaid, he wished heartily to support the Amendment. There were some parishes in London where there were large blocks of Government property, the proportion being nearly as high as one-fourth Government property and three-fourths private property, and as the valuation of
      1278
      the Government property was sometimes as low as a quarter or a fifth, the remainder fell as an extra burden upon the ratepayers. That seemed to be extremely unfair. At one time it was the law that no rates should be charged upon Government property at all, but it was then pointed out that the Government buildings might be aggregated in three or four parishes, thereby doubling and even quadrupling the burden on a small number of ratepayers. In consequence, the Government of the day agreed to give a voluntary contribution to the local rates. He thought it would be much more fair if all Government property were rated exactly in the same way as private property, and he trusted the Government would adopt this solution of the difficulty.
      SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, one view of the question which justified an inquiry was that parishes and unions inter se contributed to the general burden in proportion to their total rateable value, and when total valuations were taken too low a value was put on one property and too high a value on another. For purposes of taxation and rateability the same standard ought to be adopted for all properties. He had been much struck by the figures quoted by the hon. Member for South Islington. Those who had had anything to do with valuations knew well that extravagant values were sometimes put on property, even by the London County Council, for the purpose of supporting particular propositions as against a private owner whose property was supposed to have increased in value, but he did not think it would be suggested that the valuations put on the Government property were excessive. Somerset House covered probably eight or ten acres of laud, if not more, and it was perfectly ridiculous to suggest that its rental value was only £7,000. He was not there to support the County Council valuations, but he did think it right to say—and he had often found himself unable to approve the proceedings of that body—that he had found their valuations made with extreme care and moderation. He hoped that this matter would be pressed home, and that the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who thoroughly understood the matter, would be able to give the Committee some assurance that there should not be merely an acknowledgment of the grievance,

      1279
      but also some practical suggestion for remedying it.
      MR. HANBURYsaid, he was glad that the question had been raised. It was one of principle as well as of detail, and he could not understand why the Government should invariably claim to be treated in a different manner to the private individual. They learned in the Debates on the Finance Bill how differently the Government treated its debtors as compared with the treatment they would get from private creditors. He objected to the principle altogether, because, after all, the Government were only acting on behalf of the public, and the question of rating was a question between the general and the local public. He hoped that these Government exemptions would soon be put an end to altogether, and he thought that if a private individual acted on these questions in the same manner as the Government, he would be accused of lacking common honesty. He hoped the Amendment would be pressed to a Division. In his opinion, the House ought to lay down a rule that Government property ought to be rated on exactly the same basis as private property.
      MR. J. ROWLANDSsaid, he wished to endorse all that had been said by previous speakers on this question, and he hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would give a favourable answer to the appeal that had been made to him. The parish of St. Luke afforded a typical instance of the undue burdening of private property owners. It was a small parish of about 220 acres, but in it they had a Militia barracks, a local police court, a post office, and other public buildings, which paid by no means a fair proportion of the local rates. In addition to that, they had three large drill halls, including that belonging to the City of London. These were exempted from rates, and he ventured to say that the exemptions were now becoming intolerable. If all property were assessed in the ordinary way, then, and then alone, justice would be done.
      THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,)said, the hon. Member for Preston seemed to speak as if the Government were not paying a fair amount towards the rates by reason of the under-valuation of public buildings. That was not correct, and
      1280
      there was considerable misapprehension abroad as to the way in which Government properties were valued. He believed, however, that the assessment committee in nearly every parish considered the amount contributed by the Government to be reasonable, and he could cite numerous letters to that effect.
      SIR R. WEBSTER:Is that the case with regard to Somerset House?
      SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, that when he came to deal with that instance he thought he would be able to show that that statement applied to it. No doubt the time might come when all Government property would be valued for the purposes of local rates exactly in the same way as private property. This had been a matter of steps. At one time Government property was not assessed at all, and it was only within the last 35 years that the Government had contributed to the rates at all. There were two cases in which public buildings were only liable to a limited extent, such, for instance, as the Royal Courts of Justice, which were exempted by Act of Parliament from assessment beyond a certain amount, and possibly it might be well for the Government to give up their rights in that respect and place these Courts of Law on the same footing as the other Government property. In regard to Somerset House, his hon. Friend was certainly under a misapprehension. He stated it was rated at £7,000. As a matter of fact, it was valued at £12,000 gross, and that figure was arrived at in 1891 in the following way:—King's College, which occupied the eastern wing of Somerset House, and for which the Government were in no way responsible, was assessed at that time at £3,000 by the Surveyor and Assessment Authorities of the parish, and was regarded as being about one-fifth of the block, and they therefore agreed to fix the value of the remaining four-fifths of the buildings at exactly the same rate. The Government proportion was, therefore, fixed at £12,000 gross and £10,000 net. The hon. and learned Member for the Isle of Wight had asked if the assessment committee were satisfied. Well, the clerk of that body wrote on the 30th May, 1891—
      "I have now to inform you that the assessment committee, having considered the propositions then agreed to, have resolved to accept the

      1281
      same as being, on the whole, fair and reasonable."
      Next, he came to the National Gallery and the British Museum. The former was rated not at £2,000, but at £3,600 gross and £3,000 net, and the latter at a similar amount. Now, he would remind the House that by an Act passed in 1843 Museums and Galleries and other properties used for science and art purposes were exempted from rates. Had the Treasury, therefore, claimed their full rights, they need not have paid on these buildings. But the local Rating Authorities in each instance had concurred in the view taken by the Government. In the case of the British Museum assessment committee of the united parishes of St. Giles-in-the-Fields and George, Bloomsbury, wrote—
      "I am directed to inform you that the valuation of the Museum and Government property in these parishes, as agreed upon at our meeting here on the 30th ultimo, is regarded as a satisfactory basis for the Treasury contribution to the local rates in respect of such property."
      And, again, in regard to the National Gallery, the assessment committee of the Strand Union wrote—
      "The assessment committee having considered the valuation of that and other property agreed to at a preliminary meeting have resolved to accept the same as being, on the whole, fair and reasonable."
      SIR A. ROLLIT:What is the allusion to preliminary meetings?
      SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, these were meetings between the Treasury and the local valuers. His hon. Friend had told the House that the Treasury buildings were valued at £5,800. As a fact the valuation of those buildings was settled in 1884 at £6,960 gross and £5,800 rateable, and the assessment was confirmed by the Vestry, the Overseers, and the Finance Committee of the united parishes of St. Margaret and St. John, Westminster, whose clerk wrote under date August 1st, 1884—
      "I am now directed to acquaint you that the proposals made by you in respect of the Government contribution in lieu of the rates on the Crown properties have been fully approved by the Overseers and by the Finance Committee of the united parishes, to whom the matter has been reported."
      The case of the Foreign Office looked very bad on the face of it; but there was ample explanation. The figures were settled in the year 1878 at £11,520 gross and. £9,600 rateable,
      1282
      and they had thus remained ever since. The reason that the Foreign Office appeared to pay so small a contribution was because the rate of £11,520 did not include the rateable value of the India Office, which was paid for out of Indian funds.
      MR. HANBURY:Has the India Office a separate valuer for this?
      SIR J. T. HIBBERT:That he could not say. But he might tell the hon. Member that the Vestry had approved the 1878 valuation in these terms:—
      "I have been directed to inform you that the proposed basis is quite satisfactory to the Vestry."
      He could only say, in conclusion, that the Treasury had no desire to stand strictly on their legal rights, or to deal unfairly in the matter in any way. Whenever a complaint had been made to them they had invariably at once directed that the question should be looked into, and he could only again assure hon. Members that they were prepared to do their best to act fairly and liberally in the matter. As to the question raised in regard to St. Luke's, he thought the hon. Member for Finsbury was under a misapprehension, and he would find that the Government properties there were assessed if he would look into the matter. He could only say, in reply to the hon. Gentleman who had brought the question forward, that the subject was one the Treasury would give every consideration to. If only out of consideration for the poor ratepayer they would be glad to do what they could to place the valuation of Government property on a better footing.
      SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, that during the last 10 years he had perhaps seen more of this question of the valuation of Government property than any other Member of the House, and he might, therefore, be allowed to say a word or two. The right hon. Gentleman's answer was, as usual, of course, most courteous and considerate, and in many respects satisfactory. Still, there were one or two questions which appeared to hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House to arise on the statistical particulars he had placed before the Committee. If the income of Somerset House was approximately estimated at £10,000 for assessment purposes, then the sum of £9,000 for the

      1283
      block of buildings in which the Foreign Office was situated—excluding the India Office—would appear to be not unfair.
      SIR J. T. HIBBERT:The Foreign Office is put at £11,520.
      SIR R. TEMPLE:I understood that £9,600 is the net amount.
      SIR J. T. HIBBERT:Yes; that is so.
      SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, that if Somerset House was put at £10,000, £9,000 could not be unfair for the Foreign Office block, nor £5,000 for the Treasury block. He was not sure that he had caught the figure for the India Office.
      SIR J. T. HIBBERT:I did not mention any figure for that, as I have not got it. I can ascertain the amount.
      SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, he would venture to commend the India Office to the kind and merciful consideration of the Treasury, because he could not but apprehend that while the buildings belonging to the British Government in London were very carefully protected from the rate collector, similar protection was not afforded to the India Office where the interest was not so directly that of the British Government. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be as careful about the rateable value of the India Office—which he thought was chargeable to India—as he had evidently been with regard to all the other blocks of buildings belonging to the Government. It seemed to hon. Gentlemen on that (the Opposition) side of the House that the sums set down for the National Gallery and the British Museum were too low. Surely £3,500 for the British Museum, and £2,500 for the National Gallery—exclusive of the new National Portrait Gallery—was not enough.
      SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, that in the case of the National Gallery and the British Museum, under Statute exemption from the payment of rates could be claimed.
      SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, he supposed it was for that reason that the Local Authorities so complacently acquiesced in the amounts paid by the Treasury. They saw, no doubt, that they should not look a gift horse in the mouth, but should accept whatever the Treasury were pleased to vouchsafe. Surely the time
      1284
      had come when the Government must take steps—legislative or otherwise—for terminating these exemptions. There could be no reason why buildings for science and art should be exempted any more than the Law Courts, or the Law Courts any more than the science and art buildings. He submitted that the time had come when these exemptions should be altogether terminated. Surely, with regard to assessment generally, the fact that the Local Authorities had acquiesced in what seemed a most inadequate rating, pointed to the fact that the time was fast arriving when Government buildings ought to be rated just in the same manner as private property. He had spoken very strongly on this subject a year and a-half ago. The Assessing Authorities in London, who were most competent persons, dealing with private property of which the annual value was estimated at from £33,000,000 to £34,000,000—he supposed the heaviest assessment of its kind in the world—ought to be able to assess Government buildings accurately. There would always be a fear, whilst the Government Valuers were the Assessing Authority, that some sort of favour was shown to Government buildings. The Government buildings in London were large and numerous, and they ought to bear fully their share of local taxation. Indepenpently of the buildings, the sites were amongst the most valuable in London. If they were not occupied by Government buildings they would be immediately taken for private buildings of the utmost splendour, every one of which would be assessed at full value. Therefore, it was an injustice to the ratepayers of London that there should be any exception in favour of Government property, and there would always be some apprehension of favour being shown to such property so long as the Government set itself up as judge in its own case.
      MR. BARTLEYsaid, he thought this question affected London more than anywhere else. It was an important matter, not only as regarded the Estimates, but in connection with the Bill now before the House for the equalisation of rates. It must be remembered that where these Government buildings existed the population was largely reduced. Take the district of Westminster. The fact that Govern-

      1285
      ment buildings occupied so large an area, and that the population was, consequently, so small, would be responsible for the district paying so much under the equalisation scheme. The parishes, it seemed to him, would suffer in two ways. In the first place, they would not get what was due to them in consequence of the low rating of Government property; and, in the next place, their population was considerably reduced, and so their receipts from the Equalisation Fund would be reduced in proportion. The Local Authorities had to be satisfied with the existing assessment, whether they liked it or not; but it was absurd to say that the British Museum, assessed at £3,520 a year, was assessed at its value.
      SIR F. S. POWELLsaid, that if the complaint was great in regard to the rateable value of Government buildings in the Metropolis he was sure it was no less great in reference to similar property in country towns. Take, for instance, the palatial Post Office building in Manchester, that now being erected in Liverpool, and the Government buildings in Leeds, and his own borough of Wigan. If hon. Members desired to be just they must apply their remarks to Government property in country towns as well as that in the Metropolis. It was quite time that a thorough system of equalisation of rates was adopted. He remembered the Debates which had taken place some years ago on this subject, and was confident that the desire of the Government in those days had been to bring about an equalisation of rates.
      MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, there was really a very serious principle underlying this matter, or rather want of principle, in the claim of the Government to be exempt from all the ordinary rules and laws that bound Her Majesty's subjects, even when they were playing the part for which those rules and laws were enacted. When the Government became possessors of houses they should pay rates for them like private individuals. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury must be aware that it was no answer to read to the Committee a letter from a Vestry saying that they acquiesced in the valuation. Of course they acquiesced. They must thank the Treasury for what-
      1286
      ever they could get. If they got nothing they would still have to thank the Government. If it was admitted that the Government should pay rates for the buildings they occupied, it must also be admitted that the value or rating of the buildings should be ascertained in the ordinary manner through the ordinary authorities. There was no escape from that, and he could have hoped that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. T. Hibbert) would have signalised his career at the Treasury by inaugurating this simple act of justice as between the Government and the ratepayer. However, he had risen to say that the extent to which the Government claimed exemptions and immunities was becoming perfectly monstrous. They became newspaper proprietors and refused to register their newspaper; they became the owners of inhabited houses and would not pay the rates; they undertook the delivery of letters, and if they lost one, or if one of their employés lost one purposely, they refused to compensate the owner; and it was within his knowledge that Her Majesty's Government refused to perform duties placed upon them by Parliament, and resisted attempts to compel them on the ground that an action could not be brought against the Queen—which did not really mean the Queen, but some subordinate clerk who failed in his duty. These immunities were becoming scandalous. It was monstrous in the question under discussion that a person who was asked to pay a tax should fix the amount of that tax himself. It was high time all these claims to immunity and special treatment were given up. If they wanted to be considered honest the Government should pay their rates like honest men.
      SIR A. ROLLITsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had not only promised to consider the subject, but had expressed his personal opinion that some of the exemptions should be modified. The right hon. Gentleman in that had disarmed opposition, and he (Sir A. Rollit) would, therefore, rest content with having made a protest. He would merely point out that in Islington the Government buildings were Pentonville Prison, Holloway Prison, the County Court, the Post Office Sorting Office, Telegraph Factory, Office of Surveyor of Taxes, and Tele-

      1287
      graph Office, all of which were valued at £4,246. He begged to withdraw his Amendment.
      MR. HANBURYsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman had said that all science and art buildings were exempt from rating.
      SIR J. T. HIBBERT:That is by Act of Parliament.
      MR. HANBURYsaid, he understood that the Treasury did not exercise its full authority in these matters, but did allow science and art buildings to be rated under certain circumstances. Did that apply to science and art buildings in the provinces as well as in London?
      SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, he could not say. He knew it applied to the National Gallery and the British Museum. He would, however, ascertain the full particulars by to-morrow.
      Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
      Original Question again proposed.
      MR. SWEETMANsaid, he wished to bring before Her Majesty's Government the case of Wicklow Harbour. The Secretary to the Treasury had had it brought under his notice, and, no doubt, he would be able to see his way to doing something. He (Mr. Sweetman) wished to take this opportunity, in the interest of his constituents, of stating a few facts for the consideration of the Government. Sir Alexander Rendel examined the harbour for the Commissioners, and reported on March 29. In this Report he stated—
      "At various points in the outer 250 feet, on both its land and sea faces, considerable caverns have been formed by the decay and absolute disappearance of portions of the concrete. In particular, a large cavern about 30 feet long and 8 feet high by 16 feet deep in the middle, has been formed on the land face, nearly opposite another of about the same length and depth, though not so high, on the sea face; and as the diver discovered an in-draught of water at the inner cavern, it is probable that there is a connection between them; that is to say, that the pier is at this point completely undermined.… The defects in the faces and base of the pier must be now causing a daily easier flow of water in and out of the works, and therefore an ever-increasing rapidity of chemical decay, and this decay, if not promptly arrested, can only, I fear, end in the fall at no distant date of at least that part of the pier not founded on rock."
      In a second part of this Report, in respect to the deposits between the pier and the shore, he said—
      1288
      "As this further accumulation of shingle threatens to continue until, possibly, it has filled up the whole of the harbour between the pier and the opposite shore, it is clear that, unless the port is to be allowed to fall into decay, measures must be taken to stop it; and the proper measures evidently are the construction of groynes in positions where the accumulation may take place without accompanying injury to the harbour."
      Now, the inhabitants of Wicklow had spent large sums of money on the harbour. In 1857 £12,000 was spent on it, which was obtained from private sources on the security of the Township of Wicklow, the interest upon which loan the Wicklow Township Commissioners were paying to the present time. By 1871 further works had been carried out at an outlay of £8,000, obtained from the Public Works Loan Commissioners; and in 1881 a loan of £40,000 was obtained from the Board of Public Works under the provisions of the Relief of Distress (Ireland) Acts, 1880, upon the security of five baronies. Up to the end of 1891 £16,257 was paid in discharge of this loan, of which the Harbour Commissioners from tolls paid a little under £1,000, and the baronies paid over £15,000. The expenses of this loan had therefore been practically borne by the cesspayers, and there was no chance of getting the baronies to guarantee any further loan. It was necessary that this harbour should be put in a proper state, as it was of great importance from a national as well as a local point of view. It was a harbour of refuge for coasting vessels—the only one between Kingstown and Wicklow, for ships could not get into Arklow. As a matter of public policy, therefore, the State should see that this harbour at Wicklow was not allowed to fall into total decay. Larger demands in the form of taxation were made from Ireland this year, which formed an especial ground for asking for consideration for this harbour.
      SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, that some time ago he was in correspondence with the Irish Board of Works in regard to this harbour. It was a large question and an important one; therefore, it was necessary to take time to consider it. He was sorry to hear the hon. Member say that there was no money in the baronies for the harbour, for that also was the position of the Government. They had no money in hand for work of this kind. They would, however,

      1289
      give full consideration to the matter, and he should be glad to advise with the hon. Member with regard to it.
      DR. KENNYsaid, he concurred in the appeal made by the hon. Member for Wicklow. He thought the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman was on the whole satisfactory, but he should like it to be a little more precise. It was to be hoped that when the matter was taken into consideration the right hon. Gentleman would bear in mind that unless the harbour were run out into deep water it would silt up. There was a large bank of sand outside which was shifted by varying winds, and unless they got the pier heads into deep water the harbour was bound to silt up. As the hon. Member had pointed out, this harbour was important from a national point of view—as a harbour of refuge, there being nothing of the kind between Wicklow and Kingstown.
      MR. HANBURYsaid that, with regard to the salaries to officials in the House of Lords, he should like to know what had been the result of the negotiations which he knew had been taking place between the Treasury and the House of Lords? He had to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury for the way he had fought the battle of the House of Commons in the matter, and for the support he had given to the Vote which, on an Amendment of his (Mr. Hanbury's), was carried last year for reducing these salaries by, he thought, £500. He knew that since then negotiations had been going on between the Treasury and the House of Lords; but he was not quite sure what the result was. In the Estimates this year they practically had no details whatever with regard to the House of Lords. He did not know what the real explanation of that might be, and under the circumstances it was desirable that they should have a full and distinct statement from the Secretary to the Treasury as to what was the position taken up in the matter. Last year it was shown that, while the duties of the officials of the other House were lighter than the duties of the officials of the House of Commons, the former were paid on a much more liberal scale. That was the reason for the passing of the Amendment to reduce the Vote for the salaries of the officials of
      1290
      the House of Lords. He understood that an understanding had been arrived at between the House of Lords and the Treasury to the effect that as new appointments were made the salaries of the House of Lords' officials should be put on a corresponding scale to those of the officials of the House of Commons. If that was so he thought it would be a very satisfactory termination of the controversy. He regretted, however, that there were no details of the House of Lords Vote in the Estimates, as it compelled them to vote very much in the dark. With regard to the retirement of officials, so far as he understood the matter, the House of Lords had gone even further than the House of Commons, as they had recognised the principle that their clerks should retire at 65 except in unusual circumstances, when they might hold office five years longer. In no case would they continue in office after 70 years of age. That, again, he considered a satisfactory result of what the House of Commons had done last year. But, as he had pointed out, they had got no information whatever to go on, and he should be glad if the Secretary to the Treasury would tell him what was the precise position of affairs.
      SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, that the hon. Member had made a correct statement of the position of affairs between the Treasury and the House of Lords. It was quite true there was no detailed statement of the Vote for the House of Lords, because the Estimates were presented in a form which the Treasury could not assent to. The Estimate exceeded by £693 the Vote agreed to last year, and the House of Lords were requested to alter their Estimate accordingly. The reply was not received in time to present the details to the House, therefore the Treasury were obliged to put in the total sum; but it was his intention to place a Paper on the Table showing how the money was to be expended, before the Vote was taken in the ordinary Estimates. The hon. Member could raise the question when the Vote came on in Supply. The House of Lords had agreed to place their clerks on the same basis of salary as the clerks of the House of Commons, and they intended to carry out considerable reductions as opportunities arose on new appointments. He believed the

      1291
      reductions they proposed would be of a very satisfactory kind. They had already, under the recommendations of the Lords Committee of 1889, effected a saving of £2,104 in one direction, and of £300 under another Vote. A sum of £2,400 had already been saved, and a further saving of a like amount would accrue as appointments fell in. As to retirement, it was correct that the House of Lords had agreed that retirement at the age of 65 should be compulsory for every clerk appointed by the Clerk of Parliaments. No doubt that would be satisfactory to the hon. Member. He had no communications to make on this subject from the House of Commons, the Treasury having received none from that House.
      MR. BARTLEYsaid, he wished to move a reduction of £100 in the Treasury Vote with respect to the salary of the First Lord, in order to call attention to the administration of the Civil List pensions in the granting of a pension of £200 to Professor Rhys-Davids as a student of Oriental literature. He (Mr. Bartley) had asked a question on this subject some little time ago, and he thought the Committee and the House at large should certainly understand a little more about the matter than they did at present. It would be in the recollection of the Committee that by special Act of Parliament a sum of £1,200 was given for distribution in pensions for special services. The question was whether these pensions were to be given to persons who were well off or only to the necessitous. The words in the Act were "such persons only as have just claims on the Royal beneficence," and he contended that the word "beneficence" distinctly showed that only poor persons were in contemplation. In 1834 there was a Debate in the House of Commons on the Pension List, and in that Debate a great number of the leading men of the day took a prominent part. A Resolution was proposed for the appointment of a Committee of the Commons to settle what would be a fair way of granting these pensions. Lord Althorp and others thought that this would be taking away the prerogative of the Government, who were responsible, and they objected to a Committee; but it was quite clear that the whole spirit of the Debate, and of the Resolution, and also of the Act framed upon it, was to
      1292
      show distinctly that these pensions were to be given to persons in necessitous circumstances. There was a discussion whether pensions should cease after they had once been granted, and Lord Althorp said that the strongest objection to the then list of pensions was that the names of several persons appeared upon it who, since their names were placed there, had obtained large incomes which rendered them unfit objects for Royal benevolence. He added that the change in their fortunes was a very strong and proper objection to their names being retained on the pension list, and said that if a case were made out of great abuse in regard to such a pension the Minister ought to be held strictly responsible. He thought he might appeal to both sides of the House to recognise that Civil List pensions were clearly meant to be given to persons of small means. Mrs. Cameron, the widow of Captain Lovett Cameron, whose services as an explorer were well-known, had been allowed a pension of only £50, while Lady Alice Portal, in recognition of the distinguished services of her late husband, Sir Gerald Portal, had been granted a pension of £150; but when it came to the case of Professor Rhys-Davids, a sixth part of the whole fund—namely, £200 a year—was granted to him. He (Mr. Bartley) was not going to say a word against this gentleman's ability as an Oriental scholar, but he wished to know why he had been picked out for this very large pension. He was a man of between 40 and 50 years of age. He had held an appointment in Ceylon, and why it was given up he (Mr. Bartley) did not profess to know. Professor Rhys-Davids came away from Ceylon and applied to Lord Kimberley for a pension, but Lord Kimberley did not consider the case. The Professor was the candidate for the office of Librarian at the India Office, but was not selected, as he (Mr. Bartley) understood, because of his recent history in connection with the appointment at Ceylon. Professor Rhys-Davids was Secretary of the Royal Asiatic Society, and he had been physically able to undertake a tour in America. He was just going to get married, and it was a most extraordinary thing that he should have been picked out for the pension. There was another Oriental scholar (Major H. G. Raverty), who was in the

      1293
      Public Service before Professor Rhys-Davids was born, and who had been promised one of these pensions for many years. The late Prime Minister had promised to consider his case. The Prime Minister was strictly responsible for the present appointment, and he (Mr. Bartley) emphatically said that the appointment was a political job; it was known everywhere to be a political job. Professor Rhys-Davids might be a great Oriental scholar, but he was a strong supporter of the present Government and had been prominent in that respect. This pension of £200 a year would not have been given to him if he had not been a strong political partisan. The system on which these pensions were awarded was not satisfactory, and if they were to be given for political reasons the sooner they were done away with the better. He did not think that in the past there had been any jobs in connection with these pensions, but that during the last 20 years both Liberal and Conservative Governments had made their awards very fairly. He was anxious to hear what his right hon. Friend (Sir J. T. Hibbert) would say in support of the appointment. He hoped his right hon. Friend would be able to make out a good case, but if not he thought the country should know that this pension was one of the grossest political jobs that had been perpetrated for many years.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That the Item (Class 2, Vote 3) of £10,000 for the Treasury and Subordinate Departments be reduced by £200, in respect of the salary of the First Lord of the Treasury."—(Mr. Bartley.)
      MR. BYLES:I understand that the hon. Member has just made a statement to the effect that Professor Rhys-Davids is a stout supporter of the present Government. I believe the hon. Gentleman is mistaken, and I have every reason to think his political faith is in agreement with that of the hon. Gentleman.
      MR. BARTLEY:I challenge the hon. Member to say emphatically whether that is the case. I say emphatically that it is not the case, and that he is a member of the National Liberal Club, and an active Member.
      MR. BYLES:I did not mean a Conservative, but that he is a supporter of
      1294
      the Opposition to the present Government in this respect: that he is a Liberal Unionist.
      MR. BARTLEY:I do not think—in fact, I know that that is not so—and I am certain the hon. Gentleman will not get up and say he knows it is a fact. There may be certain things about the National Liberal Club which Professor Rhys-Davids does not altogether approve of. No doubt he is one of those people who are somewhat troublesome all round, and that, I have no doubt, is why the pension has been granted to him.
      MR. HOWELLsaid, he knew Professor Rhys-Davids, and thought him a very able man, and well-deserving of the Royal Bounty as far as his merits were concerned. As regarded his political proclivities he (Mr. Howell) did not know what they were, but he did not think he had taken any part in political meetings—certainly he had taken no part in meetings in favour of the Liberal Party—since 1885. He (Mr. Howell) was rather sorry that this aspect of the case had been introduced, and thought the hon. Member had weakened his case very considerably in contending that the appointment smacked of a political job. The hon. Member would have had a much stronger case if he had confined himself to saying that, in view of Professor Rhys-Davids' present capacity for work, his present position and a great number of other things combined, he was not one of those persons who ought to have been considered in preference to other candidates for pensions. He (Mr. Howell) had had on two occasions within the past two years to apply to the Prime Minister on behalf of two men whose names were known in connection with public life for assistance out of the Royal Bounty. One was John Bedford Leno, a poet, who was in such feeble health that he was incapable of earning 1s. a day. When a small grant was made to him he was in receipt of about 5s. a week. The amount he received was a sum—not a pension—of about £50. The other case was that of Mr. Lloyd Jones, who was well known to many Members of the House as a very earnest and able worker, as an able and eloquent speaker, and as a man who for 35 or 40 years had devoted himself entirely to the welfare of the working classes.

      1295
      When Mr. Lloyd Jones died he left two daughters in very ill-health and very straitened circumstances, and a sum of £75 was granted to those daughters. The hon. Gentleman opposite would have a very strong case if he compared these two grants with the pension of £200 a year given to an able-bodied man. He thought the House ought to insist above everything that in cases of this kind the circumstances of the recipient should be taken into account as well as the services rendered. He did not grudge the grant made to Professor Rhys-Davids, as he knew him to be a very able, fair-minded, and honourable man. At the same time, he thought that the discrepancy between his case and the cases he had mentioned was so great that the attention of the Government should be called to it.
      SIR J. T. HIBBERT:My hon. Friend opposite advocated two principles with which I entirely agree. The first was that in the distribution of the Royal Bounty any abuse ought to be prevented. I think that the whole Committee will concur in supporting that principle. The other was that no pension ought to be given for political purposes or with a political object. I think that principle will also receive general concurrence. I do not agree with my hon. Friend in the other remarks he made, and I think a good case can be made out for the grant of this pension to Professor Rhys-Davids. I know nothing about his politics or whether he is a Tory or a Liberal Unionist, or a Liberal, but I think my hon. Friend has carried that view of the matter rather too far. A man must have some politics, or, at all events, it is desirable that he should have some. Supposing he has politics he must be either a Tory or a Liberal Unionist or a Liberal. Whatever his politics are they ought not to disqualify him for a pension. I am told that Professor Rhys-Davids has devoted himself to research upon the questions of which he has made himself so great a master, and that in doing so he has spent the whole of his fortune, so that he is now practically a poor man. When he retired from Ceylon, he applied to the Colonial Office for a pension, but no pension was granted to him because he was technically not entitled to one. He was never refused the India Office Librarianship, but when he wished to become a candidate the India Office appear to
      1296
      have required to have an Indian civilian as Librarian, and as he was not an Indian civilian he was out of the running. At the present moment Professor Rhys-Davids is entitled to a salary of £200 a year as Secretary to the Royal Asiatic Society, and that, I believe, is nearly the whole of the income he possesses. His name was brought forward as a candidate for this pension by a number of very eminent men of every political opinion, amongst them being Professor Huxley. This fact shows that the recommendation had no political origin. Out of all the recommendations made to him, the Prime Minister selected Professor Rhys-Davids for this pension of £200. I do not wish to go into the question as to whether that is too much for him or too little, but I think there is a strong case in favour of Professor Rhys-Davids, who is an eminent man and who has spent the whole of his fortune in research. I do not object to my hon. Friend calling attention to this matter, but I think there is much more to be said for than against it.
      MR. BARTLEYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman spoke of this pension being given to enable Professor Rhys-Davids to devote himself to research, but he would point out that these pensions were not given to enable people to devote themselves to research. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had given himself away, for there was a Vote which was given for research, and if this money had come out of that Vote he (Mr. Bartley) should have said nothing about it, but this pension list was for persons who were supposed to be worn out, or who had practically given up their work, and whose circumstances were such that they were unable to maintain themselves. He must say he thought the defence of the right hon. Gentleman made the matter worse, as it was that this able-bodied man, who was now in receipt of £200 a year salary for another appointment, who was able to go on a lecturing tour in America—thus showing that his duties as Secretary of the Royal Asiatic Society were not onerous—and who had other means of living, had been given this £200 a year, not as a pension, but in order that he might carry on his researches. He had no objection to a politician getting a pension, but his objection was that an able-bodied young politician should have it, as though

      1297
      it was a pension for his services in politics. If pensions from this Civil List were to be made vehicles for research, the whole object of the grant was done away with, and, therefore, the case was worse than he had thought it was. He thought it was a misappropriation of funds that they ought to divide against.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, the question was not whether this gentleman's income was sufficient for him, but whether he was a person who was entitled to receive this award from the Civil List, which was not a fund that existed for the purpose of making the incomes of certain people sufficient. The fund was intended for persons who were not able to work, and, therefore, this £200 had been given at the expense of other and, in his opinion, more deserving people. Whilst this gentleman received this £200, other people, at least equally deserving, must go with less, and many of them with no pension at all. He did not think his right hon. Friend had made a very complete defence, because he had simply based it, as far as he could follow, upon the fact that this Professor had only a salary of £200 a year; but was his right hon. Friend going to say he was going to supplement every one's salary which was not sufficient? That was no defence at all. He did not think it was fair to raise the question of politics, as no one could tell what they were, and therefore he did not deal with it from that standpoint, but he said that with a limited fund of this character, which was paid away in small grants, to give one-sixth of the fund to a gentleman only 50 years of age, and who was going upon a lecturing tour to America was monstrous.
      MR. HANBURYsaid, that if he understood his right hon. Friend, this money was given to Professor Rhys-Davids in order to enable him to carry on his researches. What he wished to find out was this. The hon. Member for Islington had said it would be possible, if it was desirable to give this money to encourage research, to give it out of another fund; therefore, if research was the object, that would have been the better course to have adopted. In that case the matter would have come under the cognisance of Parliament, whereas now it was only in an indirect way they had been able to find out what was being done; it was only by attacking
      1298
      the Treasury that they could get at this Professor's grant at all. He must confess that he knew very little about Professor Rhys-Davids, and he did not think politics entered into the question so much as an hon. Member supposed, but it did seem to him to be a very large sum indeed when they recollected the object for which the money was given. It was given in small sums of £50, £40, £30, and even down to £20 a year, so that it was clear it was a very limited fund, and if they were to give it away in these large sums of £200 many deserving people would suffer. It was more on that ground that he opposed it. It might have been right to give this Professor £50 a year if he had been an old man; but here was a man who was able to go to America, and add to his income by delivering scientific lectures which would turn to his own advantage; therefore it seemed to him a most remarkable thing that the Prime Minister, in one of the earliest exercises of his patronage of this fund, should have deliberately chosen a comparatively young man who was drawing a regular salary as Secretary of the Royal Asiatic Society. But it was not so much for rewarding Professor Rhys-Davids as for improperly diminishing the fund that he should vote for the reduction.
      Question put.
      The Committee divided:—Ayes 73; Noes 156.—(Division List, No. 202.)
      Original Question again proposed.
      MR. BARTLEYsaid, he wished to ask a question respecting the scheme of retirement of attendants and messengers at South Kensington. There had been a good deal of dissatisfaction on the part of certain messengers—
      THE CHAIRMAN:Under what Vote would that come?
      MR. BARTLEYsaid, it was difficult to answer that question; it did not come under anyone's salary, but it was a scheme adopted by the Treasury.
      THE CHAIRMAN:You can only raise the question upon a specific Vote.
      MR. HANBURYsaid, he desired to obtain some information as to a Treasury Minute that had been issued. The Treasury, as he understood, had issued a Treasury Minute with regard to the right or claim of the Civil servants to be elected on the new District Councils and

      1299
      Parish Councils. As he understood the Treasury Minute, they had ordered that the Civil servants should not be members of District Councils because they might meet during official hours, but they allowed Civil servants to become members of Parish Councils, because they said—
      "The case is different as regards Parish Councils; Section 2, Sub-section 3, of the Local Government Act, 1894, provides they shall not begin earlier than 6 o'clock in the evening."
      That was the ground on which they were to be allowed to be members of the Parish Councils. In issuing that document the Treasury must have been under an entire misapprehension, because the section referred to parish meetings and not Parish Councils, and it said—
      "Parish meetings shall be held at least once in every year, and the proceedings of every parish meeting shall begin not earlier than 6 o'clock in the evening."
      Therefore, the Treasury Minute did not turn out to be an infallible document, and the right hon. Gentleman did not know his own Act. As the Treasury were wrong in the reasons they had given for allowing Civil servants to be members of Parish Councils, and Parish Councils were in the same position as District Councils, what were they going to do? He presumed the Minute would be withdrawn, and a new one issued, and, in that case, would the Treasury forbid the Civil servants to be members of the Parish Councils, or would they give a new reason drawing a distinction between the two?
      MR. E. J. C. MORTONsaid, that, according to the Dockyard Regulations, the employés of the dockyards were allowed to have 12 days a year off, losing their wages during those days, and were practically allowed to take them whenever they liked, and he wished to know what reason there was for forbidding employés of the dockyards being members of a Public Body, provided they were willing to take the time they were away from their work out of the days they were allowed and lose their wages thereby?
      SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, that what the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury) called a Treasury Minute was not laid on the Table as a Treasury Minute, but was simply a Memorandum sent round by the Treasury to the
      1300
      various Government Departments in order that the latter might express their opinions upon it. The document had now been revised and altered in several particulars. Any official would be allowed to attend the meetings of a Parish Council of which he happened to be a member so long as the meetings did not interfere with the work of the office in which he was employed. If his Parish Council meetings were held, for instance, in the middle of the day, he would not be allowed to be a member nor to attend the meetings. In answer to the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. E. J. C. Morton), he might say that the power was given to the heads of Departments enabling them to allow employés to attend such meetings, provided that this did not interfere with the business of the State.
      MR. HANBURYsaid, that whether the document was a Treasury Minute or a Memorandum, it was issued from the Treasury, and the Treasury drew a distinction between District and Parish Councils, being under the impression that District Councils could meet at any time and that Parish Councils could only meet after 6 o'clock in the evening. What he wished to know was why, the mistake having been explained, the Treasury still maintained the distinction?
      SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, he thought there was a broad distinction between District and Parish Councils. There was no doubt it would be the case that Parish Councils would meet in the evening, but there would be very few cases, scarcely any, in which District Councils would meet in the evening. The District Councils represented large areas and large districts, and, therefore, must meet in the daytime, as the members would have to travel long distances to attend them. It was not possible to allow Government officials to attend them during the time that ought to be devoted to the work of the country. With respect to Parish Councils, it was quite different, as many of them would meet in the evening. If they met in the daytime no Government official would be allowed to attend them; but if they met in the evening, there was no reason why an official should not be allowed to attend the meetings.
      MR. POWELL WILLIAMSsaid, he rose to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he would be

      1301
      able to lay on the Table of the House a Return relating to the law charges or payments, which were sanctioned by the House a little time ago, and which it Was perfectly necessary should be in their possession before they came to the Vote of the Law Officers' charges.
      SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, that the Return would be laid on the Table in a very short time.
      MR. E. J. C. MORTONremarked that his point was this. He did not want any alteration whatever made in the regulations as to the grant of leave or the time at which leave might be granted or the conditions as to the hours of leave and so on, nor did he want that the leave should be cut into small portions. What he said was, that at the present time a man was allowed a certain amount of leave—he might take it in 12 days, and might spend those days in the manner he pleased—and he knew of employés in the dockyards belonging to both political Parties who took their leave and devoted it to working purely for their own Party. They did not want that there should be any interference with the method in which they spent their leave, or that they should be specifically forbidden to attend meetings of Public Local Bodies. That was what he objected to.
      MR. HOZIERasked how was it possible to know when the Parish Councils would meet? They would not fix their hours of meeting until they were elected.
      MR. WARNERsaid, that at the present moment what under the Act would be a District Council was now a Local Board. The Local Boards met in the evening, and it seemed, therefore, rather hard that in that case a Government employé should not be able to have anything to do with the affairs of his own parish because it happened to be managed by a District Council.
      SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, such a case would be met by the head of a Department under whose control the matter would be. Where the meetings took place in the evening, whether they were Parish or District Councils, any Government official would be able to attend them so long as he was not taken away from the work to which, during certain hours, he was bound to devote his attention.
      MR. STOREYsaid, that what some of them objected to was the right of the head of a department to say that a man should or should not serve his fellow-citizens. They would never for a moment admit such a right to the head of any department. Why should such a limitation be made? He could understand it if the Government servants were scattered about the country where District Councils met at very long distances from the homes of the elected persons, but he believed that would settle itself, and in the case of dockyard servants they would not find this condition of things, because then the District Council would meet in the place where the dockyard was situate. Why, in the name of goodness, should these men have to go to the head of the department cap in hand and say, "I want to serve my fellow-citizens; they want to elect me. You must say yes or no." He should certainly vote against such a limitation.
      SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, it would be easy to distinguish in such cases. What the Government contended was that a dockyard official should not be at liberty to do other work during the hours he was paid for doing the work of the State. If the Local Authority met at a time which did not clash with the officials' hours of work there would be no difficulty in such an official attending the meetings of the Local Body.
      MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, there were two matters involved which appeared to be quite distinct. The first part was as to the dockyard employés. They, of course, came under the same rule as all other public servants, and the only question was whether that rule was a right and proper one. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that it was a right and proper rule that a public servant should be precluded from employing his time in other matters than the service to which he was paid for devoting his whole time. The point now raised was this: they were having the pretension put forward that the Parish Councils were to be dictated, in the first instance, by the heads of departments; that there was to be a preliminary selection of candidates by heads of departments, who were to say to this man "Go," and he goeth, and to that man "Go," and he goeth as no Councillor. They could not have any part of the

      1303
      machinery of local self-government made into machinery by which Government officials should dictate as to who ought to take part in local government and who ought not. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. T. Hibbert) said quite right. If they were told that the contention was that the head of a department should be able to allow or forbid an official in his department to be a candidate it was a contention that would be most strenuously resisted.
      SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, that the Treasury had no desire to treat this matter in a narrow spirit, and as far as he was personally concerned he certainly had not. What he thought they ought to take care of was that the State had its value from the persons it employed. He did not think they ought to lay down any stringent rules, the only object being that those persons employed by the State should not devote any of the time they ought to give to the State to any other purpose. He should take care that the question should be considered in the light of the desire expressed by hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House.
      MR. HANBURYsaid, his objection was to drawing a distinction between Parish Councils and District Councils.
      SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, that no such distinction would be drawn.
      MR. HANBURYsaid, that surely the proper basis on which to put the question was the old basis on which Directorships were put. There was a rule that Civil servants should not be employed as directors on Boards which met during their official hours, and the reasonable thing to do would be to extend the rule to the holding of offices on Boards of this kind. If both District and Parish Councils were put on the same footing, then he thought the Treasury were on very safe ground, but the intention originally was to put them on a different footing.
      SIR J. T. HIBBERTadmitted that this was originally the intention, but it was not the intention at the present moment. The rule which his hon. Friend suggested was strictly carried out, and might with propriety be made applicable in these cases.
      CAPTAIN NORTONsaid, what they wanted clearly to understand was whether any dockyard official who was properly entitled to 12 days'
      1304
      leave should be able to devote that time to public work without having in any way to ask leave of his superior officer?
      SIR D. MACFARLANEinquired, would the head of a Department have to be asked for leave before an employé in the dockyards became a candidate for any of these Parish Councils, or would he be allowed to be elected, and then, if elected, would he have to go to the head of the Department in order to obtain leave to attend to his duties as member of such Council?
      COMMANDER BETHELLsaid, that the Government had no business to interfere with Boards of Directors or Local Bodies, but they had power to interfere with their servants, and if these Boards liked to elect Civil servants, all that was said to the servants was, "Very well, within your office hours you shall not go." That was a rule of universal application which ought to be followed.
      ADMIRAL FIELDsaid, he hoped the Secretary to the Treasury and the Government would stand firm as rocks after the mischievous views which had been enunciated by the hon. Member for Sunderland, who seemed to imply that any servant in the dockyard was apparently to leave the yard when he pleased.
      MR. STOREY:No, no.
      ADMIRAL FIELD:Well, he says that he objects that they have to go cap in hand to the head of the department.
      MR. STOREY:What I said was that he ought to be allowed to become a candidate the same as any other citizen; that he ought to be elected the same as any other person, and that there should be no preliminary going to the official superior and saying, "Please can I become a candidate?" We may trust to the common sense of the people that they will not elect a man who cannot attend, and the question will, therefore, never arise.
      ADMIRAL FIELDthought the hon. Member objected to having to ask permission to leave the dockyards. He (Admiral Field) took a strong view as to the efficiency of the Public Service; and the efficiency of these District Boards and Parish Councils, in his mind, was not worth the snap of the fingers compared with the efficiency of the Public Service. He hoped the Government would not

      1305
      yield to Radical pressure and give any privilege to dockyard servants, or to any other officials of the Crown. The efficiency of the dockyards and the proper building and repairing of ships should be the only consideration which should guide the officers in regulating the leave of absence in the dockyards. If there was any feeling amongst hon. Members that dockyard men were to have special favours extended to them to attend Parish Councils or District Councils, he, for one, was utterly opposed to it. For his part, he thought the dockyard men were better off these Boards altogether so as to have their evenings to themselves, and so that they might be able to properly do the work for which they were paid by the Crown.
      SIR F. S. POWELL, as representing an industrial district, desired to make a few observations upon the Home Office Vote. He felt he should only be doing his duty if he were to direct attention to a change in the staff of the Home Office. The Permanent Secretary of that Office, after many years' service, had retired into private life to enjoy a well-earned pension, and it was only right that some Member of the House should express his sense of the public service this gentleman had rendered during many years. As regarded the Reports of the Factory Inspectors, upon which his few remarks would be made, it was gratifying to be able to recognise improvements from the first page to the last. Many evils which caused anxiety in previous years had been removed, and others were being removed, or were in the course of being gradually diminished, and, they hoped, in a few years would disappear from those calamitous conditions which formed the just complaints of sanitarians, and were equally regretted by all friends of the labouring classes. Many years ago discussions were raised in the House as to the injurious effects on the workpeople of the manufacture of lucifer matches. The trade appeared to be a simple one, but it was also a dangerous one, and great loss of life arose in former days from the conditions under which this manufacture was carried on. He was glad to see in the recent Report of the Chief Factory Inspector that the disease then complained of appeared to be now almost entirely non-existent. In the same Report some remarks were made as to the
      1306
      conditions of safety in the quarries. He desired to know if it was the intention of the Government to carry through the House the Quarries Bill which had come down from the House of Lords. That was legislation of considerable importance, and was exciting great interest amongst those engaged in coal mines, because they desired to know how far their industry would be affected by the proposed legislation with regard to quarries. He was glad to find emphatic mention made in the Report as to the flax and linen manufacture. He had had the privilege of visiting the factories in Belfast as well as in Lancashire, and there was no doubt the sanitary condition in Ireland was much less satisfactory than that of the Lancashire workshops. The subject, he was pleased to see, was engaging the attention of the Home Office, and he hoped the condition of those who laboured in the flax and linen factories of Ireland might be greatly improved. He should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman in such detail as he should be able to supply to the Committee what had been done as to the Report of the Departmental Committee on dangerous trades? How far were the recommendations of the Departmental Committee being carried into effect? He certainly felt himself, on an examination of the Report, that there was a certain degree of ambiguity as to which recommendations had been carried out, and which not. He hoped the Home Secretary would be able to give them some information on this subject. In the Factory Inspectors' Reports there was an omission which he regretted. He had had the honour of serving on two Committees as regarded the hours of labour in shops, and he expected to find under the heading in the Report of "Shop Hours" a full and explicit statement on the subject. There were, however, only one or two passages on the subject. He desired to know how far the condition of workers in shops had been improved by legislation. If no improvement had been made in the condition of things then he thought the time had come, not for hon. Members to bring forward their own Bills, but for the Government to take the matter in hand and vigorously pass through a measure for effecting those changes in the law which, in

      1307
      that case, were certainly essential. Though he had occasion to regret the omission to which he had referred, he could not help thinking that these Reports were somewhat discursive, for they contained observations of a general character which threw no light on the condition of factories. Again, he also found that the Inspectors in their Reports, after describing certain evils which they wished to remedy, mentioned the names of firms which made certain machines which would remedy these evils. He was not at all sure that it was a wise thing that a Government Inspector in an official document should name a particular firm. He was sure it had been done with the best of motives, but he thought that such a system, if continued, might lead the Inspectors into temptation, and in that way the authority and impartiality of the Report might be greatly impaired. He was much interested in reading the Reports of the women Inspectors, which contained valuable matter and showed sympathy on the part of the gentler sex towards their sisters employed in the works, which commanded their admiration. There was one remark made by one of the women Inspectors which somewhat surprised him, and that was a complaint which was made as to the infringement of the Truck Acts. He would be glad to know whether the Home Secretary considered that the Truck Acts were now being infringed or not. Another evil to which the women Inspectors called attention was the practice of attaching the bed-rooms of the workpeople to the work-room, by means of which arrangement the limitation of hours prescribed by the Act was obeyed in the work-room but evaded by the people being engaged in the bed-rooms. That was a scandalous infraction of the Act. The statement as to the attachment of bed-rooms for collusion and evasion of the Act applied not only to work-rooms but to shops. Such a system amounted to an entire and complete violation of the Act. He saw one statement in a Report that women were worked on Saturday even so late as 11 o'clock at night. The excessive hours took place not in the work-room, which was under inspection, but in the bed-room, which was not so far regulated and under control. He Should like to know how far the Sanitary Authorities were carrying out their
      1308
      duties. Under an Act passed by the late Government certain functions were delegated to the Sanitary Authorities. The Reports on this topic were anything but of an encouraging nature, for it was stated, again and again, that the Local Authorities were not doing their duty. That was a serious matter. When the Act was passed in 1891 he felt doubts as to whether the Inspectors under the Local Authorities would discharge their duties with satisfaction. He was afraid his doubts had been realised. He would say nothing about the administration of Acts relating to mines beyond this, that he had made inquiries of masters and men in his own district, which was a mining district, and was glad to say that no complaints had been made. There were signs of the beginning of long-standing peace between employers and employed, which he gladly welcomed. As the result of his observations, extending now over many years, he was able to congratulate the country upon the progress that had been made in improving the condition of the people in their homes as well as in their workshops and factories. This satisfactory state of things was greatly due to the spread of intelligence amongst the people, and to their becoming keenly alive to the importance of these reforms. He hoped the progress that had been made would be continuous, and that nothing would be left undone in that direction by the Home Office.
      THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,):I should be the last to complain of the remarks made by the hon. Baronet. I am very glad, indeed, that the hon. Baronet—having thought this a proper occasion for discussing these matters—should have adopted an attitude so complimentary to the administration of the Factory Acts, and on behalf of those for whom I am responsible I tender to the hon. Baronet my acknowledgments for the appreciation he has shown of the ability and energy with which the Inspectors are going their work. I will deal briefly with the points on which the hon. Baronet asked for information. I earnestly hope the House will treat as a non - controversial measure the Bill for transferring the inspection of quarries to the Inspectors of Mines—a change in the law the necessity for which has been pressed upon me

      1309
      by the Departmental Committee. I am satisfied that by that change, coupled with the appointment of additional Inspectors, a number of serious accidents will be prevented. All the Reports of the Departmental Committee with reference to dangerous trades has been acted upon; and under the special powers conferred by the Act of 1891 I have made special Rules to carry out many of the recommendations of the Committee. In the case of the lead trade and the chemical trade the Rules have been practically agreed to, and in the case of the pottery trade they are on the verge of an agreement without arbitration. The case of quarries stands over for the transfer of jurisdiction proposed by the Bill. I am quite with the hon. Baronet as to the excessive length of shop hours in large towns. A Resolution in favour of change in the law was carried unanimously by this House, and I shall be only too glad when time can be found to make the necessary alteration. I may point out that the administration of the existing law with regard to workshops is by no means carried so far as it ought to be by the Local Authorities; and complaints are made of the supineness with which the Local Authorities perform the duties cast upon them by the Act of 1891. I regret to say that I think that complaint is well founded; and, although in some places there are enlightened men of experience who carry out the law with efficiency and determination, in too many places there is the most melancholy remissness in giving effect to the salutary provisions of the existing law. I am not quite sure that it was not a retrograde step to entrust these duties to Local Authorities, and not to keep them in the hands of the Central Executive; and it may be that we shall have to retrace our steps and take away from Local Authorities powers which they do not seem anxious to use efficiently. The Truck Acts, I regret to say, are exposed to evasions in the strictest sense of the word. A learned Judge once said it was the aim of every British subject to evade the law if he could do it with success, and that this was a reproach, not so much against the persons who broke the law, as against the Legislature who passed laws which could be so easily evaded without being broken. The
      1310
      Truck Acts fell within the category of ineffective laws which offer loopholes and ways of escape that are taken advantage of by an unscrupulous class of employers who evade the law without actually breaking it, and act absolutely contrary to the intentions of the Legislature. I am afraid that in this respect we cannot attain to a more satisfactory state of things without considerably tightening and strengthening our legislative machinery. As to the alleged discursiveness of the Inspectors' Reports, I admit that the volume is more bulky than usual, but I claim that its contents are more valuable than previous Reports, and that every page affords proofs of the efficiency with which the Inspectors discharge their duties. I should be sorry by any instructions to curtail the Reports of the Inspectors and to deprive the public of the advantage of observations made by trained and skilled experts upon the various aspects of work. I consider the Reports of the Inspectors models of what such Reports ought to be, and hold that an occasional excess of zeal or exuberance of language ought to be looked upon with considerable indulgence. I am glad the hon. Baronet recognises the value of the appointment of women Inspectors. It is quite true that in many establishments the law has been violated by the simple expedient of transferring workwomen to their bedrooms at the time of the visit of the Inspector. It was impossible for the male Inspector to follow them in order to ascertain whether the law had been broken; but lady Inspectors are able to pursue their inquiries more closely, and the result has been the detection of a number of cases of infraction of the law. I have added two lady Inspectors this year, and I hope that practices which have not been detected in the past will prevail no longer. With regard to the mentioning of names of firms by the Inspectors in their Reports, I admit that it is a matter that should be treated with great delicacy and discretion, and I will look into it.
      COMMANDER BETHELLsaid, he proposed to move a reduction in the Vote for the salary of the Secretary for Foreign Affairs in order that a few questions of considerable importance might be raised. So far as he was concerned he proposed to confine himself entirely to the question of the Anglo-Belgian Treaty and the

      1311
      condition of affairs in British Uganda. It would be absurd to pretend that there was not great cause for anxiety in the events that were now occurring in Central Africa. Everyone familiar with our past history knew full well that great Continental wars had arisen over the division of foreign countries amongst the European Powers. He need only mention Canada as a great example. And those who had followed the course of the partition of Africa in the last few years must be aware that there was grave danger of complicated questions arising when European Powers were dividing that great Continent between them, and wedging themselves, side by side, into its territories; and that, even at best and under the most favourable circumstances, the greatest care must be taken in order to avoid any crisis occurring which would lead to a repetition of the great wars of the past. It was perfectly true that our Foreign Ministers had recognised those dangers, and had tried to avert them; and indeed had, so far, succeeded in averting them, by entering into Treaties and arrangements under which the European Powers agreed not to enter on each other's spheres of action in Africa. Since then, however, another Treaty was made with Belgium, which was called the Anglo-Belgian Treaty, and which also affected Germany and France. He did not think that anyone would pretend that in the case of Germany the Treaty was of very great importance. But it was none the less true that the Foreign Office, made, in regard to Germany, a sad mess of it in the Treaty, and had to submit to a snub from Germany. Germany maintained that the Congo Free State being a creation of other Powers had no right to an extension of its territory, or to give up any of its territory; but obviously it was not competent for Germany to use that argument when at the creation of the Congo Free State, all the Powers—with the exception of France—had a clause in their Treaties with the Congo Free State which seemed to recognise the right of that State to give up or acquire territory. With regard to the French part of the Treaty, he would not say much, as negotiations on the subject were now going on between this country and France; but he desired to glance rapidly at what had taken place, and to submit some views which he believed
      1312
      were held by a great many people throughout the country. By certain Treaties, which he need not mention specially, the boundaries of the Congo Free State were fixed by 4° N. and 30° E. By the Anglo - Belgian Treaty, this country claimed a sphere of influence east of 30° E.; and it was against that that France objected. He thought the last Government, as well as the present Government, had been singularly wanting in their appreciation of events that had taken place in Central Africa on the part of Belgium. Before the present Government came into Office it was well-known that a certain Belgian officer was moving his troops outside the limits of the Congo Free State, and especially in parts east of 30° E., claimed by this country and admitted by Germany. Questions were asked in the House about those proceedings; the Government said they knew nothing about them; and yet it was those proceedings which had led to the recent difficulties by compelling this country to enter into the Anglo-Belgian Treaty in respect to those districts east of 30° E. France, as he had said, had been careful to avoid that clause, which every other Power inserted in its Treaty with the Congo Free State—namely, the clause which seemed to recognise the right of the Free State to give up or acquire territory; and he presumed it was because of the absence of that clause that France now claimed a right to object to the Congo Free State acting outside the boundaries that had been solemnly laid down. Thirty° E was, roughly speaking, the boundary of the Valley of the Nile, and to the Valley of the Nile we had a right from consideration of, if not of discovery, at least, of investigation and exploration, and, above all, from political considerations. Those considerations could not be overlooked, and ought not to be overlooked; and he could not believe that the Foreign Office would be so unwise as to admit that there could be any question of any other country having any claim, as compared with the claim of this country, to the Valley of the Nile. He did not believe that the Foreign Office would, under any circumstances, yield up our claim to the watershed of the Nile, though he confessed he felt some little anxiety on the point owing to the events which had

      1313
      recently taken place. He was certain that any such action on the part of the Foreign Office would be received with great indignation in this country, and would result in grave injury to this country. He, therefore, hoped that the Government would think once and think twice before they yielded one inch upon this profoundly important question. He was not one of those who had any jealousy, speaking generally, of the occupation of Africa by France, or Germany, or any other country, for he recognised the great work of civilisation in which they were all engaged. But it was the fact that France at the present moment had a larger territory than any other country in Africa; and it was the fact, too, that during the last few years France had been allowed to shut in our colonies of Gambia, and partially also Sierra Leone and the Gold Coast, by the occupation of several Hinterlands in the West. Those were great concessions to the views and wishes of France; and he thought we might reasonably expect some concession in return for what had been done. It was only this very year that Germany — apparently without any opposition from us—had made over to France rights obtained from us over territories east of Lake Tchad and Olibanghi River. He considered that the line ought to be drawn in the Valley of the Nile. He would conclude with a few words in regard to the British East Africa Company. He was not an admirer, and had never been a supporter of Chartered Companies. Whenever he had spoken of them in the House, he had always said that he thought that in principle they were a mistake, as the business they transacted ought to be undertaken by the Imperial Government. But whether he liked Chartered Companies or not, he must recognise their existence, and he might in individual cases say whether he thought they had been justly treated or not. He was bound to say that in his opinion the British East Africa Company had been treated most shabbily by the late Government, and most scurvily by the present Government. He thought that, if possible, in this respect the Government now in power had been the worst offender. He would only present the salient features of the case to the Committee, leaving the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Lawrence),
      1314
      who was extremely familiar with the subject, to elaborate the details. The Company was urged by Lord Salisbury in 1888 to advance to Uganda, in order to save that country from the grasp of the Germans. That was notorious. In the East Africa Company, in order to meet the expenses of government, a concession of about 400 miles of territory along the coast was made by the Sultan of Zanzibar. A certain rental was to be paid to the Sultan, and in return the East Africa Company were allowed to collect the dues along the coast. That took place in 1888. In 1890 the Government declared a protectorate over this territory, and recommended the Sultan to withdraw his territories from the operation of the free zone declared by the Berlin Conference, the result being that the Company, acting as leaseholders under the Sultan, were there to obtain money on goods coming into their territory, and thus were able to pay their rents. In 1892, however, years later, we substantially declared a protectorate over Uganda, and at the same time, in order to pay the expenses of administration, advised the Sultan to place his territory inside the free zone. The result was that goods for Uganda, being in transit, paid no dues, and the Company were left in the position of losing their revenue while they had still to pay rent. There never was a more questionable proceeding than this.
      SIR E. GREYsaid the company were in possession of the Hinterland when this change took place, and therefore no question of free transit could arise.
      COMMANDER BETHELLsaid, all the world knew that long before we took over the protectorate certain responsibilities in connection with Uganda were assumed by this country. Surely this was a transaction for which this country should blush.
      SIR E. GREY:No. Whatever was done was done with the knowledge of the Company.
      COMMANDER BETHELLsaid, he believed that whatever was done took place under the blushes of his hon. Friend below him, but the hon. Baronet opposite had had a couple of years to put it straight. There was in the Charter a clause declaring that disputes arising between the Sultan and the Company should be referred to the Foreign Secre-

      1315
      tary for decision, and the Company had, since last October, been begging Lord Rosebery to act as arbitrator in accordance with that clause, but they could get no answer whatever. Meanwhile the Company had to go on paying the rent to the Sultan and get nothing in return. Surely that was unjust. He thought he had said enough to show hon. Gentlemen, whose attention had not hitherto been drawn to this matter, that there never was a more questionable proceeding than this, and he urged that for the sake of the credit of this country justice ought to be dealt out to the Company. He moved to reduce the Vote for the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs by the sum of £100.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That the Item (Class 2, Vote 5), of £7,000, for the Foreign Office, be reduced by £100, in respect of the Salary of the Secretary of State."—(Commander Bethell.)
      MR. LAWRENCEsaid, that after the very able and lucid speech of his hon. and gallant Friend he thought he need say very little on behalf of the Company who was grievously suffering in the hands of the British Government. He had not been fully acquainted with all the facts until recently, but since he had become acquainted with them he had been surprised that any Department of Her Majesty's Government should have dealt such very hard justice to those subjects of the Crown who had done so much at such great cost to extend the interests of England in the heart of Africa. A distinct breach of a written contract by the Government, through the medium of the Sultan of Zanzibar, had been the cause of the gravest loss, and the Government had up to the present time refused to submit the matter to arbitration. Such interminable delays had taken place in the Company's negotiations with the Foreign Office that the interests of the Company had been grievously prejudiced. They were neither able to go forward nor to go back, and it seemed almost as if the Foreign Office by these delays desired so to reduce the resources of the Company that they might come in and buy it, as they thought, "lock, stock, and barrel," for a very small figure. They claimed to have a real grievance, inasmuch as
      1316
      there had been an entire omission on the part of the Government to carry out an unwritten agreement, but one fully recognised by all parties at the time—namely, that by which foreigners and British subjects should bear some share of the government which they enjoyed in the territories of the British East Africa Company. It was never contemplated that the Company should come into existence and should not be able to raise taxes to set up that administration which it was bound to set up. The Company in their original Charter only undertook to administer justice over subjects of the Sultan of Zanzibar, and it was contemplated that when they had been given power of taxation over British and foreign subjects within their territory that they would be permitted to raise money by such means to create a judicial system to suit them. But that had not been the case, yet they were charged with having neglected, out of their own capital and resources, to set on foot a High Court and all the paraphernalia of justice. They were asked, most unjustly, to surrender their Concession territory without regard being had to their Chartered territory, which was just like compelling a private person who owned a frontage to part with that frontage without regard to the property in the background. He thought that in view of these facts the Company had ample ground for complaint; and since Committee of Supply had been made an opportunity for ventilating grievances, he did not think a single case more deserving the attention of Parliament had been brought forward than that of this Chartered Company. He understood the Government affirmed that the Company had done nothing whatever in the chartered territory, and that therefore it had no rights. The reply to that was that they had spent largely of their means in opening up Uganda, and in sending out exploring parties into the country beyond. But for the action of the Company in making its way under great difficulties to Uganda four years ago, the whole of that district would now belong to the Germans. Was it nothing that they had rescued for the English Crown that enormous tract of country, having a frontage of 200 miles to the sea? As an indication of what the Company had done in opening up the country and making good roads, he might mention that whereas, in 1888,

      1317
      the country was so unsettled that the Company had to send a party of 500 armed porters to conduct five white men through the country, within the last 24 hours it was reported that someone had come from Mengo in the heart of the country in the shortest time on record, and with only 50 porters, partially armed. This fact showed that the work of the Company had not been altogether in vain, and he thought that ordinary fairness would have required the Government to have given more kindly consideration to the claims of the Company. Recent incidents had caused great heartburning among those who had given so nobly and those who had worked so hard in the interests of the country as well as of the Company, and so perfectly convinced were they of the justice of their case that they were willing to submit it to any body of business men who were concerned in protecting the interests of the Empire. He believed they would have got more justice from arbitrators than they had received from the Government up to the present. Money had been subscribed in many cases from philanthropic motives, and in others from the desire of national expansion, and it was really too bad at this end of the century that gentlemen who had acted either from motives of philanthropy or of national expansion should be treated as adventurers. He was not defending the principle of Chartered Companies; indeed, if he followed closely the wishes of his constituents, he would condemn it; but these Companies had been called into existence under political exigencies, and they were entitled to justice; and he submitted that if the Foreign Office was unable to take a fair and unbiased view of the question, they ought to submit it to the arbitration either of a Select Committee of that House or to some other competent tribunal. At any rate, let them treat others as they would themselves like to be treated.
      ADMIRAL FIELDsaid, they were not there to discuss the merits of the Chartered Companies, but to worry the Government into doing its best in the interest of this country. He was heartily sick of reading the Reports and printed matter supplied to him bearing upon this sub-
      1318
      ject, because he was ashamed add disgusted with the manner in which the Government had treated this Company. What would have been the position of England in East Africa but for their energy and enterprise? The country owed a debt of gratitude to the Company for their services to British interests. Some hon. Friends beside him had spoken in terms of disapproval of the work of the Chartered Companies, and had seemed to be unmindful of the fact that the great East India Company had secured to this country the brightest jewel in the British Crown. But, as he had said before, they were not there to discuss whether Chartered Companies were good or bad in themselves, but they were placed face to face with a condition of things at which the country, if it were aware of the circumstances, would, he was sure, be indignant. Here was a Company which had been employed by the British Government at various times to do their own Imperial work, because they had not the courage to ask Parliament to provide them with the means necessary for doing it themselves. The Company who had pulled the chestnuts out of the fire for the Government were now left without adequate compensation for the work they had done. He called it downright legalised confiscation. ["No, no!"] The hon. Member who said "No" could not have studied the question in all its bearings. He could not have read Sir Gerald Portal's Report. The action of the Government had been legalised robbery. The Company was in the hands of the Government, and it was useless for them to put up the Sultan of Zanzibar, and the Berlin Conference, and such like nonsense. The Company paid a large sum to the Sultan of Zanzibar for the right to levy Customs and dues; they had been deprived of that right without compensation; and what could that be called but robbery? Under their Charter they had power to appeal to the Prime Minister or Foreign Secretary to arbitrate—
      An hon. MEMBER: Under what Act?
      ADMIRAL FIELDsaid, he was speaking of a clause in their Charter. If the hon. Member would try to understand the point perhaps he would not interrupt.

      1319
      Lord Salisbury, in a Despatch to the British Consul General, had Raid that no measures should be decided upon affecting that portion of the Sultan's territory administered by the Company without previous consultation with the Company, and that failure on the Sultan's part to observe that condition should lay him open to a charge for compensation. Well, the confiscation of which he complained was effected without consulting the Company or giving them an opportunity of pleading their case, although, when compensation was claimed, the British Government said the claim was not entitled to consideration. The Company asked for arbitration, and was denied a hearing. His contention was that the Government were trustees for the nation, and must do the right thing in this matter. They had been told on high legal authority that if the Sultan was not a Sovereign—if he was amenable in respect to claims made upon him in this country—undoubtedly he would be liable to meet a claim for compensation, and if the Company's claim was founded on legal grounds he said the British Government was very much to blame if it looked at it with averted eye. He knew it was the fashion to abuse these Companies, but what did Sir Gerald Portal say? In his admirable Report he said—
      "I venture to express my strong opinion that it is now desirable, in the interests of British commerce and of the whole of East Africa, from the Indian Ocean to the Nile Basin, that some arrangement should be arrived at, without further delay, by which the Imperial British East Africa Company shall cease to exist as a political or administrative body, either in the interior or within the limits of the Sultan's territory."
      Then he went on to say—
      "As pioneers, the Company's officers have done good work, and have greatly increased our knowledge of East Africa, and there can be no doubt that a great deal of money has been spent in the hope of opening up the country to civilisation, and, at the same time, of introducing a profitable trade. In fact, to the founders of the Company belongs the sole credit of the acquisition, for the benefit of British commerce, of this great potential market for British goods."
      Further on again, Sir Gerald Portal said—
      "As regards the withdrawal. … of the Royal Charter. … there would, I imagine, be but little difficulty, especially since the Com-
      1320
      pany have now, of their own accord, practically resigned their rights. … by relinquishing any connection with the interior elsewhere than at the two small posts above mentioned; but in surrendering their concessions obtained at various times from the Sultan of Zanzibar, the Company would be fairly entitled to receive from the Sultan adequate compensation for such actual improvements as they may have made within the territories of the Sultanate."
      That was the opinion of Sir Gerald Portal. He (Admiral Field) entered his protest against the policy of injustice and robbery which might be popular elsewhere, but was not popular at all events upon his side of the House. His sympathy was with justice, and be only rose to say that a wrong had been done where the nation demanded that right should be done.
      SIR E. GREYsaid, that although in the course of the discussion very large questions had been raised, he thought it was only necessary for the satisfaction of the Committee that he should deal with the important points raised. The first was the present Agreement with the Sovereign of the Congo State; and though the hon. Member who called attention to the subject certainly gave expression to some very strong criticisms as to what had been done, he gladly recognised from his tone and manner that they were dictated entirely by his interest in the subject and not by any animus or desire to injure anybody concerned. The criticisms of the hon. Gentleman, into which he could not follow him far, were divided into two parts—first of all, the criticism of that part of the Treaty which especially concerned the German Government; and he admitted that, if they had been at all aware of the importance which the German Government attached to that particular part of the Treaty, it would not have been inserted. The moment it was found the German Government attached importance to it Her Majesty's Government felt it would be only in accordance with a proper sense of what was due to the different Powers concerned that part of the Treaty—of no great importance to us, but considered to be of great importance to the German Government—should be withdrawn. As regarded the other and larger questions raised by the hon. and gallant Member (Commander Bethell), he had only to say that they were at present forming

      1321
      part of the discussion which was taking place with the French Government, and which had not reached a stage at which it was possible to make a statement to the House. As regarded the final part of the hon. Member's remarks as to the importance to Great Britain of this sphere of influence ever since the present Government came into Office, they had never shown any hesitation in claiming a position in that sphere of influence. So there was no reason to doubt that they had a proper sense of importance of the step taken by Lord Salisbury. Now, he came to the more controversial question of the East Africa Company. Though he differed from the remarks of hon. Member's opposite, he had no desire to spend time in whittling down any of the work the Company had done. He did not want to disparage their work or reflect on their conduct, or attempt in any way the disagreeable task of making whatever they had done appear to be less than they would represent it to be. At the same time, he could not agree with all that had been said on behalf of the Company. It had been said that the Company, in occupying this part of East Africa, including Uganda, went there at the instigation of Lord Salisbury. Lord Salisbury recognised the enterprise displayed by the founders of the Company to be of great Imperial benefit, but the present Government had no record that the Company went to East Africa at the suggestion of anyone but themselves. Sir William Mackinnon, the leading spirit of the East Africa Company, was a man of great enterprise and large ideas, and it did not seem probable that he required instigation from outside to induce him to entertain the operations which the Company undertook.
      COMMANDER BETHELL:I have an excerpt from Sir C. Euan-Smith on the subject.
      SIR E. GREYsaid, he would now pass to the question of free transits and to the action of the Sultan of Zanzibar in accepting the free zone provisions. He did not say the Company was a party to this, but that the Sultan of Zanzibar, in putting his dominions under that system, did it with the knowledge of the Company, who did not then contemplate the results that had ensued since. Although
      1322
      he had not the dates by him, he thought hon. Members would find there was an interval between the time that the dominions of the Sultan of Zanzibar were put under the free zone system, and the Company were aware of it, and the first protest on the subject. The fact was the action which made the free transit provisions apply to the dominions of the Company was the action of the Company themselves when they withdrew within the 10-mile limit.
      MR. LAWRENCEsaid, it was a matter of history, he believed, the Company over and over again had reiterated to the Foreign Office that they were going to retire from Uganda long before the question of extending the free zone system was even hinted at by the Foreign Office, and the fact that the free zone system was not immediately resisted in the determined way it ought to have been was because it was supposed that underlying that tentative proposal, contained in a letter of April 29,1892, there was to be a quid pro quo—namely, that power of taxation was to be conferred, by which the Company might be recouped in case of the free zone system being extended.
      SIR E. GREYreplied that he was glad to have an admission that at any rate the protest against placing the dominions of the Company under the free zone did not follow the Company's knowledge of the act taking place.
      MR. LAWRENCEsaid, the whole Note showed that the Foreign Office was conducting negotiations for extending the free zone quite behind the back of the Company. And when at least there was some suggestion that the Government would extend the free zone system there was some idea that the Company was to be met by a compensating advantage which would neutralize the material disadvantage that had occurred.
      SIR E. GREYsaid, undoubtedly there might have been a hope that certain advantages would accrue which had not accrued when the territories were placed under the free zone. But it was not only the Government that hoped for those benefits; but the Company also at the time thought it had some interest in those territories being placed under the free zo ne. As to compensation to the Company, there seemed no doubt that the

      1323
      Company would be glad to retire from the whole field of its operations—both from the 10-mile limit, and the chartered territory behind it—provided adequate compensation were offered. As regarded the 10-mile limit and the special concessions under which it was held from the Sultan of Zanzibar, the reason the Government did not interfere in the differences between the Sultan and the Company was simply because it was understood that both the Sultan and the Company would be willing to treat for the termination of the whole of the concession; and the difference between them would be one of terms. What had delayed an arrangement being come to? It was, of course, the fact that the Company's interests were not limited only to the concession of the 10-mile limit, but there was the amount of work the Company had done in the country behind. Sir G. Portal's Report had been quoted as to the amount of work the Company had done. In that Report Sir G. Portal gave his opinion that, in the Imperial interest, the Company ought to cease to exist as a political and administrative body, and that, looking at the present position of the Company, there should be little difficulty as regarded the termination of the Charter which it at present held. That led up to the point of view the Government held now. If there was to be a satisfactory settlement of this portion of East Africa it would be necessary a settlement should be made with the Company. Two different authorities could not exist in different parts of the country, one part being administered directly from the Foreign Office, another by the Company, and another by the Sultan of Zanzibar. The Company must be settled with, and the whole cause of the delay had been the terms on which the settlement should be made. The difficulty was not one of principle, but of terms. The Government had never denied that the Company was entitled to compensation for the value of work done. When the Government came into Office they found themselves confronted with the question of what the future of this country was to be. Supposing they had decided that it would be in the Imperial interest to withdraw from Uganda altogether, surely the hon. Member opposite could not then
      1324
      have maintained that compensation would have been due to the Company for the work they had done. Until it was decided whether and under what conditions the territory was to be held, it was of course impossible to consider the question whether any compensation was due to the Company at all. That question had been decided in favour of retaining the country, and the only point now to be settled was that of the amount of the compensation to be paid. The hon. Gentleman said that the Company had made a very modest claim. Modesty was a matter of opinion, and it was on the question of the modesty of the Company's claim that the delay had arisen. In estimating the amount of the compensation, the Government had two things to consider. The first was how much the Company had spent, and the second was how much what the Company had spent was worth as far as Imperial interests were concerned. It had also to be borne in mind that supposing the Company had remained in that part of East Africa, and had found that the commercial development of the country was so rapid as to repay them for the money they had spent, undoubtedly the whole of the profits would have gone into their own pockets. When they agreed to occupy that part of Africa they had before them the prospect of getting the whole of the profits of the commercial development of the country for their own shareholders, and they must take some responsibility for the loss that had occurred through the commercial development of the country not having been so inexpensive or rapid as they might have expected at first. Having had the whole prospect of the profits, it was only natural that they should bear some share of the loss which they said had occurred. All this had to be taken into account in estimating the amount of compensation to be awarded. If the Company had withdrawn from Africa under pressure of the Government, it would have stood on a very different footing, but they had withdrawn entirely on their own account, and since they withdrew the Imperial Government had had to find a great deal of money in respect of the country withdrawn from, and it was quite uncertain how soon that public money would be recovered. He had

      1325
      always admitted in the House of Commons that after all that had happened, and after Sir Gerald Portal's Report had been received as to the position of affairs as the Company left them, no Government, except at the expense of its own self-respect, would have withdrawn from the country. He did not wish to deny that compensation should be given to the Company for the value of the work they had done, but such compensation would not have to be estimated by the total amount of the money they had spent, and the delay had been due to the difference between the Government and the Company as to what the amount of compensation should be.
      MR. J. W. LOWTHERsaid, he desired to make a few observations with regard to the principal points that had come under discussion on the Foreign Office Vote. He did not wish for a moment to say anything which would commit him or those with whom he acted to any definite opinion with regard to their position in relation to the Government of France and the protest they had made with respect to that Treaty. They had no materials at present before them upon which they could found any opinion that would be worth giving. With regard to the interests of Germany and the manner in which they were affected under the Treaty, he could not help reiterating the view already expressed, and to which he did not think his hon. Friend (Sir E. Grey) opposite had given a sufficient answer—namely, that it was a great pity, considering our friendly relations with Germany, not only in Africa but all over the globe, that what was being done was not notified to Germany before a definite Treaty was made. He was fully of opinion that if Germany had been consulted in this matter the difficulties which had cropped up would never have occurred; that Great Britain would have been able to make her position perfectly clear to the German Government, and that in this respect she would have been in a very much stronger position for meeting any objections or claims which the French Government might make than was the case now when the whole of the Article by which Germany was affected under the Treaty had had to be thrown overboard. As long ago as the 1st of July, 1890, Germany recognised in
      1326
      the Treaty with Great Britain the British claim to include the Nile Basin within her sphere of influence. Therefore, for the last four years our claim, whatever it might be worth, to that particular district had been before the world. The French claim, as far as it existed at all, had never been made public. It might have rested within the bosoms of successive Foreign Secretaries who had presided at the Quai d'Orsay, but it had never been laid before the other European Powers, or certainly had never been recognised by any of them. As to the position of the British East Africa Company, he wished to associate himself entirely with what had fallen from his hon. Friend opposite (Sir E. Grey) with regard to the encouragement which was alleged to have been given by the late Government of Her Majesty to Sir William Mackinnon and the British East Africa Company. He did not deny for a moment that Lord Salisbury and the late Government looked with a very favourable eye indeed upon the forward movement of that Company, but he thought that if the Company had ever had anything definite to go upon to show chat they had ever been encouraged or urged to go to Uganda the document would have been made public long before now. As to the action taken by the Sultan of Zanzibar in reference to the Berlin Act, that action was taken in August, 1892, just before the last General Election. He had no doubt that the reason for that action was that Her Majesty's Government did not see their way to pay Transit Duties upon stores which it was probable that they would have to send up to Uganda in order to occupy it. No doubt this was why Her Majesty's Government invited the Sultan of Zanzibar to bring his territories within the free transit zone. There could be no doubt that that action on the part of the Sultan of Zanzibar, or, to speak frankly, on the part of Her Majesty's Government at home—because, of course, it was they who pulled the wires—did very materially modify the agreement which existed between the Sultan of Zanzibar and the Imperial British East Africa Company. Of course, it was difficult to say what Lord Salisbury's Government would have done under a certain set of circumstances

      1327
      which did not occur during the time they held Office, but he could hardly conceive that they would have rejected any claim made by the Company to have the case reconsidered when they could show that they had been injuriously affected by the alteration made. There was no doubt that they had been injuriously affected by it. They had lost the whole of the Transit Dues, both import and export, which up to August, 1892, they were enabled to levy, and upon which the amount of the rent paid by them was based. The arrangement made between the Sultan of Zanzibar and the Company in 1888 was that the gross receipts by the Company for Import and Export Dues during that particular year should be taken as an average, and that the rent which the Company were to pay for their concession was to be based on the amounts received during that particular year. If Her Majesty's Government took away the greater part of the fabric on which the contract was based, surely, even if the Government had not a moral claim they had a legal claim to have their position reconsidered, more especially when they remembered that at the present moment the Foreign Office was practically the Sultan of Zanzibar. He did not think his hon. Friend (Sir E. Grey) had given a sufficient answer to the case of the Company, who were year by year compelled to go on paying a heavy rent to the Sultan out of funds which they did not receive—that was to say, out of their own capital. Whilst he (Mr. J. W. Lowther) did not put the case as strongly as his hon. and gallant Friend (Commander Bethell), or as his hon. and gallant Friend below the Gangway, who had used some very strong and nautical phrases with regard to it, he thought that the Government might very fairly arrive at some arrangement with the Company with regard to that part of their claim, especially when it was remembered that the Government had in their hands at the present moment the sum of £200,000 belonging nominally to the Sultan of Zanzibar, and forming a fund by means of which arrangements might possibly be arrived at between the Company and the Sultan. He should like, in conclusion, to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the extraordinary anomalous position in which
      1328
      they found themselves in East Africa. They had a Protectorate of an island with a 10-mile strip of territory along the mainland; then they had another Protectorate further north held under a different tenure; then they had the Hinterland administered by the Chartered Company, and finally hung up in the air, three months' distance from the base, they had the newly-formed Protectorate of Uganda. He fully agreed with the views which were held by Sir Gerald Portal that the whole of this portion of East Africa should be administered together, and directly by Great Britain, and he was afraid that as long as Her Majesty's Government could not make up their minds to grasp the question as a whole, and to treat it as a whole, they were simply piling up for themselves day by day great difficulties and ceaseless intricacies, and preparing for the future a crisis which might become very acute, and which might lead to some of the disasters which his hon. and gallant Friend (Commander Bethell) had pointed out.
      SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, he should interpose but for a few minutes between this foreign topic and another foreign topic of equal interest, which he believed was to be subsequently brought forward. Having been obliged, owing to his connection with a great Missionary Society, to which everybody owed so much in East Africa, to study this part of the African Continent, and being entirely unconnected with the British Imperial East Africa Company, he desired to say a few words on the question. He felt he could do so with entire impartiality, and from a national and patriotic point of view. He did not agree with what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Holderness Division regarding the merits of Chartered Companies. Of course, if the work done by these Companies could be done immediately by the nation it would be well, but they knew that in the political and social circumstances of the country it was natural that the Government should be somewhat reluctant to enter directly upon these enterprises, which might in the future so largely affect our national interests. It should be borne in mind that if there had been no East India Com-

      1329
      pany there would have been no British Indian Empire, and that if there had been no South Africa Company there would have been no British dominions in Matabeleland and Mashonaland; and, certainly, if there had been no East Africa Company Germany would by this time have been masters of the whole of the territory to the west of the great African Lakes. Under the circumstances, they ought to be thankful that this great Company had existed, and ought to look on its condition now with a most friendly eye. He did not want to make much of what had been said as to the late Government having instigated the Company to proceed to Uganda. If it did so it would redound to its credit; at any rate, he should be the last to apply any opprobrious epithets to a Government for which he had the most profound admiration, especially regarding their African policy. It must be admitted that the late Government was not behindhand in its national duty of giving encouragement to this Company. It was the duty of the Government to give that encouragement, and that encouragement was rendered, as was amply shown by the Papers. As early as 1890 Sir C. Euan Smith had written to Sir W. McKinnon recommending the Despatch of a thoroughly equipped expedition to Uganda, and in their Despatches the Government had used such phrases as—
      "No more favourable opportunity could arise for the Company to enter into amicable relations with the King,"
      and—
      "It is understood that the principal object that the East Africa Company has in view is to secure a permanent interest in Uganda, and steps have been taken for that object by the despatch of a caravan."
      There could be no doubt that reasonable and proper encouragement was given by the late Government to the Company to proceed to Uganda. Lord Salisbury, in fact, had written—
      "It would be unreasonable that Her Majesty's Government should, by thrusting the whole responsibility on the shoulders of private individuals, claim to be relieved from all responsibility."
      He did not mean to imply that the late Government had committed itself in any unreasonable manner. It did no more than its duty, and no less. The Com-
      1330
      pany was to pay a certain rent to the Sultan of Zanzibar in consideration of being allowed to collect duties within a certain zone, and when that zone was declared free and no dues could be collected, no remission was made in the rent. He desired to press upon the Government to settle the matter quickly, because the Company was placed at a disadvantage and did not know what to do, and it was seriously apprehensive regarding delay. For the sake of Imperial interests and of justice to the Company, let them be quick in settling the matter. Now that the question of Uganda had been so beneficially settled by Her Majesty's Government, could they not go a step further and bring matters with the Company to a just conclusion? The Company should no longer be required to go on paying revenue to the Sultan of Zanzibar for benefits no longer receivable. Though no one held the services of Sir Gerald Portal in admiration more than he did, he hardly thought that Sir Gerald sufficiently considered the part which the Company had to play in that part of the world, and it never seemed to have occurred to Sir Gerald's mind that if there had been no Company there would have been no Uganda question for this country to argue about. The Government were, it seemed, halting at this moment between two opinions. There was no middle course for them to pursue. Either they must be prepared to assume a virtual Protectorate over the whole Hinterland from Mombasa to the Great Lakes, or the Company must have financial means at its disposal to enable it to do its duty. How could that be done? In the first place, he understood that the Company had no real taxing powers. They could not tax British subjects or other European subjects without some positive sanction from the British Government, and he believed that could not be done unless the Government were prepared to give that power by Order in Council, or by such other Order as they might choose. They must otherwise make it a Crown Colony, and if they make it a Crown Colony, of course, it was virtually a Protectorate. One of the financial means he was advocating was that the Company should have the

      1331
      power of taxation, which they had not now. The people who enjoyed protectection would, no doubt, be willing to accept taxation. There was another point which was well worth consideration. The revenue at present raised, or which could be raised, at the principal ports did not benefit the Company, but went, as he understood, to Zanzibar, which was now being virtually administered by the Foreign Office. The Sultan was, at all events, but the shadow of a King. The islands of Zanzibar and Pemba ought, he contended, to live on their own taxes, and ought not to look to other ports up the coast. The taxes collected from the ports on the coast ought, in his view, to be devoted to that coast, and if those taxes were receivable by the Company the latter would have means to go on. If, however, this course was not considered by Her Majesty's Government to be desirable, then they must adopt the other course—follow Sir Gerald Portal's advice, assume a Protectorate over the coast and Hinterland, and incorporate the territory in the Zanzibar Protectorate. In this event the Government must make proper terms with the Company, which would, he supposed, remain as a commercial body, and might in that condition still do an immense amount of good. He submitted that, as statesmen, they must adopt one line or the other, and not be the means of retarding the development of our Empire in that part of the world, of placing the Company at a great disadvantage, and of lowering us in the eyes of neighbouring Powers. He was surprised to hear the Under Secretary of State talk about the spending of a great deal of money. He himself should have thought that the spending of a few thousand pounds by the richest Government in the world would have been a small matter.
      SIR E. GREYsaid, he had stated that in estimating the amount of compensation to be obtained they had to remember that the one thing certain at present in regard to the territory was that they had to spend a certain amount of public money upon it.
      SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, he thought the hon. Baronet used the words "much money." It was only a passing phrase, but he believed he was correct in saying that it would be a small sum.
      SIR E. GREYsaid, what he meant was that what had been spent was a good deal if it was considered that they were being asked to pay the Company in addition.
      SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, he sincerely hoped that the Government realised the extreme importance of retaining the entire Valley of the Nile, from its source onwards, through the whole sphere of British influence. With regard to the district abandoned in deference to what they had deemed to be the just remonstrance of Germany, was he correct in understanding that we still had the right to construct telegraph lines?
      SIR E. GREY:Yes.
      SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, that if there was to be the right to construct telegraph lines there must be a right of maintenance, and that would necessitate the construction of some kind of road and buildings for artificers, supervisors, and others. So long as they maintained these things he thought British influence would not have suffered any great check.
      MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he thought there was a great deal of reason in what the hon. Baronet who had just sat down had said with regard to the prospect of our being able to maintain this line of communication along the Congo border. He was bound to say he had always himself thought we had been rather unduly tender to the susceptibilities of Germany in the difficulty which had been raised. He could not conceive how German interests could have been jeopardised in any way by our right of passage in the district in question; but as difficulties had been raised he was rather inclined to agree with the hon. Baronet that it would not have been worth while jeopardising our friendly relations with Germany in order to maintain that which he thought, after all, they would be able to secure. The real fact was that, as far as the present position was concerned, they need not be in a very great hurry about this particular territory. The only portion they had to trouble themselves about was the 160 to 180 miles of thickly-inhabited country on the border of the Congo Free State. He hoped the time was not far distant when a good deal more would be known about that portion

      1333
      of the country. At present it was inhabited by a tribe who would not allow either Germans or any other white men to penetrate into the district. When hon. Members were discussing this question of distance, and the construction of a railway, he thought it was advisable to remind the Committee that there was a far better and easier and more rapid means of access to the district under consideration through the medium of steamers on the Great Lakes. He was anxious in dealing with these questions that they should take, not only a patriotic, but a broad and International view. He did not see why they should be jealous of the Germans or French. So long as their destinies were bound up with the maintenance of order and prosperity in Egypt itself, it would be exceedingly undesirable to allow the control of any portion of the Nile Valley to slip from their grasp. He believed that in the position in which they found themselves, they were the people of all others who could best promote, and ultimately carry out any experiment in the Nile Valley. This was a most important point in the great scheme which Mr. Rhodes was the first to elaborate—not merely a telegraph line, but a through railway route from the Cape to Cairo. He believed that that was bound up with their work in Egypt, and therefore he was not in favour of withdrawing one jot of their claims to the control of the Nile Valley. At the same time, that was no reason why they should come to loggerheads with France, Germany, or Italy. He believed that by a policy of conciliation it would be possible to develop the prospects of all the nations interested in those parts, and to carry forward civilisation to the furthest extent possible. While he admired and appreciated the value of what Sir Gerald Portal had done, he thought it would be a mistake for them to accept every word of his Report as absolutely correct, or to follow it in every particular. When Sir Gerald spoke, on page 37 of the Report, about the route viâ the Great Lakes being impossible, he considered they might fairly criticise that statement. He held that that route would not be so impossible as Sir Gerald thought. He asked the Government to consider whether it was not worth while to negotiate
      1334
      with Germany for an easy route through that country's territory from a point near the north corner of Lake Tanganyika to the south-western corner of the Victoria Nyanza. That would be probably 160 or 180 miles. It would, he contended, be far better to try and effect some arrangement of this kind. He was anxious to see International relations developed to the fullest extent between these countries. If they took the route up from Zambesi they had the Belgians on one side, the Germans on the other, and the Portuguese lower down, and themselves following the Portuguese. The best plan would be for them to associate themselves with these different nations, and to come to some arrangement most conducive to opening up the land and for the development of their trade and commerce along with their own. These Great Lakes were open to the trade and commerce of all nations. There was no monopoly possible to any one Company, or party, or country. What they had to look to was the development, as speedily as possible, of steam and railway communication upon these magnificent waterways which, in his opinion, would be a more practical and, from the commercial aspect of the question, far more paying than the proposed railway, through an almost impracticable country, from Mombasa to Uganda. As to the rights or wrongs, or the desirability of exploiting a new country through the agency of a Chartered Company, he had on former occasions expressed his opinion in this House that it was possible, under present circumstances, to avoid doing so. But in addition to the particular case which the hon. Baronet cited, he thought they might take the instance of the East India Company and other cases which had been quite as successful. At present, on the West Coast of Africa they had the Niger Company, which conducted the administration of its territories with great success. Why should the Niger Company on the West Coast be so great a success and the Imperial British East Africa Company be such a failure? He was not at all sure that they should say the British East Africa Chartered Company had failed because it had not received the same free hand which the Chartered Company in the South and the Niger Company had received? These

      1335
      were not the only Companies. He was rather surprised that no reference had been made to the Hudson's Bay Company. The Hudson's Bay Company was a commercial Trading Company, just as much as any of those now developing the Central or Southern districts of Africa. Again, the Mozambique Company was steadily forging ahead, and if Companies like the Mozambique and Niger Company in Africa had been enabled to do good work, to become paying concerns, and to bring into cultivation large tracts of country from which this country had reaped the benefit—if all this had been done elsewhere, why could it not be done with equal success in East Africa? It appeared to him they had got to find the reason, not in the fact that the East Africa Company had been badly administered—he did not believe it had—not in the fact that it was a Chartered Company, but in what the conditions were in connection with the relations between the East Africa Company and the Government, or the limitations and restrictions imposed upon them, and they should ask whether those conditions might not be an explanation of the failure which everybody regretted. If he were asked for a reason why the Chartered Company of East Africa haft not succeeded he might possibly say, in the words of one of the principal representatives of the Chartered Company in South Africa, that it was because they attempted too much to combine philanthrophy with trading success and were too tender, perhaps, of the susceptibilities of their own people in connection with the Slave Trade. That view might be entirely wrong, but he had heard such a criticism passed upon them. Whether that were so or not, the gentlemen who had spoken of the British East Africa Company, and the members of the Company themselves might perhaps contrast with a feeling of bitterness the remarkable partiality which the present and past Governments of this country had always bestowed upon the Chartered Company of South Africa with the rather stand-off attitude they seemed to have adopted towards the East Africa Company. He was glad to think that the Government of this country, whether Tory or Liberal, had shown, at any rate, a friendly desire to support to the best of their power the
      1336
      great enterprise of the Chartered Company in South Africa. He entirely shared the opinion of those who criticised—when criticism was necessary—the policy of the Foreign Office, whoever was the head of it, when the Foreign Office had not made up its mind. He had been in correspondence with the Foreign Office in relation to South African matters, and he was bound to say that a little more sagacity in dealing with that correspondence on the part of the permanent Government officials was highly to be desired. If they could make up their minds in a reasonably short time as to the policy to be pursued, and boldly carry it out, he was sure it would, in future, save them a great deal of difficulty.
      GENERAL GOLDSWORTHYsaid, he had much the same feelings on this subject as the hon. and gallant Member for Eastbourne—though he should not express them in the same forcible language—and he would appeal to the Under Secretary to remember, when this question was settled, as he hoped it would be quickly, that some of the loss that had been incurred to the British East Africa Company was due to the action of Her Majesty's Government. He wished to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether the Government would consent to produce the correspondence between the Company and the Government from January 1, 1890, down to the present time, so that they might see how matters really stood? He hoped when the claims of the Company were taken into consideration it would be borne in mind that what the Company had done would greatly benefit this country, and that they would, therefore, be treated on a liberal basis.
      MR. J. A. PEASEremarked, that he did not propose to vote for the reduction of the Vote, because if any Minister had earned his pay it was the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. But he desired to press one or two considerations upon the Government. He wished to allude, in the first instance, to the necessity of their being the first in the field if a railway were to be made; and, if that were contemplated, they ought to begin it at an earlier date, and carry out the recom-

      1337
      mendations of Sir Gerald Portal by constructing it as far as Kikuyu. If that were done it would benefit their own sphere of influence and rather prejudice other nations; whilst if they allowed other nations to construct a railway to the southern extremity of these Lakes, they, no doubt, would take away the trade from the British sphere of influence. He wished to refer for a moment to the administration in Zanzibar. He believed the system of administration was a ridiculous one, uneconomical and ineffectual. The Sultan of Zanzibar had an Englishman as Prime Minister, Sir Lloyd Matthew; the head of his Army, General Hatch, was another Englishman, and they had as their representative and responsible to their own Government a Consular General. Each of these three Englishmen had his own staff, and each spent money in watching and controlling the Sultan, who was a mere puppet in their hands. There was no law of succession to the Sultanate, and the British Government selected for the office the weakest man they could find, who would be a tool in the hands of his Ministers. If the Sultanate were abolished, the administration might be economised and placed in the hands of one Englishman, who might have absolute control. There were official advisers of Her Majesty's Government who did not favour this step; but there were other high authorities well acquainted with all the circumstances of administration in East Africa who believed it was right that this economy should be effected and the Sultanate abolished. It would be very easy, and could be done at the small cost of a pension to the Sultan, who had no hold either of primogeniture or any other claim on the Throne. The only use of the Sultan of Zanzibar was that he was a sort of figure, behind whom the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had sheltered himself when confronted with questions in this House. He would point to one or two things that would result from establishing a Crown Colony at Zanzibar or Mombasa on the coast. It would be a valuable base of operations in the event of trouble in that part of the world; it would economise at least £10,000 a year in the expense of the staffs already alluded to; and it would also enable their own Government to re-
      1338
      duce greatly the war vessels they maintained there. The last suggestion alone would, he estimated, mean an economy of about £150,000 a year. In addition, it would be possible for slavery to be put an end to in the event of the Sultan being abolished and a Crown colony established, and with a reduction of slavery they should no longer require so many ironclads to look after the suppression of slavery on the coast. If slavery was abolished in the Island of Pember and in Zanzibar the great demand for slavery would be cut off, and the same necessity for maintaining a large station would be diminished. Again, in the administration of the Customs, reform was needed. They were at present farmed by the British East Africa Company for the Sultan, and there was no economy of collection. On page 9 of the Report before them, Members of the Committee would see the following recommendation by the Vice Consulate:—
      "Another reform urgently needed is the proper administration of the Customs of the Island of Pemba, where there exists at the present moment administration in name only, and little or no control."
      Another advantage would be that individuals who at present escaped taxation would have to pay their fair share of both local and Imperial taxation. Under the administration of the Sultan, and by the Mahomedan law, any individual who had any right whatsoever to claim any citizenship of another nation could escape the burdens of taxation. Not only so, but he could enable any slave whom he employed to escape any such burdens, the result being that a great number of people got scot-free from all taxation or payments to the revenue in those parts under the administration of the Sultan.
      THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Sir J. GOLDSMID)reminded the hon. Member that the administration of Zanzibar had nothing to do with the question of the abolition of the Sultanate, and the establishment of some other form of Government.
      MR. J. A. PEASEthought that as Her Majesty's Government were responsible for the administration it would not be out of his province to allude to one or two recommendations whereby money could be saved, and advantages could be secured which would have justified the

      1339
      Government in taking a more active course. It seemed to him the Government had allowed things to drift too much, and had not adopted a course which could be thoroughly justified, and, therefore, he thought that, if he could point out to the Committee certain things which, in his opinion, would be beneficial to their country as a whole, he should have been in order in doing so. By the adoption of such an administration as he had suggested the internecine tribal wars which existed inland, to the great detriment of the country, would be settled, and they should be able to perform those obligations they entered into at the Brussels Conference.
      COMMANDER BETHELLasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
      MR. LAWRENCEasked for some reply to the question which had been put as to whether there would be a further publication of Papers.
      SIR E. GREY, in reply, said, he did not see that there was any reason for the further publication of Papers with regard to East Africa. A great many Papers had been published lately, and the position was undoubtedly still one of transition, so that the time had not arrived for publishing further Papers. With regard to what he had said earlier in the evening about the question between the Government and the East Africa Company, the Government did not want to deal hardly with the Company; at the same time, they had the interests of the taxpayers to consider as to the fair amount of compensation due to the Company for the work done and the value of that work at the present time. If the Company could not negotiate on those lines then the Government must fall back on the present position of the Company under its Charter, having regard to the question whether the withdrawal of the Company from the greater part of the territory did not entitle the Government to revoke the Charter if the Government desired to exercise the right. Sir Gerald Portal's opinion was that the withdrawal of the Company had practically given the Government the right to revoke the Charter if they chose to do so. He had no further announcement in regard to the railway; and with reference to the question of Zanzibar, he begged to say that he had
      1340
      never sheltered himself behind the Sultan of that country, who had taken most enlightened views; and the least thing this House could do was to recognise that fact. He had not sheltered himself behind the Sultan; all he had said was that so long as the country was a British Protectorate, the practice of Protectorates must obtain, and so long as it was a Mahomedan Protectorate it must be governed according to Mahomedan law. The present Government had added one Protectorate in East Africa already, and he thought it was going a little too fast to propose that they should change the Zanzibar Protectorate into a British Crown Colony.
      Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
      Original Question again proposed.
      MR. LEGHsaid, it might be thought that the subject he was about to raise was a subject of minor importance to raise on a Vote on Account, but as hon. Members now got no fair opportunity for discussing the Votes, they were obliged to take every chance afforded for raising questions in which they were interested. He moved to reduce the Vote by £100, in order to call attention to the appointment of Sir Mortimer Durand as Minister at Teheran. He had no desire to say anything against Sir Mortimer Durand. On the contrary, he recognised in that gentleman a distinguished and capable official, and he had no doubt that he was well qualified for the post with which he had been entrusted. But he took this opportunity of making a protest against the system of putting all kinds of people into the Diplomatic Service, which was carried on by both political Parties alike. Of the eight principal posts in the Diplomatic Service—Embassies which might be regarded as the prizes of the profession—no less than four were filled by gentlemen who had had no original connection with the Service at all. If any one would take the trouble to peruse the foreign lists he would discover that the whole Service was permeated by outsiders. He asked whether this system was fair, whether it was reasonable, whether it was even profitable? The Diplomatic Service was recruited by the process of careful selection; the persons who be-

      1341
      longed to it had to pass a severe examination; and he thought it would be admitted that their duties were discharged with zeal and intelligence. That being so, was it not most important that every man in the Service should be induced to interest himself as much as possible in his profession, by being able to look to promotion as a reward for intelligent application to work? But what encouragement was there to young men in the Service if they were liable to be supplanted by one of these gentlemen who had no connection with the Foreign Office and probably were entirely ignorant of the duties they were called upon to discharge? That was a condition of things that did not exist in any other branch of the Public Service. They did not see officers of the Army who had worked their way to the upper ranks of the Service superseded by Admirals. He wondered what would be the feelings of legal gentlemen if, on the vacancy in a Judgeship, a Bishop was put over their heads? Why, if a messenger in a public office or a postman was passed over, there were hon. Gentlemen in the House who would champion his cause and denounce it as a job, but any kind of person was considered good enough to be a diplomatist, and anybody might be called upon at five minutes' notice to discharge duties which it took a good many years to learn. He was aware that the Foreign Secretary was allowed ample discretion in the matter under the regulations, and could pick and choose those persons whom he considered suitable for the appointments; and occasionally excellent reasons were given why particular persons were appointed to particular posts—in other words, because they were, or were supposed to be, experts. That was all right so far as it went; but the expert did not remain in the place where his knowledge and information were of value; he got tired of remaining in the same place; he gradually moved up the ladder like everyone else, and in his declining years found himself at Washington or Lisbon. Sir Mortimer Durand came within the category of a distinguished expert; and he thought it would be of advantage to the country that Sir Mortimer Durand should be able to exercise the knowledge and information he
      1342
      possessed where that knowledge and information were most wanted. Sir Mortimer Durand was also the special nominee of the Indian Government. The Indian Government contributed part of the expenses of the Persian Minister, and it was only fair that it should have some voice in the appointment. What he would suggest, therefore, was that Sir Mortimer Durand should confine himself to those countries in which the Indian Government had a direct interest. Sir Mortimer Durand might be a most valuable official in Persia, but it did not follow that he would be equally valuable if transferred to Europe or America. He could not help thinking that this proposal would be found satisfactory to all parties concerned. He was quite sure it would be satisfactory to Sir Mortimer Durand himself, because he would prefer to be employed in countries upon which he had special knowledge. He was quite certain that it would be agreeable to the Indian Government, because Sir Mortimer Durand would always be on the spot to look after Indian interests, and no one was better qualified than he to do so. As to the third parties in the matter—namely, the members of the Diplomatic Service, he was quite sure they would be even more satisfied than the others by the proposal. He begged to move a reduction of the Vote by £100.
      THE CHAIRMAN:It is not necessary to move a reduction. The hon. Member can make his speech and it will be answered without moving a reduction.
      MR. J. W. LOWTHERsaid, his hon. Friend had asked whether it was fair or reasonable to appoint gentlemen not trained in the Diplomatic Service to high diplomatic posts. He answered most emphatically in the negative. He had no hesitation in saying that, in order to be a successful diplomatist, a man must have worked his way up the ladder. Diplomaticus fit, non nascitur.
      SIR S. NORTHCOTEsaid, that as one who had been connected with the Diplomatic Service he thought the question which had been raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Newton was deserving of serious consideration in the interest of the future position of the Service. At the present moment our

      1343
      Ambassadors at Paris, Washington, and Constantinople, and also Sir H. Drummond Wolff, and now Sir Mortimer Durand, had been appointed from outside the ranks of the Diplomatic Body. It would be unfortunate for the future of the Diplomatic Service if any impression got abroad that long and claim for promotion. It must be known to all persons having any knowledge of the Service that it was not possible for any gentleman connected with the Service, until after many years in office, to live on his salary; and if promotion were taken away from gentlemen who entered the Service in the ordinary way, and who did loyal and valuable service to the State for many years, he could not help thinking that the consequences would be disastrous to the Service as a whole.
      COLONEL HOWARD VINCENThoped the Government would continue the policy of selecting the fittest persons to direct our policy abroad. There was nothing more important than that the Foreign Secretary should retain the most absolute power of liberty in selecting men who could advance the interests of this country to fill these important posts. He would like to see an even larger number of the junior members advanced to the higher posts, more especially those men who showed an interest in the advancement of the commercial interest of the country, watched commercial developments, and sent in timely Reports of changes in fiscal policy and commercial action in the countries in which they were stationed. He also desired that the Secretary of State should have greater liberty in transferring to diplomatic posts those Consuls who had shown especial ability. He had in several foreign countries met Consuls of extraordinary ability in advancing the commercial interests of Great Britain, and it would be of the greatest advantage if they could be encouraged in their zeal and activity by knowing that their services were recognised, and that there was a possibility of their being promoted to higher posts in the Diplomatic Service.
      MR. CURZONsaid, that several of his hon. Friends had discussed with great ability many questions of African policy connected with the Foreign Office Vote. He would therefore say nothing on those subjects, but
      1344
      would confine his attention entirely to affairs arising on the Continent of Asia. With regard to the point raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Newton, without expressing any opinion on the general question, he should like to say with what very great pleasure he and all who had had experience of matters in the East had welcomed the appointment of Sir Mortimer Durand at Teheran. He hoped that Sir Mortimer Durand would stay at Teheran so long as health, inclination, and ability to serve enabled him to do so; but he should be sorry if his hon. Friend's suggestion was carried out, and if Sir Mortimer Durand were compelled to live all his life at Teheran, or at any other place in the East, which was not at all so pleasant as his hon. Friend might imagine. He desired to allude to three separate parts of the Asiatic Continent. The first was the region of the Pamirs, and the disputed border in that part of the world between Russia and Great Britain. Negotiations on this question had been going on for a long time between the two Governments, and last year Her Majesty's Government discouraged any discussion upon it in that House because negotiations were still proceeding. Another year had since passed, and as far as public knowledge was concerned we were no nearer a settlement now. He should not, therefore, be making an unreasonable or extravagant request if he asked the Government to give them some information on the question before the Session closed. It might be asked what importance there was in this question of the Pamirs, and he was ready to admit that no particular physical or intrinsic importance attached to this lofty, inclement, and sparsely-populated region. But the strategic importance of the Pamirs was overwhelming. There was also much political importance attached to the territory. As long as the frontier between Great Britain and Russia in those territories was undetermined so long would a dangerous feeling of unrest prevail among the wild tribes inhabiting them, and so long would there be constant risk of collision between the outposts of those two great Powers. They had had experience in recent years how easily and quickly such collisions could take place, and it was directly in the interests of both Governments that the difficulty should be settled as soon as

      1345
      possible; for whatever were the rival interests of Russia and Great Britain in other parts of the world, it would be an absurd grotesque and indefensible thing that those two great Powers should come into armed collision over a territory such as the Pamirs. He hoped he might venture to say that the considerations which Her Majesty's Government must have in view in dealing with the subject were, first, the preservation of the military frontier of India, second, the protection of the interests of our loyal friend and ally the Ameer of Afghanistan, and third, a clear and unmistakable understanding with Russia as to what the actual boundaries were to be. We had had too many disputes in Asia in the past, arising from the possession of shifting indeterminate and inchoate boundaries; and he hoped we would not lose this opportunity of providing ourselves with a boundary in those remote regions which would be precise, scientific, and well defined, and which, by virtue of possessing these conditions, would be a guarantee for the maintenance of peace between two great Powers who never ought to be at war with each other. He would remind the House that, although it was several months since Sir Mortimer Durand's Mission to the Ameer of Afghanistan was concluded, no information had yet been vouchsafed to the House on the agreement arrived at. He did not desire to press his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on the point if his hon. Friend conceived it to be in the public interest still to withhold the information, but he could not help observing that the Asiatic policy of the Government had all along been overwhelmed in a somewhat unusual obscurity. He passed now to regions still further East. He must raise again the question of Siam. It might be thought an uninteresting and ancient question by many Members of the House, but those who were aquainted with the subject and realised its vital importance would fully approve of his action in calling attention from time to time to a matter in which British interests were more at stake than in any question affecting any other part of Asia, and on which our prestige and our domination in Asia so largely depended. If the information he had received from that country was correct, matters were in a most unsatis-
      1346
      factory condition. The King was ill and the Government of the country had almost come to a standstill. A very general apprehension existed both among foreign inhabitants and among the native peoples that still further aggressions were intended by a great European Power. The Government had assured the House that they had the fullest intention of protecting British interests in Siam, but he had never succeeded in ascertaining what was their conception of British interests or of the particular point at which these interests were likely to be touched or imperilled. He should allude to the occupation of Chantaboon, on the southern coast of Siam, which was taken possession of by the French last year, ostensibly as a guarantee for the execution by the Siamese Government of the terms of the agreement between the two countries. It must be remembered that Chantaboon had no connection with the Mekong or with the territories in dispute; it was in an entirely different part of the country; it was the maritime outlet of the provinces on which France had not laid a hand, and its continued occupation by France was a menace to the integrity of Siam. Over and over again the Government had assured the House that the only condition that required to be realised before the French quitted that port was the completion of the trial of a certain Siamese officer alleged to have been concerned in the assassination of a French Militia Inspector near the Mekong River. On the 17th February of the present year he asked a question of his hon. Friend opposite on the subject, and his hon. Friend, in reply, said that assurances had been received from the French Government that their forces remained at Chantaboon only for the purpose of securing that the Siamese Government fulfilled their engagements with regard to this trial. He then asked whether they might expect the evacuation of Chantaboon by the French as soon as this trial took place, and the Under Secretary gave this exceedingly explicit reply—
      "Yes, that is the only possible interpretation which can be placed on the assurances of the French Government."
      That trial was now over. By a legal process, into the details of which he would not enter, but which appeared to him to be a travesty of justice, this unfortunate

      1347
      individual having been first acquitted of the charge by a Siamese Court, was condemned by a French Tribunal and sentenced to 20 years of hard labour. That trial being over, the Government were naturally asked whether the French had intimated any intention of carrying out their promise to evacuate Chantaboon, and the House received in reply the surprising intelligence that no such communication had been received by the Government, and that no steps had been taken to remind the French Government of their undertaking. It might perhaps be said that there were further conditions to be fulfilled before evacuation took place. If that was so, why had the Government hitherto deliberately ignored them? Why had they not found out those conditions earlier in the day? He hoped the hon. Baronet opposite would be able to assure the Committee that communications would pass between Her Majesty's Government and the French Government, and that the matter would not be lost sight of. He could not help alluding to the attitude of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the production of Papers. No doubt their action had been characterised by great agility, but it could not be said to have been marked by great confidence in the House of Commons. They had been discussing this matter on and off for a year and a-half, and during all that period, although repeated promises had been made, with the exception of one Protocol, no Papers relating to the main subject had been yet published A short time ago, when pressed to give the reason for this delay, they were told that fresh Papers could not then be presented because the French Government had just been changed, and that time must be allowed the new officials. He thought the Government in France was sufficiently old now to admit of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs overcoming his scruples and presenting the Papers asked for. On the 17th of July the hon. Baronet had said that in a fortnight the Papers would be published. That fortnight had passed, and they had not yet had the Papers, and from former experience in such matters his fear was that owing to these tactics they would not get the Papers in time to have a discussion on the question this year, and
      1348
      that it would again be a case of the Government allowing matters to "draggle on" from month to month, and from Session to Session until the House, weary of waiting, from sheer disgust allowed the matter to slip altogether. Another question he wished to refer to was the buffer State it was proposed to construct in the extreme North-East of Siam. They had been told more than once by the Government that owing to climatic reasons the despatch of the Commission had been postponed to the autumn of this year; but France had, he knew, not only already appointed her Commissioners, but had sent them out, and he believed that one of them—namely, the French Consul from Bangkok—was by this time actually on the spot. When was it proposed that our Commissioners should start? Who were they, and what instructions were they to receive? Information on these points had been promised again and again, but so far none had been received. He did not attach much importance to the creation of another buffer State; but whether he was right or wrong in that, one thing was certain, it must be a trans-Mekong buffer State alone. The main interest that England had in the whole question was the imperative necessity that existed for preserving the integrity of Siam itself, for it was undoubtedly to the direct interest of this country that Siam should be kept an independent political unit in the Asiatic system, free from the encroachment and aggresion of any Foreign Power, whoever it might be. By all means let Her Majesty's Government give a joint guarantee of the integrity of Siam with France if France was willing. If France was willing to assist England in maintaining the independence of Siam, all the better, but if there was any refusal on the part of our neighbours across the Channel to do this, then he submitted that the Government should not hesitate for a moment to take upon itself the responsibility. He should not, perhaps, speak on this matter with so much feeling were it not that he had a great many correspondents in that part of the world who were continually writing to him giving him information which, perhaps, was not similarly communicated officially to Her Majesty's Government. From the in-

      1349
      formation he had received it seemed that a state of genuine apprehension did exist in Bangkok, and that at a time of general commotion, such, for instance, as the death of the Sovereign, there was cause for fear that a further movement would be made by the advanced Colonial Party in France, which would have the effect of riveting still more firmly the chains of servitude on the unhappy country of Siam. Such a course would be in open violation of the pledges and assurances of the French Government, and most serious injury would be involved to British interests. He ventured to say that the present Government or any other Government that was a consenting party to such a condition of things would be guilty of the gravest dereliction of public duty. He was aware that anyone who expressed with any honesty or freedom the sentiments to which he had now given utterance was liable to find himself very much attacked and vituperated in the French newspapers. That was the penalty that had to be paid by everybody who ventured to set his knowledge or influence—however small they might be—in opposition to the ambition of the extreme Colonial Party in France. He did not complain of that. The members of that able and accomplished nation across the water were entitled, of course, to look after their own particular interests in the first place in the manner best suited to themselves, and were entitled to call British politicians what names and to heap upon them what abuse they pleased—though he could not help being somewhat amused at the sensitiveness to the slightest criticism of these gentlemen who placed no measure on their own invective when addressing British statesmen. He only claimed that the same attention should be given to British interests in the East as he was sure was being given by the French and German Governments on behalf of the interests that their own subjects had in that quarter of the globe. He believed there was no Englishman who was thoroughly acquainted with our interests in the East, in Rangoon, Singapore, Penang, Bangkok, or in any part, from Colombo to Hong Kong, who would not repeat the views which he had uttered in the House, and who had not looked with
      1350
      distress and regret upon the apparent indifference to what was taking place of Her Majesty's Government. The doors of that House were presently to be closed for six months, and for six months Members of the Opposition would beat at them in vain. They would hear nothing, and get no information from Her Majesty's Government; and he implored the hon. Baronet to give the Committee some assurance that in the interval British interests would not be allowed to suffer, but would be carefully safeguarded by the Government of which he was a Member. There was only one other subject he wished to mention which had reference to events taking place still further to the East—namely, the conflict between China and Japan in Korea. Before, however, alluding to the controversy now proceeding between those countries, he would ask whether some information could be given with regard to Treaty revision with Japan. Our commercial and other relations with that country were governed by Treaties that were concluded more than 40 years ago, and were now obsolete, owing to the astonishing advances that Japan had made in civilisation and reform. It was an open secret that negotiations between the two countries had recently been resumed, and if the hon. Baronet could inform the Committee that they were proceeding towards a satisfactory conclusion, it would be a matter of great gratification to all interested in the maintenance of friendly relations between Japan and this country. He took a personal interest in Korea, because it was scarcely a year and a-half since he spent some time in the Peninsular, and saw there at work the germs that had produced the present unfortunate crisis. The Government stated that war had not broken out, and possibly they ought to describe what had taken place as "military operations," though, after a naval engagement in which 1,700 men were sent to the bottom of the sea, the distinction between "war" and "military operations" did not appear to be very obvious to the lay mind. The subject in controversy was a trifling one. Japan pretended to be interested in the question of reform. She was really anxious to show the superiority of her reorganised forces over

      1351
      those of her old rival, and also to seek an escape from Party wrangles and the con stitutional deadlock at home by a policy abroad that would arouse patriotism among the people. China, on the other hand, had to regard her indisputable and inalienable suzerain rights. She felt that in this case she was the aggrieved party, and could not submit to the provocation she had received. However, they were not concerned to talk about the respective views or policies of China or Japan. He would only speak of the light in which the controversy should present itself to Her Majesty's Government. He had been glad to read in the papers that efforts had been made by Lord Kimberley to bring about a peaceable solution, and so long as war was not actually declared, they might hope that peace was not absolutely out of the question. He hoped that these efforts might still be continued, and might ultimately meet with success. It must be remembered that an Asiatic war was very different from and more serious than a European war. It was certain to be long in duration and bloody in nature, and sooner or later European Powers would be drawn into the vortex. There were great Powers in the neighbourhood of Korea who had an interest in the question, and they might be certain that this quarrel could not long continue without the appearance of other and much greater antagonists on the scene. If warlike operations were proceeded with, he hoped that the Government would take steps to protect the Treaty ports of China with the vast British commerce that daily entered them, and the persons and property of British subjects in Korea. An Oriental people in time of war had no great regard for life and property, and the first victims were usually foreigners. He hoped the Government would take steps to provide for the safety of our countrymen who happened to be in Korea; and should the Government feel compelled in the interests of peace to take in combination with other Powers even stronger steps than mere moral suasion, he believed they would be backed up by public opinion. He begged to move the reduction which stood in his name.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That the Item (Class 2, Vote 5), of £7,000, for the Foreign Office, be reduced by £500."—(Mr. Curzon.)
      SIR E. GREYsaid, he would endeavour to answer the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down as fully its it was in his power. With regard to the general principle of promotion in the Consular and Diplomatic Service, he fully admitted that it was desirable, when good posts fell vacant, the rule should be adhered to of promotion in the Service. As far as the present Government were concerned, he believed that rule had been generally observed, except in the special case of Sir Mortimer Durand. There had been no attempt in the course of the Debate to recognise that appointment as other than very suitable. Sir Mortimer Durand was appointed specially on the ground of his experience, success, and the abilities he had shown for this particular post. This gentleman being in that post, and having been placed there for special reasons, the Government was not going to give any pledge as to changing that appointment, leaving the Government free to make use of Sir Mortimer's abilities as seemed best to them. As regarded the general principle, he agreed that promotion in the Service should be the rule. As to the question of the Pamirs, he admitted that it was most desirable, in this part of Asia, as in many parts of Africa, that the different Powers interested should, as quickly as they could, arrange boundaries which were definite, precise, and scientific, so as to put an end to the unrest which continually existed in those parts of the world where a clear agreement had not been come to. Undoubtedly, there had been some delay in the progress of these negotiations, but invariably Her Majesty's Government had been able to use both in that House and elsewhere favourable language as regarded that progress, for the reason that there had always been a sincere desire on the part of both Governments concerned to found an ultimate and satisfactory agreement upon them. He was now in even a stronger position to use that favourable language, because, in the course of the last few weeks, they had come to a more favourable position than they were before to assure the House that the negotiations were progressing satisfactorily, and that they were within measured sight of the end of them. Certain details remained to be settled, but having arrived at the present stage, it

      1353
      was not likely that anything would interfere with the success of the negotiations. At the same time, he was not yet in a position to publish the Papers, but they were in a position to say that this country need have no anxiety as to the ultimate outcome between Russia and ourselves. As regarded Siam, he took the definition of British interests to be to maintain the independence of Siam, and to secure to this country a Treaty with Siam, giving us the Most Favoured Nation Clause in commercial or other respects. The question, of course, was, as to how far Her Majesty's Government were likely to be called upon to protect those interests; and the point which had been especially taken was whether the French occupation of Chantabun was to be indefinitely prolonged Some words of his own had been quoted. He had spoken those words, of course, according to what he understood to be the circumstances of the incident in question. He had understood that the incident was at an end. How far it could be revived he was not in a position to say, but the words he had spoken expressed the view he entertained at the time he spoke. The French had received a report that an armed Siamese force was in the prescribed zone.
      MR. CURZONsaid, that that was denied.
      SIR E. GREYsaid, his impression was that the French Government had not withdrawn the original statement. But the ultimate question of Chantabun could not be settled by incidents of this kind which occurred from time to time. The point was as to whether the occupation of Chantabun was to be indefinitely prolonged. They undoubtedly relied on the French assurances, made from time to time, that they desired the independence of Siam, and that they had no intention of prolonging the occupation of Chantabun indefinitely. He should push forward the production of Papers. The hon. Member opposite said he had promised that Papers should be produced in a fortnight, and that the fortnight expired to-morrow. If the Papers were not presented within the fortnight he could only say that he had used language which was too sanguine. But if he had used that language hon. Members might be assured that he would press
      1354
      forward their production to the utmost of his ability. There was no reason why they should be delayed beyond the mere mechanical process of getting them ready for presentation. With regard to the staff of Commissioners, they were in consultation with the India Office, and he imagined that the time for them to start was October. The French Commissioners had been appointed, but he understood that the journey of the French Commissioners referred to was not in connection with the buffer State, but in connection with a visit to the newly-acquired French territory. As to the question of Corea, it was not for him to give any name or definition of what had occurred between the Japanese and Chinese vessels. All he could say was that war had not yet been officially declared between the two countries. Having made that statement, he must leave hon. Members to define as they pleased what had already taken place. But, as long as war was not actually declared, at any rate there was a hope or possibility that the two Powers might come to terms without further enlarging the breach which had occurred between them. The view which Her Majesty's Government had taken with regard to the whole question had been, in the first place, that it was desirable to maintain peace between Japan and China on the ground of the very general interests of British trade. Of course, it was very undesirable that loss should be inflicted on British trade in that part of the world. But, after all, the main interest was that of peace in any part of the world—those large moral grounds which ought to actuate any Government. From the first Her Majesty's Government had offered friendly advice impartially at Pekin and Tokio in the interests of peace; and finding other Powers had done, or were inclined to do, the same thing, Her Majesty's Government had asked those Powers, including Russia, if they would act in concert. Favourable replies were received from all the Powers; and they agreed to give in concert friendly advice and to exercise what moral suasion they might in keeping the peace. As long as war was not actually declared, there was some hope of success. As to the question of Treaty revision with Japan, within the last fortnight a Treaty had been signed between

      1355
      Her Majesty's Government and Japan. He could say nothing further at present, because it would be impossible to make any statement about the Treaty which would not give a partial or unfair view of it until the full text had been laid before the House. It was a matter of great interest and importance, and as far as Her Majesty's Government were concerned, there would be no delay in presenting the Treaty to the House; but it was, of course, necessary to act in concert with the Government with whom the Treaty was signed.
      SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, the House and the country would hear with pleasure that the Government had tendered advice and counsel to the Governments of Japan and China in the interests of peace, for a serious and protracted struggle between these countries would undoubtedly be of the gravest injury to British commerce, and might ultimately tend to the interference of the Great Powers in the Corean Peninsula, which we had the utmost interest in avoiding. As to the Pamirs, he asked whether the House was to understand that the boundary question was actually on the point of being settled, or that, only negotiations for the appointment of a Boundary Commission were on the point of being settled?
      SIR E. GREY:When the question is ripe for the appointment of a Boundary Commission it may be regarded as practically settled.
      SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, as the question had been going on for two years, he did not think they could congratulate the Government on its progress. The Siamese Question afforded one of the most striking instances of the mistake which the Government of this country made in yielding to the demands of a Power, great or small, whose interests in a particular case were opposed to ours. This question began to assume a form of gravity 12 months ago. The demands of France were at first comparatively moderate. But Her Majesty's Government had backed down before them, encouraging fresh demands, each of which was followed by a fresh surrender. Her Majesty's Government had allowed each of the promises of the French Government to be deliberately
      1356
      broken; and, owing to the fact that at the critical moment the British squadron was withdrawn instead of being increased, and to the fact that the Government in both Houses made a statement practically giving carte blanche to France, Siam fell a spoil. The hon. Member opposite had spoken of maintaining the integrity of the independence of Siam, but he forgot that one-third of the territory had been taken from her and joined to the French possessions, and he forgot the occupation of Chantabun. Six-sevenths of the commerce of Siam was in British hands; the country adjoined our Indian Empire; therefore, its independence of integrity was of vital importance to our credit and prestige in the East; and yet all those encroachments on the part of Franco were done without any protest on the part of the Government. If the Government hoped to preserve what remained of the independence of Siam, they must show a much bolder front to the French demands. There was one motto in regard to the French which he would recommend the Government to remember, and that was that they were the worst people in the world to run away from.
      SIR R. TEMPLEassured the Committee that if Russia were allowed to occupy the Pamirs unrestrained the whole of the north-west of India would be disturbed. Afghanistan would be threatened, Cashmir would be disturbed, and the Punjab would be in a state of anxiety. That being so, he had heard the statement of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs that before long there would be a settlement of the difficulty by the demarcation of the boundaries with great satisfaction. He could assure the Government that few subjects more vitally concerned British India than this question. The fact that the region of the Pamirs was so lofty and so barren in many respects showed that there must be some strategic reasons why Russia wished to have control there. But the territory in question was not quite so impervious as might be supposed, because it was easily traversable during some two or three months in the year. As regarded Siam, he believed that if the present state of things was to go on for any lengthened period public opinion there with regard to this country would be most injuriously affected, and the moral

      1357
      mischief it caused might spread amongst our subjects in the eastern part of Bengal. As he had been Governor of Bengal, the House might test his words on that point. Of course, he had heard with satisfaction the statement that the Government did not regard the interests of this country in Siam as being limited to a purely commercial interest, and that they were of opinion that it extended to the preservation of the independence and integrity of that country. He was afraid the integrity of Siam was shattered and was past praying for; but the independence of Siam, or all that remained of it, could be and ought to be secured, and, therefore, he was glad to hear such explicit assurances from the Government on the subject. But those words must sooner or later be translated into action. Of the many true things the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs had said, he had never said a truer than that sooner or later the occupation of Chantabun by the French must come up; and when the question did come up, we must be prepared to take a firm stand and declare that so long as British power remained, France could not be allowed to remain in occupation of Chantabun. France had put off the evacuation of Chantabun first on one excuse and then on another. She showed no disposition whatever to leave, and if anything untoward were to occur in Siam—if there was a revolution in the country or if there were disturbances owing to domestic causes—France, if allowed to continue in the occupation of Chantabun, would be able to make a further move, and then what would become of the independence and integrity of Siam? We must take time by the forelock and insist upon a settlement of this question by an International Agreement between the two Great Powers before it was too late; and he ventured to say that if we were not fit or able to take up a strong line against France in this matter, we were unfit to maintain our Imperial possessions in Asia.
      Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
      Original Question again proposed.
      MR. CHAPLINrose to call attention to the correspondence that had recently been pub-
      1358
      lished between the Colonial Department and the Board of Agriculture with reference to the restrictions upon the importation of Canadian cattle into this country. That correspondence was, he thought, of the most extraordinary character, and it would indeed be hard to find any parallel for it in any correspondence that had ever passed between two Government Departments in this country. In order to understand that correspondence, it would be necessary to make the position clear to the Committee. The Committee would remember that in 1892 it was found necessary by the Board of Agriculture to impose restrictions on the importation of Canadian cattle into this country by requiring their slaughter at the port of debarkation. Previous to that time Canadian cattle were permitted to land and pass freely into the interior of the country without any restriction whatever. But in 1892, pleuro-pneumonia—a most disastrous contagious disease—was detected in some of the Canadian cattle landed in this country, and, consequently, in order to comply with the law with regard to contagious diseases in animals, it was found necessary to require the slaughter of the cattle at the port of debarkation. Since then great pressure had been brought to bear upon the Board of Agriculture to get them to relax those restrictions upon the importation of Canadian cattle. The pressure came from three sources, and three sources alone. In the first place, the Canadian Government put upon the Board of Agriculture all the pressure in their power, the Canadian Government representing persons who were interested in cattle ranches and in the cattle trade at the other side of the Atlantic. The second quarter from which pressure was brought to bear was the Colonial Department in this country; and, thirdly, pressure came also from feeders of stuck as opposed to breeders of stock in two or three counties in Scotland, and to a still more limited extent from feeders of stock in one or two of the Eastern counties of England. With those few exceptions, he was quite sure he was right in saying that nine out of every 10 of the agricultural community of the United Kingdom heartily approved of the maintenance of the restrictions which had been imposed by

      1359
      the Board of Agriculture. He might also say, having some considerable experience in the matter, that he was most strongly of opinion that the maintenance of the restrictions for some considerable time was a matter of the gravest possible importance to the agricultural interests of this country, and that it would be impossible to remove them without the greatest risk of bringing back the disease into this country, and without throwing away the money which had been spent that during the last two or three years, and successfully spent by the Board of Agriculture of successive Governments, in saving the flocks and herds of the country from the ravages of pleuro-pneumonia. He must call the attention of the Committee particularly to the action of the Colonial Secretary in the matter. Lord Ripon had, as far back as December, 1892, asked for the removal of the restrictions. That was absolutely impossible, for the disease lay dormant for many months, and the request was very properly refused by the Board of Agriculture. But, in spite of the fact that year after year since then, it had been proved that animals landed in this country from Canada were suffering from the disease, during the present year the Secretary for the Colonies had again brought pressure to bear on the Board of Agriculture to obtain the removal of the restrictions, and pressure, too, which he was sure the Committee would agree with him in describing as without precedent altogether. Writing on the 26th of April of this year to the President of the Board of Agriculture, Lord Ripon said he had great difficulty in accepting the view that the animals were suffering from contagious pleuro-pneumonia, and believed that it was a mild type of disease due to the hardship and exposure of the journey to this country. He (Mr. Chaplin) should say that he thought it the greatest presumption on the part of the head of the Colonial Office to tell the experts of the Board of Agriculture—who were celebrated throughout the world for their great success in their profession—that they did not know their business; that they must be led in this matter by the Colonial Office, and that, despite the overwhelming evidence those experts had produced that the animals were
      1360
      suffering from contagious pleuro-pneumonia, they did not know whether or not the animals were affected by the disease. Lord Ripon went on, in the same communication, to censure the Board of Agriculture for not having taken his advice and instructions on a subject about which he knew absolutely nothing, for he expressed his regret—and "regret" was always the first word in a Vote of Censure moved in the House of Commons—that the Board of Agriculture had not felt themselves able to accept the recommendation of the Colonial Office that the restrictions should be moved on the re-opening of the trade in Canadian cattle for the approaching season. A Special Committee had been appointed by his hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture to investigate the whole question, aided by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury and other learned gentlemen. That Committee, he was informed, had made a most exhaustive examination of the subject, and had concluded their labours, and he was unable to understand the cause of the delay in laying their Report on the Table of the House. He was, however, informed by some of the Members of that Special Committee that they had conclusively arrived at the opinion that the animals lauded from Canada during the present year were unquestionably suffering from contagious pleuro-pneumonia, and it came to this: that if the Colonial Office had been successful in obtaining the removal of the restrictions the gravest risk of injury would have been inflicted on our agricultural community, and on Ireland more than on any other part of the United Kingdom, because Ireland, as everyone knew, was a great stock-breeding country. He had been anxious to draw public attention as emphatically as he could to the action of the Colonial Office in this matter, because it was an action which, if it had been successful, would have inflicted the greatest conceivable injury on that industry which it was his duty to represent in the House, and in which he had the greatest possible interest personally. He did not wish to prolong the Debate, but he hoped that the Government would take this matter into consideration and would prevent in the future this most unwarrantable pressure being brought to

      1361
      bear by one Department upon another Department.
      Original Question put, and agreed to.
      Resolution to be reported To-morrow; Commitee to sit again upon Wednesday.

    CROFTERS' HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 294.)

      SECOND READING.
      Order for Second Reading read.
      DR. MACGREGORsaid, he should like to know how long the Government intended to go on playing battledore and shuttlecock with this matter?
      MR. SPEAKERinformed the hon. Member that as the clock was striking 12 no discussion could take place on the Order.
      DR. MACGREGORsaid, he must protest against the action of the Government.
      Second Reading deferred till Wednesday.

    MERCHANT SHIPPING (re-committed) BILL.—(No. 321.)

      COMMITTEE. [Progress, 25th July.]
      Bill considered in Committee.
      (In the Committee.)
      Clause 1.
      MR PENROSE FITZGERALD:I move to report Progress.
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BRYCE,)said, this was a Bill as to which there was no difference of opinion among those affected. The measure had been carefully considered by a strong Committee, and would be of the greatest advantage to the Merchant Service. It was really a Consolidation Bill, and brought together a number of Acts in regard to which there had been confusion. The late Solicitor General was a Member of the Committee and agreed with the Bill. He thought it was understood that the Bill was not to be debated.
      MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he should like to have an assurance that there were no new Regulations in the Bill.
      MR. BRYCE:No, Sir.
      SIR E. CLARKEsaid, this Bill was carefully examined by the Committee, but some question arose as to its provisions, and the parties were invited to appear before the Committee, when they seemed to be in agreement.
      MR. PENROSE FITZGERALD:The Bill we are now discussing was placed in our hands this morning. I move to report Progress.
      MR. BRYCE:I do not think that the hon. Gentleman or the House would be in any better position for examining the Bill, which, as I have said, is a consolidating Bill.
      COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT:Has this Bill been sent to the Chamber of Shipping, and has it been reported upon by them? I myself only received it this morning.
      MR. PENROSE-FITZGERALD:I move, Sir—
      MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he hoped this Motion would not be persisted in. He did not think there was a shipowner or merchant seaman in England who was not anxious that this Bill should pass. It was a Bill consolidating 40 or 50 Acts extending over the last 20 years, and he hoped that such a measure would be allowed to go through. The Bill was circulated last year and referred to a Committee, whose work, he thought he might say, was done in a thorough manner.
      MR. BUCKNILLsaid, when the Bill was introduced last Session he had an opportunity of going through it, and he told the right hon. Member who had just spoken that the Bill was not in any sense a mere consolidation Bill, and that view was carried out by the Committee, which, after one or two sittings, required that it should be reprinted.
      MR. BRYCEsaid, it was true there were verbal alterations, as there were bound to be in a consolidation Bill. As regarded the substance of the Bill, the Committee, which was a strong one, presided over by the Lord Chancellor, and which had the advantage of including a representative of the shipowners in the person of the hon. Member for West Bristol, assured him that it contained nothing but what appeared in existing

      1363
      enactments. The House might, therefore, accept the measure as a bonâ fide consolidation Bill.
      MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, the Committee took enormous pains to see that there was no departure made from the existing law. The draftsman was before them, and he was instructed to see that the Bill was in accordance with the existing Statutes. If work of this kind was to be carried out the House must trust the Committee.
      MR. PENROSE FITZGERALD:I move, Sir.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Penrose Fitzgerald.)
      Motion agreed to.
      Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

    INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS BILL [Lords]. (No. 335.)

      SECOND READING.
      Order for Second Reading read.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
      SIR F. S. POWELLobjected.
      MR. PAULTONsaid, he would like to say a word of explanation. This Bill provided for supervision over children who had deserted from a school, who had found suitable and honest employment—a principle which had already been introduced in some schools. He hoped the Bill would be allowed to go on.
      SIR F. S. POWELLsaid, he could not agree that the Bill was not contentious. He did not object to its Second Reading, but there were some clauses in it which would require careful examination in Committee.
      Motion agreed to.
      Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

    EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL [Lords]. (No. 300.)
    As amended, considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.
    ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (BARRY, &C.) BILL [Lords].—(No. 310.)
    As amended, considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have agreed to,—
    Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 15) Bill,
    Statute Law Revision Bills, &c.,—That they have added a Lord to the Joint Committee on Statute Law Revision Bills and Consolidation Bills, and request this House to add one of its Members to the said Joint Committee.

    CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 3) BILL.
    Read the third time, and passed.
    PRIZE COURTS BILL [Lords].—(No. 311.)
    Read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.
    ADJOURNMENT.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."
    ADJOURNMENT.

      DR. MACGREGOR AND THE CROFTERS BILL.
      DR. MACGREGORsaid, he wished to explain what he meant with regard to the Crofters Act Amendment Bill. He had understood that the Ministry was willing to go on with this measure if it were not regarded as contentious. He had applied to the Leader of the Opposition, who had told him that he did regard it as a contentious measure. Remembering that the Party opposite gave the Irish leaseholders the benefit of the Irish Land Act, he could not understand why they should refuse to the poor crofters of Scotland what they gave to the Irish leaseholders. He proposed that the Government should bring in a Bill before 12 o'clock, give them an opportunity of discussing it, and throw the responsibility for its rejection upon the right shoulders.
      Motion agreed to.
      House adjourned at twenty minutes after Twelve o'olock.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Standing Order No. XXXIX. considered (according to Order), and dispensed with for this day's sitting.
BOARDS OF CONCILIATION BILL. [H.L.]—(No. 112.)

  THIRD READING.
  Bill read 3a (according to Order).
  LORD PLAYFAIRdesired to explain before this Bill went to another place the attitude of the Government in regard to it. As he had stated on Second Reading, there were three Bills before the House of Commons with this important object—one introduced by Government, another which was now introduced before their Lordships by Lord Onslow, but known in the other House as Sir John Lubbock's Bill, and the third by Mr. Butcher and Sir John Gorst. The Government approving entirely of the object of this Bill had, therefore, offered no opposition to it, and it went down to the House of Commons in exactly the same state as it left that House, without a single line or word of it altered. But although the Government could not oppose the Bill, approving of its object, they did not consider it equal to the Government measure in the other House. It was more stringent and less elastic. Therefore, although it had received their Lordships' approbation, the Government did not consider it their duty to give it priority in the other House. It was proposed that all three Bills should be referred to the Grand Committee for the purpose of selecting the best parts of each in order to make a practicable working measure.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOWsaid, he quite understood the attitude of the Government on this important subject. A deputation waited on the President of the Board of Trade a short time ago, and the answer then given practically explained the attitude of the Government. They had placed a block against the other two Bills in the House of Commons, not objecting to the principle
  1222
  involved in them, but desiring to act as starters in a race, and to allow no Bill to get a start of the others; but if the Government, with the command of time in the other House, did not choose to give priority either to their own Bill or to this Bill, the responsibility for the failure to pass any Bill would rest upon them. He moved an Amendment to carry out the views expressed by the Lord Chancellor in Standing Committee, by providing that a certain proceeding should be taken
  "on the application of either of the parties, if the High Court or a Judge shall in their or his discretion think fit,"
  instead of on the order of the High Court or of a Judge.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

FINANCE BILL.—(No. 168.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Earl of Rosebery.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:My Lords, I wish to ask a question of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. I regret very much that I was prevented from being in my place on Friday when the noble and learned Lord made a statement which appears to me to be so interesting and important that I wish to ask for further information on the subject. I gather from the noble Lord's statement that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has on some occasion decided that this House has no constitutional power to amend Money Bills. If they have so decided, I believe they are entirely wrong; but that is not the point. They have no power of binding us. But I am rather disturbed that they should have entered upon the subject at all. It appears to me to be an extreme exercise of their power. To decide on matters which are in conflict between the two Houses of Parliament is not within their jurisdiction at all. If they were deciding upon the construction of an Act of Parliament, of course I at once admit that they would be within their rights; but I can hardly imagine an Act of Parliament passed, dealing with the position of the two Houses in respect of this

  1223
  matter, without its having been carefully watched in this House. I, therefore, wish to ask the noble Lord whether he will give me a Reference to the decision the Privy Council has come to, and whether he will also produce the Judgment to which he referred? It appears to me to be a matter of considerable importance, because I do not think that in the present state of things the legal power of this House ought to be diminished in the very slightest degree by any action of this House or concession which this House can make. And though I quite admit that a decision of the Privy Council cannot bind this House, still it comes perilously near to limiting the legal powers of this House when the Privy Council comes to a decision of that kind. My Lords, I draw a very strong distinction—as strong as it is possible to draw—between the legal powers of this House and the House of Commons and the practice which considerations of obvious convenience in the interest of the public welfare may induce the two Houses to adopt. It is perfectly obvious that this House in point of fact has not for many years past interfered by Amendment with the finance of the year. The reason why this House cannot do so is that it has not the power of changing the Executive Government; and to reject a Finance Bill and leave the same Executive Government in its place means to create a deadlock from which there is no escape. If the House of Commons had rejected this Finance Bill during the present month, there would, no doubt, have been considerable inconvenience, but at least another Executive Government would have been provided whose duty it would have been to have suggested an alternative for making fresh provision for the year. But if this House were to reject a Finance Bill, or to amend it so that the House of Commons would reject it, as the same Executive Government would remain in Office, there would have been obviously the greatest inconvenience in dealing with the public finance. I do not, therefore, in the least degree, dispute the necessity of the accepted practice that this House should not, as a rule, interfere with the finance of the year; but at the same time I think it very important, in view of the changes which
  1224
  have come over the Constitution, the proceedings, and, I must add, the authority of the House of Commons, that we should rigidly adhere to our legal powers, whatever they may be. It is necessary to call attention to the fact that the differences between the legal rights of the House of Commons and its moral authority are of the widest possible character. The legal rights of the House of Commons are equally strong and powerful if they are exercised by a majority of a single vote. They are in all circumstances the same; but the moral authority of the House of Commons varies infinitely with the circumstances of the case. The legal power of the House of Commons is the same as the legal power of the House of Lords, neither more nor less. It is sometimes claimed that the moral authority of the House of Commons is greater; and undoubtedly under certain circumstances it is very much greater; and there are circumstances under which it may be overwhelmingly irresistible. These circumstances are when the House of Commons not only theoretically but practically represents a distinct expression of the will of the people of these Three Countries. There is no resisting the national will. But when the House of Commons does not represent that national will then its authority diminishes, and may diminish to any extent you please, until it has ceased to exist. It occurred to me, after reading the speech of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, to consider what was the legal and moral authority of the House of Commons in reference to this Finance Bill. It was passed, as your Lordships are aware, by a majority of 14. That is to say, eight Members voting in another direction would have thrown out the Bill. What is the moral authority of these eight Members? It depends upon the amount of the popular and national support which they represent. It depends, according to our modern theories and views, upon the numbers they represent. If they represent an overwhelming majority of the people, the authority of the House of Commons is overwhelming; but not in any other case. It is worth while to call your Lordships' attention to the moral authority actually represented by these eight Members who passed this Finance Bill and introduced this revolution in our finance. What is the amount of moral

  1225
  authority which they actually represent? I have taken out—not their names, of course; I would not do that, but the names of eight constituencies—namely, Central Finsbury, Ayr, North Somerset, North-West Ham, South Northampton, Inverness, Boston, and the Exchange Division of Liverpool—all of which were represented in the Division which gave the Government a majority of 14. The Members for these constituencies were returned by exceedingly small majorities, so small that, if 150 voters had voted the other way, the results of the elections would have entirely changed the majority of the House of Commons for this purpose and would have thrown out this Finance Bill which has made such an extraordinary change in the finance of England. Therefore, the moral authority of the House of Commons for this purpose is the moral authority you choose to attach to 150 householders or lodgers living in those eight constituencies I have named. I need hardly point out to your Lordships that when it comes to a question of 150 men, we could find 150 non-voters in the House of Lords who would condemn the Bill quite as heartily as any 150 voters in those constituencies would support it. Without claiming anything for aristocratic descent or for privileges belonging to the House of Lords, I suppose those 150 non-voters are as good as any 150 lodgers or householders who are to be found in those eight constituencies. I dwell on this matter, because there seems to me to be a constant tendency in the public mind to confuse the moral authority and the legal authority of the House of Commons. I repeat that the legal authority is good if it is exercised by a majority of a single vote, but the moral authority of the House of Commons depends on the popular strength which it represents, and which lies behind it. This particular measure undoubtedly has been passed by moral authority of the very weakest kind—by 150 householders and lodgers, not better men than 150 Peers. My Lords, on these grounds I attach very great importance to the preservation intact of the legal prerogatives and rights of this House, because we do not know when it may be expedient to insist upon and to exercise them. I quite understand the duty and necessity of exercising any of those powers with great reserve and cir-
  1226
  cumspection; but I confess I heard with great disquietude the language of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, which seemed to me rather like an attack. The noble and learned Lord, basing himself upon some extraordinary proceeding of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, attacked the legal powers of the House of Lords. We know not when they may be wanted, and I earnestly protest against any attempt to diminish them. While I am on my legs I wish to contradict, with all courtesy and deference, a statement of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, which will not bear scrutiny. He informed the House that there was nothing new in this principle of graduation, that it had been adopted by Mr. Groschen and Sir S. Northcote, and was merely extended now. While anxiously desirous to avoid anything like uncivil language, I must say that appears to be a mere juggle of words. There is no real similarity between what is called graduation in the proposals of Mr. Goschen and Sir S. Northcote and the graduation put into this Bill. Of course, I am anxious about it, because I myself am responsible for what both Mr. Goschen and Sir S. Northcote did. What they did was to render more easy the burden of the Income Tax in the first place, and to some extent the Death Duty in the second at the lower end of the scale, where they pressed very hard on persons of small means, who had great difficulty in making their living. It was an action of sympathy and compassion—of consideration; I do not think it can be in the least degree blamed or attacked or for a moment compared to the scheme of the present Bill. The transition from indirect to direct taxation is so harsh, and the Income Tax is so severe upon men who are struggling at the extreme end of the social scale for the supply of their ordinary wants, that I am not only not surprised Parliament should have interfered, but it was highly necessary and laudable Parliament should do it. But let not the noble and learned Lord say this principle began with Sir S. Northcote or Mr. Goschen. When Sir Robert Peel limited the Income Tax to £150 he did exactly the same. He recognised that graduation, if you choose to use the word, at that end is necessary; but this graduation for the benefit of the poor

  1227
  has no similarity or analogy or connection with the graduation now introduced at the other end, which is introduced for the purpose of enabling people with small fortunes to put their ordinary burdens on people who are richer than themselves. Of course, you may say it is just to graduate and make people of large fortunes pay at a greater rate than those with small ones. Justice in political matters is to a large extent a question of conventional tradition. But this is absolutely new. It has been done in no country before. It was never done in this country before the present time. If the usual practice had been followed I suppose there would have been a Death Duty of about 4 per cent., or a little more all round, and the people of small fortunes would have paid their proportion as the people of large fortunes do upon the old principle. The effect of this operation has been constantly described as a contest between rich and poor. It is nothing of the kind. The poor people have nothing to do with it. It is a fight between people of small fortunes and those of large fortunes; and the people of small fortunes are to be enabled to place their burdens, contrary to principles of taxation accepted from time immemorial, upon the shoulders of people with large fortunes. Now, I am not going to represent that as a serious public calamity, or anything which need alarm us, as legislators. It is very disagreeable to people with large fortunes, and very pleasant to the people with small fortunes. It is a very clever device ingeniously carried out. But what I wish to point out is the danger which it involves in the future. You have parted with any standard. Up till now everybody paid a fixed proportion of taxation upon a well-defined standard on income or capital. There was no doubt what you had to do. But now the proportion depends upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day. You may say of it as used to be said of chancery in the old times—the measure of it "depends upon the length of the Chancellor's foot." There is no reason why 8 per cent. should be selected more than 10, or 10 more than 20, or 20 more than 50. There is nothing in the nature of the case, no principle whatever to guide you or to restrain people in the future from
  1228
  carrying so very convenient a principle into practical application. I think the noble Lord opposite (Lord Farrer) told us the other night there is no danger, because people will not commit suicide. But it is not committing suicide when people with small fortunes put their burdens upon people with large fortunes. It is for them a pleasant operation enough. There is no reason why it should not be repeated indefinitely, and it will be repeated indefinitely unless something else should happen. I have noticed, in the Debates on this subject, it has been more than once said that the process ought to be extended till you come to the point of evasion. I do not admit the word "evasion." To withdraw yourself from the operation of this tax is no more evasion than refusing to build a house is evading the House Duty; but I quite believe that the effect of what has been done will be to stimulate people to consider how they can withdraw from its operation, even at the risk of its exposing themselves to much inconvenience. And in doing so they will not act only on the ordinary motives for withdrawing from the operation of this tax; they will not only be saving their own money, but they will know that they are protecting their own pecuniary class from further and even less defensible encroachments of the same kind. If the tax is successful in raising the Revenue, this principle of graduation, which has no natural or ascertainable limits whatever, will be carried further; if the tax fails to do so, the probability is it will not be carried further. You have, therefore, announced to people that in withdrawing themselves from the operation of the tax they are not only saving themselves, but all who are in positions like to them, from its further and less defensible application. That does not seem to me to be very wise or skilful finance. A great deal is to be said, no doubt, and a great deal was said, which I shall not deal with now, on the Second Reading against this Bill. There is a great deal to be said against the oppression of this new application of the Death Duty, which, instead of levying what contributions are thought necessary for the constant and yearly increase of Revenue as it arises, cuts down at an uncertain time and for an unascertained period and levies a huge sum for the Executive. That is a very

  1229
  objectionable proceeding in the public interest, because of its violent and unexplained character, and because it interferes with all the ordinary operations by which money is disbursed in the community. Again, there are great objections to this plan, because placing a very heavy penalty on the possession of works of art must inevitably drive them from this country. These are very great evils, but they do not seem to me to be anything like the evils, or to involve anything like the severe condemnation deserved by a plan which, from its very nature, encourages and stimulates what you call evasion to an extraordinary degree, and which will, therefore, probably not only lose the objects at which it aims, but will weaken and diminish the yield of other former taxes—analogous taxes—which already exist, and which, so long as they were not treated in any exaggerated spirit, were not resisted by those on whom they were levied. I have spoken of this principle of graduation, because I repudiate with all the energy that Parliamentary Forms will permit me to employ, the suggestion that either Mr. Goschen or Sir Stafford Northcote are responsible for instituting the principle of graduation. There is no possible ground for laying it upon them. I agree that it will introduce great confusion in our finance. I believe it will work great injustice, and possibly it will produce great social evil; but whatever the evils that come from it may be, the responsibility for this violent revolutionary departure from former principles of finance lies with the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, with the present Government, and with nobody else.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL):My Lords, I thought in answer to the noble Duke on Friday evening, I had made clear the action of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the case to which the noble Marquess has referred. Unfortunately, I seem to have failed in my endeavour to do so. I pointed out on that occasion that the Report then made by the Committee to Her Majesty could, of course, not control or affect any privileges of this House—that it could have no legal operation of that kind. But I think the noble Marquess must be aware that there are many cases in which, although a tribunal has no power whatever to ex-
  1230
  press or give a decision which will bind in a particular matter, it may nevertheless, for the purpose of a point it has to decide, and over which it has jurisdiction, be absolutely necessary to pronounce an opinion upon it. That opinion may be the very basis of the decision at which it arrives, though not necessarily, although necessary for the purpose of that decision, binding in itself. Now what happened was this: At the instance of the two Chambers in one of our colonies it was referred to a Committee of the Privy Council, on which judicial members sat, to determine whether the Upper Chamber had a constitutional right to amend a Money Bill. The conclusion arrived at by the Committee was that the intention of the Legislature in constituting these two Chambers had been that their relation to one another, as regarded Money Bills, should be the same as the relations of these two Houses of Parliament to one another. There were provisions with regard to the introduction of Money Bills, and so on, which were obviously copied from parts of our Constitution. Whether right or wrong, the conclusion arrived at was that such was the intention of the Legislature. If that be so the question arises as to the power of the Upper House to amend a Money Bill. It was impossible to give an answer to the question submitted to the Committee without first answering the question. Has this Upper House a constitutional right to amend a Money Bill? Because once you find that the relation is the same as between these two Houses, you must first determine the relation of these two Houses to each other. The conclusion arrived at was that it was not a constitutional right of the Upper House to amend a Money Bill, and that then it followed that it was not within the constitutional right of the Upper Chamber as between these two branches of the Colonial Legislature. It became absolutely indispensable and unavoidable that we should form an opinion on the point, and, although the noble Marquess has called it monstrous, I am at a loss to understand how he or anybody else could avoid it. That opinion does not and could not bind this House; but none the less it was the conclusion arrived at by those who were considering the matter, not at all from a political point of view or in a Party spirit, but

  1231
  merely for the purpose of answering a constitutional question submitted to them at the instance of the two Colonial Chambers. That is the real explanation, and I hope the noble Marquess will find it satisfactory, because it appears to me I have shown that it was not only within the right of the Privy Council to form such an opinion, but that it was absolutely impossible for them to answer the question submitted to them by Her Majesty with regard to the Constitution of the Australian Chamber without first forming an opinion upon it. Beyond that we did not go. With regard to the noble Marquess's suggestion that Papers should be laid on the Table, the Report could be presented, but it contains only a simple answer to the question submitted to the Committee, because in these cases it is not customary to give at length the reasons for the conclusion arrived at. As to the noble Marquess's question in reference to graduation, I was not intending to cast blame on anyone for introducing the principle which I was maintaining was a sound principle. The noble Marquess says that to represent that graduation was ever introduced before was a juggle of words. That is a matter of opinion. I maintain that it has been introduced before, although it may be somewhat extended and elaborated now. Unless I am much mistaken, the Inhabited House Duty differs according to the rental at three stages. I call that graduation, and I cannot call it anything else. There are three steps in the case of the Inhabited House Duty, and there are eight steps in the present case; but whether the steps are three or eight, it is equally graduation. As regards the Estate Duty, the noble Marquess says it was only a provision for the relief of the poor from the pressure of taxation. But I cannot see, if it is right that those who have over £10,000 should pay more than those who have under £10,000, why, on the same principle, those who have £40,000 should not pay more than those who have £20,000. It seems to me that the same principle precisely is involved, and both of them go upon this: that you ought to temper your taxation to the means of those who have to bear it, and that just the same reasoning which justifies diminution in the one case justifies this graduation in the other. The noble Marquess has dwelt, in connection with
  1232
  what he calls the legal powers of this and the other House, upon the moral authority of the House of Commons. He says that, whatever the legal authority of the House of Commons may be, its moral authority depends upon the weight of public opinion which lies behind it. In a sense that is true; but I think it would be very difficult to draw the line and say where a House could be said to have moral authority or not according to its constitution. Of course, it must have a majority in order to carry measures at all. What majority of the House is supposed to have the moral authority of the nation behind it? That seems to me a question very difficult to answer. The noble Marquess has been connected with Governments that have not had the moral authority of the nation very strongly behind them, because they certainly have not had a very overpowering majority. But if you come to look, not merely at the majority in the House of Commons, but to the number of votes by which the Members of that majority won their seats, I have understood that the noble Marquess had a majority in the House of Commons which had been elected by a minority of the voters of the United Kingdom, and, therefore, the House lacked all moral authority during an entire Parliament. The noble Marquess asks what is the constitution of the majority by which this Bill was carried. He puts the majority at 14, and says that eight Members would have turned it the other way. That, I believe, is a mistake, for on the Third Reading the majority, I think, was 23.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:I referred to the Second Reading.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR:The House thought better of the Bill when the Third Reading came; and when they saw it in all its final glory, with its amendments, and in its ultimate shape, they acquired wisdom, and came to the conclusion that it was a desirable measure to pass. Therefore, it needs 12 Members and not eight to turn the decision the other way. But let us take eight. The noble Marquess chooses eight particular Members who were in the majority, and he says—"Look at the very small majority by which they were returned—150 votes in eight places would have turned the scale." I have not had time to make a

  1233
  corresponding analysis of Members of the minority, but I venture to say I will find eight Members of the minority returned by smaller majorities than the eight Members to whom the noble Marquess has alluded. Therefore, we may fairly set the one against the other, and that is an end of the argument as to the small moral authority of those who carried this measure by reason of the number of votes supposed to be behind them. After all, according to the Constitution of this country, a majority is a majority, and a majority of the House of Commons is, whether large or small, competent to carry a Bill. If the noble Marquess says that a small majority gives this House a greater right to disregard the action of the other House, that is, of course, a matter which this House will have to settle with the other House, and with the country, according as the country is or is not at the back of the House of Commons. I do not think it would be of advantage to enter on the present occasion into a further discussion, and longer detain your Lordships with a repetition to a great extent of what took place on the previous occasion.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, it was beyond dispute that never before was a Bill making such vast changes and causing such intense uneasiness and heartburning all over the country, carried through the House of Commons by so trivial a majority. With regard to the colonial case to which the Lord Chancellor had referred, that was not a case calling for the decision of the Privy Council as a judicial tribunal. It was a case referred by the Colonial Secretary not to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, but to a general Committee of that body; and he would like to know how that Committee was constituted? Also, it would be desirable for their Lordships to know what actually took place; and he would, therefore, ask the Government to lay on the Table not only the Report of that Committee, but an additional statement showing how many meetings the Committee held, who were the witnesses, if any, called before it, whether precedents were examined, whether any evidence was taken, or whether the very able officers of their Lordships' House were consulted and the Journals of the House referred to as to the practice and procedure of their Lord-
  1234
  ships' House in reference to the discussion, amendment, or rejection of Money Bills. He would like to know whether counsel were present to assist the Committee by argument on any precedents that existed? Or was the whole thing as he had suggested—a mere reference by the Colonial Secretary to the Committee for his own guidance? That obviously was a question of great importance. It was obvious that a bare Return, giving merely the answer of the Committee in a few lines, would be insufficient. They were aware, from the speeches of the Duke of Argyll and the Duke of Rutland on the Second Reading, that there was a great deal of learning upon this question, and a bald Return would be of little use. Therefore, he trusted that when the Return was made it would be found to contain some real and valuable information, so that their Lordships might judge of the character of the decision referred to. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack evidently attached great weight to the opinion of the Committee as a matter of constitutional importance. The Inquiry, therefore, was one not to be lightly entered upon, but ought to be conducted with great caution and prudence. It might be suggested that this was a matter ultra vires a Committee of the Privy Council. It was an immense constitutional question not to be hastily decided upon an opinion given indirectly in deciding another case.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 3a accordingly, and passed.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYgave notice that he should move for a copy of the decision referred to by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. He would insert the Reference if the noble and learned Lord would give it him.

PUBLIC LIBRARIES (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 180.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  LORD ASHBOURNEdrew attention to the marvellous and exceptional rapidity with which this Bill was pushed through the House. He was not unfriendly to the Bill, as he had shown on

  1235
  the Second Reading, when, although it had not been circulated, he took no objection to it. Neither would he offer objection now in Committee, for it was supported by many sections in Ireland. He did not wish it, however, to suffer from any carelessness in drafting. It had been nobody's child in particular, and possibly some carelessness might have been shown in the drafting. He would not discuss its merits, but had noticed that it placed strict limits with regard to rating for public libraries in Ireland. A limit of 1d. was to be fixed; then in certain cases it was to be ½d. or ¾d. carefully worked out. But now the limit was gone altogether, as the Bill was introduced into their Lordships' House from the Commons, for power was given to the Local Authority to alter the maximum and entirely take it away. Under the circumstances, he would not oppose the Bill going before the Standing Committee at the earliest possible moment; but he would invite the noble Lord, when it did so, to ask whoever was responsible for the details of the Bill, to look up the matter and furnish the necessary information on that point. It might be there was a perfectly good explanation, but on the face of it the matter required examination. An explanation satisfactory to the noble Lord himself would be sufficient, no doubt, for the other Members of the Committee, and on the understanding that that explanation would be given he would not oppose the Bill going at once to Standing Committee.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord TWEEDMOUTH)said, the passage of the Bill through the House of Commons was so extraordinary an instance of absolute unanimity among Irish Members that when he was asked to take charge of it he could but endeavour to press it through as rapidly as possible. With regard to the drafting of the Bill and the consideration it received in the Commons, he would remind the House that it was there referred to a Select Committee, by whom it was most carefully considered. Consequently the drafting now differed considerably, but he would be happy to assist the noble and learned Lord in making the Bill as perfect as possible, and, should he be unable to give the desired information, would consent to postpone the Committee stage for a week.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, he would be absolutely satisfied if the noble Lord would get a Memorandum from those responsible for the financial details of the Bill, saying that this was reasonable and right. An explanation satisfactory to the noble Lord would satisfy everybody interested in the matter.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

  THE NEW ZEALAND LEGISLATURE.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOWasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government of New Zealand had applied for any further instructions as to the action he should take on the advice of his Ministers to continue to add to the number of their supporters in the Upper House of that colony; and, if so, whether he would lay the Correspondence on the Table of the House in continuation of House of Lords Parliamentary Paper No. 76, of Session 1893–94?
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON:The answer I have to give the noble Earl is that no such application has been made by the Government of New Zealand to the Colonial Office.

  PAROCHIAL ELECTORS (REGISTRATION ACCELERATION) BILL.—(No. 174.)
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO CHILDREN BILL [H.L.]—(No. 178.)
  Amendments reported (according to Order); further Amendments made; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
  COPYHOLD (CONSOLIDATION) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 171.)
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  NAUTICAL ASSESSORS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 179.)
  House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 3) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been dispensed with for this

  1237
  day's sitting) read 2a: Committee negatived; Bill read 3a, and passed.

  CANAL TOLLS AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) (CANALS OF THE GREAT NORTHERN AND CERTAIN OTHER RAILWAY COMPANIES) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 184.)
  CANAL RATES, TOLLS, AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) (BRIDGWATER, &C. CANALS) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 185.)
  CANAL TOLLS AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 3) (ABERDARE, &C., CANALS) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 186.)
  CANAL TOLLS AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 5) (REGENT'S CANAL) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 187.)
  CANAL TOLLS AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 7) RIVER ANCHOLME, &C.) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 188.)
  CANAL TOLLS AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 8) (RIVER CAM, &C.) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 189.)
  CANAL TOLLS AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 10) (CANALS OF CALEDONIAN AND NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY COMPANIES) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 190.)

  CANAL RATES, TOLLS, AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 12) (GRAND, &C., CANALS) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 191.)
  House adjourned at half-past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter-past Ten o'clock.