Sitting of 28 March 1895

Preamble
The House met at Three of the clock.

COMMISSION.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners; the House went, and, being returned; Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to—

1.—Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Act, 1895.

2.—Australian Colonies Duties Act, 1895.

QUESTIONS.

  BRITISH INDIA.
  *MR. D. NAOROJI: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, to ascertain the correctness of Lord Cromer's statement of 1882 about the annual average income per head, and to show whether the people of British India are improving or becoming worse in their material condition, he will grant the Return for which a Motion stands on this day's Paper; and whether, if he be unwilling to grant as a Return the details of Lord Cromer's calculations, as asked in the first part of the Motion, he will give an opportunity to the hon. Member for Central Finsbury of personally inspecting them?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,), answering, in the absence of Mr. H. H. Fowler, said, considering that the statement to which my hon. Friend refers, was confessedly founded upon uncertain data, and that any similar calculation, which might now be made, must be founded on equally uncertain data, and might probably be misleading, the Secretary of State is unable to agree to my hon. Friend's Motion.

  PRISON CLERKS.
  MR. M. FOWLER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what, board and lodging allowance per diem has the Treasury approved for clerks sent from their own prison to another on temporary duty; and whether the Treasury has sanctioned the reduction of the Commissioners of Prisons of this allowance by one-half after the first three weeks; and, if so, upon what grounds, seeing that the clerks expenses must necessarily be about the same as during the first three weeks?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,: The allowance is 8s. for each day and night, during the first three weeks. The rule of the Department was to reduce the allowance by one-half after the first week, and the extension to three weeks, conferred a considerable benefit on the officers. The
  322
  reduction is made, on the ground that during the period allowed, an officer would reasonably expect to make arrangements for board and lodging on better terms than at first.

  STONEHAVEN HARBOUR.
  MR. J. W. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the fishermen at all the principal ports along the coast of Kincardineshire, at a series of meetings held two years ago, unanimously declared by resolution that the enlarging and extending of Stonehaven Harbour would be of the greatest benefit to them in the pursuit of their industry; and that the Harbour Commissioners of Stonehaven, after raising a considerable sum by local effort, applied to the Fishery Board for a sum of £3,000 as a collateral security by means of which, and of a guarantee on the rates of the burgh, they would have been enabled to borrow from the Loan Commissioners the amount required to extend and enlarge the harbour; and that the Fishery Board, though they have frequently recognised the claim of Stonehaven, now refuse this sum, on the ground that they would not be justified in granting money for such a purpose; and whether there is anything in the Acts which put the present funds at the disposal of the Fishery Board, which would preclude their applying a portion of it to Stonehaven for this purpose?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir GEORGE TREVELYAN,: I am informed by the Fishery Board that, as stated, the fishermen at all the principle ports along the coast of Kincardineshire have unanimously approved of the enlarging of Stonehaven Harbour, and that the Harbour Trustees, after raising a considerable sum by local effort, applied to the Fishery Board to become collateral security for a loan of £3,000, which would have enabled the Trustees to borrow an amount sufficient, to cover the cost of the proposed improvements, which the Board were reluctantly compelled to decline. There is nothing in the Acts, or otherwise, to preclude the Fishery Board from giving assistance to Stonehaven Harbour, except the large number of applications from small and struggling localities, as well as from various important, fishery centres, and the limited fund

  323
  at the disposal of the Board for such undertakings.

  CANADIAN CATTLE.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he has received copies of the Official Reports of the Veterinary Inspectors who investigated some recent cases of alleged pleuro-pneu-monia in Canadian cattle landed in Belgium; whether he has also received a Report from the Minister of Agriculture on the health of cattle in the Dominion of Canada; and whether he proposes to publish these documents in the Official Journal of the Board, or otherwise?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. HERBERT GARDNER,: I have taken the necessary steps to obtain, if possible, copies of the Reports to which my hon. Friend refers, but they have not as yet reached me. I received the Report alluded to in the second paragraph of the question yesterday. I shall be glad to consider whether these further documents can conveniently be published in the Journal of the Board, or otherwise.

  EDINBURGH TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT.
  MR. R. WALLACE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General, will he explain how it is that, although an open examination was held about 15 months ago for vacancies in the Telegraph Department in Edinburgh, the successful candidates, after some 12 months' attendance in the Telegraph School, have been informed that there are no vacancies, and that they must wait on indefinitely for appointments; and, whether working overtime is optional to clerks in the Edinburgh Office; and, if so, why have the clerks there been punished for declining to work overtime?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. ARNOLD MORLEY,: In consequence of the unfortunate stagnation of telegraph business, which has resulted from the general stagnation of trade, the Telegraph Establishment at Edinburgh has been found to be in excess of its requirements. In consequence of this, learners have not been required to fill
  324
  places as soon as was anticipated. They will, however, receive appointments as vacancies occur. I should add, however, that the Department has done what it could for these lads by offering them appointments on the postal side. As regards overtime, it is my desire to reduce it as far as possible. But it is the duty of every officer in the Postal Service to give such extra attendance at all times as the circumstances may call for. So long, however, as there are Volunteers for the duty, it is not the practice to enforce overtime on those who are reluctant to undertake it.

  THE NEW CODE.
  MR. ANSTRUTHER, on behalf of the hon. Member for the Partick Division of Lanark (Mr. J. PARKER-SMITH): I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, why the subject of Natural History of Animals and Plants has been dropped from the class subjects for Standards IV., V., and VI. in the new Code; and, whether, inasmuch as the effect may be to discourage the study of Natural History in the higher standards, teachers will, under the Supplementary Schedule, have, the same encouragement to teach the subject as hitherto?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. A. H. D. ACLAND,: In place of the Elementary Science Course, which appeared in the Schedule of Class Subjects in former Codes, has been substituted the course which formerly appeared in the Supplement to the Schedule as the Science to Common Things. The reason was, that this was regarded as a more useful and practicable example of a General Science Course. This substituted course does not provide for the teaching of the Natural History of Plants and Animals after Standard III. is passed; but there is full liberty for managers to obtain the sanction of the Department to any alternative Science Course which they may desire, and they may present, if they think fit, the course which has been omitted, or a course dealing to a larger extent with Natural History. I do not think this change in the Code will have the effect suggested. The Department are far from desiring to discourage the study of Natural History.

  ENFIELD ORDNANCE FACTORY.
  CAPTAIN H. F. BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War when he proposes to place the Ordnance Factory at Enfield again on full time; and, because of the long duration of short time at the factory, will he allow the loss of time consequent on the factory being closed on the 1st and 2nd April for stock-taking to be made up?
  *THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. W. WOODALL,: The amount of work which can at present be assigned to the Small Arms Factory at Enfield is not sufficient to justify the resumption of full time without much larger reductions of numbers than are contemplated, and it is not proposed to work on Saturdays. It is not intended to ask the men to work up the days of closure for annual stocktaking.

  MILITARY OPERATIONS IN INDIA.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the consent of both Houses of Parliament, under Section 55 of 21 & 22 Vic., c. 106 (an Act for the Better Government of India), was obtained for the expenditure on Military operations beyond the west and northwest frontiers of India of the following sums (shown in a Parliamentary Return, entitled "East India (Military Expenditure beyond the Frontier)," and dated India Office, February 1895, viz.: Rx. 159,116, in 1884–5; Rx.2,121,086, in 1885–6; Rx.116,055, in 1888–9; Rx.4,825, in 1889–90; Rx.143,730, in 1890–91; and, upon, what date, with reference to each of the sums mentioned in the previous question, was the consent of the House of Commons and the House of Lords respectively obtained for such expenditure?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The figures given in the Return under the heads "Expeditions and Explorations," "Expenditure in the Military Department," do not relate to what are called in Clause 55 of the Act for the Better Government of India "Military Operations carried on beyond the External Frontiers" of Her Majesty's Indian Possessions for which, as the hon. Baronet points out, the consent of Parliament is
  326
  necessary; and, as a matter of fact, there were during the period covered by the Return no "Military operations beyond the External Frontiers" on the north-west, which were held to fall within the scope of Section 55 of the Act; a reference to the Return, which comprises such items as "Railways," "Fortifications," and "Cantonments," shows that it does not refer to expenditure beyond the frontiers of India in the strict sense of the words.

  CLAIM AGAINST CHILI.
  *SIR DONALD MACFARLANE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the claim of Captain M'Phail, of the British ship St. Mary's Bay, of Glasgow, against the Chilian Government, has yet been adjusted; and, if so, when he expects it will be settled?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: Her Majesty's Legation at Santiago have instructions to take the necessary steps to have this claim brought before the Mixed Commission, which is now sitting; but it is not possible to say when this particular claim will be adjudicated upon. The Commission is, by Article 7 of the Convention between Great Britain and Chili, allowed a year in which to discharge its duties, with power, under certain circumstances, to prolong its existence for an additional six months.

  LION TAMERS' EXHIBITIONS.
  *SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of a lion tamer named Rowland, connected with a travelling menagerie, who is reported to have been savagely attacked by a lioness three times within a few days, and in one instance terribly injured and rescued with great difficulty, while in another the spectators became panic stricken, women fainted, and several persons fell and were trampled upon; and whether he has any power to discourage or suppress such dangerous exhibitions?
  MR. ASQUITH: My attention has been called to this case, but I have no power to interfere with exhibitions of this kind.

  LONG QUARTER SESSIONS.
  MR. JUSTIN MCCARTHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether he is aware that in the northern division of the country of Longford the Quarter Sessions are held only twice in the year, that is, in April and October, and then only for one day each time, and that litigants and jurors from the Granard division of the county are compelled to attend at Longford four times yearly, a distance to most of them of more than 20 miles and without the advantage of railway communication; and (2) whether it would be possible to have the county divided for legal purposes as it now is for Parliamentary purposes, and to have the County Court judges sitting as often in the northern as in the southern division?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,: I understand the facts are stated with substantial accuracy in the first part of the question, though I am also informed that the transaction of the criminal business at Granard, as well as at Longford, would be attended with difficulty and inconvenience to witnesses. As regards the second paragraph, there is power to alter the existing divisions and to appoint additional places for holding Quarter Sessions, and if a memorial from persons resident in the county and interested in the subject be forwarded to the Lord Lieutenant the matter will at once be carefully considered.

  GOVERNMENT BILLS.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade when the Second Reading of the Conciliation Bill is likely to be fixed, when the Light Railways Bill will be introduced in pursuance of the Reports of the Departmental Conference and Committee, and when the Sea Fisheries Bill will be introduced in accordance with the recommendations in the Report of the Select Committee of the House?
  MR. C. W. CAYZER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether Her Majesty's Government have yet been able to fix a day for the Second Reading of
  328
  their Conciliation (Trade Disputes) Bill; and whether they will at the same time facilitate the Second Reading of the other two Arbitration and Conciliation Bills now before the House with a view to referring them all to a Select Committee so as to ensure as far as possible some legislation on the subject during the present Session?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. J. BRYCE,said, that the Second Reading of the Conciliation Bill would depend on the progress made with the other business of the House. He desired, however, to take it at the earliest possible moment. In answer to the hon. Member for Barrow, he said that he was prepared to allow the other two Bills to be read a second time when the Government had obtained a Second Reading for their Bill, so that the Bills might go together to the Grand Committee. As to the Light Railways Bill, he was looking for the first possible opportunity to introduce it, and he was still in hope of being able to do so early next week.
  MR. G. WHITELEY: Does the same answer apply to the Factories and Workshops Bills and the Truck Acts Amendment Bill?
  MR. ASQUITH: We hope to take those two Bills at the earliest possible moment.
  MR. G. C. T. BARTLEY: Is it not the case that the Government always block private Members' Conciliation Bills when they come on?
  MR. BRYCE: No, Sir; it is not the fact. The Government have stated on all occasions that these Bills would proceed pari passu.
  MR. G. W. WOLFF: Will the Second Reading of the Conciliation Bill be taken before midnight or after?
  MR. BRYCE: I hope to take it before Twelve o'clock.

  ROYAL ARTILLERY BANDS.
  MR. G. H. ALLSOPP: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, in reference to the reply given by him to a similar question last Session, what steps have been taken to supply bands to the Royal Artillery in large stations and districts other than Woolwich and Aldershot?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,: It has not been found possible to provide for this service in this year's Estimates.

  OUTRAGE AT ATHEA.
  MR. H. O. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether his attention has been called to a recent outrage upon a man named Shea, of Athea, a labourer in the service of John Danaher; (2) whether he is aware that previous to the attempted murder a series of resolutions denouncing Danaher by name, and generally denouncing land grabbers in the neighbourhood, had been passed, and that such a resolution was passed by the Athea branch of the Irish National Federation in May 1894, and a similar resolution passed in the same mouth by the Guardians of the Newcastle West Union; (3) whether he is aware that a third resolution was passed by a meeting of delegates from Limerick and Kerry, held at Athea in June; that a fourth resolution was passed by the Athea branch of the Irish National Federation in September; that on September 16 the branch actively boycotted persons working for Danaher; that at a meeting held at Athea on October 14 the hon. Member for West Limerick attended and declared that he would have no hesitation in speaking for West Limerick that the grabber would get a hot time of it for the next few weeks; (4) whether he is aware that, in December, Danaher's premises were fired into by Moonlighters; that a sixth meeting was held on January 20th, 1895, for the purpose of denouncing Danaher; that on March 3rd a seventh meeting was held for the purpose of further boycotting Danaher; and that on the 14th instant Shea was shot and dangerously wounded; (5) and, if he can state what protection, if any, was accorded during the past six months to the people thus threatened?
  MR. J. MORLEY: My attention has been called to the recent outrage on Timothy Shea referred to in the first paragraph of the question. Proceedings are now pending against one person who was arrested in connection with the outrage the day after its committal. It is
  330
  the fact that meetings have been held, as stated, at which resolutions were passed directed against Danaher, but there is no evidence of what transpired at these meetings, all of which, with the exception of that held on October 14, were held indoors. With regard to the alleged firing into the premises of Danaher in December last, it is true that it was alleged that, on December 4, a shot was fired for the purpose of intimidation in the yard of the house of John Danaher, father of the man who has taken the evicted farm, but the police entertain doubts about the genuineness of the alleged outrage. In reference to the last paragraph, I am informed that John Danaher would not allow police into his house for his protection, nor would he allow them to accompany him on a car. He receives, however, protection by patrols both by day and night, and his son, who occupies the evicted farm is similarly protected. Shea was also protected in the ordinary manner.

  WEIGHING CATTLE.
  MR. H. T. ANSTRUTHER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether auctioneers who have erected cattle-weighing machines within their auction marts are bound to issue to the seller or buyer a ticket specifying the true weight of the cattle weighed; whether a ticket which does not give the odd pounds, if any, sufficiently specifies the true weight; and, whether the Board of Agriculture will issue a Memorandum directing the attention of auctioneers to the duties which the Weighing of Cattle Acts, 1887 and 1891, require them to perform; and, if auctioneers fail to perform these duties, what steps can be taken by farmers to compel auctioneers to give them the facilities conferred by the Statutes in question.
  *MR. HERBERT GARDNER: An auctioneer cannot, unless specially exempted, sell cattle at any mart where cattle are habitually or periodically sold, unless weighing accommodation is provided, and a proper person appointed to have charge of the machine. If that person refuses or neglects to weigh cattle, when required, or to deliver to the seller or buyer a ticket specifying the true

  331
  weight of the cattle, he is liable to a penalty. There is no definition of "true weight" in the Statute, and it would be for the Court to determine in each instance whether, having regard to the particular machine in use, the person giving the ticket had sufficiently complied with the requirements of the Statute. A circular letter on the subject of the Acts in question was issued in November, 1891, and we are constantly bringing under the notice of auctioneers their liability under those Acts. I doubt whether the issue of a further Memorandum would be of advantage, but I shall be glad to make inquiries on the point. Any person can take proceedings against an auctioneer who makes default in complying with the requirements of the Act of 1891.

  WATER SUPPLY.
  *MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the provisions of the Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847, which impose on the Water Companies the duty of keeping charged with water at all times (except when prevented by frost) all their pipes to which fire-plugs are attached; and, whether he has any power to enforce compliance by the Water Companies with this enactment; and, if so, whether he will at once take steps to secure that their pipes shall be kept properly charged with water for the purpose of extinguishing fire?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE,: I am aware of the provisions of the Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847, to which my hon. Friend refers, but I have no power to enforce compliance by the Water Companies with this enactment. It appears that the only remedy is by way of mandamus, but I am unable to say who is to apply for the mandamus.
  *MR. A. C. MORTONasked the right hon. Gentleman whether his Department was not the authority to deal with all questions under the Act.
  MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, that was not so. If anybody had authority it was the local authority; but the Act did not define what authority was to enforce the provision.

  VOLUNTEER LONG SERVICE MEDALS.
  *CAPTAIN HOPE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, is it an established rule that when medals are granted to officers and men of Her Majesty's regular troops the name of the recipient is engraved on each medal before issue; if so, why has the practice not been followed in regard to the long service medals now being issued to the Volunteer forces?
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is the practice to mark medals issued to the Regular Forces; but, as regards those for the Volunteers, great delay would have been caused by marking each medal; and as it was desired to make an issue of medals as early as possible, it was decided to leave them unmarked. I may add that no representation on the subject has been received from the Volunteers.
  *CAPTAIN HOPEasked if the right hon. Gentleman would make an allowance to Volunteer Commanding Officers who get the names put on the medals before issuing them, to cover the cost.
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, the War Office had received no representation on the subject, but if he found there was a general desire that something of the sort should be done, he would be glad to consider it.

  THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE.
  MR. H. E. KEARLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the Board of Agriculture has, since its formation, consisted of three divisions, the statistical, land, and veterinary; whether the veterinary division has recently been re-named the Animals' Division, and what circumstances have arisen to necessitate this change; whether he is aware that the Veterinary Profession regard the change of name of the Department with dissatisfaction, as failing to recognise the valuable national work which has, through their efforts, been achieved; whether it is intended to appoint a veterinarian to the vacant post of Director of the Veterinary Department; what officer in the meantime is entrusted with the duties performed by the late Director; and will he explain why the professional duties of the Department are now conducted

  333
  by two scientific officers, whereas for many years three have been employed?
  *MR. HERBERT GARDNER: On the retirement of the late Director of the Veterinary Department in December, 1893, I found it necessary to re-distribute the business performed by the principal officers of that Department, so as to enable the scientific officers to devote themselves exclusively to work for which the possession of veterinary knowledge is requisite, and to place the business of an executive and non-professional character in the hands of the officers best qualified to perform it. These latter officers constitute the division of the office now known as the Annuals' Division, to which the term "veterinary" would have been inappropriate, seeing that the Veterinary officers have a separate status. The new organisation has been in full operation for the past 15 months, and there is no vacant post to be filled, nor is it necessary to make any new professional appointment now that the scientific officers are in a position to devote themselves to professional work. I am sorry that any members of the Veterinary Profession should have been led to regard this redistribution of business as an indication of a lack of appreciation of their work. Quite the contrary is the case, and I may say that during the present year we have been glad to avail ourselves of the services of the members of the Profession to a much larger extent than has been the case for very many years past.

  LIMERICK AND KILLALOE CANAL.
  MR. F. A. O'KEEFFE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will make inquiries on the complaints of the lock keepers and others employed on the canal between Limerick and Killaloe, under the control of the Board of Works in Ireland, as to their insufficient rate of weekly wages; whether that rate, for night and day service, exceeds 7s. weekly; and if that, on their petition to the Commissioners in Dublin, an increase was recommended, and which was subsequently refused sanction by the London authorities; and whether the Board of Works in Ireland would on inquiry cause a representation to be made, with a view of equalising the rate
  334
  of wages to the Limerick Canal service to the same standard as paid to the employés of the Grand Canal Company, Ireland?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir JOHN HIBBERT,: Eight out of the nine lock keepers are paid 7s. a week wages, and the remaining one 9s. They are provided with lockhouses to live in, and receive extra pay when employed on repairs near their locks. They are also pensionable out of the Navigation Funds on retirement. Moreover, they are permitted to take farm work in the immediate neighbourhood. In 1893 the men petitioned the Board of Works for an increase of wages. The case was brought before the Treasury, who decided to postpone their decision until certain questions affecting the Canal Revenues had been settled. The men's position is, I believe, not strictly similar to that of the. Grand Canal Company's employés for various reasons, but I agree with the hon. Member that they have a reasonable claim to some improvement in their wages, and I am now in communication with the Board of Works as to how that improvement can best be effected.

  RELIEF WORKS IN IRELAND.
  MR. J. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a resolution passed by the Bawnboy Board of Guardians at their meeting on the 18th instant, requesting that relief works should be started in the divisions of Cloverhill and Garradice, in South Leitrim, and pointing out that 200 families are in a state of destitution and willing to work; whether, as the question of the local taxation is made an element in the granting of relief works, he is aware that in the Benbrack division in the Cavan portion of this Union, where relief works are granted, according to the last Return presented to Parliament, the poor rate was 8d. and the county cess 1s. 9d. in the pound, while in the adjoining division in Leitrim, where the relief works are refused, the poor rate was 1s. and the county cess 2s. 3¼d. in the pound; and whether, under these circumstances, he will reconsider his decision, and direct the works to be begun?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The resolution in question has been received. The last rate, which was struck in December 1894, in Benbrack division, was 1s. 9d., and the valuation per head of the population is nearly the lowest in the Union, namely, 16s. 7d. The rate for Cloverhill is 1s. 5d., and the valuation per head £1 7s. 3d. In Garradice division the rate is 1s. 5d., and the valuation per head "£1 18s. 6d. I may add that some 30 persons from Clover-hill have been recommended for employment on the works in Benbrack. The condition of the districts of the union in which works have not been opened is the subject of further inquiry now in progress.
  MR. J. G. SWIFT MACNEILLasked what was the general interval between the recommendation by the local authorities and the sanction by the Board of Works?
  MR. J. MORLEY: By the Local Government Board. He supposed it was two, three, or four days.
  MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether he is aware that relief work, sanctioned by the Government at Meenaveen, in the parish of Glencolumbkill, County Donegal; was stopped by the action of the local landlords, who object to the construction of a road leading to a limestone quarry at Creenveen; (2) whether, seeing that the opening up of this quarry was earnestly requested by the inhabitants, and would confer a great boon on the Musgrave tenantry, he will order it to be recommenced; (3) is he aware that the local landlords allowed all preparations to be made for the institution of the relief work thus sanctioned by the Government, and gave no notice or intimation of their objection until the work had been actually begun; and (4) whether, seeing that owing to this action, a large number of heads of families have been kept out of employment for upwards of three, weeks, and will be unable to take relief work unless by allowing their small holdings, which now require cultivation, to lie waste for this year, any allowance can be made to the men who have been thus deprived of employment to enable them to crop their holdings?
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I am informed that the landlord gave his consent
  336
  to the work at the place mentioned as soon as he understood what was intended. His consent was asked for before arrangements to open the work were made, and the work was not commenced until his consent had been obtained. The work was started on the 18th March, and 31 families are employed on it. It is not possible to make these families any allowance as suggested in the last paragraph, I may add that arrangements have been made with the view of enabling all persons employed on relief works to attend to the more important pursuit of sowing their lands.
  MR. E. F. VESEY KNOX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he has received three Resolutions passed by the Guardians of the Bawnboy Union concerning the need of relief works in other districts of the Union besides those for which provision has already been made; and, whether he will endeavour to meet the wishes of the Guardians?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Resolutions in question have been received. Relief works have been opened for the people of Templeport, Benbrack, and Cloverhill, in the Bawnboy Union, and inquiries are in progress as to the circumstances of the people in other districts of the Union.

  LAND PURCHASE IN IRELAND.
  MR. J. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he can state if it has come to the knowledge of the Land Commission that in the case of Samuel Gordon Dreeminchin, Newtowngore, South Leitrim, a tenant who has purchased his holding on the Godley estate, the late land agent is endeavouring to recover arrears of rent which were understood to have been wiped out at the time of the purchase of this holding; and, whether the Land Commission intend to take any steps for the protection of this tenant in the purchase he has made in their court.
  MR. J. MORLEY: The attention of the Land Commissioners was drawn to this case in January last, and they wrote to the solicitors for the vendors, directing their attention to the irregular proceedings which had been taken against the tenant for the recovery of interest in excess of six months upon the purchase money in cases where the purchases had

  337
  been completed. The solicitors there-upon informed the agent that no proceedings should be taken against the tenant, save for the purpose of recovering a half-year's interest. The irregular proceedings referred to were for excessive interest and not for arrears of rent due at the date of the agreement to purchase. All arrears of rent are wiped out by force of the 3rd Section of the Land Act, 1888.

  PROVINCIAL TELEGRAPH CLERKS.
  MR. VESEY KNOX: I beg to ask the Postmaster General, whether he is yet in a position to announce his reply to the representations made to him by a deputation of provincial telegraph clerks, which waited on him on 1st January, with reference to a claim for 28s. a week for telegraph clerks after five years' service, together with a proportionate increase for clerks of more than five years' service?
  MR. ARNOLD MORLEY: No, Sir; I am not yet in a position to announce my decision upon the application which the telegraphists made to me for increasing the rates of pay after five years' service.

  "THE PARLLAMENTARY DEBATES."
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the contract entered into by the Government with Messrs. Waterlow and Sons Limited for printing and publishing The parliamentary Debates is not the form of contract upon which tenders were submitted by other firms who were desirous of carrying out the work?
  SIR JOHN HIBBERT: Messrs. Waterlow and Sons' tender for printing and publishing The Parliamentary Debates, which forms the basis of the contract granted to them, was made on the same form as those upon winch tenders were submitted by other firms who were desirous of carrying out the work. The only difference of substance between the form of tender and the contract as ultimately granted was to enable the Government, should it be desirable, to close the contract before, the expiry of three years. The other variations between the contract and the tender are verbal only.
  CAPTAIN NORTONinquired whether the following words did not occur in the
  338
  contract entered into with Messrs. Waterlow and Sons Limited: "Connected with the composition, printing, and binding;" whether this did not alter the whole character of the agreement, and whether it did not enable the firm to sublet the reporting to The Times, thereby infringing the Resolution passed in the House of Commons in February 1891, and re-affirmed in March 1893.
  SIR JOHN HIBBERTsaid, his hon. Friend was under an entire misapprehension. There was a section in the tender which stated that the contractors might obtain the report of the Debates in the way they could be got. The only clause with respect to the Resolution of the House of Commons had reference to the printing and binding. The tender was exactly on the same lines that the tenders had been for a number of years past; no change was made; it was exactly on all fours with those of previous years.
  MR. W. JOHNSTONasked the right hon. Gentleman if he had heard any complaint as to the character of the Reports, and if they were not very satisfactory?
  *SIR J. HIBBERTsaid, he had not heard any complaint, and he assumed from that circumstance that the Reports were satisfactory.
  MR. W. FIELDasked if it was not the fact that the words complained of by the hon. Member were not in the original contract?
  *SIR J. HIBBERTsaid, that he would be glad to show the hon. Member both the tender and the contract, when he would see that the words were practically the same in both documents.

  POST CARDS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that much irritation is caused by the regulation winch, while permitting a label to be gummed on the address, or front side of a post card, prohibits the attachment of my label or other paper to the back of the card; whether he can see his way to permit cuttings from newspapers, chess problems, or other printed matter to be attached to the backs of post cards without fining the addressee, provided that such cuttings are not larger than

  339
  the post card itself, and are securely fastened by some adhesive substance, without leaving loose or overlapping edges; and if he cannot give such permission, whether it is permissible, under the Book Post Regulations, to strike out the word "Post card" on a post card, and then to gum a chess problem or cutting from a newspaper on the back, and to transmit such card as book post matter, bearing a halfpenny stamp, as being, in the words of the regulation, "printed matter not being in the nature of a letter"?
  MR. ARNOLD MORLEY: The regulations governing the transmission both of foreign and inland post cards, while allowing a postage and revenue stamp, and a small addressed label to be affixed to the cards, forbid the attachment of any other paper or article whatever, and I am not prepared to relax the regulations in the direction desired by the hon. Member. Nor can I consent to allow post cards on which the words-"Post card" have been struck out to be treated as book-packets. Such printed matter as that to which the hon. Member refers can already be sent by book post for a halfpenny, and I have no grounds for thinking that the existing regulations do not sufficiently meet the requirements of the public.

  EASTERN COLONIES MILITARY CONTRIBUTIONS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will consent to the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire what amount the people of the Straits Settlements and Hong Kong ought to pay for military contribution, and what amount they are able to pay for such purpose without interfering with the progress of the several Colonies respectively, and the carrying out of necessary public works, education, etc.?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (MR. SYDNEY BUXTON,: Her Majesty's Government do not think it would be expedient to assent to the appointment of a Select Committee as proposed. The whole question of the military contribution for the Eastern Colonies is now under the consideration of a special Inter-departmental Committee, and in due course the result
  340
  arrived at by the Government will be made known.

  TULLAMORE WATER SUPPLY.
  MR. L. P. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether complaints have reached the Local Government Board as to the incidence of taxation for the water supply of Tullamore, ratepayers living in districts which have not the direct advantage of the supply, having to pay the same poundage rate as those who enjoy that advantage; and whether the Board will recommend the Guardians to levy the contribution in proportion to the advantages concerned?
  *MR. J. MORLEY: Complaints of the nature indicated in the question have been received by the Local Government Board. In 1891, the Guardians of the Tullamore Union undertook to provide a new water supply, and decided that the area of charge for the expenditure should be the whole electoral division of Tullamore. The Local Government Board declared the charge accordingly. Subsequently, a Provisional Order was obtained and confirmed by Parliament empowering the Guardians to take lands compulsorily, and a loan was granted on the security of the rates of the division, referred to. All this took place publicly and without objection, and the Local Government Board are advised that the arrangement cannot now be altered.

  FOUR ROADS, COUNTY ROSCOMMON.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he will take steps to provide a post office for Four Roads, County Roscommon, there being at the present a delivery on six days in the week, but much inconvenience being felt owing to the want of an office?
  MR. ARNOLD MORLEY: When the official delivery of letters was first afforded in this neighbourhood, some years ago, a post, office was also established, a guarantee having been given to cover the deficiency of revenue; but at the end of a year the deficiency was withdrawal, and it became necessary to abolish the office. It seems very doubtful whether the office can now be re-established without a fresh guarantee; but I will have inquiry made in the matter,

  341
  and let the hon. Member know the result.

  STROKESTOWN WORKHOUSE.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether it is in accordance with the regulations governing such appointments that Dr. Dillon, J.P., Dispensary Medical Officer, and Medical Officer of Strokestown Workhouse, should canvas for proxy and other votes at the recent election of Poor Law Guardians; (2) whether this is the same gentleman whose conduct in his dual capacity of doctor and magistrate was censured last year; and (3) what steps he proposes to take in reference to his action?
  MR. J. TULLYsaid, that before the right hon. Gentleman answered the question he desired to know whether, as the first paragraph of the question assumed, without asserting, that the gentleman referred to had done the acts complained of, the right hon. Gentlemen had received from that gentleman a telegram, a copy of which he (Mr. Tully) had got, and which stated—
  "Both paragraphs of question to be asked to-night concerning me utterly false. Never canvassed and was not canvassed.—Dr. DILLON."
  MR. J. MORLEY: I cannot answer the question put by my hon. Friend, but I shall bear these facts in mind. With regard to the question on the Paper, no complaints have been made to the Local, Government Board with reference to the alleged canvassing for votes on the part of Dr. Dillon. There is nothing in the Board's Regulations bearing on the matter, but they have always informed Union Officers that they do not consider they should interfere in Poor Law Elections beyond exercising their right to vote, and their privilege of nominating candidates. (2) The Board have no official record as to the alleged censure on this gentleman last year. (3) The question has been referred to the Clerk of the Union, who has been asked if he has received any information as to the charges made against Dr. Dillon.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in reply to a question of mine last year, he did not express a strong disapproval of the conduct of Dr. Dillon?
  *MR. J. MORLEY: I do not remember.
  MR. HAYDEN: I will put another question on the subject.

  LAND OUT OF CULTIVATION.
  MR. M. BIDDULPH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether it would be possible to obtain a Return of the acreage of land thrown out of cultivation in England, and also of the lands held in hand by the owners (other than home farms), together with the rates and taxes payable on the same?
  *MR. HERBERT GARDNER: There are no existing statistics from which the proposed Return could be compiled, and any special statistical inquiries would be attended with considerable difficulty and expense. The subject is one, however, which has naturally received consideration at the hands of the Royal Commission, whose publications when complete will, I understand, throw much light, upon it, and who are now engaged in making an examination of the facts in particular districts.

  PARISH MEETINGS.
  *MR. E. STRACHEY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether a chairman of a parish meeting in a parish having no Parish Council will have to be reelected this year; and whether a parish meeting can elect a vice-chairman?
  MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: The first chairman of a parish meeting in a parish having no Parish Council will retire in April 1896. Hence it will not be necessary that a chairman should be elected this year. A parish meeting has no power to elect a vice-chairman.

  PARISH POLLLNG PLACES.
  *MR. W. J. MAXWELL: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether it is competent for a returning officer, in the case of a parish not divided into wards, to arrange to have two polling places in a parish, and whether the appointment of two polling places in a parish necessitates a rearrangement of the statutory list of voters, and by whom is this to be carried out; and whether, with regard to second and subsequent elections, a County Council is entitled to fix the number of polling places in a parish, and give instructions to the assessors to arrange the list of voters accordingly?
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN: If the polling places in a parish are increased, the voters whose names appear upon the Register as voting at a single polling station, and generally in alphabetical order, must be distributed for voting purposes according to the new polling place or places. The returning officer has no power over the Register which became final upon the 28th of February. It appears, therefore, to be impossible at this date to add to the existing polling places. It will clearly be possible for a County Council to arrange for an addition to the present polling stations where necessary before the next election, and to instruct the assessor to divide the list accordingly.
  *CAPTAIN HOPE: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there is anything in the Local Government Act of last year which would prevent the County Council making the same arrangement for Parish Council elections as is customary in parishes for School Board elections, whereby there is frequently more than one polling-place in a parish?
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN: I will see whether that is the case.

  THE SCOTCH EDUCATION CODE.
  MR. C. B. RENSHAW: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether it is intended, under the new Education Code, to dispense with the University preliminary examination in the case of all Queen's students attending the Scottish Universities; and whether it will be possible to insist on this examination in the case of such Queen's students, as a rule, allowing what is contemplated in the Circular of 4th March to be a temporary provision, applying only in the case of a college, making special application and satisfying any special conditions which may be laid down by the Education Department?
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN: It is intended that the University preliminary examination should be dispensed with only in cases where special circumstances are shown to exist. As is explained on page 5 of the Circular, we hope that the dispensation now allowed may be only temporarily necessary; but to insist everywhere rigidly on such a requirement would discourage the first efforts
  344
  in this new direction in which the Government is very anxious to move.
  MR. RENSHAW: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland how it is proposed to constitute the Local Committees provided for in Article 91 of the new Scotch Code; and whether he can state what provisions it is proposed to make in order to secure that the Queen's students, in respect of whom the annual grant is to be given, will become teachers, as the provisions in respect of grants in Article 86 do not seem to apply in the case of Queen's students?
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN: Full instructions as to the duties of the Local Committees will be given in a Circular which will be issued in due course. The constitution of any committee proposed by any university or university college, which desires to avail itself of the scheme will be carefully considered. Article 97 provides that Queen's students must sign a declaration that they intend to adopt and follow the profession of teacher. This rule is the same as is applied in England and Wales, where great advantage is taken of the facilities which this year, for the first time, are to be extended to Scotland.
  MR. RENSHAW: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, under Article 70 (4) of the new Scotch Code, it is intended to limit the schools from which pupil teachers may be examined for leaving certificates to those in which secondary education is given; and, if so, whether he would re-consider this provision of the Code, with a view to admitting to this examination, at suitable centres, the pupil teachers from any day schools?
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN: The rules as to the admission of candidates to the leaving certificate examination are not laid down in the Code. It is undesirable to give to that examination anything of a professional character. But we are willing to consider applications for admission on behalf of pupil teachers in schools without secondary departments, provided that they can attend at, some centre where the examination is held.

  THE LEE-METFORD RIFLE.
  MR. J. G. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of

  345
  State for War how many Mark I Lee-Metford magazine rifles, fitted with the original defective bolt-head, have been recalled; how many are now in the hands of the troops; and when it is intended to call in all the Mark I. Pattern?
  *MR. W. WOODALL: It is not admitted that the bolt-head in Mark I is defective. In the original issue there was a defective screw, but that having been replaced, no further cause of complaint has arisen. In the Mark II. rifle an improved bolt is used, but the original bolt-head is quite serviceable. Therefore no rifles have been recalled on account of the bolt-head, and it is not proposed to recall any, or to alter the rifles of Mark I. (now known in consequence of certain other alterations as Mark I.*) which are in store.

  SCIENCE AND ART STUDENTS.
  MR. W. FIELD: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he can state the comparative attendance of Irish and English Science and Art students attending the classes in connection with the Science and Art Department during the past six years?
  MR. A. H. D. ACLAND: I am unable to give the information in the form of average attendance, because no figures of that kind have been tabulated. The total number of students under instruction in England in 1887–8 was 140,003, and in Ireland 14,794. The corresponding figures for 1892–3—the last figures published—were 258,754 and 14,055. I shall be glad to give the hon. Member a table showing the figures for the six years 1887–8 to 1892–3 inclusive.

  DUBLIN GARRISON.
  MR. W. FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the proposed tenders for meat supplies to the troops stationed in Dublin for the six mouths commencing 1st June, 1895, are to be for refrigerated beef and frozen mutton; whether he is aware that such conditions amount to a preference for foreign meat to the exclusion of native produce; whether there are any sufficient grounds for departing from the existing practice; and whether, if the facts be as stated, he would revert to the existing system?
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The tenders for meat for the Dublin Garrison, like those for other stations, will be for both fresh and refrigerated meat. The conditions prescribed do not amount to a preference for foreign meat, but they admit it into restricted competition with home supplies. This is not a departure from the general system, but an application of the general system to the Dublin Garrison. Several military abattoirs were established many years ago, chiefly to secure the efficiency of butchers for field service, and for the instruction of officers in connection with meat supplies. These purposes have been attained, and a sufficient supply of military butchers can be kept efficient with a smaller number of abattoirs, while the instruction of officers in judging meat is specially provided for. Abattoirs are expensive, and the contract system has recently been reverted to at Portsmouth with satisfactory results. The same course is proposed for Dublin, where the decision has been hastened by the fact that if the abattoir had been retained a large expenditure would have been necessary for its reconstruction.
  MR. W. FIELDasked whether it was not the fact that the existing system had given, satisfaction to the military authorities of Dublin?
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not think there has been any positive dissatisfaction with the present system; but it is believed that the other system of doing away with abattoirs and throwing ourselves on the public trade is better, and has been found to be better, for the service in other places.
  *MR. T. GIBSON BOWLESasked what proportion refrigerated and frozen meat bore to fresh meat in the supplies?
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: About 60 per cent., or half and half. I cannot state exactly what it is; but there is a certain fixed percentage which cannot be exceeded.
  MAJOR RASCH: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government will expend what they save on this foreign meat in giving the soldiers that extra allowance of meat for which we have fought so long?
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The question of the allowance of meat

  347
  was very elaborately inquired into three or four years ago, and I think we had better leave it where it stands.

  TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN.
  MR. T. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) if he can state why the Reid Exhibitions in Trinity College for Kerry students have not been awarded every year since 1886, the Reid prizes for Kerry monitors having been awarded annually throughout the intervening period; (2) how long part 2 of the Reid bequest scheme has been in operation; (3) to how many students the Reid Exhibitions in Trinity College have been, awarded, and what is their religious persuasion; (4) whether those students were trained in the Marlborough Street Training College; (5) and whether it was on the result of their answering in this College that the Reid Exhibitions were awarded to them?
  MR. J. MORLEY: (1) The Reid Exhibitions in Trinity College, Dublin, are to enable students of the County Kerry, who have successfully passed the final examination at the close of their course of training in the Marlborough Street Training College to matriculate in Trinity College and to pass on, without dropping a year, to the Arts Degree. Only two Exhibitions are available concurrently, and as the course extends over four years it would not, I am informed, be possible to award the exhibitions annually. (2) Candidates are recommended by the Professors of Marlborough Street College, and 1894 was the first year in which the Professors were able to recommend any candidate as fulfilling the conditions. (3–4) Exhibitions have been awarded to two students, one of whom is a Roman Catholic and the other a Protestant, and both were trained in the Marlborough Street College. (5) The reply to the last paragraph is in the affirmative.

  THE INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to an article; by the right hon. Sir R. Garth, late Chief Justice of Bengal, in the last number of the Law Magazine, as to the value of the Indian National Congress; and whether he will state
  348
  what arrangements the Government of India make to give a hearing to the annual representations of that body?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The Secretary of State has not seen the article to which the hon. Member refers, and is therefore unable to give any opinion upon its contents.

  EAST BRISTOL ELECTION.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the fact that the recent declaration of the poll at the East Bristol election was inaccurate to the number of 50 votes recorded for one of the candidates, and that this mistake had to be subsequently corrected; and if he will issue a Local Government Board Order as to the counting of votes at elections to prevent or diminish inaccuraces?
  MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: I have seen a report in the newspapers to the effect that at the East Bristol election 50 spoiled voting papers were inadvertently added to the total votes of one of the candidates, but that the mistake was discovered and corrected. The Local Government Board have no power to issue any order as to the counting of votes at Parliamentary elections.

  ST. ANDREW'S INFANTS SCHOOL, LOWESTOFT.
  *MR. H. S. FOSTER: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, with regard to the fact that the senior Chief Inspector has now visited the St. Andrew's Infants School, Lowestoft, and has reported that the marching space is sufficient, and that the school is very fairly equipped except as to some of the desks, whereas the Local Inspector had reported that the equipment was unsatisfactory, and that the marching space was insufficient, and has also recommended that the school managers were entitled to the portion of the grant withheld (£24 18s.), whether the Department has paid the managers the sum of £24 18s. so withheld; and, if not, for what reason it is still withheld; if he can state who is responsible at the Education Department for the refusal in the first instance to send down the Chief Inspector in response to the appeal of

  349
  the managers; whether he has taken, or intends to take, any action with regard to Her Majesty's Inspector; and whether he has taken, or proposes to take, any steps at the Department to prevent a repetition of such circumstances in the case of any voluntary school appealing to the Department against the report of the Inspector?
  MR. A. H. D. ACLAND: The additional grant referred to in the question was paid on the 10th January. No request was made by the managers for the Chief Inspector or any other Inspector to be sent, and, therefore, no such request was refused.
  *MR. H. S. FOSTER: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the last part of the question as to who is respon- at the Department, and whether he intends to take any action in reference to the Inspector?
  MR. ACLAND: Nobody in the Department is responsible if no appeal has been made to the Department, and no appeal refused. I answered that question practically the other day.

  THE SCOTCH FISHERY BOARD.
  MR. J. G. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state how many days the New Vigilant has been to sea since she was purchased by the Fishery Board for Scotland early last year and converted into a cruiser; and whether she has effected the capture of any trawlers; if so, will he state when and where they were captured, their names and numbers, and the penalties imposed in each case?
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN: During the 301 days the Vigilant has been at the disposal of the Fishery Board she has been at sea 213 days. On 12th July last she captured the trawler Marion S.D. 29, fishing illegally in the estuary of the Clyde, the master was fined £20 with the option of 60 days imprisonment for illegal trawling, and £5 for infringing the lettering and numbering regulations, and his net was forfeited.

  FRANCE AND CENTRAL AFRICA.
  *SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any information as to the French Expedition
  350
  which left the Upper Ubanghi for the Nile waterway some nine months ago?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: We do not know that any French expedition has left for the Nile waterway.

  ALDERNEY.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, seeing that telegraphic communication with the Island of Alderney has now been interrupted for more than six months, the Post Office Department has made any attempt in that period to repair the broken cable; whether he is aware that, on Friday, the 22nd instant, a steamship of 2,000 tons burden was wrecked on the coast of Alderney, and that, owing to the interruption of the cable service, the crew had no means of communicating with the owners or with their friends until Sunday evening, the 24th instant, when they reached Guernsey; whether it has been reported to him that great indignation prevails in Alderney at the persistent neglect to repair the cable; and whether he will order the immediate execution of the work?
  MR. ARNOLD MORLEY: In reply to a question asked by the hon. Member on the 11th ultimo, I explained some of the difficulties which had hindered the repair of the Alderney cable, and stated that the cable ship had unfortunately been in collision whilst actually proceeding to the work. She started again last Friday for Alderney; and now only awaits favourable weather to carry out the work.

  THE MIDLAND GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that for the last three weeks the Midland Great Western Railway Company have never had sufficient supply of wagons at Galway, though remonstrated with in the strongest terms by every trader in town; and that upon the fair day of Galway, 21st instant, there were neither wagons for goods or cattle, and the latter were injured by standing all day in the rain; and if the Government will introduce a, short Bill to give senders a remedy, if, after long notice, their goods will not be carried?
  MR. J. BRYCE: The circumstances referred to by the hon. and gallant Member have not been brought to my notice. If the Company do not afford reasonable facilities, the law provides a sufficient remedy. Under Section 2 of the Railway Regulation Act, 1854, and subsequent Acts (1873 and 1889), establishing and giving jurisdiction to the Railway Commission, the Railway Commissioners have power to entertain complaints by traders in respect of such a grievance.

  RATEABLE VALUE OF LONDON.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the total rateable value of London is more than one fifth of the total rateable value of the country, and that London received in 1890–91only one-ninth of the additional sum contributed to the relief of local rates by the readjustment of the basis of Exchequer contributions towards the expenses incurred by the local authorities; and, if this distribution still continues in the same proportion, whether the Government will take steps to remedy this state of things?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: It is the fact that the rateable value of London is slightly more than one-fifth of the rateable value of England and Wales; but it is not the fact that, in 1890–91, London received only one-ninth of the difference between the grants which were not discontinued in consequence of the passing of the Local Government Act, 1888, and the sums which were paid to local authorities out of the Local Taxation Account for 1890–91. These sums were £3,148,231 in excess of the discontinued grants, and the amount received by London in excess of the discontinued grants, was £498,748. London received, therefore, between one-sixth and one-seventh of the additional relief afforded to local taxation by the financial arrangements in question. I have no power to alter those arrangements. I may add that the population of London in 1891 was very little more than one-seventh of the population of England and Wales.

  ENGLISH MONEY IN THE TRANSVAAL.
  MR. H. O. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the
  352
  Colonies what are the British Acts or Ordinances which give power to search, fine, or imprison the citizens of a friendly State who are suspected of entering the United Kingdom, having in their possession the lawful current money of the State to which they belong; which of such Statutes or Ordinances he relies upon as furnishing a precedent for the Boer Law by which British subjects are made liable to be searched, fined, and imprisoned for entering the Transvaal with English silver money in their possession; and whether, in view of the unfriendly character of the Boer Law referred to Her Majesty's Government will make representations to the Boer Government with a view of procuring its early repeal?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The Act of the United Kingdom, to which I referred the other day, was the Customs Act of 1886, which prohibits, under Proclamation, the importation of all coins coined in any foreign country other than gold and silver coins; I also quoted somewhat similar prohibitions which have been enforced in some of the Colonies. I gave these facts in reply to the question of my hon. Friend, but specially refrained from treating them as precedents for the action of the Government of the South African Republic. We have not received any complaints in reference to the Act referred to in the Question, namely, the Mint Act of the South African Republic of 1891.
  MR. H. O. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The hon. Gentleman has not answered the last part of the Question—namely, whether it is proposed to remonstrate against Acts of this unfriendly nature, rendering British subjects liable to be searched for British coins in the Transvaal?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The Act was passed in 1891, and was not protested against by the then Government. We have not thought it necessary to protest against it, inasmuch as we have not received any complaints with regard to it.

  FRENCH EXPEDITIONS IN NIGER COMPANY'S TERRITORIES.
  *SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether it is a fact, as stated by Reuter's Agency on Wednesday, that

  353
  two large French Expeditions have arrived within the Niger Company's territory, or sphere, the one at Bagibo and the other at Boussa?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The Niger Company have informed us that they have received information to this effect, and a communication on the subject will be made immediately to the French Government.

  CASTLEREA AND BALLAGHADER REEN RAILWAY.
  MR. L. P. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether he has yet forwarded to the promoters of the Castlerea and Ballaghaderreen Railway any reply to the answer forwarded by them to the Treasury Memorandum. The same hon. Member asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he has received a copy of the Resolution passed at the large meeting held in Loughglynn on Sunday last, in favour of the Castlerea and Ballaghaderreen Railway, both as a relief work and one opening up a large district of country; whether he is aware that the engineer of the line has stated that the amount to be spent on labour in a thickly populated district would be £60,000; and, whether, with the view of providing employment during the summer, he will recommend the Treasury to grant the comparatively trifling guarantee asked for?
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, if a guarantee under the Tramway Act for a railroad from Ballindereen to Castlerea has been refused by the Treasury; if the sum asked for is only £600 a year; whether he is aware that an enormous number of people in the locality are in favour of this line; and, if the Midland Great Western Railway Company has offered to work the line on favourable terms?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The answer of the promoters of the railway mentioned in the first question has been referred to the Irish Board of Works, and until the Board's Report is received, no detailed reply can be given. As the point at issue bears directly on the subject of the other questions, it might be more satisfactory if those questions were postponed for a few days.

  EXPORTED SPIRITS.
  MR. SHIRESS WILL: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer—(1) whether a payment of 2d. per gallon is made, out of moneys raised by Imperial Taxation, to exporters of spirits manufactured in the United Kingdom; (2) whether he can state the amount so paid during the last financial year; (3) whether he will state to the House the reason for this payment, and since when it has been made; and (4) whether he will consider the propriety of the abolition of such a bounty?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,: (1) The fact is as stated. (2) The amount so paid in 1893–94 was £26,011. (3) Such payment is made to compensate traders for the loss estimated to attach to this portion of their business by reason of Excise Regulations. Their claim was established to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue in 1860, and the allowance granted by a Resolution of this House in the same year. The reasons which led to their being granted seem to me still to exist.

  PERJURY BILL.
  MR. E. F. VESEY KNOX: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he is aware that the Perjury Bill [Lords], although introduced as a Consolidating Act, creates a number of misdemeanours hitherto unknown to the law; and whether, having regard to the wide scope of the measure, he will undertake that the Second Reading shall not be taken without affording the House an opportunity for discussion.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. T. REID,replied, that this Bill was certainly not intended to create any misdemeanours, but inasmuch as in it there was a gathering up of something like 150 specific statutes, it was possible there might be some new misdemeanour created. He would undertake to move to strike out any part of the Bill which appeared to be controversial if the House would allow it to go through a Grand Committee.

  SCOTCH ADMINISTRATION.
  MR. J. G. WEIR: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, seeing that the Secretary for Scotland

  355
  receives a salary of £2,000 without residence, that the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland receives a salary of £4,425 and residence, and that the salaries of the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General for Scotland have recently been augmented, it is proposed to make any alteration in the remuneration paid to the Secretary for Scotland?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I have received no application from the Secretary for Scotland on the subject mentioned in the question.
  MR. J. G. WEIRdesired to know whether, if the Secretary for Scotland made such an application, it would be considered?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: That will depend upon who, in the future, may be the Secretary for Scotland.

  NAVAL WORKS BILL.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now state when the Naval Works Bill will be taken; and whether he can arrange to secure proper time for the discussion of proposals so important from the financial as well as the strategical point of view?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I hope to be able to fix a day before the Easter holidays.
  MR. G. J. GOSCHENexpressed the hope that it would be put down as the first Order of the Day, and treated as a Bill of considerable importance. He knew great interest was taken in it.
  SIR W. HARCOURTintimated that he recognised the importance of the Bill.

  SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION AT LOWESTOFT.
  *MR. H. FOSTER: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, with regard to the fact that the senior Chief Inspector has now visited the Clapham Road School for Infants, Lowestoft, and has reported that he sees no reason for reducing the accommodation on the eight feet square basis, thereby allowing accommodation for 223 places to the school, whereas the local Inspector had pronounced the accommodation and the equipment, even
  356
  with the most lenient judgment, as unsatisfactory, and has also recommended that the school managers were entitled to the portion of the grant withheld, £20 4s., whether the Department has paid the managers the sum of £20 4s. so withheld; and, if not, for what reason it is still withheld; if he can state who is responsible at the Education Department for the refusal in the first instance to send down the Chief Inspector in response to the appeal of the managers; whether he has taken, or intends to take, any action with regard to Her Majesty's Inspector; and whether he has taken, or proposes to take, any steps at the Department to prevent a repetition of such circumstances in the case of any voluntary school appealing to the Department against the report of the Inspector?
  MR. A. H. D. ACLAND: The additional grant referred to in the question was paid on the 10th of January. No appeal was made by the managers for the Chief Inspector or any other Inspector to be sent, and, therefore, no such appeal was refused.
  *MR. H. FOSTER: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that a letter was sent to the Department in June, 1894, by way of an appeal against the report of the Inspector, and asking the right hon. Gentleman to receive a deputation, and that a reply was sent by the Department refusing the deputation?
  MR. ACLAND: That is a different point. The question asks whether an appeal was made from the Inspector. No such appeal was made.

  THE CASE OF GEORGE NEWMAN.
  MR. H. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether his attention has been drawn to the case of George Newman, who was found guilty of having fraudulently pocketed £10,000, this being the difference between the amount he gave for some land he leased from the Commissioners of 1851 and the amount for which he sold it to George Newman & Company (Limited), and who is now undergoing a sentence of five years' penal servitude; whether he is aware that the Lords Justices have declared that on this point he was wrongly convicted, as he had expended the bulk of the £10,000 to obtain the contract for the

  357
  land from the Commissioners; that Lord Halsbury, in delivering judgment of the Court of Appeal in regard to this matter, said, that the money was spent in a process described by various polite names, but which, if facts are as he (Newman) alleges, amounts to bribing different persons, some of them named, for the purpose of obtaining this contract; and that it was perfectly manifest that, considering the circumstances of the case, and considering the mode in which the contract was obtained from the Commissioners, the matter urgently requires investigation, and in the public interest it is positively necessary that some investigation should be held in respect of the obtaining of that contract; and what steps are intended to be taken in order that this investigation shall take place?
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, he had directed an investigation to be made as soon as the judgment of the Court of Appeal was given, and the Report which he had just received was now under consideration.

  ROYAL, PATRIOTIC FUND.
  MR. H. E. KEARLEY: I beg to ask the Patronage (Secretary to the Treasury what is the cause of the delay in nominating the Committee to inquire into the Royal Patriotic Fund and other similar funds; and whether he can now state when it will be appointed?
  THE PATRONAGE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. THOMAS ELLIS,: The names will be placed upon the Paper to-night.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY.

    VOTE ON ACCOUNT
    The House went into Committee of Supply.
    Mr. MELLOR in the chair.
    On the Vote for £4,439,258 on account of all charges for the Civil Service and Revenue Departments,
    SIR R. TEMPLEdesired to know if anything had been
    358
    done in the way of equalising the re-numeration of the gardeners in the Royal Gardens at Kew with the re-numeration given to similar officers in the Royal Parks in London. The other day the First Commissioner of Works said the matter was under consideration, and he desired to know whether the right hon. Gentleman had come to any conclusion.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY, Sir J. T. HIBBERTwas sorry his right hon. Friend was not present at that moment. He could say, however, that the matter was still under consideration, and it was not improbable the concession would be made, though he was not able to say definitely for the present.
    *Sir A. K. ROLLITon Vote 13, called attention to the question of the non-rating of Government property. The matter, he said, was one which he had brought before the House on a previous occasion and it was a subject deserving the serious consideration of the rating authorities in the interest of those who had to pay the contributions, not only in the Metropolis, but throughout the Country. Latterly there had been a strong contention that undue burdens of taxation were cast upon certain localities, and those who had gone into the relative contributions made on the one hand by the Government and on the other hand by private property, must feel that if the matter were thoroughly investigated it would be found that localities were subjected to burdens which, if removed, would lighten very greatly the amounts which had to be paid by the ratepayers in every parish of the Metropolis and elsewhere. Claims were frequently made for subsidies on behalf of local rates, but it was sometimes forgotten that here was available much more than any subsidy to which, as a matter of justice, the ratepayers were fairly entitled, and which, if made by the Government, would be the means of the readjustment and lightening of the pressure of local taxation. Under the present system the Government had the unique privilege of valuing its own property for rating purposes. If every Government was its own valuer, and other authorities were in a like position, he did not doubt they would equally take advantage of their privilege, and the

    359
    result would be that the receipts for local rating purposes would be further materially diminished. It would be no exaggeration to say that in London alone a sum of £40,000 or £50,000 a year might be gained for the local authorities if this grievance were thoroughly rectified. Even that estimate was too low if it was borne in mind that in the calculation only the rateable value of the sites was taken into account, no addition being made for the buildings upon them. He believed the same remark might be made with reference to the provinces, and in the like proportion. There was one group of buildings in the constituency which he represented which illustrated the anomalies of the position forcibly. He found, for instance, that the County Court, Pentonville Prison and Holloway Prison, the Post Offices and Sorting Offices, the Telegraph Factory and Offices, and the Office of the Surveyor of Taxes at Islington were valued by the Government for the purpose of contribution to rates by themselves at £4,246 per annum. He did not hesitate to say that almost any two of those buildings, which would let well, being in the midst of a dense business population, might be made to make a considerably larger return. But a contrast would show how unfair the present system was. The acreage of Holloway and Pentonville Prisons was about 22 acres, the former being rated, or rather valued by the Government, at £1,250 and the latter at £1,600 a year. In the immediate neighbourhood was the Holborn Union Infirmary, which covered only one-seventh of the area, but, being subject to parochial assessment, was rated at £3,084 a year; while Islington Workhouse, having little more than half the area of Holloway Prison, had a rateable value of £2,709, and the Cornwallis Road Workhouse, covering about one-half Pentonville Prison area, was rated considerably higher. Moreover, structurally all these Government buildings were of much higher value, apart from their sites, than those which were rated so much higher. He was instructed that the Islington Vestry considered that there was room for a substantial increase in the Government contributions in respect of the buildings to which he had particularly referred. He admitted the Secretary to the Treasury
    360
    was entitled to some credit for having materially improved the position, and for having, from his point of view, acted in a liberal spirit. The only observation he would make on that was, that the increase in the contributions of the Government, which had been large in some cases, only emphasised the gross magnitude of the injustice under which local authorities had previously laboured. If, as he found, there were instances in which the Government contribution had been increased by half, one-third, or even a quarter, it only showed how tolerant the local authorities had been for nearly 50 years past. He expected that the statement made on former occasions would be repeated again by the right hon. Gentleman—namely, that the Government had acted liberally to local authorities in this matter, and that they were satisfied and had not been coerced by the official argument that the Government being free of rates they ought to be thankful for whatever they might receive. Now, he had taken the trouble to communicate, within the last few days, with several of the chief local authorities in London, and he might add that he had also communicated with some in the country. In Hull, for example, there was a very strong feeling indeed that the Government did not deal fairly with local authorities in rating matters, and that the Government contributions were much too low compared with the ratings of private properties What did the local authorities in London say? He admitted, in the first place, that there were some, not many, who said that on the whole, and having regard to the circumstances, they were fairly satisfied, and that they had no strong ground of complaint. There were others who took a different position. He would not think it fair to mention the names of particular authorities, but he would quote verbatim from letters addressed to him. In one case it was stated-
    "The question of Police Stations is an important one. We have two—one rated at £125, the other at £84, which is only about half their market value. The Receiver of Police contends that he is entitled to entire exemption, and only assents to these ratings as an act of grace, "on the authority of cases decided;"
    and so on. In another case the local authority wrote that the Vestry had

    361
    accepted the rating—or, rather, the Government's own valuation—but that—
    "practically they had no option in the matter. The present very recently revised value for the Parcel Post premises is £5,500, but seeing that about nine acres of land are occupied I cannot but think that if it were in the hands of private owners it would be considerably higher."
    In another case it was said:—
    "I am unable to say definitely whether the Government property is under-assessed to any large extent, but it is probable that, on going into the assessment of such properties as Burlington House, War Office, Geological Museum, Board of Ordnance, &c., we shall find that we have a good claim for requiring an increase in these valuations."
    In another case he was informed as follows:—
    "I do not for one moment think the total amount of the assessment represents the true rateable value of the properties."
    And again—
    "The Assessment Committee are not satisfied with the existing valuation of Government property settled by the Treasury itself."
    And in another case—
    "We consider the Government valuations much below the real value."
    These had all been received within the last few days. He drew particular attention to the following:—
    "Whereupon Mr. Griffiths, of the Treasury, called upon me and drew attention to the fact that the hereditament was not legally rateable; but the Treasury were willing to base their contribution upon hypothetical rateable value of £60 instead of £69, and in support of his valuation stated that additions cost, pro rata, more money than if they were carried out as part of the original work, and he considered his value a fair one upon the whole building. My Overseers felt they had no option but to reduce the figures, which they did; but I cannot disguise the fact that had this been private property we could have maintained our figures before the Committee."
    One of the most important Vestries in London wrote:
    "The Vestry do not consider that the contribution from the Treasury, in respect of Government property in this parish, a just one."
    He had many more which he would not trouble to read, but their general tenour was of the same character. He thought he had shown that a large amount of property in the various local authorities was undervalued—in the case of Islington he thought he had shown it was very
    362
    considerably so—contrasting either the structural value of the property, or their area, or their possible letting value. He ventured also to say he had met by anticipation the usual official argument addressed to the House on these occasions, that the Government was disposed to deal not only fairly, but liberally, in this matter, and had shown some grounds, at any rate, for thinking that the right hon. Gentleman was misinformed when he stated that his officials did not hold over the heads of the Vestries the very forcible but, he thought, very unjust argument that they were not liable to be rated at all, and whatever the Government chose to offer ought, therefore, to be gratefully accepted. He hoped there would be not only a renewal of the assurances of the past, but also the expression of a determination to deal with this matter on a really fair and equitable footing, and he conceived that footing could only be, that property belonging to the Government should bear its fair and an equal share of local taxation, for any other principle was a differential taxation of the localities in favour of the whole community, whereas, if there were any such difference, it ought to be in favour of each of the localities as against the State as a whole. But what he asked for was a just and equal assessment of local taxation. He moved to reduce the Vote by £500.
    *MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, it was undoubtedly now admitted by the Government that something ought to be done. The present moment was a very important one for London, for the Quinquennial Valuation was about to take place, and, therefore, the Committees and the Overseers would be considering the whole question. He was aware, personally, and certainly up to the present time, that the Government Valuer had dealt with the Overseers in a very high-handed manner. He had, practically, said:
    "You must take what we offer you or you will get nothing, because we are not bound to pay any rates at all on Government buildings."
    If they went back to 1874, when this question was raised, we found there was a Treasury Minute which stated distinctly that Government buildings were to be assessed in the same manner as adjoining buildings, and as near as

    363
    possible to the same value. The Government had admitted by the recent increases they had allowed, that those buildings had been under-assessed, and he wanted to know why the Government should take up this position at all, that it was an act of grace on their part to allow the buildings to be assessed? Why should they not allow these buildings to be assessed by the local authorities just the same as Board Schools and other public buildings were assessed, and then, if they were not satisfied with the work of the local authorities, let them appear before the Assessment Committees and object? That was the only way of finally settling the question. The gentlemen generally employed by the Government seemed to know nothing about the assessment of buildings and did not take into consideration points that the Overseers and Assessment Committees would in assessing similar buildings. He hoped the Government would frankly adopt the course of allowing these buildings to be assessed by the local authorities, for he did not think there was likely to be any injustice done. At the present moment there was a great injustice, because the Government buildings were not fairly distributed over all the parishes; otherwise it might be said it came out all right in the end. As a matter of fact, the Government buildings were placed a great deal more in one parish than another, and, therefore, a particular parish suffered because somebody else had to make up what the Government did not pay.
    MR. R, G. WEBSTERsaid, he thought this was essentially, or at least very largely, a London question, though no doubt it affected other parts of the country. He believed the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had acted very fairly under the representations of the Vestries, but would it be credited that, until very recently, the House of Commons was not rated as high as was the Westminster Palace, and this in spite of the fact that the Westminster Vestry had to pay their quota of the police outside the building, and that the fire brigade charges had to be paid out of the central fund. When one looked at the question one asked oneself how it was
    364
    that London had not received fair treatment in this matter. The theory was that it was impossible that Government property should be rated like any other property. He failed to see how that should be the case. The local authorities were able to assess town halls, schools, libraries, and police courts, and why they could not assess the rating value of Government buildings appeared to him to be perfectly incomprehensible. They had also been told that the local authorities of London and the country had never made any complaints regarding the contributions they received from the Government. Probably they had not done very much until recently, but as the result of the action of the Westminster Vestry he believed there had grown up a very strong feeling in the other parishes of London. He admitted the right hon. gentleman had done his best to meet them, and to see whether he could not give them some more equitable assessment of their various properties.
    MR. T. GIBSON BOWLESasked, on a point of Order, whether this discussion arose on Vote 8 or Vote 13? If on Vote 13, then he desired to ask a question on Vote 8.
    The CHAIRMANsaid he was about to call attention to the fact that this was a little irregular. It arose on Vote 13, and the Amendment had better be withdrawn for the present and brought up a little later.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. T. GIBSON BOWLESsaid. he desired to ask, on Vote 8, a question with regard to certain lighthouses abroad, which were maintained under the authority of, and indeed by, the Board of Trade. On a previous occasion he called attention to this matter, and pointed out that many of these lighthouses were in a defective and improper condition, inasmuch as the lights were irregular in their intervals. His information with regard to the lighthouses was drawn from the Admiralty Book on lighthouses, which was issued every year, and in which there was a detailed report of each lighthouse. The lighthouse on Sombrero Island and various other lighthouses in the West Indies were reported to be irregular. The irregularities of these lights were very misleading, and he would ask the

    365
    right hon. Gentleman if he could assure the House that all the lights brought under his jurisdiction were working satisfactorily and at proper intervals.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. J. BRYCE,said, he was sorry notice had not been given of the question so that he might have brought the data with him. He could not answer the hon. Member at present. He remembered that when the Estimates were coming on last August he had satisfied himself that the condition of these lighthouses were satisfactory.
    MR. T. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he had referred particularly to the light on Falkland Islands, but he would not press the question.
    MR. J. BRYCEsaid, if the hon. Member would give him notice of the question he would endeavour to obtain the information.
    COLONEL NOLANon Vote 12, called attention to an item of £23,000 for the improvement of Peterhead Harbour. He did not see why an Irish harbour should not be assisted as well as a Scotch harbour.
    *MR. W. E. M. TOMLINSONpointed out that this work, according to the Estimates, would be going on for something like 20 years. Since last year the Vote had been considerably reduced, and he should like to know if that was in consequence of the abandonment of part of the intended works, or whether there had been any reconsideration of he scheme.
    MR. J. BRYCEsaid, the harbour had been, to some extent, modified from time to time. Efforts had been made to effect economy in the works, and the matter had been under consideration lately. It was now going on satisfactorily.
    *SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked when the harbour would be finished.
    MR. J. BRYCEsaid, he could not say.
    *MR. TOMLINSONasked if the Government had taken any steps to reconsider the scheme.
    MR. J. BRYCEsaid, the subject had been before them, and certain parts of the work originally intended were not now to be carried out.
    MR. T. GIBSON BOWLESpointed out that a sum appeared under the head
    366
    of Purchase of Land and Works, and asked if it was proposed to purchase any more land?
    MR. BRYCEsaid, his hon. Friend, the Secretary to the Admiralty, did not seem to be in the House. He was not aware that there was any intention of purchasing any more land.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, the present estimate of the engineers for the completion of Peterhead Harbour was £737,000, and he would like to learn on the authority of the Secretary to the Treasury if that was all that would be required?
    *SIR JOHN HIBBERTsaid it was a matter under the control of the Admiralty. So far as they knew, the estimate of £737,000 was the estimate of the total cost, but it was impossible to say whether that would be sufficient.
    MR. R. W. HANBURYcommented on the absence of the Secretary to the Admiralty. Although his right hon. Friend had given all the information in his power, he thought it was only right that the Government should be fairly represented on the Treasury Bench. This was the second occasion within the last few minutes on which, when important questions had been asked on that side of the House, they had received the reply that the Minister was not present. The ordinary course, on occasions of that kind when a Department was not properly represented, was to move to report progress, and they should undoubtedly take that course if, when important questions were brought before the House, there was only the indefatigable Secretary to the Treasury to represent the Government.
    *SIR JOHN HIBBERTthought there was some excuse for the absence of hon. Members of the Government, as no notice had been given that these questions would be brought forward.
    MR. G. C. T. BARTLEYsaid, they would not have another occasion on which to discuss these subjects, and unless Ministers were sent for they would have to report progress that evening.
    *MR. A. C. MORTONdesired to join in the protest. He asked if the Admiralty had the control at Peterhead, appointed officers, and superintended the work?
    *SIR JOHN HIBBERTsaid that was so. He pointed out that the matter might be discussed on the Report.
    *SIR F. S. POWELLcomplaining that no one representing the Admiralty was present on the Treasury Bench to answer the questions of hon. Members, moved on that ground that progress be reported.
    The CHAIRMANdeclined to allow the Motion.
    MR. G. C. T. BARTLEYsaid, that until a representative of the Admiralty arrived, he wished to refer to convict labour at Peterhead Harbour. From the Estimates it appeared that about £750,000 was to be spent on the harbour. He wished to know what saving would result from the employment of convict labour; whether more convicts were being employed and what was the progress of the work? Ten years had passed since it was commenced.
    MR. J. BRYCEexplained that the harbour works were not under the jurisdiction of the Board of Trade. But, as regards convict labour, a Commission had been investigating the whole subject of prisons and prison labour. He believed that a very valuable result had been arrived at by the Commission. Its Report was nearly ready. That Report would probably gratify the laudable curiosity of the hon. Member on the points he had raised.
    *MR. TOMLINSON, seeing that the Civil Lord was now present, pursued the subject of Peterhead Harbour. It had been promised last year that the engineers should be consulted as to the order in which the work should be done, and whether one part should be accelerated and the other delayed. He wished to know the result of the consultation.
    THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,)admitted promising last year that the question of accelerating the works should be considered. The Director of the works had consulted with the engineers, Messrs. Coode and Matthews, and they stated that more rapid progress could not be made. As to one part of the work being delayed and the other accelerated, they advised that the course taken should be continued.
    MR. R. G. WEBSTER, reverting to the question of London rating, expressed indebtedness to the hon. Member who had raised it. The London County Council estimated that London lost £40,000 a year by the present arrangement; another authority put the sum at £87,000. When the House was trying to equalise the rates in London they merely proposed to take money from one pocket and put it into another. But under the arrangement he had referred to it was proposed to take money from the Imperial Exchequer in aid of the London rates. Government buildings in London were used in the interest of the whole country, and the whole country should contribute towards the rating of them. London had not had fair play in this and other directions. While thanking the Secretary to the Treasury for the action he had taken, he wished to know what steps he proposed taking in the future?
    SIR R. E. WEBSTERsaid, those who had studied the question of London rating were staggered last year by the figures that were given as to the extraordinary low rating of some of the Government buildings in London—Somerset House, for example. The subject should now be considered, for they were entering upon a fresh valuation, and owners of private property were being rated to the full amount. There had recently been the case of the Imperial Institute. Many might think that justice was meted out hardly to that Institute. Be that as it might, there they had a quasi public institution rated at a high figure, to which the figures given last year had no comparison. He did not say that the Imperial Institute should not pay its proper quota to the rating of the Metropolis, but if similar institutions were to be treated in the same way it behoved the House to see that Government buildings bore their proper rating value. It was not fair that individual ratepayers in London should bear larger burdens than they ought because the State—which meant the ratepayers all over the country—got off cheaply for the reason that public buildings—where work in which the whole country was interested was done—did not pay their fair share. The matter was very pressing last year, and it was still more so this year, because people's

    369
    rates were being put up, and he therefore hoped they would have a full and satisfactory statement from the Secretary to the Treasury.
    COLONEL LOCK WOODsaid, he wished to state the case of the local authorities at Waltham Abbey in respect of the Government gunpowder factories there. If London has a grievance, there was a still greater one in connection with these factories. He would confine himself to figures supplied to him by local residents, who felt keenly the pressure upon the rates. The site of the Clifdon Hill factory, the scene of the last explosion, was bought in 1889. Since then there had been erected upon it a large building which was filled with machinery, and yet the contributions in aid was still based upon the same valuation as at first, which was the price given for the site as agricultural land. In the meantime the rates had been largely increased from various causes, including the action of the Government itself, for some of the widows and children of the sufferers by explosions are chargeable to the rates. Then the School Board rate has risen, greatly from the necessity of finding school accommodation for the children of the workmen employed in the factories. Expensive machinery had been put into the Waltham Holy Cross, and yet since 1888 the contributions in aid had been diminished. A large number of good middle-class houses had been built, but occupants had been frightened away by explosions, and many houses are now empty. The rates at Waltham Abbey had risen from 2s. to 3s. 4d. in the £, and a farmer who was rated at £700, said the difference to him amounted to between £46 and £48 a year. This was serious when coupled with the agricultural distress in Essex. He was sure the Secretary of the Treasury would see that the case deserved more attention than had been given to it. The new District Council had presented a petition in which they said the contribution in aid of accounts of the various factories were £5,000 now, compared with £5,769 in 1888, although in the interval there had been enormous additions to the buildings, and the Government had refused an application to have a re-valuation made by an independent firm of valuers. In 1871, the capital value of the factories was
    370
    £310,000, and since then enormous additions had been made, including a residence for the Superintendent, in respect of which not a farthing was paid. Altogether the Government paid about £5,000 in aid of rates, when a private firm would have to pay very much more in rates, and owing to the difference in income thus produced, the District Council was prevented from undertaking improvements they were anxious to carry out. It might be said that the town of Waltham benefited by the factories, but the neighbouring farmers did not benefit, because labourers were taken away from them by the superior attractions of being blown up and getting higher wages, and there was often great difficulty in obtaining labourers.
    *SIR JOHN HIBBERTsaid he had not the least fault to find with the hon. Member who had raised this question. He was perfectly justified in raising it, and had done it in a fair and moderate manner. To show that the question had not been lost sight of by the Treasury, he need only mention that the increased charge on the Estimates this year for rates on Government property was no less than £48,000, and that was exclusive of increased charges that were in the process of discussion between the Treasury and local authorities, not only in London, but in other parts of the country. In 1887, the Contributions amounted to £226,105, and this year the total amount was £315,105. These figures showed that considerable additions were made from time to time. In discussing the figures, he did not think it was expedient to speak of so much being lost by London or any other place. It was better to look at the matter in a plain and simple way, and to consider whether Government property in any parish or union was paying its fair quota to the rates levied upon other property in the district. He entirely agreed with those who said that Government property ought to bear its fair share, and, so far as he was concerned, his influence had been used since the question was discussed last year on the line of bringing, as far as possible, the local authorities in touch with the Treasury Valuer, with the view of ascertaining whether it was right that in any case the valuation adopted should be increased. No doubt some of the properties had not been

    371
    valued for a great number of years. He did not know whether that was the case at Waltham, but he could promise that the same mode of dealing with Government property that had been adopted in London during the past year should be carried out at Waltham. He was not able to deal with the figures that had been given, but he would say that a strong case had been made out for reconsideration, and for sympathetic reconsideration. The hon. Member for Islington said that workhouses were rated higher than Government property, and if that was the case it was a matter for consideration. He did not know whether the Vestries or the local authorities in any district had made application for a revision of the valuations, or whether they were paid. Sir A. K. Rollitt said such applications had been made. He was sure that if they were made they would get every consideration. He admitted that there would be an injustice of some magnitude if these properties were not valued fairly and equally with other property of the same character. He could not go back for 50 years, because it was only in 1874 that the Government consented to give grants in aid. He would now state what had been done since this question was discussed in Committee last year. In view of the approach of the quinquennial valuation, he thought that the different authorities had a fair right to bring up the question of the valuation of Government property. The first to communicate with the Treasury were the parishes of St. Margaret's and St. John's, Westminster, who had a vast amount of Government property in their district. Their representations were carefully considered and a revised valuation had been settled with which they were perfectly satisfied. In a communication received from them it was stated that it was a fair and just valuation, and that they had pleasure in signifying their unqualified satisfaction with it. Then other representations had been made by the following assessment committees and parishes in London: the Strand Union (comprising the parishes of St. Clement Danes, St. John the Baptist, Savoy, St. Mary-le-Strand, St. Paul's Covent Garden, St. Martin-in-the-Fields, and the Liberty of the Rolls), the parish of St. Giles-in-the-Fields and
    372
    St. George, Bloomsbury; the parish of Plumstead (Woolwich). He might add that the Vestry of the last-mentioned parish had made application not only to have a revision of the amount of valuation, put they also asked that some impartial gentleman should be employed to look into the matter. Then the Assessment Committee of the City of London Union, the Vestry of the parish of St. George's Hanover Square, the Vestry of the parish of Marylebone, the Vestry of the parish of St. Andrew Holborn; the Vestry of the parish of St. Luke Middlesex; and also the Overseers of the parish of Wandsworth had all made representations to the Treasury, which were now being considered. He would deal with one authority, the Assessment Committee of the Strand Union, who had a large interest in the question in Somerset House and other Government property. A communication from this body was to the effect that—having regard to the statement of the Treasury valuer that the revisions made would be carefully considered, and would be submitted to the necessary authorities before any definite conclusion was come to—the committee considered the course taken by the Treasury satisfactory. This was a very important case, and had been under the consideration of the Treasury valuer in conjunction with the Assessment Committee, and he was happy to say that a satisfactory settlement had been come to. He was told that at a conference which had taken place between the valuer and the representatives of the Assessment Committee, a resolution was agreed to in which was declared that, in their judgment, a fair settlement had been made. He only mentioned that to show that the Treasury were going forward, and he hoped hon. Members would be satisfied when he said that similar measures would be adopted with regard to other Government property in the Metropolis. But the same question arose in the country; and there, too, the Treasury were carrying out the same principle. They did not want to throw money away, but they did want to satisfy the local authorities and local justice in this matter. He did not think he need say more than to assure the Committee that the valuations of Government property should be very carefully watched and

    373
    that the Treasury would try to give satisfaction to the different local authorities in the country.
    SIR R. TEMPLEquite admitted that the statement, which the right hon. Gentleman, had just made with his usual fulness and courtesy, would be very satisfactory to many of the authorities in the country. He believed that the right hon. Gentleman's statement constituted a considerable advance and showed that the Government was approximating to a fair valuation of Government property in the Metropolis. Notwithstanding all this, however, he could assure the Government that the Ratepayers of London would never be satisfied in regard to the rating of Government property in the Metropolis so long as the present system continued. The rating authority in London had to determine a ratable value of no less than £33,000,000 sterling annually. Why should Government property within the jurisdiction of that authority be taken out of their hands? Why should not Government property be rated by the same authority as other property? If that authority was competent to impose such a great amount of taxation by determining the ratable value of London, why was it not competent to determine the ratable value of Government buildings? The present system constituted a great injustice to the ratepayers. They could not understand why the Government was to be a judge in its own case. It made the ratepayers of London feel that they were bearing more than their fair share, and that it was all due to the Government setting up an exceptional and abnormal authority. He quite acknowledged the excellent and ample manner in which the Secretary to the Treasury always answered, and the satisfactory nature of the reply he had just given; and he only hoped that the advance now promised would be perpetuated. Year after year this question would be raised from his side of the House until the Government should be good enough to establish a uniform, equitable, and equal system for the valuation of all ratable property in the Metropolis.
    DR. MACGREGORsaid it was all very fine for London Members year after year to insist on levying a
    374
    higher portion of the rates on Government property, but it meant an increase in taxation in the country.
    SIR R. TEMPLE: I am not a London Member.
    DR. MACGREGORsaid that the provincial ratepayers helped to keep up Hyde Park and the Museums and Picture Galleries of London. In Scotland they had to keep up their own parks; and why should they help to keep up public buildings in London? He thought the right hon. Gentleman was making a mistake in promising a reconsideration of the matter.
    Mr. PICKERSGILLreminded the hon. Member that this was not at all a question between London and the Provinces, and he thought that fact was indicated by the circumstance that two Members, representing country constituencies had spoken on the question, and taken the same side as the London Members. The hon. Member was mistaken in supposing that all Government property was situated in London. The provinces were equally interested with London in pressing this question on the attention of the Treasury. When this subject was last before them it was stated that the Westminster Vestry was satisfied with the assessment of the Government property within the district. He doubted that; but, at any rate, the right hon. Gentleman had now informed them that a very considerable increase had been made in the assessment. The figures were significant. The result of this appeal to the Treasury by Westminster had been to raise the assessment of Government property from £53,000 to £89,000, and to increase the Government's contribution to the rates to the amount of £9,000. All London was interested in the Westminster case, because, if the property in any particular parish was under-assessed it affected the whole of London. The result of the appeal in the Westminster case was highly significant of the present under-assessment of Government property generally throughout the Metropolis, and these figures more than justified the statement made a short time ago by the Valuer for the London County Council that upon the whole, Government property in London was under-assessed by 50 per cent. at least. They had heard

    375
    some satisfactory statements from the right hon. Gentleman that evening. The right hon. Gentleman had acknowledged that this demand on the part of the Vestries was a demand which they were entitled to make, and that it rested upon the highest authority short of statutory authority—namely, an engagement entered into with that House. If, then, it was conceded that Government property ought to pay a due share of local burdens the most simple and natural method they could adopt for assessing Government property was the use of the same assessment machinery as was applied to the neighbouring private property. There was only one possible objection to this. If a private owner thought that he had been unjustly treated by an Assessment Committee he could appeal to a Court of Law, and have his case decided there. It would not be open, however, to the Government to appeal to a Court of Law, because in law Government property was not assessable, and therefore the Court would hold that it had no jurisdiction in the matter. But this legal difficulty could be got over by passing a short Bill or introducing a clause in a Bill in order to make this Government property legally assessable. Then the Government would have no reason to complain, and would be placed in the same position as their private neighbours.
    MR. W. F. D. SMITHdid not think that the Strand District Board was quite as well satisfied as the right hon. Member had led the Committee to believe. Its views had been met to a considerable extent, he admitted, but there still remained a large amount of Government property within the limits of the Strand District Board, which it was thought was under-assessed. To a parish which had been so hardly treated in the past, it was of the utmost importance that adequate relief should be given in the future. He trusted that a short Bill would be introduced for the purpose of putting Government property in respect of valuation on the same footing as private property.
    *SIR ARTHUR HAYTERasked for information as to the property of the War Department, which was to contribute so largely to the rates. Out of a sum of £48,000, £28,000 was to be the contribution in aid of the rates in
    376
    London, leaving £20,000 as the contribution from the War Department in aid of rates elsewhere. Was this contribution in respect of new buildings or the increased values of old buildings?
    *SIR JOHN HIBBERTreplied that the increased contribution was due partly to the erection of new barracks and partly to increased values.
    *MR. T. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, that the State was charged with £3,300 gross for the payment of the rates of houses occupied by the representatives of Foreign Powers. Some of the foreign representatives, however, repaid £1,450 for these rates, so that the sum which the people of this country were called upon to pay was reduced to something under £2,000. He was of opinion that all the representatives of foreign Powers ought to pay the rates in respect of their houses. That they had not to do so was greatly due to the fiction that the premises occupied by a Foreign Ambassador were extra-territorial. But it was monstrous that the taxpayers should have to pay £2,000 a year in discharge of the rates of gentlemen who came over here to promote the interests of their own countries as against our interests. But if this charge must be made it ought to be included in the Foreign Office Vote, as it was a subsidy to the Foreign Embassies. He wished to know who were the Ambassadors for whom this money was paid. He agreed with the hon. Baronet the Member for Kingston that, in respect of rating, the Government ought to put themselves under the ordinary rules. The Government ought to pay their fair share of local rates, and the assessment of their property ought to be made in the usual way. If the Government were to submit to the existing rules of rating there would be no further need for the Treasury Valuer and Inspector of Rates, who cost the country £1,200 a year. Why should it be supposed that local authorities would rate Government property less fairly than they rated private property? The only solution of this question was, that the Government should give up their pretension to occupy a particular position in connection with rating.
    *MR. H. L. W. LAWSONsaid, that the question of rating Government property had now

    377
    been narrowed down to a very small issue. It was clear that the Government had adopted the principle that Government property ought to contribute to local burdens equally with other property. The only point now left was whether the right hon. Member could give a pledge to introduce a Bill for the purpose of submitting Government property to the ordinary tribunal of assessment. The question was, whether the Government could allow the Assessment Committees to do what they liked with respect to the valuation of Government buildings. The hon. Member for King's Lynn asked why it should not be treated exactly as other property was treated? He would tell the hon. Member why. In the case of other property there was an appeal to the Courts of Law, whilst in the case of Government property there was no such appeal. The Government could only be given a right to appeal by Act of Parliament, and it would not be possible, he thought, to adopt that course in respect of the property of the Crown for one purpose only. He did not believe that the Treasury would agree that the Crown should be placed in the position contemplated by those who advocated the introduction of the Bill. But there being no right of appeal, the Government had not the protection given to ordinary occupiers. If Assessment Committees assessed the property of the Government unfairly, the Government could not go to law. What could be done was to ask the Secretary to the Treasury to extend the application of the principle on which he had acted, and to allow Government property to be treated just as if it were in the hands of private individuals. They could not go further and ask for a Bill drawn on exceptional lines. If they obtained, a pledge from the right hon. Member to the effect which he had indicated they ought to be satisfied. No one had objected more strongly than he did to the system of exemption that prevailed formerly, but that had now been changed. If the Government continued in the course which they had now begun, and if they would give further opportunities to local authorities to make their wishes known, he should be satisfied, and he did not believe that the hon. Member for Islington would ask for anything more.
    *MR. A. C. MORTONdid not agree with his hon. Friend. All that was asked was, that the Government should put themselves in the same position as other people. It had been said that the Government was not represented on the Assessment Committees. In London they sent their Surveyors of Taxes to these Committees, and they could take a similar course in other places. One of the difficulties at present was the dictatorial tone adopted by the Government Valuator. He would ask his right hon. Friend to allow an appeal from this official to the Treasury, so that local authorities would know what to do if they were not satisfied with his valuation.
    MR. G. C. T. BARTLEYsaid, they had not got beyond the old method of dealing with this matter by an arrangement by which the local authorities were still at the mercy of the Treasury. The right hon. Gentleman represented that these authorities were satisfied, but they were not. [Sir J. HIBBERT: "I have it in black and white."] Of course they were extremely grateful for the increased amount they received, but what they desired was that Government property should be assessed in the same way as private property. That was the only way of settling the question.
    MR. R. W. HANBURYfully agreed that the only way of solving the difficulty was by putting the Government in exactly the same position as anyone else, but if they adopted that principle with regard to rating, they must carry it a great deal further. They would have to put people employed in Government factories in exactly the same position towards the Government as they would be in regard to a private employer. With regard to health and the protection of life they ought to have exactly the same rights against the Government as against the private employer. This proposal, therefore, was only a step towards sweeping away privileges and rights which the Government, by a mere fiction, maintained. He would support the Motion for the reduction of the Vote in order to drive in the thin edge of the wedge, believing that if the principle was conceded with regard to the ratepayers, the workpeople would also press their claims.
    *SIR A. K. ROLLITdisclaimed any idea of distinguishing as between London and the Provinces in

    379
    this matter. They had not only had assurances from the Government from time to time, and now a renewal of them, but the hon. Gentleman had done a great deal in giving practical application to the principle he had laid down, and in the belief that the right hon. Gentleman meant to carry out that principle as completely as possible, he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment. The hon. Member for King's Lynn said there was no Government property there—but had not King's Lynn a Custom-house, an Inland Revenue Office, and Post and Telegraph Offices? It had, therefore, an interest in this matter.
    *SIR JOHN HIBBERTsaid, in answer to the hon. Member for Peterborough, that there was an appeal now. The Government Valuer did nothing without the approval and confirmation of the Treasury, but he would consider whether the hon. Member's suggestion could be carried out.
    MR. A. C. MORTON: That is to say that local authorities, if they are not satisfied with the valuation of the Government Valuator, can appeal to the Treasury.
    Leave to withdraw the Amendment was refused.
    The Committee divided:—Noes, 107; Ayes, 192.—(Division List No. 36.)
    COLONEL NOLANcalled attention to the entries in the Vote as to arterial drainage and the sink drainage, with no money after them. Was it a case like the chapter on snakes in Iceland?
    *SIR JOHN HIBBERTwas understood to say that the items were entered formally, the matter being dealt with elsewhere.
    MR. FIELDasked whether, when dealing with arterial drainage, the Treasury would take into consideration the Barrow drainage?
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, there was a conflict between two railway companies—the Waterford and Limerick Railway and the Midland and Great Western Railway—at Claremorris. The two companies met in this small but charming town. There was, however, no connection, and there were two stations. He thought that some attempt should be
    380
    made to remedy this state of affairs. He regretted the President of the Board of Trade was not present.
    *SIR JOHN HIBBERTsaid, he quite saw the annoyance that was caused. He hoped there would be some chance of success if the Board of Trade tendered its service.
    COLONEL NOLANasked whether the whole of the money with reference to the Galway and Clifden line had been paid, and when the line would be completed? He hoped that the Secretary to the Treasury would be able to give the information. He also pointed out that £50,000 was expended each year on the railroad in Connemara, instituted by the present Leader of the Opposition. This line had done a great deal of good, but he understood that now, in this time of distress, the workmen would be discharged. He wished to know what was being done in connection with this line, or whether an effort would be made to provide some other work for these men so as to soften the hardships which would result to them from a sudden stoppage of work.
    *SIR JOHN HIBBERTsaid, there was not much chance of the line being opened the whole way before the end of this year. They were very anxious to see the line opened as quickly as possible, and probably he might be able to give more definite information when the Vote was reached in Supply.
    COLONEL NOLANwanted to know whether the information just given was guess work or whether it was based on fact. Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether the work would go on until next January?
    *SIR JOHN HIBBERTsaid, he had nothing to do with the relief works in Ireland; these belonged to the Department of the Chief Secretary.
    MR. W. FIELDasked for information with reference to Kingstown Harbour and Docks.
    *SIR JOHN HIBBERTsaid he answered a question of the hon. Member on the subject three weeks ago. He then stated that the Treasury had considered the case of the men, and it was thought that some case had been made out for granting some gratuities to those who had earned them in connection with this work.
    MR. W. FIELD: But what is the position of affairs at the present time?
    *SIR JOHN HIBBERTsaid, that a certain number of workmen were entitled to gratuities—those who had been engaged for 15 years—according to the number of years they had served. A few additional workmen had been discharged in whose case it was doubtful whether they were entitled to gratuities; but on further consideration, the Treasury decided that gratuities might be given to them.
    MR. W. FIELD: Am I to understand that favourable consideration would be given to the further cases I have brought forward?
    *SIR JOHN HIBBERT: Favourable consideration has been given.
    *ADMIRAL FIELDrose to move a reduction of £100 in the salary of the Home Secretary, in order to call attention to a grievance in connection with the Inspectorships of Reformatory and Industrial Schools. He regretted to have to take this course, because he had reason to be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his kind and conciliatory answers which had been given to questions affecting grievances in connection with the inspection of reformatory and industrial shool ships. His present grievance, however, was a very serious one, though he was bound to admit that he had obtained more in the way of reform from the present Home Secretary than he had obtained during the tenure of office of the late Government. There had been a vacancy in the Department of Inspectorships of reformatory and industrial schools. A very important officer had recently retired. In past times the office had been filled by good men; and when the vacancy occurred he thought it was a grand opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman to show his interest in the subjects to which he had drawn his attention by appointing, if possible, a Naval Officer eminently qualified for the post, thoroughly master of the whole question, and familiar with the duties of the office. If the right hon. Gentleman had taken this step he would have conferred a public benefit; but it seemed to him that no one cared two straws about the manning of the Mercantile Marine. Here was an opportunity to do good in this direction by appointing a Naval Officer to look after these ships, but instead of
    382
    appointing a competent man, at least from his point of view, to this important office—a Naval Officer or an Officer connected with the Education Department—the Home Secretary had appointed a chief clerk out of the Home Office. No doubt the gentleman so appointed was an able officer in his own Department, but he could not be said to possess the qualifications necessary for the post of Inspector of Reformatory and Industrial Schools. It was well known that many of the Committees in charge of the reformatory and industrial school ships had behaved in an extraordinary way in connection with some of the appointments to them, and he thought the occasion which had arisen was a fitting one for the right hon. Gentleman to have done something to lessen the, scandals in connection with them. One man might be as good as another in mental qualifications, but one man was not as good as another for the inspection of semi-penal establishments. There were now 80,000, seamen properly so-called, in the Mercantile Marine, and of this number 27,000 were foreigners. If that state of things was to continue he should like to know upon what the Navy was going to depend in time of war? There were eleven training ships, and £60,000 a year was paid over to them; £300,000 was spent on the Reformatory and Industrial School System. He advocated the affiliation of those ships to the land schools. By the present system, which was most wasteful, we turned out and sent to sea barely 400 boys a year, whereas the ships were capable of turning out 2,000. The gentleman appointed by the right hon. Gentleman was no doubt an excellent man, but he could know nothing about the inspection of schools or of ships. The matter was of great importance from an Imperial point of view, but he could not get anyone to look at it from a Naval standpoint. Every one wanted to get men for the Navy, but they would not take the trouble to improve the men of the Mercantile Marine, on which the country would have to lean in time of war. He begged to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. H. H. ASQUITH,)was obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for the

    383
    tribute he paid to him, but he thought the hon. and gallant Gentleman was a very ungrateful man, and he would not encourage him to go on making concessions to his demand. He had put forward a most extraordinary demand. Because there happened to be amongst the industrial and reformatory schools, of the country eight or ten training ships—very valuable institutions indeed, but still constituting an insignificant fraction of the total number of reformatory and industrial schools—he complained that he (Mr. Asquith) had not appointed a Naval man to supervise all the schools. He did not think he would have exercised his duty properly if he had done anything of the kind. He had provided what had never taken place before, namely, a Naval inspection of the ships. Every ship was in charge of a competent Captain, and hon. Members would remember that in the case of the Liverpool training ship he had insisted on the reinstatement of the Captain even at the cost of a loss of the Government grant. He would continue to use every legitimate means in his power to promote the efficiency of the ships, and to see they were carefully and properly inspected. But when he had to appoint a gentleman to the chief inspectorship of all the schools of the country he must look to a wider range of qualification than the hon. and gallant gentleman seemed to contemplate. He chose the man who, after a most careful consideration of the claims of all the candidates, he believed best fitted for the multifarious duties of that very responsible position. He believed he could not have selected a man more fitted for that special duty.
    CAPTAIN BETHELLsaid, the right hon. Gentleman omitted to say anything about that part of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech in which he pressed so urgently, as he had so urgently pressed before, for something in the nature of an affiliation between the industrial schools and industrial ships. On more than one occasion his hon. and gallant Friend had pointed out how extremely advantageous to the nation it would be to weed out from the industrial ships the boys unsuited for sea life, and permit their place to be filled by strong and robust boys, who might turn out admirable sailors.
    MR. J. L. WHARTONdesired to confirm what the right hon. Gentleman had said with regard to the appointment he had made. When he was sitting on a Departmental Committee at the Home Office, the gentleman in question acted as Secretary to the Committee. Judging from the ability the gentleman displayed, and from his courteous demeanour, he was convinced he was well fitted for the post the right hon. Gentleman had appointed him to. The gallant Admiral spoke of the semi-penal character of the industrial institutions. Industrial schools were institutions where boys who were not convicted were trained. They were boys taken on the threshold of crime, and who were brought up, he hoped, as good and useful citizens. No doubt it would be a very good thing to weed out all the strong and healthy boys and those who showed a desire to go to sea, and send them to the training ships. He was delighted to hear the Home Secretary say he had provided for the inspection of the training ships by properly constituted officials.
    MR. ASQUITHsaid, he quite recognised the importance of the question of affiliation, or at least a closer mutual relation between industrial schools and industrial ships, and that, together with a number of other questions connected with the management of reformatory and industrial schools, was about to be submitted to the consideration of a Departmental Committee.
    *ADMIRAL FIELDwas obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his conciliatory reply. With regard to the phrase semi-penal, he did not mean to apply it to industrial schools, but only to reformatory schools and reformatory ships. As to the training ships forming an insignificant portion of the industrial institutions of the country, he had only to say that if the industrial ships were used to their full complement, it would be found that instead of £60,000, £120,000 or more would be required to be spent upon them. He asked leave to withdraw his Motion.
    MR. C. B. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, what the Home Secretary had told the Committee was only in fulfilment of a promise made two years ago by the present First Commissioner of Works (Mr. H. Gladstone). The right hon. Gentleman said, he had

    385
    made arrangements for what might be called the Naval inspection of these Naval Industrial Schools. He should be glad to know of what the inspection consisted. The statement made two years ago was to the effect that the Admiralty should lend an Inspector engaged in inspecting their own training ships, and that that would, somehow, be an economical arrangement. On the general question, it was hardly fair to expect that these Naval training ships should provide the same proportion of boys for the training ships in the Admiralty, because they were a class less physically fit for the Service to start with, and because there was considerable opposition amongst parents to their boys being sent into the Mercantile Marine without their consent. Personally, he was convinced that that result would not be very much furthered by the appointment of Naval Inspectors. These ships were now officered and captained by Naval men, and therefore all that could be got by Naval skill was already present on their management.
    *MR W. CROSFIELDsaid, the hon. and gallant Admiral spoke of the capacity of the industrial training ships to hold a larger number of boys. Those who had experience of training ships knew that many boys, who supposed they had a disposition to follow the sea, as it was called, were sent to training ships, but on examination they were found to be physically incapable of discharging the duties of sailors, and consequently had to be eliminated, and to revert to land occupations. Therefore, the argument of the hon. and gallant Member for Eastbourne was hardly to the point.
    *ADMIRAL FIELDsaid, the hon. Gentleman had misunderstood his point, which was that the captain of a training ship should be allowed to send back to land schools boys who were found to be unfit for the sea.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR R. E. WEBSTERdesired to bring under the notice of the Home Secretary a very important matter, to which his attention had been drawn by the civil guards and male nurses of Parkhurst Prison, Isle of Wight, and which had given rise to considerable
    386
    complaints amongst officials holding those positions in all the prisons. That was, that the assistant warders got 14 days' leave of absence, while male nurses and civil guards, whose position in the service in regard to pay and hours of duty were identical, got only 11 days. It was impossible for him to understand why such a distinction should be drawn between those officials. On inquiring of the Home Office for an explanation of the distinction, he was informed that the extra three days were given to the assistant warders in consequence of the very slow promotion open to them. He could not see any relation between these two things; but, in any case, he was told by the civil guards and the nurses that their promotion was quite as slow, if not slower, than the promotion of the assistant warders. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would remove this invidious distinction, which was giving great dissatisfaction to a very deserving class of prison officials.
    MR. ASQUITHsaid, the whole question of the position of the prison officials referred to was most carefully investigated as late as 1891 by the Prisons Committee, and the arrangements now in operation were those recommended by that Committee. To touch one point meant to touch every point of the prison service. If this concession of three days' extra holiday were given in the case of the officials of the Parkhurst Prison, referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman, he had no doubt he would have a similar application in respect to other officials, from every other hon. Member who had a prison establishment in his constituency, and he did not know how he could well refuse it. He must, therefore, look at the matter from the point of view of the service as a whole; and if he found, on investigation, that it was possible, without establishing an invidious distinction between one class of officer and another, to place a particular class of officer in a better position, he would be happy to do so.
    SIR R. E. WEBSTERsaid, it was because the distinction he alluded to was invidious that he brought it forward.
    MR. G. C. T. BARTLEYsaid, that as Islington was rich in prisons, he had received a great number of memorials from prison officials urging that they should be treated like the other branches of the

    387
    Public Service; and he thought there were many reasons why the matter should be favourably considered by the Home Secretary.
    MR. JOHN BURNSasked when the Report of the Prisons Committee, appointed last year, would be presented to the House? He understood that in some of the Metropolitan prisons there were instances of the non-enforcement of the rule of compulsory retirement at the age of 65, with the result that many men physically unfit were retained in the service, and promotion was retarded.
    *MR. W. E. M. TOMLINSONcalled the attention of the Home Secretary to the complaint of prison clerks, that while, owing to the diminution in the number of prisons and other causes, the highest salary they could reach was something like £150, they had been charged in examinations for appointments the full fee of £3, which was applicable to cases in which the maximum salary was from £400 to £450, and that they had been led to enter the service by expectations which had not been realised.
    *MR. A. C. MORTONasked the Home Secretary whether he would allow local authorities to appeal to the Home Office in cases in which they did not agree with the valuer's assessments on police stations, which were the Government buildings he had previously referred to as being under the control of the Home Office?
    MR. ASQUITH, dealing with the various points that had been raised, said, that the question of there being an appeal in the matter of rating from the valuer to the Head of the Department, he would carefully consider in conjunction with the Secretary to the Treasury. As to the Report of the Departmental Committee on Prisons, he expected it every day, and there should be no delay in laying it before the House. As to the 65th Rule of age retirement, so far as he knew it was inflexibly enforced in the prison service, subject to the exception that where officers were taken over from local prisons prior to 1877 their rights as to age, status, and retirement were preserved by a section of the Prisons Act of that year. As to the position and pay of the staff, that was not one of the matters referred to this Committee, but it was a subject he was always ready to
    388
    consider. The case of the prisons' clerks had been frequently before him, and although he had not the facts before him to enable him to reply to the hon. Member for Preston on the spur of the moment, he might say that, having carefully investigated the matter, he was satisfied that these officers had no substantial grievance as to the particular point which had to be raised.

    ENGLAND AND FRANCE IN AFRICA.
    *SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT, on the Vote for the Foreign Office, desired to call attention to the encroachments of a great neighbouring Power. He wished to say nothing that could possibly be offensive in any way to that great Power. He quite recognised that the French Government and people had as much right to seek their colonial expansion and imperial commerce as had Great Britain or any other country. But whilst he wished most carefully to avoid saying anything that could be interpreted as showing a hostile feeling towards the Government or people of France, he felt, at the same time, justified in stating that the policy of Her Majesty's Ministry with regard to these encroachments had been, for the past two and a half years, one of very painful and possibly very injurious surrender. There had been, a series of surrenders, beginning with the surrender in Siam, and proceeding almost with the rate of geometrical progression ever since, until we had now reached the position that there was no security felt in this country as to what might happen at any moment with regard to the waterway of the Nile. He did not propose to deal with the question of Siam, though the publication of the Blue Books on that subject revealed a state of things, so grievous and injurious to British prestige and honour, that he thought it was almost impossible to speak in language of too strong condemnation of the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to Siam 18 months ago. Then there was the question of Sierra Leone, and he might remind the House that the Speech from the Throne this year announced the completion of an agreement with regard to Sierra Leone, but they had reason to believe that by that agreement their ancient and important colony had been completely cut off from trade with its Hinterland

    389
    by the French. Although he understood there was some agreement with regard to trade not embodied in the arrangement or protocols as to the boundaries, he believed that agreement was a loose and separate one, and only of a temporary nature. He should like to ask the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether the French Government had offered any explanation as to the grievous incident which took place at Waima in December 1893, when a British force was attacked at night at a place within British territory, and three gallant British officers Killed? In regard to that matter, so far as he was aware, no reparation or explanation even had yet been offered by the Government of France; and he hoped the hon. Baronet would be able to give them some information on the subject. Then there was the question of the Niger territory. There was serious news from the Niger. They knew that for some time a French force and French leaders in that part of Africa had been doing their best to encroach on the commercial and political rights of Great Britain. He was glad to hear the hon. Baronet say that the Government had addressed a remonstrance to the Government of France with regard to the encroachments at two points in the Niger territory, of which they had just heard. He did not say anything now with regard to Madagascar. He only mentioned these matters at all because there had been such a succession of surrenders in all these different instances that the course pursued by the Government required the close attention of the country. They hoped that the surrender in Siam might have led to some concession, on the part of the French Government, with regard to Madagascar or the Nile waterway; but each fresh surrender was marked by a further advance on the part of the French Government more menacing and serious than the last. With reference to the Nile waterway, he hoped the Government would not say that the reference to, or the introduction of, these questions was unjustifiable or might be injurious—because they had been discussed over and over again in both the French Press and the French Legislative Assembly. For the Government, therefore, to claim the right of secrecy or delay even in discussing these questions in the House or
    390
    in the country, would be quite unjustifiable. It was absolutely wrong that Parliament—which had such a great interest in the imperial greatness and commerce of the country—and the British people also should be kept in ignorance whilst these constant encroachments upon their territory, political influence, and trade were being made by the French Government in almost every quarter of the world. As to the question of the Nile waterway, of all the questions abroad of political rivalry and power—which were likely to arise in the next few years, with the exception, perhaps, only of the future of Asia Minor and the passage of the Straits—the security of the Upper Nile waterway was undoubtedly the principal. There was a race at present proceeding for Transafrican Dominion between France and Great Britain. The French ambition was to extend their influence from west to east—from Senegal on the Atlantic, right across Central Africa, and through the Soudan to the Red Sea, where they already had a port at Obock. If they once succeeded in establishing that position of Transafrican Dominion, the whole of North Africa was bound to become a French possession, Egypt included; and the Mediterranean was almost bound to become a French lake. Then there was the British race from South Africa to the north, from Cape Town to Alexandria—a great dominion which had been very nearly achieved, which only required the small completions of a chain already stretched the greater part of the way, to render it perfect and permanent, and to give this country such advantages of imperial influence and commerce in Africa as it was almost impossible to over-rate. Anyone who was in any way familiar with the aims and policy of that eminent man who had done so much to extend British dominion in South Africa, and to open up vast regions in that country to British commerce and colonisation, would know that the great ambition of Mr. Rhodes was, to complete this chain of British communication and territory from Alexandria to Cape Town and vice versa. He wished to point out the extreme gravity of allowing the French to get possession of any portion of the Upper Nile water. Any great European Power that held almost any portion of

    391
    the Upper Nile held Egypt practically at its mercy. The Nile was Egypt and Egypt was the Nile. Any Power which controlled the waters of the Nile held Egypt at its mercy, and would be able to impose any terms it pleased upon the Egyptian people or the British Government, which held control over, and was responsible for, the policy of Egypt. Some years ago, that great authority on Egyptian and Soudanese questions, the late Sir Samuel Baker, told him that any European Power holding the Upper Nile would hold Egypt at its mercy. A distinguished military officer had used this remarkable expression last year:—
    "If I were the Mahdi, I would make Egypt pay for every quart of water that runs down the Nile;"
    and early in the present year, Sir Colin Scott-Moncreiff, speaking in this country, said:—
    "As to diverting the Nile in the Soudan, and depriving Egypt of its water, though there might be no danger from the Mahdi: what the Mahdi could not do, a civilised people could do. It is very evident that the civilised possessor of the Upper Nile Valley holds Egypt in his grasp. … A civilised nation on the Upper Nile would surely build regulating sluices across the outlet of the Victoria Nyanza and control that great sea as Manchester controls Thirlmere. This would be an easy operation. Once done, the Nile supply would be in their hands, and if poor little Egypt had the bad luck to be at war with this people in the upper waters, they might flood Egypt or cut off the water supply at their pleasure. The Nile, from the Victoria Nyanza to the Mediterranean, and should be under our rule."
    That was the view of a gentleman whose knowledge and work in Egypt was unrivalled, and whose experience no expert would venture to contradict. This was why he was calling attention to the matter now, in order, if possible, to ensure that the Government would do their duty in respect to it. The great danger lay in the possibility that, if our Government did not bestir itself, we might some day be encountered by a fait accompli in the shape of a foreign occupation of the Upper Nile. Finding that some other Power held Egypt at its mercy, we should then be obliged to give up our great work in that country, or to undertake that most difficult of all operations, namely, the dislodging of a great Power from that remote part of Africa. This country now held the mouths of the Nile, and held
    392
    also the source of the Nile; we held Egypt up to Wadi Halfa. What was now wanted was prompt action on the part of Her Majesty's Government, in order that this country might effectively occupy also all that part of the Nile waterway, which was not in Egyptian territory, or under Egyptian control. Until this was done, this country had no pledge that the French would not forestall us. It was not as if we had no warnings. We had had warnings enough. Her Majesty's Government, after some considerable delay had occupied Uganda, and for this he wished to give them every credit. They also saw that it was necessary to establish a buffer State. He would remind the Committee of the enormous advances made by the French across Central Africa—he believed, as much as 1,000 miles in five years. This was truly portentous, and was, in fact, greater than the advance of any other people in that part of Africa during the same period. It was also known that large French forces were now established on the upper region of the Congo, and upon a tributary of that river called the Ubanghi. He had put a question to the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Sir E. Grey) that afternoon on the subject, as to where the French Expedition, which left the Ubanghi some nine months ago, now was. He did not know whether the Under Secretary would not, or whether he could not, give any definite information on the subject, but his answer did not make the matter clear. A statement appeared on the subject some three weeks ago in a leading article which appeared in The Times newspaper on March 5th. The statement there made appeared to be put forward with authority, and in a way which that journal rarely made use of without good reason. The article stated that a French expedition had left the upper waters of the Ubanghi some eight months previously. Our Government ought to have gunboats on the upper waters of the Nile, and patrol the river as far as Lado, and even Fashod, and ought to take steps to find out where this French force really was at the present time. It was an extraordinary illustration of the neglect of the present Parliament of these grave questions, that the greatest insults and humiliation to this country during

    393
    the present century had been passed over with perfect indifference, and even in silence. Her Majesty's Government had, in regard to this part of Africa, adopted a feeble device, and had tried to shove the little Congo Free State up into the the region of the Western Nile basin, and so use that State as a buffer. That was a policy he admitted, though an unworthy one; but it had absolutely failed. By the treaty made last year by Her Majesty's Government, on May 12th, the Congo Free State was put into possession of about 100,000 square miles of territory, more or less, lying between latitude 5o and latitude 11o, between longitude 25o and longitude 30o. What then happened? A week afterwards the French Minister for Foreign Affairs went down to the Corp Législatif on June 7, 1894, and solemnly made the following statement. The hon. Baronet (Sir E. Grey) would not, he presumed, dispute the accuracy of the statement then made by M. de Hanotaux, whose concluding words were:—
    "The Anglo-Congolese Convention being in manifest contradiction to the principles of the Treaty of Berlin, must be considered by us as not legitimate, and, untilfurther information, as null and void."
    But not only did the French declare our treaty between two independent Powers—Great Britain and the Congo State—to be null and void, but on August 14th they proceeded to make a treaty of their own with the Congo Free State, and compelled that State to turn out of nearly the whole of the territory in which we had just before placed them. That treatment was accepted by Her Majesty's Government without protest, so far as he was aware. But whether our Government had protested or not, the fact remained that, having tried to use the Congo Free State as a buffer between the French possessions and waterway of the Nile, they allowed that State to be driven out of the territory into which we had put them by treaty. In his opinion there was no parallel for such humiliation of one Great Power by another, except after a great war. Her Majesty's Government might say that they did not regard this as an important matter, but the French regarded it as very important indeed. The highest
    394
    French officer in the French Congo had said:—
    Our Treaty assures to France access to the valley of the Nile."
    That was the view of M. de Brazza, the French Commissary General of the Congo, who was responsible for carrying out the policy of France in the Western Basin of the Nile. The same authority went on to state:—
    "Access to the valley of the Nile from the South is the only way in which we might be enabled one day to settle the Egyptian question in a way consistent with our interests. It is easy to join the Congo territory to the Soudan by way of Darfur."
    That meant that the French authorities looked forward to the time when, by diminishing or, possibly, by diverting the flow of the Nile, they might be able to bring pressure upon us and to turn us out of Egypt. M. de Brazza also referred to the easy way of getting from the Congo territory to the Soudan by way of Darfur and thence to Khartoum. M. Deloncle, the leader of the French advance party, had made statements quite as strong, and similar views expressed by various members of the Corps Legislatif might also be quoted. He only referred to these in order to bring to the attention of the Committee and the country the great menace that confronted us, through the attempt that was being made by France to seize the Upper Nile waterway, and eventually, by that means, to turn us out of Egypt. He was fully persuaded, moreover, that France was prepared to take advantage of their opportunities to the very utmost. He must give the hon. Baronet some credit for having stated the other day, that the spheres—that was to say, the sphere of Egyptian influence and that of British influence—covered the whole Nile water-way. The hon. Baronet made the statement with considerable reluctance, but nevertheless it was a very important statement; and, if fully acted up to, and if effective measures were taken, or real assurances were obtained, it would be an important step. In regard to Siam, he believed if the House had the slightest idea of what was going on as to the encroachments in that country it would not endorse the craven policy which the Government had adopted. He admitted some

    395
    concessions must be made, and that for the sake of peace, a certain yielding might be necessary in certain regions, but the question of the Nile water-way was of first-class importance to this country. That was a question which they were justified in pressing on the Government, because the Government had not been fully alive to their duty in this matter. It was a significant fact that while the French were threatening the Nile waterway to the west, a very remarkable mission from another Great Power, also our rival, was working on the eastern side of the Upper Nile waters. There was a coincidence about this action which was not accidental. A large and influential and well equipped Russian mission went, about six weeks ago, into Abyssinia, bearing costly presents and large sums of money, for distribution among the chieftains and the people. There was another great Power, our ally, which had of late been moving in the direction of the Upper Nile waterway. It was a fortunate thing for us that the Italians were in the Eastern Soudan. It was clear that the future of this country, the future establishment of British Dominion over the Nile waterway, and the civilisation of all those countries, depended on a cordial co-operation between Italy and Great Britain in those regions. Events were marching rapidly. It was evident that the future of Egypt must rest with the Power that succeeded first in getting control and possession of the Nile waterway. There was little time to be lost. We might be confronted almost at any moment with a fait accompli, in the shape of a French occupation of some portion of the Nile, which would render our position in Egypt untenable, or which would oblige us to undertake a tremendous struggle in order to maintain it. This was the most important question in all our foreign policy at the present moment, and if the Government wished to save the cause of British interests they must act vigorously and promptly.
    MAJOR DARWINsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper very similar to that moved by the hon. Member for Sheffield, with the difference that he proposed to reduce the salary of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs by £100 only. The subject under discussion was the region of
    396
    the head waters of the Nile. He believed he was right in saying that the doctrine of effective occupation did not apply to the interior of Africa, and the the fact that we had no effective occupation there did not interfere in any way with our rights of trading in that district. Our claim to that district lay in the fact that we had entered into an agreement with Germany and Italy by which those two nations had agreed not to interfere with our sphere of influence. The French, he understood, had not agreed to this bargain in any way, yet the fact that they had not definitely protested against it gave us, he thought, a fair claim to consider this as part of our sphere of protection. He did not think the Government had made any clear statement of the object they had in view in entering into the leasing arrangements between this country and the Congo Free State. The reasons might be awkward to give, but they might perhaps be guessed. In the first place, the Government wished to get ground under British control for the time being over which a road and telegraph line might be constructed connecting Lake Tanganyika and Uganda, in which object, they had entirely failed; secondly, they wished to establish the Congo Free State as a buffer against. French advance, or it might be that in entering into this lease it was desired to make a fresh declaration before Europe that we looked upon this as territory under our control. If France desired to advance into the British sphere of influence it would not be across the southern portion of the leased territory, but across the northern portion or the sources of the Bahr-el-Ghazal, and the fact that the Congo Free State had abandoned this part of the lease showed that there had also been an entire failure to obtain the second object desired. He wished to know where the French were at present; if they were at Bangasso they were in a position to take up a great many of the posts occupied by Belgium in the northern region, and it was important to remember that the French at the present moment were in a position to make a rapid and effective advance on this region. There seemed to be an impression in quarters usually well informed that the French were advancing; it had been so stated in a special article of The Times of

    397
    March 5, and as the information came from usually well-informed quarters, it was a question worthy of serious consideration. If the French were advancing it was really a very serious matter, because of the value of the region and the fact that France did not acknowledge agreements between third parties as binding upon them. As to the southern part still leased, he would ask, had the lease strengthened our rights over that region? If it had, he thought, the fact that the French had forced the Congo Free State to repudiate the contract with regard to the northern part of the sphere must pro tanto have weakened our hold over the northern part. If it had not, of what use was the lease, if all it had done was to prevent absolutely any British advance in that sphere and to take no extra precaution against French advance? If we ever had to make an advance towards the navigable sources of the Nile, it would be necessary for us to cross this sphere, inasmuch as the right bank of the Nile was swampy, and below the Albert Nyanza, the river was so full of grass that it was difficult to navigate. His main point was that in this lease we had leased to the Congo Free State the wrong part of the sphere if we wished to check a French advance, and, considering the difficulty that the present portion placed in the way of our advance, he thought the Government would have been well advised if they had cancelled the whole of the lease when the Congo Free State threw over part of it. He thought our policy should be to oppose a French advance in that quarter, for as long as England was the denominating influence in Egypt, she ought to be the denominating influence in the whole of the Nile Valley. The rivers near the sources of the Nile were not great military obstacles, nor were they great highways of communication, and, therefore, did not affect very materially any strategical considerations. He very much doubted if it was possible to divert the Nile, but it was possible to irrigate the Nile valley for some 400 or 500 miles above Khartoum, and to such an extent that the waters of the Lower Nile would be considerably diminished.
    398
    It might be possible, by means of reservoirs, to irrigate the land beyond Khartoum so as not to interfere with Lower Egypt. Whatever power dominated Egypt, it was of vital importance that it should dominate in the valley above Khartoum. As to the overflow from the big lakes, works there would be of extreme importance to regulate the flow of the Lower Nile. For the same reason we ought to make certain of holding the outlet of the Albert Nyanza, as well as of the lower part of the Nile. He had always felt great doubt as to what should be our policy in Egypt. He would not discuss that now; but as we were the dominating Power we ought to take full responsibility with regard to the advance in the direction of Khartoum in order to prevent any other European Power from getting in such a position that it could inflict serious injury on Egypt. He urged the Government to send a small force to place the British flag on the junction of Bahr-el-Ghazal and Bahr-el-Jebel. If we had those two points under British control we should for a time have secured our advance towards the Nile Valley. A small force would accomplish such a work, and our occupation would be as effectual as any that the French were likely to get. If we did not abandon the whole of our policy we were, bound to make a railway across to Uganda. One of the strongest arguments the Govment brought against the railway was with reference to the dual control exercised by the company and the Government over that region. That excuse no longer availed. By an arrangement only made within the last day or two the East Africa Company was going out of that region, and the Government would have sole control. So they had full responsibility, and, as far as he could see, they had no longer any excuse for not pushing forward that railway, which was so necessary. In his opinion, the easiest method of advance would be by the Suakin-Berber route. The Uganda route was not the best by which to attack those regions, but the Suakin-Berber route was. It was most important that we should come to a definite and distinct understanding as to what our policy was in this region. The Government, by making these leases, indicated that they thought it necessary some steps should

    399
    be taken to prevent France advancing. Their leases had failed to effect that object. They were bound to secure those regions to British influence now that their original proposals had so completely prevailed. Those proposals might have been good, sensible, and right at the time they were made. But they had failed from causes which the Government might or might not have foreseen, and now the Government should see it was necessary to take further action in that direction. He did not wish to press the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs too much. But he hoped the hon. Baronet would give an assurance that the Government was looking into this question, and would advance in the direction he had indicated and secure the Valley of the Nile to British influence.
    MR. W. JOHNSTONsaid, he only intervened in the discussion to ascertain what course the Government intended to adopt with regard to the protection of British interests in Madagascar. Every day brought news of increasing military enthusiasm with which the French expedition to Madagascar was being viewed in France. One of the newspapers asserted that a letter had been written by a French officer in Madagascar calling on the French not only to assert their protectorare over the island, but to drive out the Queen and the Hova Government, and entirely to conquer the island, in the interests of France. For a long series of years Christian missionaries from England had taken an interest in the affairs of Madagascar, and they had endeavoured to Christianise and civilise the people of the island. In this they had obtained remarkable success. He knew there were some hon. Members who—
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAINrose to Order, and asked whether it would not be convenient to keep the question of Madagascar separate from the question of Egypt and the Upper Nile.
    THE CHAIRMANagreed that it would be more convenient.
    MR. JOHNSTONasked why he should be out of Order when the hon. Member for Sheffield, who brought forward a matter relating largely to Madagascar, was not.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I do not say that the hon. Member is out of Order. But I agree that it would be more convenient to keep the questions of Madagascar and Egypt and the Upper Nile distinct.
    MR. JOHNSTON: I at once bow to your ruling, Sir. But I deeply regret that I have not the opportunity to protest against the attempt on the part of France to repress the liberties of a patriotic people.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAINsaid, his hon. Friend would have an opportunity later on of raising the question.
    *MR. J. W. LOWTHERremarked that, while he could not agree with every word that fell from his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, he thought his hon. Friend was fully justified in bringing forward this question. The Leader of the Opposition stated on the first night of the meeting of Parliament that it was not the intention of the Opposition to attempt to make any Party capital out of questions of foreign policy, and he did not think it could be laid to their charge that they had now, in any sense, departed from what the Leader of the Opposition then said. But the matters to which his hon. Friend had drawn attention were so important and so serious that if the House were to pass them by in absolute silence on such an occasion as this, a very mistaken view might be taken of our policy at home and abroad He supposed that there was a general consensus of opinion, if not entire unanimity, in the House, as to what our policy should be in that particular quarter of Africa. He supposed that the general sense of the House would be found to be in agreement with the hon. and Gallant Member opposite—that so long as we were in Egypt (without discussing the policy of the evacuation or of remaining there) it was necessary for us to have political control of the upper waters of the, Nile, and that if we were to retire from the position we now held, or if, to use a phrase of modern political slang, we failed to "implement" the agreements and conventions into which we had entered with regard to that particular quarter, we should find ourselves in considerable difficulty in dealing with any Foreign Power which might choose to establish itself on the banks of the river. That being so, he did not think he was

    401
    going too far in saying that the general opinion of the House was that we should retain our position there, if we did not extend it. Then the question was, what our rights were in that quarter. If he read correctly the engagement into which this country had entered in recent years, as far as our "paper rights" were concerned, he thought they were well established. In 1890 we entered into an arrangement with Germany to delimit our respective spheres of influence in East Africa. It was admitted and agreed by Germany that our sphere of influence went—to quote the exact words—"as far as the confines of Egypt." Therefore, when his hon. Friend, the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, recently stated that it was the view of the Government that the Egyptian and the British spheres of influence were coterminous, that was not a new admission on the part of the Government, but a statement which was made public as long ago as July 1, 1890. So much for the German Government. With regard to the Italian Government, an Agreement was made in 1891 which defined more accurately the special sphere of influence between Italy and Great Britain, and which provided that the sphere of influence of Great Britain should reach as far as a certain point, called, he believed. Ras Kasar, on the Red Sea. Therefore we had at that time, up to 1891, admissions from the German Government and from the Italian Government that our sphere of influence went as far as the confines of Egypt. Then we came to what had been called the lease—the Agreement entered into by Her Majesty's Government in May of last year. His hon. friend who spoke last was rather sceptical as to the value of this lease made to the Congo Free State. He presumed that the object of Her Majesty's Government in entering into this Agreement was to obtain from the Congo Free State a distinct acknowledgment that this territory lying between the Nile and the watershed of the Nile and the Congo was within the British sphere of influence. In entering into the Agreement the Congo Free State made that acknowledgment, and, although it was true that, by a subsequent Agreement, the Congo Free State had agreed with France to renounce any rights she may have in
    402
    a particular portion of that territory, the acknowledgment of the Congo Free, State that we had the right to make that lease and to deal with that territory still stands good. At all events, as to a portion of it, it stands good in the eyes of France itself; as to the remainder, we have the acknowledgment of the Congo Free State that we are entitled to consider the basin of the Nile as being within our sphere of influence. It was suggested that it might be said by France:—
    "Oh, we have never assented to any of these agreements; our consent has never been asked; they have never been submitted to us, and therefore we nothing whatever about them."
    In a sense, of course it was true; but the reason France was never asked to assent to those Agreements surely was because at the time they were made France was nowhere near the locality in question. The last Agreement of France with the Congo Free State was made in April 1887. That Agreement delimitated the frontier between French Congo and the Congo Free State up to a certain point along the river Welle, a very considerable distance from the watershed between the Nile and the Congo. It was totally unnecessary to submit to France Agreements which at that time did not at all concern her. Then came the question whether the Agreements were worth anything at all. In face of them, although they were not submitted to her, yet, as they must have been known to her through the ordinary channels of information, would France be entitled to send an armed expedition into the middle of the territory which she knew to be claimed by Great Britain? As to the alleged expedition, he was not in a position to know more than any other Member, but he was sceptical as to its marching in the direction it was said to be—namely, towards the Nile. It was originally sent up to French Congo at the time when France and the Congo Free State were disputing with regard to the frontier between the two States. Matters had become rather strained and the expedition was probably now some considerable way up the Congo and along the river Welle. Nothing had been heard with regard to it; and the commander who was to have taken charge

    403
    of it was ordered off upon other duty in West Africa. He could hardly believe that a friendly Power like France would send an armed expedition into a territory which we claimed under such circumstances. The question remained whether we were going to do anything to implement the claims we had upon this particular locality. He was not in a position to suggest what course should be taken; and he must leave the matter to the Government with their fuller knowledge. In conclusion, he wished to ask whether any information could be given with regard to another part of Africa—namely, the Niger. A serious statement was made in regard to certain expeditions which were said to have come down upon the banks of the Niger in territory which had been acquired by the Niger Company, and be believed occupied by them for years. He could hardly credit that any expeditions had been despatched by the Government of France into this locality; but if the statement were confirmed, he should be glad of an assurance that the matter would at once be brought to the attention of the Government of France as to this extraordinary violation of territory which for so many years had been under the British flag.
    *THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,: The hon. Member opposite began his speech by claiming for himself and the leaders of the Opposition that they had not, during the two and a half years that the present Government have been in power, done anything to inconvenience the Government in their foreign policy by making party capital out of any questions or incidents which have arisen. I freely and gladly recognise that that is a perfectly just claim for him to make; and personally I have benefited a great deal by that attitude on the part of the leaders of the Opposition. I freely recognise that the claim which the hon. Member for Penrith has made to-night is one which is justified. I will pass to the particular questions which have been raised in the Debate. There is, first of all, the question of the agreement made last year with the Congo State. The hon. Member for Sheffield said the policy of that agreement had been to try to shove forward the Congo State to occupy
    404
    British territory. No description of that agreement, of the motives and policy of it, could have been more inaccurate. The Government did not try to shove the Congo State forward at all. When we came into Office we found a large force had already shoved itself forward, and was in part of the territory, at any rate, which was subsequently dealt with by that Agreement. There was no anxiety on our part to shove her forward. What I am asked is: "How is British territory affected by that Agreement, and the position in which it now stands?" Under that Agreement the Congo State have recognised the British sphere. I do not say that recognition is necessary to our claim; but, at any rate, it is right and it is useful that we should have it, and that, undoubtedly, has been one outcome of the Agreement with the Congo State. I pass from that to the position which this country occupies, and is to occupy in the future, with regard to the Valley of the Nile and that part of the British sphere of influence touched upon by the hon. Member for Penrith. The greater number of the speeches that have been made have been devoted to explaining the importance of this question. I have no wish to dispute its importance. On the contrary, I am sensible that it is most important. I am asked, How do we stand with regard to this matter at the present time? As the hon. Member for Penrith has already shown, there was an agreement made in 1890 with Germany and another with Italy defining the British sphere of influence, and obtaining from those two great countries a recognition of the British sphere of influence. The hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield asked whether any effective, occupation is necessary to establish the validity of our claims in Africa. A great deal of re-arrangement would have to take place, not in the British sphere only, but in the spheres of other Powers also, if the question of effective, occupation is gone into, and its effect on the validity of claims. I am not at all sure that the Power most intimately concerned in that matter is Great Britain. I should say, at all events, that the proportion of our effective occupation to our claims is at least as large as that of other Powers. These Agreements have now been before the world for five years, and

    405
    though they have not been formally recognised by more than the two Powers concerned, except by the Congo State, they are, at the same time, well known to all the other Powers, and have not been disputed during five years. Besides this, there is the question of the claims of Egypt. Towards Egypt this country stands in a special position of trust, as regards the maintenance of the interests of Egypt, and the claims of Egypt have not only been admitted by us, but they have been admitted and emphasized lately by the Government of France. I stated the other day that, in consequence of these claims of ours, and in consequence of the claims of Egypt in the Nile Valley, the British and Egyptian spheres of influence covered the whole of the Nile waterway. That is a statement following logically upon what has happened in past years, and of what has been in the knowledge of the world for the last two years. I am asked whether or not it is the case that a French expedition is coming from the West of Africa with the intention of entering the Nile Valley and occupying up to the Nile. I will ask the Committee to be careful in giving credence to the rumours of the movement of expeditions in Africa. Even places in Africa are apt to shift about, and it is sometimes found that some place supposed to occupy a particular position does not, in fact, occupy that position. Rumours have come with greater or less freedom with regard to the movements of expeditions in various parts of Africa, but at the Foreign Office we have no reason to suppose that any French Expedition has instructions to enter, or the intention of entering, the Nile Valley; and I will go further and say that, after all I have explained about the claims we consider we have under past Agreements, and the claims which we consider Egypt may have in the Nile Valley, and adding to that the fact that our claims and the view of the Government with regard to them are fully and clearly known to the French Government—I cannot think it is possible that these rumours deserve credence, because the advance of a French Expedition under secret instructions right from the other side of Africa, into a territory over which our claims have been known for so long, would be not merely an inconsistent
    406
    and unexpected act, but it must be perfectly well known to the French Government that it would be an unfriendly act, and would be so viewed by England. I pass on to deal with the two French Expeditions which are reported to have entered a British Protectorate on the Niger. I have not much to say on that. The Niger Company is informed that two French Expeditions have entered territory which for some years has been known as a British Protectorate. The statement that two French Expeditions have entered such territory standing by itself, uncontradicted and unexplained, is undoubtedly most serious. But the more serious it is, standing unexplained, the more important it is not to make any comment upon it before the reply of the French Government to the communications addressed to it is known. But I have to say this, that undoubtedly the Committee will be right to bear in mind that there are two points of view in regard to those questions—the point of view of their local importance, and the much more serious point of view of their effect on the relations of two great European Powers. It would be idle to deny that there is some importance to be attached to the fact that, during the whole of the Debate no foreign Power has been alluded to except the French Government. Why has that been so? I think it has been so because events in Siam and in Africa have created an unfavourable effect on public opinion in this country, not an anxiety about what has happened—at the proper time I shall be able to defend Her Majesty's Government and to maintain that British interests have not been sacrificed—I say I do not think the anxiety is as to what has happened, but as to what may happen, in the future. During the last two years no provocation, whatever as regards the French has come from our side. We have striven to our utmost to reconcile the conflicting interests of the two countries and to promote the maintenance of good relations between the two countries, and we shall omit nothing consistently with the preservation of important and undoubted British claims still to maintain those good relations. But something else besides our own effort is necessary, and that is the cooperation of the French Government and

    407
    the French public. With that cooperation the task we have fulfilled with success hitherto, of preventing these local differences in different parts of the world from causing any serious disturbance of the relations of two great Powers, ought to be an easy one. We rely now, as we have relied not unsuccessfully hitherto, on the sense of justice and fairness of the French Government and the French people, to reconcile what conflicting interests there may be in different parts of the world, with the maintenance of close and good relations between the two countries.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have listened with the deepest interest to what has fallen from the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. I recognise his responsible position, and I feel that the statement he has now made will give greatest satisfaction to the country, and no doubt to this Committee. It is probably the fullest and clearest statement of the policy of the Government, with regard to the subject which has been under discussion, which we have yet had from a responsible Minister. My hon. Friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs recognises the full importance of the subject we have discussed. He sees that, unless there be a clear understanding between the two great Powers which are coming into contact in Africa, the most serious consequences might easily ensue, and he has undoubtedly made to-day a statement which cannot be misunderstood as to the claims of this country in regard to these regions. He has repeated and enlarged upon his statement of the other day, which was to the effect that the whole of the basin of the Nile, the whole of the Nile waterway from the lake, was either in the sphere of Egyptian or British influence. He has told us tonight that the claim on the part of the British Government has been before the world, and therefore has been in the full knowledge of the French Government for the last five years: I assume, therefore, that, in his opinion, it has never been disputed by the French Government. And he went on to say that if, in these circumstances, the French Government were to push forward any armed expedition into the country, which we have for five years past claimed as being within our sphere of influence,
    408
    that that would be an unfriendly act on the part of the French Government, and would be so regarded by this country. As I have said, that is perfectly satisfactory if, as we most earnestly hope, the position is understood and accepted with equal clearness by the Representatives of the French Government. If we have ever entertained any doubt on that point I must say it is due to those Debates in the French Assembly which are not always characterised by the reserve which we endeavour to maintain here. As recently as the beginning of the present month the following statement was made by a member of the French Legislative Body who has interested himself greatly in those colonial questions:—
    "Our sole aim has been to make England feel the harm she is doing us in not keeping her engagements in Egypt, and to show her that we can come up to her elsewhere than in the Mediterranean."
    That statement was made in the presence of the Ministry, after a previous statement to the effect that they had no desire to colonise the Upper Nile or the Congo or the Ubangi. It would appear, therefore, from these statements, that they were entering upon this enterprise with the object of showing England that they could come up to her elsewhere than in the Mediterranean. Statements like these have been made more than once by French Representatives in the Assembly. We expect from the French Government, if they do not accept these statements—and we do not believe for a moment that they do accept them—that they should repudiate them. That is what would be done here in parallel circumstances; but I am unable to find that there was any repudiation in the French Chamber of the statement which I have read. That justifies such a discussion as this. It makes it necessary for us, at any rate, to have a clear statement as to our position from the Government of our country, and a tremendous responsibility would rest upon them if they did not make the position which we occupy equally clear to a Foreign Government. I hope we may agree with the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs that these rumours very often go far beyond the truth. We are dealing with very distant countries where we have no solid footing, and it may well be that reports that

    409
    come to us are very far from the truth, and it would be unwise and unpatriotic if we were to act upon these reports without confirmation. I should think, however, that possibly in a matter so important as this, in which the good feeling between two countries is largely involved, some perfectly friendly and reasonable inquiry might be made, with a view to ascertaining what truth there was even in a report of this kind. An assurance from the Government of France, that no such expedition was intended or authorised, or had started, would be in fact even more satisfactory than the statement of my hon. friend the Under Secretary that, if it were to start, it would be considered as an unfriendly act. We do not want to be placed in a position in which we may have to say to the Government of any other civilised country that they have been guilty of an unfriendly act. When it comes to that, things are becoming serious. We do not want to be placed in the position of even suggesting that a foreign Power could be guilty of an unfriendly act, and I confess it would be very satisfactory to some of us if, of their own accord, the Government of France could give us some assurance as to their intentions, and as to the instructions which they may have given to these expeditions in distant countries—which would relieve our minds, which we should accept as given in perfect good faith, and which would render perfectly unnecessary any further public discussion of the matter. I rose, however, to say that, in my opinion, the declaration of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs is perfectly satisfactory. It shows that the Government are fully aware of the importance of the question, and I should not dare to interfere even for a moment with their responsibility.
    *MR. T. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that he did not desire to pursue the subject of the Nile Valley. He thought, however, the House must have been impressed by the rather alarming language of the Under Secretary. He had no doubt that that language was duly weighed and considered before it was uttered in that House. He proposed to call attention to the conduct of the Government in connection with Siam. The essentially important negotiations with reference to Siam took place between October 1892, and April 1893,
    410
    and all that time they were asking for information and being told that it was contrary to the public interest that information should be given whilst the negotiations were proceeding. It was not until the 18th of last August that the Blue-book was published. That was the Saturday before the House rose, and so there was no time for a discussion of the subject. He had read the Blue-book from beginning to end, and, in his opinion, a more painful exhibition of violent language and weak action, of high pretension and absolute failure had never been seen. Lord Rosebery had all the cards in his hands. He had right; he had force, for the force of France in those territories was in no way equal to ours, and he ought to have had the instincts that would move a generously-minded man to stand by a good ally and customer of England. But though Lord Rosebery held the cards he did not succeed in winning a single trick in the game. At every point he used the strongest language; at every point he was driven off, defeated, discredited, almost disgraced. What was the excuse that he gave for his repeated failures? On July 25 he said—
    Our policy has all along been to rely on French promises, and I regret to say that, no doubt under the force of circumstances, these have not been fulfilled."
    Ought a Minister for Foreign Affairs to rely upon promises and then to whimper because, forsooth, those promises were not fulfilled? It showed a simplicity which he trusted would be rare in British Foreign Ministers. He admitted that it might be extremely difficult to carry out the most sacred engagements, that there might be considerable reasons to prevent a Foreign Minister from confronting the responsibility of pushing matters to the verge of war. He admitted all that, but when a Foreign Minister was conscious of that feeling he ought to measure most carefully the language that he used. This was what Lord Rosebery had not done, but the contrary. On April 12, 1893, Lord Rosebery certainly became aware of the serious nature of the problem before him. On that date he wrote to our Resident in Siam—
    "Although friendly intentions towards Siam are professed (by France) there is every appearance of forcing unreasonable terms upon the Siamese Government by menaces."

    411
    From that date, therefore, no action by France, however extraordinary, no application of force, however great, could have surprised Lord Rosebery, for he was prepared for it. The duty of the Foreign Minister in these circumstances was clear and plain. It was his duty to make up his mind how far he would go in resisting this intention of forcing unacceptable terms upon Siam. But the first thing he did was to tell the Siamese Minister that he could not receive him.
    "I think, therefore [he wrote], that it would be more prudent if the Siamese Minister refrained from asking for an official interview which is sure to be noticed by the Press."
    A few days later the Siamese were advised to "make the best terms they could with France," and then Sir Philip Currie was authorised by Lord Rosebery to tell the French Ambassador that he had given this advice to the Siamese Minister. There could not possibly be a more patent and open avowal that Lord Rosebery had absolutely abandoned the Siamese to the tender mercy of the French. And it was regarded by France as a direct invitation for her to proceed in her purpose. Menaces soon degenerated into force; and in April and May there was fighting. On June 30, a Declaration was made by the French Government that they had no intention of interfering with the integrity of Siam. But still the gunboats continued to go to the Siamese coast. We were told that any further movements of the French Fleet would be communicated to England. These movements were not communicated. On July 13, the French Government gave us a distinct undertaking that their gunboats would remain outside the Menam river. On that very day, however, these gunboats forced the passage of the Menam and went on to Bangkok. Then followed the blockade and the painful story of the affront of the British flag when the British war vessels were ordered to leave the river and remain outside. The Pallas was actually interfered with when she was outside the limits of the blockade. Her commander very properly resisted and resented this interference, and an explanation was given by the French Commander. This pretended blockade—for it never was a blockade—would not have been effected
    412
    if permission had not been given to the French to coal at Singapore. That was one of the reasons why he asserted that all the cards were in the hands of our Foreign Minister. The French demands continued until ended by the Treaty of October 3, and the dismemberment of Siam. The French claimed the whole of the left or eastern bank of the Mekong, and on July 20, Lord Rosebery wrote—
    "Firstly, we cannot doubt that the term 'left bank' is far too comprehensive in its scope. It cannot, of course, apply to any district east of the, Mekong River, which the Siamese Government have no power to cede, whether from rights of sovereignty, suzerainty, or reversion possessed by other powers."
    But the left bank was ceded, and consequently Lord Rosebery was driven from his first position with defeat and discredit. His second position was that the integrity of Siam must not be interfered with. On July 20, 1893, he wrote—
    "We are confident that the expression 'left bank of the Mekong' is used subject to the assurances repeatedly given by the French Government that they would respect the independence and integrity of the kingdom of Siam. It is clear that any provinces which indisputably form part of that Monarchy could not properly be made the subject of any such demands by the French Government."
    Nevertheless, precisely such demands were made and enforced, and finally had to be conceded. So, as to the second requirement, Lord Rosebery was driven with discredit, if not with disgrace, from his position. As to Luang Probang, Lord Rosebery wrote, on 26th July 1893—
    "As an honest man, he [M. Develle] must be as convinced as I was that the district in question was, and had been for nearly a century, bonâ fide Siamese territory, and that it could not be confiscated by France without a flagrant infringement of the formal assurances he had given us not to impair the integrity of Siam."
    But M. Develle, in reply, peremptorily refused to "withdraw or modify" his demands, and Luang Probang was confiscated, and it was in French possession at present. So that Lord Rosebery was driven from his third position with discredit, if not disgrace. His fourth position was, that the French officers were primarily responsible for what took place

    413
    at the forcing of the Menam, and that they acted "in flagrant opposition to the engagements" of the French Government. What was the answer? Lord Rosebery gave the answer himself—
    "I observe these officers have been publicly noted for promotion in recognition of their conduct."
    This was the fourth point from which Lord Rosebery was driven with discredit, if not disgrace. The fifth point was with regard to foreign trade. On September 7, 1893, Lord Rosebery wrote that Her Majesty's Government had publicly announced in Parliament that they
    "regarded the independence and integrity of Siam as a British interest of high importance."
    and that they had repeated assurances from the French Government that this was an object in which they were equally interested. Lord Rosebery went on to say that the foreign trade was almost entirely in British hands,
    "and we could not preserve an attitude of benevolence or neutrality towards any attempt to impose restrictions upon it with a view to divert it into other channels."
    What was the action taken in support of these very serious, nay, menacing words? The blockade, as Lord Rosebery himself said, was directed against British commerce alone, and the whole action of the French was directed to the encouragement of French trade at the expense of British trade, so that from the fifth position Lord Rosebery was driven with discredit, if not disgrace. What did he say with regard to the French demand as to Battambang and Ankor? He wrote on 9 September 1893—
    "The treatment of the two provinces of Battambang and Ankor as separate and distinct from the other portions of the Siamese kingdom seems to us inadmissible."
    Yet France at once proceeded so to treat them, and she even prohibited Siam from having any armed force in Battambang and Ankor. France claimed with regard to the right bank to the extent of 25 kilometres, that it should be entirely free from Siamese influence. What did Lord Rosebery say about that? That
    "as far as he was able to judge, there was no justification for the attempt to constitute a new boundary."
    414
    Nevertheless, it was enforced, finally brought to an end, and included in the Treaty with Siam of October 3. Consequently from his seventh position the Foreign Minister was thus driven. Finally, he came to Chantabun. France had told Lord Rosebery again and again that she had no intention whatever of retaining it. But she had retained the place to this day, and it would be retained until certain things had occurred, which, whether they occurred or not, were to be measured by the opinion of the French Government, and that alone. From eight different positions, there fore, taken up in language almost verging on a declaration of war, certainly of unheard-of strength, quite unusual in the mouth of an English Foreign Minister, Lord Rosebery was successively driven, sometimes with contumely, sometimes with contempt, always with defeat. He came now to the last phase of this matter. It was alleged that an infraction of the Treaty had been made by France through the occupation by her of a village called Keng Kong, and also through her sending six French Residents into the neutral zone of 25 kilomètres on the right bank of the Mekong. He thought that there was no infraction of the treaty at all in these respects. The Treaty with Siam gave France the right to establish posts on the right, bank of the Mekong for certain purposes—stations for boats, stores of wood, coal, and so forth. Furthermore, while it, drove Siam out of the 25 kilometres zone, it forbade her to maintain any posts, or troops, or authorities there. It gave the French especial authority, and it gave France power to issue passes and placed her in a position of quasi-authority, in this zone from which the Siamese themselves had been entirely driven. If it was the case that the French had occupied Keng Kong for one of the purposes provided for by the Treaty, he saw no infraction of it. If, on the other hand, there were six residents in the zone of 25 kilometres with the permission or even with the allowance of Siam, there also he saw no infraction of the Treaty on the part of Siam. He saw serious, even grave, objection to the Treaty itself. But the fault, did not lie with the Siamese; it lay, in his opinion, with the weak course of action followed by the English

    415
    Foreign Minister—a course of action which involved the shabby desertion of our friends the Siamese. One word in conclusion as to the buffer State or neutral zone. He observed that the French newspapers and the members of the French Chamber were quarrelling over the term "buffer State." They said that there was no buffer State; it was nothing but a neutral zone. The two terms were interchangeable. M. Casimir-Perier so used the two terms in the Chamber; he described it as "buffer State, or neutral zone." If a choice had to be made between the two terms, he should say that buffer State, and not neutral zone, was the right term. What was done about this State? There were long paragraphs as to the character of this buffer State in the Despatches sent from the Foreign Office; and one fact which proved to his mind that it was meant to be a buffer State and not a mere neutral zone was this, that the Chinese Government was asked to undertake, and did agree to undertake, the Gevernment of the State when it should be formed. The Dispatch containing the consent of the Chinese Government to accept the government of the buffer State was sent to the French Government in December, 1893. An answer was requested from the French Government as to the view it would take of this arrangement in connection with the State; but whether any answer had been forthcoming he did not know. There was, at any rate, no answer in the Blue Book. The last and most important declaration of Lord Rosebery was made as to this buffer State or neutral zone; and it was a very serious declaration indeed, considering the present aspect of affairs. It would be found on page 188. After referring to the negotiations which had taken place between England and France with regard to the form of this State, the intention of which was to introduce between the English Indian frontier and the French frontier, something like a buffer, so as to prevent the two from meeting, Lord Rosebery wrote, on 27th October 1893:—
    "Should these negotiations, however, unfortunately fail, and should the French Government be unable to accept the above proposal (which is offered in a most conciliatory spirit), the British Government would have to take such measures as they
    416
    might consider necessary for their own protection. These it is not necessary more particularly to define. But they would, at any rate, be compelled to maintain and strengthen their hold over the State of Kyaing Chaing on both sides of the Mekong and over Kyaing Ton, which also extends for a certain distance along the left side of that river in such manner as they might deem fitting, and indeed to assume a proper control of the river itself, where it passes through their territories. They would also take into immediate consideration the measures necessary to preserve an independent State between the main body of the British dominions and those of France."
    That language also, it would be seen, was of a somewhat alarming, if not indeed of a threatening character. The situation was this; above Luang Probang, for 200 miles the Mekong ran through the Shan States as far as the Chinese frontier. Lord Rosebery said:—"You may also take half of the Mekong if you like, and agree with us as to the upper part with regard to the formation of a buffer State or neutral zone; if you can do so, well and good; but if not we shall take such measures as are necessary for our own protection, and to assert our claims on both sides of the Mekong; we shall quicken and tighten our grasp on the Shan States under our suzerainty." Would Lord Rosebery maintain that position? They could have little hope that he would stand to his position in the ninth case more than in the previous eight cases. He had felt it necessary upon this, the first available occasion, to bring these matters before the Committee, because it was not merely the reputation of a Foreign Minister or of Her Majesty's present Government but the reputation of England that was at stake. It had not been the custom of English Ministers to let their act fall behind their word; their custom had been rather the reverse. Lord Rosebery, however, had run away from his word. ["Oh!"] Yes, he submitted that he had proved up to the hilt that this had been the conduct of the English Foreign Minister at this moment. It was because it was not the reputation of the Foreign Minister nor that of the Government, but the reputation of England, that was at stake at this moment that he had ventured to bring the matter before the Committee.
    MR. H. LABOUCHEREsaid, the interesting historical résumé of the hon. Gentleman with

    417
    regard to the transactions on the banks of the Mekong was unimportant in comparison with the speech of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs with regard to what it was contemplated to do on the banks of the Nile. The speech of his hon. Friend was a speech of menace addressed to France. ["Oh, oh!"] He thoroughly understood why hon. Gentlemen opposite said "Oh, oh!" They were delighted when they got a Liberal Minister to act on their principles. He repeated that the speech of his hon. Friend was a speech of menace to France. It was addressed to France in a tone of "Hands off!" Why did hon. Gentlemen opposite quarrel with him when he said the Under Secretary's speech was one of menace addressed to France, and cheer when he said it was a speech of the tone of "Hands off"? Why must France be ordered to keep her hands off a territory extending some thousand miles along the banks of the Nile between the lakes and the southern frontier of Egypt? The hon. Gentleman told the Committee that this territory belonged to this country; he seemed to consider that the Nile was as much our property as the Thames. The hon. Gentleman told them it was well known to the world that the territory belonged to us. He would like the hon. Gentleman to tell the Committee whether in any diplomatic document it had ever been stated to France that we had any more right to this long stretch of the Valley of the Nile than France herself. The Under Secretary seemed to think we were bound to go there, not only because the territory belonged to us, but because we were the representatives of the Egyptian Government. He would like to have it clear from his hon. Friend whether we claimed that this territory belonged to us or whether we merely claimed that as the Representatives of the Egyptian Government we had a right to go there and defend it against all comers. We recently annexed Uganda. At the time he asked again and again—what was the northern frontier of our sphere of influence? So far as he could understand, the northern frontier was very little beyond the northern portion of Uganda. In regard to Egypt, it must surely be in the recollection of hon. Members that after the Egyptian
    418
    campaign Egypt wished to retain the Soudan, but the English Government of that day would not recognise any sort of claim on her part to the Soudan except such portions as Suakin and one or two little ports on the Red Sea. His hon. Friend said France must understand that if she wished to maintain friendly relations with us she must not come anywhere near the Valley of the Nile. ["Hear, hear!"] He did not know what his hon. Friend meant by maintaining friendly relations. Really the language of his Friend amounted to a quasi-declaration of war against France. We went to Egypt under a solemn pledge that our occupation would be a mere temporary one, but we had done our best to convert it into a permanent one. It was nonsense to say we were in Egypt for the benefit of Egypt—merely there in order to establish a firm government in Egypt. People did not remain 14 or 15 years in a country like Egypt for any such purpose. The veil was almost torn aside. They saw what appeared in the newspapers, and they heard what was uttered by hon. Gentlemen in the House of Commons. Practically hon. Gentlemen did not intend under any circumstances to evacuate Egypt. Hon. Gentlemen agreed, notwithstanding our plighted word, we were not to evacuate Egypt. He had no doubt the Government would say they were most anxious our occupation of Egypt should terminate as soon as possible. If we evacuated Egypt, what earthly benefit would this territory be to us? No sort of benefit at all. And yet we were to warn off every other Power and particularly France. He protested against Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench suddenly starting such an extraordinary doctrine. We had no more right to this territory than France or any other Power. We had no more right to it than Italy—than Germany. It was perfectly true—that we made some arrangement between Germany and Italy, telling Germany they might go to one part and telling Italy they might go to another part; but towards third Powers—France or Russia, for instance—that did not give us any right. He, therefore, wanted the Under Secretary to tell the Committee specifically by what right we claimed that this territory belonged to us.
    SIR R. TEMPLEsaid the speech of the hon. Member for Northampton made it necessary that some one who sat on the Opposition side should offer a brief reply. He desired to speak with respect of the hon. Member, but really he was acting as the advocate of France in this matter. Everything was construed against England and in favour of France by the hon. gentleman. Indeed, his speech was one that might be delivered in the French Parliament by an opponent of this country. The hon. Member challenged the Government on what grounds they made that claim to the whole valley of the Nile, from the source to the mouth. That claim was made on two grounds. The first was that we were and had been for some time in possession of the source of the Nile; and the second was that we were in occupation of the mouth of the Nile. That occupation might not end in annexation, but it was not a temporary occupation. It was an occupation until Egypt was able to govern herself. That obviously meant an occupation for a very long time. (Ministerial laughter.) Hon. Members opposite laughed, but when did they expect that Egypt would be able to govern herself? He was afraid this generation might hardly see that day. In any case we were in possession of the territory under those conditions, and we were bound to see that our occupation was secure—and it could not be secure if a Foreign Power, and possibly a hostile power, was to have occupation of the mid valley of the Nile. That was well-known to every hydraulic engineer. He meant to say that the Power which controlled the mid valley of the Nile could cut off the water running into it. While Egypt was under our protection we were bound to see that its territorial claims were respected, and the claims of Egypt to the whole valley of the Nile had never been abandoned. Under those circumstances our claim to a British sphere of influence from end to end of the Nile was unanswerable. He hoped the Government would not be influenced by their followers to abate one jot or tittle of that claim, in the assertion of which they might rely on the loyal and patriotic assistance of the Members of the Opposition. He was glad to hear that the Government had distinctly told France that such was our claim; and
    420
    France would know that when we had made a declaration we would stand by it. The hon. Member for Sheffield had done great service to his country by raising the Debate. If those things were debated with the utmost frankness in the French Parliament, why should we not do the same? The Under Secretary of State had said that if friendly relations were to be maintained between England and France, that could only be done by co-operation between the two countries. But co-operation meant some friendly action on both sides on behalf of both nations. Co-operation did notmean that we were to do everything for France and France to do nothing for us. With regard to Siam he should like to know if it was true that French residences had been set up on the right bank of the Mekong. Did the right to establish a Residency imply the right also to have a military outpost or armed station? He should also like to know if the Government had heard anything further of the evacuation of Chantaboon by the French. Last year the hon. Baronet told them that France had given the most positive assurances that Chantaboon would be evacuated in good time, but still France was in occupation. If the Government could give them no futher information, would they give the Committee an assurance that they would make renewed representations to France? Lastly, he urged the importance of coming to some understanding with France regarding the independence and joint guarantee of what remained of the kingdom of Siam.
    *MR. GEORGE CURZONdid not propose to add anything to the discussion which had taken place on Egypt and the waters of the Nile. He was quite content to leave the matter where it had been left by the excellent speech of the Under-Secretary. For his part he did not detect in that speech any note whatever of menace as interpreted by the hon. Member for Northampton. On the contrary, it seemed to be a speech of admirable dignity and of self-restraint, to which there would be no advantage in adding anything from that side of the House. He desired to make a few observations upon the question of Siam, in which, as the House knew, he took a great interest.

    421
    He should like, before the Under-Secretary replied, to ask him some questions about matters which still remained unsettled. He thought the hon. Baronet would admit that throughout the discussions on Siamese affairs very great reticence, reserve, and consideration towards the Government had been shown by the Members of the Opposition. They had studiously refrained from saying anything that could possibly irritate public opinion in a country with which they desired to remain friends, or anything which could at any stage embarrass the conduct of the Government. But, looking back to the history of this affair, he confessed he was becoming a little tired of the replies given by the hon. Baronet, which, while courteous in manner and admirable in tone, gave them no information, and it was with the view of extracting something a little more definite that he ventured to press the hon. Gentleman on the present occasion. The first of the matters remaining unsettled was the question of the French posts on the right bank of the Mekong. The other day there appeared in the newspapers a statement that a French post had been established at Keng-Kong, on the right bank of the river, and naturally their suspicions were, aroused at this announcement. The hon. Baronet was asked a question, and he replied that the Government had not heard of any French post, on the right bank. It was a significant thing that on the day upon which that answer appeared there was also published the translation of an extract from Le Temps, to which reference had already been made. That extract was as follows:—
    "The Siamese Government, in fact, with a view to facilitating French control in the neutral zone of 25 kilometres situated on the Siamese bank of the Mekong, has authorised the French Government to instal French residents permanently in that zone. Thus, for instance, there are at present French residencies at Pnom, Banmuk, Lakhone, Outhene, and Nong Kai … These residencies were indispensable, for they were placed in towns, situate on the right bank of the river, which are the centre of all the political and economic life of the region, whereas on the left bank (the French side) the centres of population are sparse."
    He should like to ask the hon. Baronet this question:—According to the information the Government possessed, were
    422
    these French Residencies there or not? If they were, under what clause, or under what terms of the treaty or convention had they been so established? In Article 6 of the treaty, it was stated that the French Government were at liberty to establish on either bank institutions for the relays of boats, stores, wood, and coal. Were these French residents managers of wood and coal depôts? He observed from the Blue Book that the French Government were entitled to establish Consulates, and it might be contended that these French residents were Consuls. But, if so, the Committee were entitled to information from the Government on the subject. The terms of the treaty, as he read them, seemed to himself hardly compatible with such an interpretation. That the French were endeavouring to establish their influence in the 25-kilometre strip was an undoubted fact, whether it was known to Her Majesty's Government or not. They had already established a Custom House at Paklai. They had done their best to induce a Siamese subject living on the right bank of the Mekong to become a French subject, and to exercise jurisdiction on their behalf. They had also endeavoured to get a Chief to go from one bank to the other and exercise jurisdiction on their behalf. These were all matters which did not, apparently, come within any possible interpretation of the Treaty, and which, therefore, called for information and for explanation by Her Majesty's Government. That the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir E. Grey) would be of that opinion was evident from a speech which he made at the close of last Session, when, replying to the Member for the Forest of Dean (Sir C. Dilke), he said that the difficulties which had arisen between the French and Siamese Governments were confined to the one bank of the Mekong, and that so long as they were so confined the British Government would not interfere. The Committee might rightly infer that it was the view of the hon. Baronet (Sir E. Grey) that if French claims were transferred to the other bank of the Mekong our interests would be threatened, and Her Majesty's Government ought to interfere. In regard to Chantaboon, in view of the repeated assurances that the French had given as

    423
    to evacuating that place, and the strongest possible asseverations on the part of Her Majesty's Government that the French would do so, it seemed impossible that either Government could recede from the pledges given on this point. It might be that the French Government were now proposing to carry out their stipulations, and he would simply ask the Under Secretary, if that were so, to give to the Committee the information for which they had patiently waited for two years, and in regard to which their patience was nearly exhausted. He would next point out that French Consuls had been appointed at two towns in the heart of Cis-Mekong, where French trade was nil and English trade considerable. When he had asked a question on this subject he had been put off by the Under Secretary with the reply that the French Consuls had not then started. Now, they were already there, and he urged upon the Government that British interests ought to be similarly safeguarded, by the appointment of British Consuls at the same places. The French Consuls were rapidly registering natives as French subjects, with a view, no doubt, to claiming extra territorial jurisdiction. He desired to ask whether Her Majesty's Government had taken the necessary and elementary step of appointing British Consuls to the same posts. As to the neutral zone, or buffer State, he had no doubt that it was originally intended that it should be a buffer State and not a neutral zone, which was simply an Alsatia for bad characters. If, however, the protocol constituting a neutral zone were torn up to-morrow it would be immeasurably gratifying to France, and would disappoint nobody here. They had in the despatch read to-night an assurance from Lord Rosebery of which he absolutely approved, that in the event of the negotiations for a neutral zone coming to nothing he was prepared to sustain the position which Great Britain at present enjoyed on both banks of the Mekong River. That position was a much better one both for British commercial and political interests than any neutral zone or buffer State could possibly give us. The only concluding point was with regard to the mutual guarantee. It must be obvious to everyone who had studied this question from
    424
    the beginning that what was wanted in order to re-establish an equilibrium in that part of the Far East was to insure that no Government and no country, either England or France, should pursue, or, if she had already commenced, should continue a policy of aggression upon Siam. That was to the interest of both parties. It would be undesirable for English interests that France should acquire any further dominion over Siam; it would be unacceptable to France that we should extend our control. At an earlier stage they heard much about this mutual guarantee, and there was a moment, in November, 1893, when the idea was favourably received by M. Develle, the then French Minister for Foreign Affairs. He expressed himself to the Marquis of Dufferin to the effect that such an agreement would be most advantageous, and it would be the surest way of avoiding in the future all chances of friction or misunderstanding. He should be much disappointed if the Committee did not learn that we might shortly expect that some such guarantee on the part of both Governments had been arrived at.
    *SIR EDWARD GREYwas afraid that he should be obliged, to a great extent, to disappoint the hon. Member, for he had very little fresh information to give. First of all, with regard to the question of the buffer State, he had nothing further to state than that the Commissioners sent by the French and British Governments were engaged in discussing the geographical conditions of the country and investigating them on the spot, and until their recommendations were received it was not probable he should have any further statement to make on the subject. With regard to the question of the 25 kilometre zone, it was quite true there had been a certain amount of friction in that zone, but it was impossible for him to make a statement as to the merits of what had occurred inside that zone. The matters referred to were forming the subject of discussion between the French and Siamese Governments, and so far as his information went, he could not assert that anything was taking place in the 25 kilometre zone which would result in changing the position from that in which it had been left by the papers before the House.

    425
    With regard to French Residents gen eally, as far as his information went, any Residents who might have been appointed on the right bank of the Mekong were appointed as commercial agents, and they would come within the terms of Articles 6 and 8 of the treaty which the hon. Member for Southport had read to the House. They had not been elevated to the rank of Consuls, but, as he understood, were appointed simply for commercial purposes. He was asked the other day about fortified French posts at Ching Khong, on the right bank of the Mekong, and he stated that they were not on the right, but on the left bank of the river. The authority which he had for making that statement was a telegram received by the Government from official sources about ten days ago, which stated that the French had built one fortified post at Ching Khong garrisoned by militia on the left bank of the Mekong. If he had not much news to say on those questions, it was because matters were in pretty much the same state as they were when the papers referred to were placed before Parliament. The position of affairs had passed into no new phase; but, should it do so, or should there be any further development, then undoubtedly it was to be hoped it would be in the line that was sketched out by the hon. Member for Southport at the end of his speech, a line which would be favourable to the permanent maintenance and integrity of Siam. He would only further say that if the question should enter on any new phrase, whatever it may be, then the words which he used last year, and which had been quoted by the hon. Member for Southport, with regard to the intention and policy of the British Government would hold good.
    SIR R. TEMPLEasked the Under-Secretary whether he could give any further information with regard to Chantaboon?
    SIR E. GREYsaid there was no fresh information to give. Discussion was still proceeding as to certain matters within the 25-kilometre zone.
    MR. H. LABOUCHEREasked, whether the hon. Gentleman would say whether the Government had in any sort of way or in any diplomatic document conveyed to the French Government any intimation that claimed
    426
    paramount influence over the Valley of the Nile.
    SIR E. GREYsaid, he stated very fully in his first speech what the nature and the extent of the British claims and interests were in that part of Africa, and he also stated that those claims, and the views of the British Government with regard to them, were well known to the French Government. The hon. Member for Northampton had characterised his language as the language of menace. He did not think, however, that such a construction could be put upon the language he had used. The intention of that language was to express a desire for a friendly understanding and a friendly arrangement of the many pending questions, but as regarded British trade and interests in certain parts of the world there was a point of view strongly held in this country that would be adhered to with the tenacity which in such cases this country always manifested. His language was not unfriendly to the French or to any other Government, and he thought that by stating his views clearly he should not be endangering, but promoting good relations between the two countries.
    *SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, that after the satisfactory statement of the hon. Baronet he would withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    THE APPOINTMENT OF SIR HERCULES ROBINSON.
    *MR. H. O. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid, that, in relation to the Vote for the Colonial Office, he wished to call attention to the appointment of Sir Hercules Robinson as High Commissioner for South Africa. He was desirous of not saving anything of a personal nature with regard to this difficult matter, but he thought the time had come when the question of this appointment should be brought before the House. It was time the House of Commons expressed some opinion as to the appointment. He had no interest, direct or indirect, in any matter connected with South Africa, and in view of that fact, he could speak with perfect freedom on this question. His point was that the appointment of Sir H. Robinson to succeed the late High Commissioner was

    427
    one which should not have been made, and he would briefly state his reasons for taking that view. The position of the High Commissioner in South Africa always must be a peculiar one. He was not only High Commissioner of South Africa, but he was the Governor of Cape Colony, and, as such, he was absolutely compelled to accept the advice of his constitutional adviser—the Prime Minister of the Cape Colony. They still further complicated the situation by making the High Commissioner the servant of the Cape Colony in his capacity as High Commissioner, because, by what appeared to him to be a very mistaken act of policy, they allowed the Cape Government to pay, he thought it was, £2,000 of the salary of the High Commissioner. Therefore, he was, in the most ordinary interpretation of the word, the servant, not only of this House and this country, but also of the Cape Colony and the Cape Government. This was a matter which he wished to touch with the greatest moderation, but it was well known to every Member of the House that the High Commissioner who had just been appointed was interested, or had been interested, to a very large extent in matters which were not political in South Africa and in the Cape Colony. It was a matter of common knowledge that Sir H. Robinson became, during his period of office at the Cape, deeply interested in commercial speculations at the Cape; that those commercial speculations were initiated and promoted by the Prime Minister of the Cape Colony, and that the introduction of the High Commissioner to those speculations was owing to the action of the Prime Minister of Cape Colony. The Prime Minister was the most potent financial force in South Africa. He was, besides being Prime Minister, President of the Chartered Company, which controlled an enormous area in South Africa. He was also the chairman of the De Beers Company, one of the richest corporations in South Africa, and the chairman of a large number of subsidiary enterprises in that country. It was a matter to be greatly regretted that the Prime Minister of the Cape Colony should have these double functions, but it was a matter they were not concerned in. The Prime Minister was responsible to the Cape Parliament alone. But the position of
    428
    the High Commissioner was a matter in which they were very much concerned. The High Commissioner returned home from South Africa, and he thereupon still further extended his interests in commercial speculations in South Africa. He became the chairman of the De Beers Concession in this country, and if he had been content to let the matter remain there and to give the benefit of his experience to those commercial undertakings in England, no one could have said a word. But he was now going back to South Africa with all these circumstances fresh in the memories of all the persons whom he came in contact with. What was the condition of South Africa at this moment? South Africa was simply rotten with Stock Exchange speculation. The Government of South Africa was now so bound up with the most sordid side of Throgmorton Street, that he believed the history of this country did not present anything like a parallel. Every single stick of property was being made the subject of gambling—property that did exist and property that did not exist. The whole thing was seething in the cauldron of Stock Exchange speculation. These circumstances ought to make us particularly careful as to the policy we adopted towards the country. They would be told, perhaps, that Sir Hercules Robinson had parted with all the interest he ever had in South African speculations. To his mind that was an irrelevant consideration; the fact remained that he was deeply indebted to those charged with the promotion of these enterprises, and he was going back to South Africa to be guided by the advice of a Minister who controlled all the springs of these speculations. It was not, therefore, a desirable appointment to make. There ought not to be even a suspicion that pecuniary considerations were put side by side with political considerations. Hon. Members would remember the Rudd Concession in the last administration of Sir Hercules Robinson, one which ought never to have been permitted in the interests of good Government in South Africa. That concession gave to Lobengula, in exchange for the mineral rights of a large area, £1,200 a year, and 1,000 rifles, and that at a time when the whole policy of the British Government in South Africa was to

    429
    keep arms out of the hands of these savage tribes, and particularly out of the hands of Lobengula. In the recent Swaziland concession there had been a deliberate bargain between the High Commissioner's advisers and the Boers that the latter should not pass into the Chartered Company's territory in consideration of their refraining from doing what they had no right to do. That might have been perfect from the point of view of policy, but they had to look at the fact that the policy adopted was one which made it far easier to raise money for the Chartered Company in London at that time, than the alternative policy. However these concessions might be justified, it was open to any one to say that the true motive which prompted them both was not political expediency, but the financial excellency of the move. He had no personal feeling in the matter. He had a great respect for the ability of Sir Hercules Robinson; but he believed that he was speaking in the interests of the good government of our Empire. It might be said that the appointment was desired by the people of Cape Colony, speaking through the mouth of Mr. Rhodes, and that, therefore, there was no alternative selection; but surely we had not come so low that we could not find another man able to fill the post. He had made no search for these particulars, the facts to which he had referred were matters of common notoriety, and there was a party at the Cape—not the Dutch, but the English party—which was animated by a similar spirit to that which prompted him to bring forward the matter. He desired an assurance that this appointment should be reconsidered. It might be right and wise that a time should come when the Colonial Office should no longer have any power in such matters; but when it did, the Cape Colony should take its own responsibility, and this country ought not to take any responsibility which it could not take, honourably. Our policy in the matter had not been in accordance with the traditions of Colonial administration. We were making a mistaken concession to what was believed to be the interests of peace and quiet between the Colonial Office and South Africa. If we could not play our part m South Africa according
    430
    to our own traditions, we should stand aside and let the Cape Colony take this responsibility themselves. He spoke from no personal point of view or the point of view of pecuniary interest, but simply because he believed a mistake had been made, and he hoped the appointment would be reconsidered.
    SIR W. HARCOURTreminded the Committee that it was necessary to get the Vote that night. Further discussion could take place on the report of Supply.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid, he had no fault to find with the tone adopted by the hon. Member who had brought forward this matter. He seemed to cast no blame either on Sir Hercules Robinson or the Colonial Office. He would endeavour, in a few words, to put before the House the position of the Colonial Office. When Sir H. Loch retired from Office as High Commissioner and Governor of the Cape, it became necessary to look round to see who should succeed him. It was essential in the very peculiar and delicate circumstances in South Africa to find not only a strong man, but a man of experience and knowledge of South Africa who had some knowledge of the past history and present position of affairs there. Certain names were considered by the Colonial Office, and, looking to Sir H. Robinson's former career in South Africa, his knowledge of existing questions there, the very independent attitude he took when High Commissioner before, and his great ability and intelligence, the Colonial Office came to the conclusion that he was the best man available for the post. His hon. Friend seemed to think the Colonial Office ignored the difficulties and questions he had just raised. He could assure him that they were as palpable to the Colonial Office authorities as to him. They considered them most carefully. As in Sir H. Robinson's position with regard to certain companies in South Africa, his hon. Friend had made a statement which he (Mr. Buxton) belived to be entirely erroneous. In a letter in The Times it was said that Sir H. Robinson placed large sums in different South African interests, while an High Commissioner before, on the suggestion of Mr. Rhodes. He was authorised to say—and he believed it was true—that neither directly nor

    431
    indirectly had Sir H. Robinson and Mr. Rhodes had any business relations of any sort or kind either in the form of suggestion or recommendation or assistance in investments. As regarded the Chartered Company, Sir H. Robinson had held no shares whatever in it or in any subsidiary undertakings for some years. Since 1891 he had not been connected with any Rhodesian ventures in South Africa. The only pecuniary interest he had had there of late years had been as chairman of the De Beers Company and of the Standard Bank of South Africa. As to the bank there could be no question. As to the company, the Committee would recollect that if Sir Hercules Robinson had desired to use any undue influence, he would have been unable to do so, because, as Governor of the Cape, he must act under the advice of the Cape Ministers. Therefore, neither directly nor indirectly could he have any influence of the kind; and he had had no pecuniary interest in South Africa of late years which could in any way incapacitate him from being High Commissioner. As regarded the implication that influence had been brought to bear upon the Government to appoint Sir H. Robinson, he could only say that no such influence had been brought to bear. The Government had appointed him because they believed him to be the man most suited in the peculiar circumstances for that position, and that he was in no sense incapacitated for being an impartial and independent High Commissioner. The appointment was a very important one indeed, and the Government felt that they ought to appoint a man who was above suspicion; they believed that in Sir H. Robinson they had a man above suspicion, one who would be able to carry out their policy in South Africa, who would, on the whole, be acceptable in South Africa, and who would be absolutely independent of any influence direct or indirect; and they thanked him for having patriotically parted with all his interests in South Africa in order to undertake this onerous duty.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have never understood why it is necessary that this Vote should be taken to-night. [Sir W. HARCOURT was understood to say it really was so.] If that be the case,
    432
    if there is really no possible alternative, my own recommendation to my hon. Friend would be that he should withdraw the Motion and raise the question again on the Report. There is no doubt the matter cannot stand where it has just been left by the Under Secretary. It is a matter of the very utmost importance, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has recognised, and it must be fully discussed. I will not stand in the way of the Vote; but I should like to say a word on what the Under Secretary has just said. He admits that the objections to the appointment of Sir Hercules Robinson were palpable, and asserts that they were fully considered by the Government; he actually almost makes it a matter of credit to the Government and boasts that, in spite of these apparent objections, they have, nevertheless, appointed a man who, of all others, is fittest for the position. I may admit with him that in no conceivable circumstances will Sir Hercules Robinson be improperly influenced by his previous connection with these speculations; but something more than that is expected of a person who is appointed to represent the Queen in a Colonial Government. It is not only necessary that he should be pure, but, like Cæsar's wife, he must not be suspected. I pay no special attention to the correspondence in The Times of this morning beyond this, that it shows the strong feeling on the part of one political Party in the Cape that suspicion will be against the future decisions of Sir Hercules Robinson in consequence of his connection with these financial affairs. The Under Secretary says—
    "Oh, but what is his connection? He is not connected with the Chartered Company."
    Does he mean that that would be a disability, and would he still have appointed him even if he had been connected with the Chartered Company? I suppose, if credit is taken for his not being connected with the Chartered Company, he admits, that if Sir Hercules Robinson had been connected with it, that would have been a serious objection. Then, is it not a serious objection to have been connected with the De Beers Company? It is not an ordinary company; it is a great financial undertaking, dealing with enormous funds, which have been used again and again for political purposes,

    433
    used publicly for political purposes and to carry out political aims, which may be, and, I am inclined to believe, are, very worthy aims; but still, nevertheless, you have got this distinct and definite connection; and you cannot regard the De Beers Company as if it were an ordinary business. It is a compromising connection for anybody who has to undertake the position of impartial arbitrator between various parties in South Africa. I must say say that if I had, as I have, some doubt of the propriety of this appointment, I have now, after hearing their defence, no doubt whatever as to the mischievous character of the precedent the Government are setting up. In what they have done, they are breaking down the traditions and rules of this generation; at any rate I would ask the Under Secretary what are the regulations of the office with which he is connected? Are they not of the strictest character, and are they not all intended to preserve the character of those who are engaged in the Government of our Colonies as persons against whom suspicion cannot breathe a word as to their absolute impartiality? Yet, here is a case in which it is acknowledged by the Under Secretary that the Government were aware that this particular gentleman was connected in an important capacity to one of the greatest financial undertakings in South Africa. In spite of that the Government propose to send him out not merely as Governor of the Cape Colony, but also as representing Her Majesty in the position of High Commissioner. I think we owe an obligation to the hon. Member for bringing the matter before the Committee, and I hope it will not be disposed of until it has been much more fully discussed.
    MR. F. G. BANBURYsaid, he wished to ask only one question. Was the Committee to understand that the De Beers Company was the only company in South Africa with which Sir Hercules Robinson had been connected?
    MR. W. REDMONDremarked, that it was a matter of great surprise that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, who had been a responsible Minister in that House, should lend himself to the
    434
    unworthy action of the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Belfast. The hon. Gentleman had spoken about the good government of the Empire. Did he think that the Colonies of this Empire were to be retained or the Empire well governed by standing up in the House of Commons and making a disgraceful attack on a gentleman just appointed to go out to an important Colony, and occupy a high position. This was an attempt to handicap Sir Hercules Robinson in the great task he had before him. If the hon. Member for West Belfast had the charge of these matters, in a very short time there would not be a single Colony attached to the Crown.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON, replying to the hon. Member for Peckham, said, that he was assured by Sir Hercules Robinson that, as regarded his interests in South Africa, while some few years ago he held some few shares in the Chartered Company, and subsidiary company, he had parted with them some time since. He had also held shares in the Standard Bank and the De Beers Company, but those he had parted with on his appointment being made.
    MR. G. C. T. BARTLEYsaid, there were a great number of important points which ought to be discussed. They could not be brought on in the ordinary Estimates because they never came before the House. To-morrow they would not be able to divide on more than one question because, by the Rules of the House with regard to the Report of Supply only enabled the House to divide once. He wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would put down a second Vote so as to enable hon. Members to raise the points they wished to discuss?
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I will do what I can, but the hon. Member must not expect me to pledge myself at the present moment.
    Amendment by leave withdrawn; Vote agreed to.
    Progress reported.

    ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
    The House went into Committee on this Bill.
    Mr. MELLOR in the Chair.
    Clause 1 agreed to.
    On Clause 2,
    MR. A. C. MORTONpointed out that the clause said—
    "The Army Act shall be, and remain, in force during the periods hereinafter mentioned."
    The incorporation of this Act, 44 & 45 Vic., c. 58, in this Bill caused an immense amount of confusion. Could not the Act be recited in the Bill so that those interested in this legislation might be put in a position to understand it without difficulty?
    THE CHAIRMANasked whether the hon. Member was about to move an Amendment? At present there was no question before the House.
    *MR. A. C. MORTONexplained that he was asking a question. Whether he moved an Amendment or not depended upon the information which might be given him.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order. The hon. Member if he wishes to ask a question must do so on the motion that the clause stand part of the Bill.
    MR. T. GIBSON BOWLESmoved to leave out on page 2, line 28, the words "30th day of April" in order to insert "31st day of May." He explained that the effect of the Amendment would be to reduce the interval between the time when the Act expired in this country and the time of its expiry elsewhere in Europe. At present the interval every year between the expiry of the Act in the United Kingdom, and its expiry in Malta, Gibraltar, &c., was three months. His Amendment would reduce the interval to two months. If it were agreed to they would not in future have to discuss this Bill at a time when there was a great pressure of financial business. They would be able to discuss it after Easter, and there would be another month in which to consider it. He believed that the change would be convenient, and he proposed it in no spirit of hostility either to the Government or to the Act.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPELL-BANNERMAN,said, he did not know
    436
    whether the hon. Member really moved the Amendment seriously. It was moved last year, and they discussed all the changes that were proposed in regard to dates. They were fixed a few year ago, and no inconvenience had arisen from them. He, therefore, saw no advantage in changing them. It was very undesirable that there should be any considerable time after the commencement of the financial year, for which the men were voted, before any changes in the law came into operation.
    MR. T. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, that as the right hon. Member did not see his way to accept the Amendment he would not press it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    *MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he wished now to deal with the point to which he had already referred. The Army Act, which he maintained was incoporated in this Bill, was passed 13 years ago. In that period a great many clauses had been repealed; and for all he knew, some might have been added. Some parts of the Army Act were at variance with the Army Annual Act, and when a question in regard to the allowances mentioned in the Schedule of the Act came before the Public Accounts Committee about a fortnight ago it was found that the Auditor General understood the Act in one way and the Representative of the War Office understood it in another way. After considerable discussion it was found that there was a third way, and that the War Office proceeded under some rule which was neither in the Army Act nor the Army Annual Act. In some countries, notably the United States, it was part of the Constitution of some of the States—that every Act or part of an Act incorporated in a new Bill should be recited. He thought the time had arrived when a similar course should be followed in this country. He was glad to notice that Lord Salisbury had in another place taken some steps in that direction. He did not want to take up the time of the House at that hour (12.10 a.m.), but he was sorry the Bill had not been brought on at an earlier hour. A Bill like this, which affected the well-being and comfort of many thousands of soldiers, ought to be discussed before

    437
    12 o'clock. He trusted his right hon. Friend would give them a promise that the matter would be considered, and that next year, at any rate, he would recite the Army Act or any other Act he wished to incorporate in the Bill.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, it was not a case of incorporating any Act in the Bill. The course adopted was to save re-enacting and quoting clause by clause year after year. It was many years ago felt that there should be a fixed Act and that there should be an annual Bill. The Act would expire unless it was revived in this annual Act, but that was not incorporation in the ordinary sense. If there was any inconsistency between the Acts that would be amended, when it was discovered, by this Bill. His hon. Friend had an advantage, as he was a member of the Public Accounts Committee. When he saw the report of that Committee he promised him that if there was any misunderstanding or ambiguity it should be put right in the proper way. There was no longer any reason why any one connected with the Army need be ignorant of the law.
    *MR. A. C. MORTONasked how was any one to know that the Army Act had been altered?
    *SIR ARTHUR HAYTERsaid, there was no mistake in connection with the Public Accounts Committee that the Secretary of State need look into. The mistake was on the part of the hon. Member for Peterborough. The Army Act directed that the Innkeeper should provide a hot meal for every Soldier on march; the War Office prescribed by Regulation that, if halted, the limit of this provision should be three days for each soldier. After that time the soldier was to provide for his rations, as in barracks, out of his pay. The confusion in the Public Accounts Committee, and in the hon. Member for Peterborough's mind, was between the provision in the Army Act, and the War Office regulation.
    *MR. A. C. MORTONdenied the statement of his hon. Friend with reference to what took place before the Public Accounts Committee. He asked how would the soldier know that there had been any alteration made in the Army Act?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, the soldier knew it because the
    438
    Bill became law, and anything in it affecting the Army Act was incorporated in the copies of the Act which were in possession of the regiment, but the Amendments were trifling and not of very material concern to the interests of the soldier.
    *MR. A. C. MORTON: Do I understand that these alterations are sent round to each regiment?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Certainly.
    Clause agreed to, as was also Clause 3.
    On Clause 4.
    *MR. R. MALLOCK*MR. R. MALLOCK (Devon, Torquay) moved an Amendment repealing "Subsection (4) of Section 96 of the Army Act." His reason for doing so was because the sub-section produced hardship in many cases and was of no use as far as recruiting was concerned. In enlisting lads who had been apprenticed after 16 years of age the military authorities were not bound to give them up on application of the master; after a youth had reached 21, the Army authorities were not bound to give them up, and to the latter he had no objection. A lad apprenticed after the age of 16, if he did not like his work, could snap his fingers at his master, and the master had nothing more to say. This produced great loss, because a master had to provide the apprentice with a kit and often to maintain him for one or two years, and just as he was becoming useful to him, the apprentice could go away and leave his master in the lurch. He knew a case in which a boy was apprenticed to the master of a fishing smack. He had an accident, and was in hospital for many months, where the master maintained him at a cost of £10 or £12. When he came out he enlisted in the Army, and the master could only get him back by purchasing his discharge at a cost, of £10. He did not think it was right that the War Office should connive at an apprentice breaking his contract. Recruits were wanted not only in quantities, but of good quality, and it must be a very bad recommendation on a man coming to enlist that he should already have deserted from private employment. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would either accept the

    439
    Amendment or, at all events raise the age from 16 to 17 or 18.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, the question of dealing with the case of alleged apprenticeship was of course a matter of public interest. It was very undesirable to interfere with genuine and legitimate apprentices, but, on the other hand, they must guard against apprenticeships of an imaginary or false order being pleaded in favour of the discharge of a man who had been legitimately enlisted. It was to prevent that that the regulations were so strict. His attention was only called by the Amendment to the particular case in which the hon. Gentleman was interested. He would look carefully into the matter to see whether there was good ground for the lenient action which the hon. Gentleman required. But until he had looked into the case and saw how the regulation worked, he was not prepared to have it altered. Its object was to prevent the defeating of the recruiting regulations by collusion in the matter of apprentices.
    *MR. R. MALLOCKsaid, he had not brought forward the matter simply in relation to the case he had mentioned, but the regulation had been found of great inconvenience in his constituency, as they were situated not far from a garrison town where there was a temptation to apprentices to enlist.
    The Amendment was by leave withdrawn.
    Clauses 4, 5, 6 and 7 were added to the Bill without Amendment.
    On Clause 8.
    *THE CHAIRMANruled out of Order the following Amendments put down by the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury):—
    Page 3, line 24, before "In section," insert "In section 180, sub-section 2 (a), after the words 'being natives of India,' shall be inserted 'except that the punishment of flogging shall no longer be inflicted under such Indian military law.'"
    "And in sub-section 2 (b), after the words 'articles or other matters,' shall be inserted 'except any articles or regulations which provide for the infliction of the punishment of flogging,' and after the words 'are saving,' shall be inserted
    440
    'in co-operation with other forces of Her Majesty.'"
    MR. HANBURYsaid, he would move to omit the whole of Section 180, which would secure the object he had in view. That was to abolish flogging in the Indian Army. Flogging had been abolished in all the other branches of Her Majesty's Army; but it still prevailed in the Indian Army.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order. I must call the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that he is now moving the same Amendment though in a different form. It is to the substance of the Amendment that I object, and not to its form. The Amendment proposes to extend the scope of the original Act to the Indian Army by an Amendment of the Annual Mutiny Bill, and that can only be done by a separate Bill.
    MR. HANBURYasked whether it was not within his power to omit the whole of Section 180?
    *THE CHAIRMAN: The natives of India are under their own laws and Articles of War, and to make so great an alteration as the hon. Gentleman proposes in the original Act would be out of order. It can only be done by a separate Measure.
    MR. HANBURYsaid, that if it were in Order he would move to omit the words "Natives of India" from Section 180. It would then enable him to raise the question, with a distinction between the natives of India and the other troops.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: The reason given by the hon. Gentleman may be a perfectly good reason for amending the law, but it must be done by a separate Measure. To do it here would, in my judgment, be out of Order.
    MR. HANBURY: I do not want to resist your ruling in any way, but the point is this. If I may quote the language of the Section, it says:—
    "Nothing in this Act shall prejudice or affect the Indian Military Law respecting officers, soldiers, or followers in Her Majesty's Indian forces being natives of India."
    I do not in any way wish to alter the Indian Military Law, but I do not want the exemption created by this Act to continue. That exemption is created entirely by this Act, and is not a portion of the Indian Law.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: I quite understand the point taken by the hon.

    441
    Gentleman, and I quite understand his object. But I was pointing out to him that what he desires to have done must be done by a separate Measure. To do that by this Act would be to extend the scope of the Act—the very thing which is excluded by the Section in question. I think, therefore, it is out of order.
    Clauses 7, 8 and 9 were added to the Bill.
    On the question that the Schedule stand part of the Bill,
    COLONEL NOLANmoved the omission of the words, providing that the payment for a soldier's breakfast "so specified" should be a penny half-penny. The price of three half-pence for the breakfast of a soldier when on march was much too low. It was not sufficient to enable the soldier to obtain a proper substantial meal, or else if he was supplied with a decent meal for such a sum, it meant that the licensed victualler, who so supplied it, must lose on the transaction.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANhad more than once explained that these different rates were fixed some years ago, and the penny half-penny was never intended to buy the full breakfast of a soldier, but was only intended as a contribution towards it. This was an extra allowance, and it was never intended that the soldier should not pay more for his breakfast if he chose to do so. Originally, no allowance was made, and then this sum of a penny half-penny was introduced.
    COLONEL NOLANasked what did the Secretary of State for War expect a soldier would get for a breakfast for Which such a small sum as three halfpence was paid?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: He will get 1½d. worth more than he would have got if he had not the 1½d.
    COLONEL NOLANpointed out that the soldier was not likely to get a good breakfast if the Secretary for War did not even know what he ought to get. If the right hon. Gentleman did not know, the officers would not know, and nobody would know. This was a most niggardly allowance, and ought to receive attention.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid that, when on the march, the
    442
    soldier ordered what, to the best of his judgment, was good for him. Half-a-pound of bread and a cup of tea would be provided for him for 1½d. If he wanted anything more toothsome he could pay for it himself.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid that half-a-pound of bread would cost ¾d., and he did not think a good cup of tea could be got for ¾d. They now knew from the Secretary for War what was considered sufficient for the breakfast of a soldier.
    *MR. A. C. MORTONhoped that the Secretary of State would take this matter into consideration. He would remind his right hon. Friend that soldiers and their friends now had the Franchise. They wanted, and would insist on having, better treatment than they had ever had up till now. His right hon. Friend had better give way on these points, as these soldiers, and especially their friends, would have a Vote at the next Election. He trusted that the Committee might have some satisfactory assurance from his right hon. Friend.
    COLONEL LOCKWOODrepudiated what the last speaker had said. However discontented a soldier might be, he would not use his vote against discipline.
    MR. J. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONEpointed out that, in the second portion of the Schedule, he saw no mention of breakfast.
    *MR. A. C. MORTONexplained that he did not intend to say what the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Colonel Lockwood) had said. His contention was, that a private soldier, now he had a Vote, would be in a position to insist on better treatment than he had ever had before. He said nothing about discipline, which was another question altogether.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid he did not wish to trouble the Committee to divide, and he asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Schedule and Preamble agreed to, and Bill reported without Amendments.

    REGISTERS OF ELECTORS (DUPLICATE ENTRIES) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. J. W. Sidebottom, Bill to amend the Law respecting Duplicate Entries on Registers of Electors.
    Bill presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, 18th April, and to be printed. [Bill 187.]

    NAVY (SHIPBUILDING PROGRAMME 1889–90).

    Return ordered, arranged under the heads given on page 3 of the Memorandum of the Secretary of the Admiralty, dated the 8th day of March 1889 (Parliamentary Paper No. 67, of Session 1889), revised by Memorandum of the 2nd day of April, 1892 (Parliamentary Paper No. 133, of Session 1892), giving—

    1st. In regard to the 38 ships intended by the New Programme to be built in Her Majesty's Dockyard, in Italics, in comparison with the estimated expenditure therein shown, the actual expenditure under each head for each of the years therein contained, giving also with reference to the anticipated difference of £3,054,000, therein said to be available "for laying down new vessels, or in reducing the Estimates for the years 1892–3 and 1893–4," information as to what sums were applied to either of these two purposes respectively:—

    1889–90.

    1890–91.

    1891–2.

    1892–3.

    1893–4.

    Total.

    Vote 8.

    £

    £

    £

    £

    £

    £

    Amount appropriated to New Construction

    Estimated

    2,650,000

    2,650,000

    2,650,000

    2,650,000

    2,650,000

    13,250,000

    Actual

    Less,—Amount required to complete ships in progress

    Estimated

    1,290,000

    256,000

    —

    —

    —

    1,546,000

    Actual

    Amount available for New Programme

    Estimated

    1,360,000

    2,394,000

    2,650,000

    2,650,000

    2,650,000

    11,704,000

    Actual

    Vote9.

    Ordnance amount appropriated for armaments of New Vessels

    Estimated

    450,000

    600,000

    600,000

    600,000

    600,000

    2,850,000

    Actual

    Total

    Estimated

    1,810,000

    2,994,000

    3,250,000

    3,250,000

    3,250,000

    14,554,000

    Actual

    Estimated Expenditure on New Programme, including Ordnance and Warlike Stores

    Estimated

    1,810,000

    2,940,000

    3,160,000

    2,250,000

    1,340,000

    11,500,000

    Actual

    Difference

    Estimated

    £3,054,000

    Actual

    The difference between the amounts available for New Construction, &c., viz., £14,554,000, and the sums required to complete the New Programme, viz., £11,500,000, can be either utilised in laying down New Vessels, or in reducing the Estimates for the years 1892–3, 1893–4.

    2nd. In regard to the 32 Ships included in the New Programme, to be constructed by Contract, similar information in Italics as to the actual Expenditure on the services therein referred to in comparison with the estimated Expenditure:—

    1888–90.

    1890–91.

    1891–2.

    1892–3.

    1893–4

    1894–5.

    1895–6.

    Total.

    £

    £

    £

    £

    £

    £

    £

    £

    Amount available out of the proposed Naval Defence Acc'nt

    Estimated

    1,428,000

    1,428,000

    1,428,000

    1,428,000

    1,428,000

    1,428,000

    1,432,000

    10,000,000

    Actual

    Estimated Expenditure

    Estimated

    2,845,000

    4,415,000

    1,900,000

    740,000

    100,000

    —

    —

    10,000,000

    Actual

    House adjourned at Ten Minutes before One o'clock.

COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:—

1.—Consolidated Fund (No. 1).

2.—Australian Colonies Customs Duties.

The Lord Commissioners were the Lord Chancellor, the, Marquess of Breadalbane, and Lord Kensington.

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILLS AND CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
Message from the Commons to acquaint this House that they have appointed a Select Committee of Six Members to join with the Select Committee appointed by this House, as mentioned in their Lordships' Message of Friday last, to consider all Statute Law Revision Bills and Consolidation Bills of the present Session.
SEA FISHERIES REGULATION (SCOT LAND) (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the 4th instant referring the Bill to a Select Committee, discharged.

SEA FISHERIES REGULATION (SCOT LAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee (with the proceedings of the Committee) made, and to be printed. [No. 51.]
Bill reported with Amendments, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House; and to be printed as amended. [No. 52.]

PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL ORDER AND CONFIRMATION BILLS.
The EARL OF MORLEY The EARL OF MORLEY moved:—
That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 25th day of June next:
That no Bill originating in this House confirming any Provisional Order in pursuance of a Report of the Board of Agriculture relating to the enclosure or
318
regulation of a common, or confirming any scheme certified by the said Board relating to a Metropolitan common, or confirming any scheme of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales, shall be read a first time after Tuesday the 7th day of May next.
That no Bill originating in this House confirming any Provisional Order or provisional certificate shall be read a first time after Tuesday the 7th day of May next:
That no Bill brought from the House of Commons confirming any Provisional Order in pursuance of a report of the Board of Agriculture relating to the enclosure or regulation of a common, or confirming any scheme certified by the said Board relating to a Metropolitan common, or confirming any scheme of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales, shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 25th day of June next:
That no Bill brought from the House of Commons confirming any Provisional Order or Provisional Certificate shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 25th day of June next:
That when a Bill shall have passed this House with Amendments, these orders shall not apply to any new Bill sent up from the House of Commons which the Chairman of Committees shall report to the House is substantially the same as the Bill so amended:
That this House will not receive any Petition for a Private Bill after Tuesday the 30th day of April next, unless such Private Bill shall have been approved by the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice; nor any petition for a Private Bill approved by the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice after Friday the 3rd day of May next:
That this House will not receive any Report from the Judges upon petitions presented to this House for Private Bills after Friday, the 3rd day of May next.
Motion agreed to.

LAND TRANSFER BILL.
Amendment reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.

SHOP HOURS BILL.
LORD RIBBLESDALE, in moving the Second Reading of the Shop Hours Bill, said the object of the Bill, which consisted of one clause only, was to remedy a defect in the Act of 1892. The 4th Section of that Act directed that every employer of labour or owner of a shop should put up in a conspicuous place on his premises or shop a notice stating the hours of labour, but it did not provide any penalty on summary conviction for breach or neglect of the Section. A case was tried in the Queen's Bench in December last, and the necessity of the Bill was then established. The one clause in it provided that on the summary conviction of a person for not posting up the notice referred to a fine of 40s. would be recoverable.
Bill read 2a.

SOLICITORS (IRELAND) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

MORTGAGEES' COSTS BILL.
LORD MACNAGHTEN LORD MACNAGHTEN moved the Second Reading of this Bill, remarking that it dealt with a technical point in the law relating to mortgagees, and that its object was to do away with a rule which, he thought, was due to over-refinement on the part of Chancery Judges. In cases of money raised on mortgages a person, had, of course, to pay the costs of the mortgagee for investigating the title and completing the mortgage; but if the mortgagee happened to be a solicitor the Court declared that he was not to receive any remuneration for his labour. The same rule applied after the mortgage was completed. He thought their Lordships would agree that the rule was unreasonable; moreover, it was easily evaded; it was rarely put in force unless there was ill-will between the parties, and it led to more expense than it saved. The House of Commons thought the rule, should be abolished, and had passed the Bill, and he felt confident their Lordships would take a similar view of the matter.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he had no objection to the Second Reading
320
of the Bill, but it had been pointed out to him that other professional men than solicitors were unable to obtain their charges when they became mortgagees, and he could see no reason why the Bill should not be extended to them also. He did not know whether his noble and learned Friend had any objection to this extension of the Bill, which, in its title, was not confined to solicitors, but he thought the point was one which deserved consideration in Committee on the measure.
LORD MACNAGHTENsaid he would confer with his noble and learned Friend on the question, but he might mention that there was this distinction in the matter—that provision was made for taxing the cost of solicitors which did not apply to other professional men, and solicitors being officers of the Court, it was more easy to deal with the question of costs in their cases than in those of other persons.
Bill read 2a.
House adjourned at Twenty minutes before Five o'clock.