Sitting of 30 May 1895

Preamble
The House met at Three of the Clock.

COMMISSION.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
The House went, and being returned,
MR. SPEAKERreported the Royal Assent to Bills which had passed both Houses. [See list under proceedings of House of Lords this day.]

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TOWER BRIDGE SOUTHERN APPROACH) BILL.
Read 3°, and passed.
SINKING FUNDS.
Account presented of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, showing the amount received and applied in the year ended 31st March 1895, in respect of the Old and New Sinking Funds (by Act); to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 285.]
HARWICH HARBOUR.
Copy presented of Abstract of the Accounts of the Receipts and Expenditure of the Harwich Harbour Conservancy Board from the time of their Incorporation down to and inclusive of the 31st March 1895 (by Act); to lie upon the Table.

RELIEF OF DISTRESS (IRELAND) 1895.
Return ordered—
"Of Particulars of Relief Works opened in certain portions of Ireland up to the 1st day of May 1895."—(Mr. Secretary Morley.)

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
The following Bills were read 1°:—
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LLANGOLLEN) [H.L.]—(Bill 294.)
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONGBENTON). [H.L.]—(Bill 295.)
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (WILMINGTON). [H.L.]—(Bill 296.)
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (CROYDON). [H.L.]—(Bill 297.)
WESTMINSTER (PARLIAMENT STREET, ETC.) IMPROVEMENTS BILL [BY ORDER.]
Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question (20th May): "That the Bill be now read a second time:"—
Question again proposed:—
Debate resumed:—
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE,)proposed to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months." He said, he wished to acquaint hon. Members with the main facts and history of the Bill. In 1887 a private Bill was brought in, and passed into law, giving to the promoters power to acquire the site lying between Parliament Street and Delahay Street, for the purpose of erecting buildings thereon, subject to the approval of the Office of Works. Nothing was done under that Act, and in 1890 another Bill was brought in, in which the promoters asked for an extension of time, and a renewal of powers. Two years passed and nothing was done, and in 1892 another Bill was brought in asking for further extension and renewal of powers. Since 1892 nothing had been done under that last Act, and now the same promoters had brought in a Bill asking for the third
612
time for the extension and renewal of their powers. During the last 40 years various schemes had been on foot for dealing with this large and important area, and the various Governments had been often pressed to deal with the site themselves; but it was only in 1884 that the Government formulated a definite plan in connection with what was known as the Hyde Park Railway scheme; but that fell through, and since 1884 no definite proposal had been made by the Government. That was chiefly due to fact that in 1885 and 1886 plans were put forward for building a new War Office and a new Admiralty Office, and the Government since then had not seen their way to deal directly with the site. Even had they desired to do so, it would not have been in their power, in consequence of the powers that had already been given to private individuals. It was quite clear, however, from the facts of the case, that the Government always contemplated using this site, and that fact was perfectly well known and understood by the gentlemen who promoted the various Acts to which he had alluded. During the last 20 years the Government had acquired nearly half of the area proposed to be dealt with in this Bill, and the occupiers of the houses owned by the Government had only very short leases, extending in most cases to periods of a few months only, and that could only be justified on the supposition that it was a temporary arrangement. In 1892 his right hon. Friend the Member for Dublin University, speaking on the Private Bill, said of the proposal made that the Government should deal with the site themselves—
"I should myself be very glad if I could foresee any chance of it, but I am afraid I cannot hold out any immediate hope of that."
The case was different now. The whole question had been very carefully gone into, and he had made representations to the Treasury upon the general question of the offices of Government Departments, and the extremely uneconomical arrangement under which they were now kept up with regard to position and rent; and the Government had taken a general survey of the whole question of office accommodation, with the result that they had it in contemplation to

613
bring in, at a very early date, a proposal embodied in a Bill under which they would take a great part of this area for the purpose of adding to existing accommodation. The site was one of the very noblest in London, and he thought that all hon. Members would agree that it was most desirable that it should be dealt with speedily and thoroughly. Probably, also, they would all agree that it was most unfortunate that the buildings which disfigured this noble site had not been removed before now. It was necessary for the proposal of the Government that he should move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. It might be said that that course involved a certain amount of hardship on the promoters of the Bill. With regard to that, he must point out that the Government had an extremely strong locus standi in the matter. At any rate, the Government had the first claim to occupy this particular site, which lay between the Houses of Parliament, Westminster Abbey, and the main body of Government buildings. If it were desirable to materially increase the accommodation in Government Departments, it was quite obvious that this site was one of the first which it was desirable to acquire for the purpose. In the second place, the Government owned half the property it was sought to acquire by this Bill; and he would add this consideration also—that the promoters of this Bill had had eight years in which to make use of the powers which Parliament had given to them. Eight years had passed. On two occasions the company had come to Parliament for a renewal of their powers: they did not make use of them, and now they came for the third time to ask for a renewal of them. It appeared to him, therefore, if, as he submitted, a strong case could be made out for the use of this site by the Government, no reasonable complaint could be made by the promoters of the Bill, who for eight years had failed to use the powers they had obtained, now that the Government came forward with a proposal of their own to erect buildings for the accommodation of the Government departments, and a proposal which involved as a consequence the rejection of the Bill. He therefore moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, he was sorry he was obliged strenuously to oppose the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman. Speaking with all respect, it did seem to him, having regard to all that had passed between present and preceding Governments and the promoters of this Bill, it was little short of a breach of faith that this Motion should be made now. The right hon. Gentleman had told the House that the Government had always contemplated the using of this site.
MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE: The possibility.
SIR RICHARD WEBSTERcontinued, that he should be able to show that on no principle of fair dealing could the intention of the Government to use the site be put before the House. It was true that the first Bill was passed in 1887; and, in the interests of control, of which he made no complaint, the condition was imposed that before the company were allowed to deal with the site they should have £500,000 subscribed and £200,000 paid up. That was an enormous obligation, and one which at any time it would be extremely difficult to satisfy. It was known to the Governments of the day that difficulty was found in obtaining the money; and with the full concurrence of the Government the promoters came before Parliament in 1890 and 1892. In the latter year, with the consent of the First Commissioner, and the support of Members on both sides of the House, the larger condition, was removed, and only the paying up of £200,000 retained. Up to the 17th of May of this year, the promoters had been told by the Government, that they were to be allowed to go on with their scheme. They were further told that they must satisfy the Treasury as to their having raised the money; and they had, in fact, raised every farthing of the money they were required to raise by the Act of 1892. The proposal, as was well known, was one for widening Parliament Street, and utilising a site bounded by Parliament Street, Charles Street, Great George Street, and Delahay Street, excluding the Institute of the Civil Engineers. On the 17th of November 1892, Mr. Pearson, of the Office of Works, wrote to Mr. Easton, who from the first

615
had been one of the promoters of the scheme—
"In reply to yours of the 11th ultimo, I am directed by the First Commissioner to inform you that Her Majesty's Government will not exercise the option of purchase in respect of any part of the block of land lying between Parliament Street and the new street authorised to be formed under the Westminster (Parliament Street) Improvements Act. The promoters will, however, consider that this decision applies only to the Parliament Street block and not to the Delahay Street block, as to which the Government are not yet in a position to state their intentions."
This was after the Bill of 1892 had been brought in and passed; and it was passed in the Session of 1892 with the concurrence of the First Commissioner of Works and with the concurrence of hon. Members on both sides of the House. He was dealing with the suggestion that there had always been reservation on the part of Her Majesty's Government of their right to take a valuable part of the land, namely, the Parliament Street block. He called attention to the fact that on the 17th November, 1892, it was stated that Her Majesty's Government would not exercise their option to purchase in respect of any portion of the block lying between Parliament Street as widened and the new street, but they did reserve their right with regard to the Delahay Street corner; and again, on the 8th of August 1893, in reply to a question, the Government again stated specifically what it was that was reserved. All this time the promoters had been incurring expense, paying the Government valuer, making contracts by which they got the right to acquire from private individuals more than one-half in value and nearly one-half in area of the property; and that was not all. At the beginning of this Session, the promoters communicated with Her Majesty's Government with regard to the extension of time. Did they meet with any statement that they were not to go on? Nothing of the kind. They were told by the Government they must satisfy the Treasury that they had obtained, or could obtain, the £200,000. The authority for that statement was Mr. Easton himself, who communicated with the Treasury with regard to the arrangements that had been made. The Company, of which Lord Hobhouse was chairman, and two
616
Members on the other side, Mr. Price and Mr. Archibald Grove, are directors, obtained the whole of the money; and then the whole matter was postponed from time to time at the request of the First Commissioner. He was informed it was not until the 17th May that the slightest information was given to the promoters by Her Majesty's Government that there was any change in their views, and that they intended to utilise the site.
MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE: So far from the case being as stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman, on my instructions the promoters were given the fullest notice that it was extremely likely that the Government was going to come in and take the whole site.
SIR R. WEBSTER: At what date?
MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE: When this Bill was brought in.
SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, he was informed that the promoters were asked to satisfy the Government that they had obtained the money, and it was in consequence of that that the arrangements to which he had referred were made, He was informed that all the money had been subscribed, and, further than that, he believed that as lately as the 21st February there was actually a communication made in writing by the promoters to the Treasury or the Board of Works, stating that the money was raised. His point was, that for eight consecutive years these gentlemen had been induced to spend their money upon the faith of Parliamentary approval, and as they believed with the authority and sanction of the First Commissioner. Speaking of it in Parliamentary terms, it was as bad a breach of faith as had ever come to his notice in connection with the transactions of a public Department. The First Commissioner of Works stated that in 1895 the whole case was gone into, and he had proposed a plan over and over again for utilising the site and bringing the public offices together. When was that plan adopted? The House was entitled to know. He was informed that the fact that the Government intended to undertake the work themselves was never communicated to the promoters until the 17th May. So gentlemen of position and responsibility had been lured on for months and years to promote their schemes, perfectly

617
bonâ fide, under the sanction of an Act of Parliament, and then a change of policy with regard to these buildings was desired, and the whole thing was to be thrown over. Because in 1895 a scheme was devised for utilising the site, were arrangements made under the sanction of Parliament to be set aside? During the years 1887, 1890, and 1892 the sanction of Parliament was given to the scheme, and down to the 17th May last no alteration in the intentions of Parliament was suggested, and gentlemen who succeeded in obtaining the money at great expense had fulfilled every condition imposed upon them. Under these circumstances he hoped the House, whatever might be the invitation of the First Commissioner of Works, would adhere to what had been recognised and acted upon for so many years. Regarded as an ordinary commercial transaction, it would be little short of a breach of faith if the promoters were allowed to spend all their money with the knowledge of the Government, and go to this expense, and then by a change of policy in 1895 the expense should be thrown away
MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid, his hon. and learned Friend had said that certain letters were written by Mr. Primrose in 1892. But these letters were consequential on the position which the former First Commissioner of Works, the right hon. Member for Dublin University, had taken with regard to the Bill of 1892. The Government then had no scheme of their own with regard to the site, and they consented, subject to certain conditions, to this Bill passing through the House of Commons. Subsequently the promoters came to the Office of Works to know what they were going to do, and the Office of Works told them what their view was with regard to the powers they had reserved under the Act of 1892. All this was simply consequential on the approval given by the then Government to the Bill of 1892. It all followed naturally from the course then taken. What happened? Every facility was given to the promoters during these years. He might say he himself was Chairman of the Private Bill Committee which in 1892 considered and passed the scheme in that House. He satisfied himself that the Office of Works, on the part of the Government, were satisfied
618
in the matter, and it was not his responsibility or that of the Committee to consider the precise plan then most desirable. They had to satisfy themselves on certain matters, and they did so. Three years passed, and although every facility was given by the Office of Works to the promoters of the Bill, nothing was done, and the valuable area of land lay almost waste. The hon. and learned Member for the Isle of Wight said the promoters had been "lured on" for months and years. He did not know who had lured them on. They lured on themselves. They took up this scheme on their responsibility, and knowing precisely under what conditions they were acting—knowing that when the powers which they had obtained lapsed, full discretion reverted to the Government. The hon. and learned Gentleman had made statements which had taken him aback. He never expected them to be made, and was, therefore, not fully prepared with dates to give an answer. But his hon. and learned Friend had said that notice was only on 17th May given to this private company that the Government were going to take over the scheme themselves. He knew, as a fact, that that was not the case. Mr. Primrose, as soon as ever he heard that leave had been given for bringing in a Bill, and as soon as the Office of Works was satisfied that the promoters were going on with their Bill, told Mr. Easton that the Office of Works were thinking of bringing forward a scheme to deal with the whole area. He himself had seen Mr. Easton during the last two months, and told him fully what they proposed to do. He had told Mr. Easton from time to time that he could not give him a final and definite answer, because he had not the full approval of the Government to the scheme which he submitted for dealing with the site. He contended that there had been no breach of faith whatever. The Government had merely stood on their strict rights. They proposed to take a course which would be consonant with the public interest and the convenience of Government Departments, and he hoped the House would consent to the rejection of the Bill.
MR. JOHN BURNSwished to say a few words on the subject, because he raised the general question of

619
the improvement of Parliament Street on the Estimates last year. It was exceedingly important they should clear up the difficulty with regard to the Syndicate not having had notice until 17th May last. That could hardly be so, because on the Estimates, nearly twelve months ago, the First Commissioner of Works expressed the intention of the Government to deal with this improvement in a comprehensive measure. The House ought to look at the improvement proposed in a bold and generous spirit. Parliament Street was improved from Charing Cross to Charles Street many years ago. After that improvement was carried out a syndicate decided to buy some house property close to the House, with the view, which all syndicates had, of making a fairly good bargain. It seemed to him that this was a matter in which the House of Commons should take the view of the Office of Works acting for the public rather than side with a private syndicate, which certainly would not lose if this Bill was rejected, but which would not gain as much as they expected to do if the Government had not taken their place. The hon. and learned Member for the Isle of Wight said this syndicate had been unfairly, if not dishonourably, treated. The Office of Works years ago made it a condition that £500,000 should be guaranteed, and £200,000 should be paid up. The House had heard that the syndicate had been put to trouble and expense to carry out the conditions imposed upon them. But he was convinced that Parliament made a mistake in allowing a private syndicate—even under onerous conditions—to undertake a public improvement which Parliament or the local authority should have carried out. An injustice would be inflicted on the ratepayers and upon the future of our Government Offices hereafter if this Bill were read a second time. Where was the injustice to the syndicate? For eight years this syndicate had had an opportunity of developing their scheme. Twice they had come to the House for an extension of their powers and for other advantages. They had acted in a most dilatory way, and the Government merely stepped in and said public business and the approaches to the House demanded that there should be no more dilatory inaction on the part of a private syndicate. He hoped the House would
620
see that the Office of Works was not dilatory either, but promptly did what this syndicate should have been forced to do eight years ago. Let the House look at the matter from the point of view of the Government Offices. Here they had, he might almost call, a splendid vista of Government Offices from Trafalgar Square to the venerable Abbey. If the syndicate got this Bill, it was evident that they would sell the site to their private advantage; and if they carried out the provisions of the Bill they would not have a beautiful trumpet-mouthed approach to the Abbey and the Houses of Parliament that the Government might afford to make if the carrying out of the improvement were in their hands. They should consider the site in relation to its close proximity to the Home Office, the Local Government Board, Westminster Abbey, and the Houses of Parliament. They did not want to be "cribb'd, cabin'd, and confin'd" by the exigencies of a private syndicate. He wanted the Government to promptly clear away the whole of King Street, and to line the western side of Parliament Street with a splendid block of Government Offices, to deal with the site of the Census Office, and take the steps from the bottom of Charles Street so that vehicular traffic might go down Charles Street and Delahay Street, which they could not do now owing to private interests. It was a pity to see the magnificent pile of buildings there hemmed in as they were. He reminded the House that the syndicate would have to be compensated. They would not lose what they had put into the scheme, but their prospective profit would not be so large. In the interests of London he hoped the Government of the House would take the part of the Office of Works rather than that of a private syndicate.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT,)said, it was early in the present Session that his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works brought under his notice the question of dealing with this site, and he felt exactly what his hon. Friend the Member for Battersea had so well said—that this was a site of such great public consequence to the Metropolis that it ought not to pass into the hands of a private syndicate.

621
That would involve a great many considerations of a heavy pecuniary character, and it might be his duty to consider how that matter could be dealt with on behalf of the Government without throwing undue charges upon the country. In his view it had been a discredit to successive Administrations that there had been lying idle for a great many years two sites of great value—namely, that of Carrington House, Whitehall, and this, which he would call the Westminster site, at the back of Parliament Street, which was of enormous pecuniary value. During those years these sites had yielded no profit or advantage to the country, and he had always desired very much to arrive at some solution by which the Government should either make use of, or dispose of, those sites, so that they might not prove a loss to the country altogether. These matters required a great deal of consideration, and the Government had at last arrived at a conclusion on the subject which they believed would be satisfactory—namely, to clear the whole of the site all the way from the west-end of King Street to Delahay Street, acquiring the property that remained to be acquired, so that in point of fact they might have public buildings upon an alignment parallel to the Home Office, forming a wide and splendid approach to Westminster, throwing open to view from Richmond Terrace the whole of the Abbey and Houses of Parliament, which would make it a great centre of London. The Government were prepared to lay a scheme for the purpose before the House, and he hoped that it would be considered to be of a moderate character. The idea of the Government was that by disposing of the Carrington House site they would obtain so much money as would reduce the cost of acquiring the western site to a very moderate amount. That being the intention of the Government, he was extremely astonished to hear it stated that this private association had been unfairly dealt with. Certainly, as far as his knowledge went, the association had been aware since last year that the Government had it in view to take the site themselves, although the matter was not then finally decided, and it was left open to the Government to take another view with regard to it. In these circumstances he
622
could not see how the Association could have been unfairly treated. They were perfectly well aware that the Government were considering how, and in what manner, they could best secure this site. He hoped that, for the reasons which had been given by the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, that the House would place it in the power of the Government to carry out their scheme—namely, to acquire this site and to make it available for public purposes.
MR. E. BOULNOISthought that the promoters of this Bill had been rather hardly treated by the Government. The promoters ought to have been told when they deposited their Bill that the Government intended to oppose it so that they might have been saved from a useless expenditure. It had been impossible for the Association to carry out their scheme in the face of the hard times through which we had just passed when they were unable to raise the money necessary to complete their undertaking. He greatly doubted whether the Government were in a position to bring in a Bill at this period of the Session in order to enable them to carry out their somewhat problematical scheme, which would involve an expenditure of something like £2,000,000.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: In that case the Government would have nothing to do with the matter.
MR. BOULNOISsaid, that every Government for the last 50 years had had this question under their consideration, but nothing had been done with regard to it. If this Bill were allowed to go before a Committee, the Government would be able to introduce into it such Amendments as they deemed necessary.
MR. ALPHEUS C. MORTONsaid, that the only good that the Association would derive from going on with this Bill was that the Government would have to compensate them in order to get rid of them.
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, it appeared to him that the language of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir R. Webster) was perfectly justifiable. The treatment of the subject of the approaches to that House had

623
been a disgrace to successive Administrations, and were they to suppose that the action of the present Administration would be any better in respect of this subject than that of their predecessors. The Government had talked about erecting a new War Office. He had been in the War Office some years ago, and then the Government of the day was about to erect a new War Office building; but the Government of the present day were still talking of doing the same thing. Hon. Members would recollect the history of the new Law Courts, and they might well hesitate before they believed that such buildings could be erected for less money at the public expense than by private enterprise. Probably many hon. Members had not read this Bill, but if they had done so they would find that its only object was to obtain an extension of time for the exercise of the powers which the Association already possessed, and which they were to put into force at their own risk and expense. Those who had listened to the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works would imagine that the Association were to be given a free hand in this matter, and that they were to use their powers for their own interests. That was not at all the case, because every care had been taken to protect the public interests in the matter. The buildings to be erected were to be of a handsome architectural character, and were to be of such design and material as were to be approved—by whom did hon. Members think?—by the right hon. Gentleman himself. Those were the provisions with regard to which the Association now asked the House to extend the time for carrying out. All the rights of the Board of Works were to be preserved in express terms, and a clause was inserted in the measure to save all the rights of the Crown. What, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works wanted beyond this Bill he failed to understand. The promoters had for years made strenuous and expensive efforts to realise the scheme; they had secured the advance of an enormous sum of money; they had paid the survey fee, and had complied with every condition the Government had required.
MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEEight years ago.
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, it was up to the present day. The promoters had been informed that they might safely go on investing their money, they had been allowed a free hand; and now that they were ready to complete their plans the Government suddenly altered its position, and said they had themselves a plan which, however, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not adumbrated in any way.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had distinctly stated that the Government plan was to clear the whole of the space from Parliament Street to Delahay Street.
MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES: But you did not say in what way the Government proposed to utilise the site.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, they could not bring before the House the whole plan of the buildings to be erected there. If this Bill were read a second time the only result would be that they would have to buy the property from the promoters. However, he did not go upon that ground, but upon the ground that this was not space which private individuals should have the disposal of.
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that if this were a matter in any Court of Equity between private parties the judgment of the Court would necessarily be given for the promoters. They had been induced to make very great efforts to alter their position upon certain representations made by the Government, and now that they were about to enjoy the fruition of their enterprise the Government came in, and without any scheme which could be put before the House asked them to reject the Second Reading. Why should not the Bill, at any rate, be allowed to go to a Committee before which the Government might propound their scheme? Unless this was done he did not see how anyone could justly vote against the promoters.
MR. G. C. T. BARTLEYsaid, he had resided in Westminster for many years, and as far as he could understand this was a scheme got up for widening this street, and making other advantages which no doubt would be a benefit to the district. The promoters obtained the advantage of an Act to do

625
this work in a certain time, they had got one extension of that time, and, he thought, a second extension. Therefore there could be no injustice to the syndicate, and surely they were perfectly free to make another arrangement. He hoped the House would not read the Bill a second time, and would make the Government responsible by handing over this site to them to deal with.
The House divided:—Ayes, 78; Noes, 200.—(Division List, No. 118.)

DOWNING COLLEGE BILL.— [H.L.]
On the Order for the Second Reading of this Bill,
MR. CYRIL DODDsaid, he desired to call the attention of the House to the Bill because it was not one which he thought should be read a second time simply as a matter of course. The Bill proposed to permit one of the colleges at Cambridge to sell off a considerable portion of land adjoining the college. By Act of Parliament passed in 1801 the land was purchased for the use of the college. It was bought, as the Act showed, for college purposes, and at that time the House permitted various rights of common to be extinguished, so that the land might be used for the purposes of the college for ever. It was only right that he should point out that all those who had rights of common were fully compensated, or had the opportunity of full compensation, under the Act. Consequently the land was obtained for the use of the college under the sanction of that House, and now the college proposed to sell it. It seemed to him that land purchased under those conditions should not be allowed to be sold, or, at least, that some good ground should be shown before the college authorities were permitted the relaxation asked for by this Bill. There might be strong grounds for selling the land; if there were such grounds, they would, of course, be investigated by Committee, but unless some good primâ-facie reason were given for selling, the college ought not to be allowed to do so.
Bill read 2°.

QUESTIONS.

  CROFTS IN ELLON DISTRICT, ABERDEENSHIRE.
  MR. T. R. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the recent Report of the inspector on the Ellon district in Aberdeenshire, in which he points out the difficulty experienced in dealing with insanitary dwellings on small crofts, and states that it is not unusual that when notification is made to the landlord of the insanitary condition of such dwellings the tenant is told he will have to quit his holding, and the holding will be added to the nearest farm; and whether he will be prepared by legislation to give the compulsory powers asked for in this Report for the purpose of securing more sanitary dwellings, and of preventing the disappearance of these small holdings?
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to two recent cases at Craigston, Turriff, in which crofters have been turned out because their houses have been condemned as unfit, the proprietor pulling down their houses and adding the crofts to the neighbouring farms: and whether there is any remedy in such cases, and any power in the local authorities to cause new dwellings to be erected in place of the old ones?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir GEORGE TREVELYAN,): I have drawn the attention of the Local Government Board to the questions of my hon. Friends. The information which has reached me hitherto is not sufficient, and I have called for a special Report. I have desired that it should be ascertained to what extent the practice described in the questions prevails in Aberdeenshire. I have likewise asked what is the character of the compulsory powers indicated in the Report of the sanitary inspector, and what the opinion, of the Local Government Board is on the subject. These are important points, both of fact and policy, and as soon as I have the materials in my hands I will reply to my hon. Friends.

  EVICTIONS IN COUNTY ARMAGH.
  MR. EDWARD M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state by whose instructions the sergeant and men of the police from Newtownhamilton attended at the evictions held on 18th March 1895, of Richard Caraker and Alice Cunningham, tenants on the estate of Mr. Bond M'Geogh, in the townlands of Sherriff and Tullyrallen, County Armagh; and what was the necessity shown for their attendance?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JOHN MORLEY,): I am informed that no police were requisitioned or instructed to attend either of the evictions referred to. It appears, however, that a police patrol happened to be in the neighbourhood at the time, but its presence there was a mere accident.

  NONCONFORMIST REGISTERS OF BAPTISMS.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether, in conformity with the promise made last Session, the Registrar General has been asked to restore the facilities, including the remission of fees, for many years granted to Nonconformists, of consulting, for literary and historical purposes, the Nonconformist Registers of Baptisms, which, in compliance with official requests, were deposited at Somerset House for safe custody and ease of access; and what has been the result of any representations on the subject which have been made to the Registrar General?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. G. J. SHAW LEFEVRE,): I have communicated with the Registrar General, and am glad to say that he has made arrangements which I think will be satisfactory to my hon. Friend.

  HIGHLAND RAILWAY COMPANY.
  MR. J. G. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Highland Railway Company continue to charge traders the same rate for small size cattle trucks and sheep
  628
  vans as for medium size trucks and vans; if he will inquire when this company will have all their small trucks and vans converted into medium or full size, how many have been converted since 16th August 1894, and how many there are still to be converted; and whether he can take any steps to compel the Highland Railway Company to charge traders small truck and van rates when, the small size only is provided?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. J. BRYCE,): I have communicated with the Highland Railway Company, and as the general manager informs me that the matter stands as it did when I replied to a question on the subject in August last, I would again repeat the suggestion which I then made to the hon. Member, namely, that any specific complaints of unreasonable treatment should be submitted to the Board of Trade under Section 31 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888. The Highland Railway Company have informed me that the process of converting their trucks is still going on, but the Board of Trade have no power to require the company to supply the general information asked for in the question.
  *MR. WEIR: I beg to give notice that I shall put a specific case on the Paper to-morrow.
  MR. BRYCE: Perhaps it will save the hon. Member trouble if I tell him that I cannot carry the matter any further by an answer to a question in this House. What he and his Friends may do is to bring it before the Board of Trade under Section 31 of the Act.

  FOREIGN BOUNTIES ON AGRI- CULTURE.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he will obtain and lay before the House Reports as to the Bounties on Agriculture given by the Governments of Germany and Austria-Hungary, similar to the recently published Report on French Agriculture and Bounties furnished by Sir Joseph Crowe?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): Information of the kind

  629
  desired has already been received from Her Majesty's Embassy at Berlin, and will shortly be laid before Parliament as No. 361, Miscellaneous Series. In addition to this, Her Majesty's Embassies and Legations in all foreign countries have been instructed to furnish Reports on Bounties in general, and it is expected that these will include the question of Agricultural Bounties in Austria-Hungary.

  ROYAL MUNSTER FUSILIERS.
  MR. L. P. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War—(1) whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Private Patrick Dwyer, who enlisted in the Royal Munster Fusiliers in 1883, served in the Burmah war from 1885 to 1887, and received dislocation of the shoulder twice in the Mounted Infantry in execution of his duty, for which he received a medal and two clasps; (2) whether he is aware that Dwyer was invalided in 1889 with six years and nine months service, receiving a pension of ninepence a day for one year; that at the end of that time he was examined by the military doctor at Athlone, who declared him totally unfit to return to his regiment; and (3) whether, as in the ordinary course Dwyer would have been entitled after three months more service to a reserve pension for five years, he will take the circumstances into consideration with a view to having this allowance made to him?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): The facts of the case appear to be fairly stated in the two first paragraphs of the question. The renewal of the pension rests with the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital, and if Patrick Dwyer makes application to them, he will be medically examined to ascertain whether he still suffers from the same disability, and whether it incapacitates him to an appreciable extent from earning a livelihood in civil life.

  SWAZILAND PAPERS.
  MR. T. H. COCHRANE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he has
  630
  information to the effect that Mr. Shepstone removed all the books of the Swazi nation and papers relating to the affairs of Swaziland from the chief kraal to Pretoria, and has not returned them in spite of repeated requests from the King; if so, by what right does Mr. Shepstone retain these books and papers; and will the Government use their influence to secure their immediate return?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): I have not yet received the information desired by the hon. Member.

  GIBRALTAR.
  MR. H. O. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether a despatch has been received from His Excellency the Governor of Gibraltar, with reference to the proposed new harbour and dock works at that place; and, if so, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the despatch in question, or such portions of it as refer specially to the mercantile mole and mercantile coaling establishment?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: A despatch has been received, and is under the consideration of the expert advisers of Her Majesty's Government. Until the matter has been fully considered, and a decision arrived at, it would be premature to lay Papers, but it is hoped that we shall be in a position to do so at an early date.

  BRITISH INDIAN SUBJECTS IN THE TRANSVAAL.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, when he proposes to lay upon the Table of the House the correspondence and other documents relating to the punishment, without trial, of British Indian subjects resident in the Transvaal?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I propose shortly to lay the Papers relating to the psition of British Indian subjects in the South African Republic. They are not yet quite complete. I must, however, demur to the inference put upon the matter in question by the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet received any information with regard to the case of the Indians in the employment of Messrs. Harvey, stated to have been "cleared out" of the town of Krugersdorp in January last by a Boer field cornet of the name of Bodinstein; whether he is aware that the British subjects in question have just received verbal notice to quit; and whether such notice to quit, served without trial or evidence of an offence committed, is in accordance with Boer law?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: We have now received a dispatch on the subject in reply to our inquiry. The case referred to appears to be that of Ibrahim Mahomed Patel, who attempted to open a store at Krugersdorp. The trader was instructed by the Magistrates to remove his goods—and this he did. The proceedings were, no doubt, taken under a law of the South African Republic of 1885, amended in 1886, in virtue of which the South African Republic claim the right to prohibit Asiatics from trading, except in locations set aside for that special purpose. The hon. Member is aware that I am about to lay papers relating to the case of the Indians, and the dispatch just received will be included in the Blue Book.

  WESTPORT UNION, IRELAND.
  DR. ROBERT AMBROSE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has yet received a report of his promised inquiry as to why the Local Government Board did not prosecute Mr. Moran, late poor law guardian of Westport Union, for violating the law in acting as contractor for the supply of bread to the union whilst holding such office; and, if so, what are the terms of it?
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: The transaction in which Mr. Moran is alleged to have been concerned is closed, and nothing more can now be done in this matter; but I have informed the Local Government Board that it would have been more satisfactory had they, at the time the charge was preferred against Moran, investigated the truth of the charge. I may add that the Board have received
  632
  from their Inspector his report of the inquiry held by him into the validity of the recent election of guardian at which Mr. Moran was one of the candidates, and that the Board have decided that Mr. Joyce was entitled to a majority of valid votes at the election, and that his return as guardian should not be disturbed.
  DR. ROBERT AMBROSE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what is the result of his consideration as to the desirability of affording further relief works in West-port Union?
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: It is proposed to open works in Mulranny, Louisburgh, and Kilmeena, in this union, towards the end of June, and increased numbers of persons will be employed on the works already existing in the union.

  BRITISH SUBJECTS IN HONOLULU.
  MR. J. F. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what has been the result of the investigation into the complaints of arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, accompanied by exceedingly harsh treatment, brought by British subjects, residents of Honolulu, against the authorities of the Republic of Hawaii?
  SIR E. GREY: The cases which have arisen are now under consideration in consultation with the Law Officers of the Crown.

  ARDARA AND GLENTIES, COUNTY DONEGAL
  MR. T. SEXTON: On behalf of the hon. Member for Donegal (Mr. SWIFT MACNEILL), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether he is aware that the completion of the road and bridge over a river connecting the parishes of Ardara and Glenties would be of great benefit to the parishes of Glenties, Ardara, Inver, and Dunkineely, in the county of Donegal; (2) whether he is aware that already £500 has been expended by the barony, and additional sums of £60 and of £40 have been granted by the baronies of Banagh and Bolagh respectively to aid in the completion of this road and bridge, while the Congested Districts Board have promised to give some aid

  633
  if this sum of £100 voted by the baronies is approved and passed by the Grand Jury of Donegal; and (3) whether, having regard to the widespread distress and want of employment in these districts, and the isolation caused by deficiency of proper communication, a portion of the funds allocated for the relief of distress could be appropriated towards the completion of this work?
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I am inquiring into the matters alluded to in the first and second paragraphs. As regards the concluding paragraph, I am informed that additional relief works will be opened in the Glenties Union, and that a road is to be made in the Ardara District about 10 miles from the particular road to which my hon. Friend refers. The Local Government Board Inspector will again shortly visit this district and report further on the circumstances of the people in the locality mentioned in the question.

  CUSTOMS STATISTICAL OFFICE.
  MR. J. BIGWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Abstractors employed in the Statistical Office of Her Majesty's Customs in London have any promotion open to them?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir JOHN HIBBERT,): The position of the abstractors now in the Customs Service is in itself promotion from a lower grade. It is open to the head of a Department to submit the name of any abstractor who has shown very exceptional knowledge and ability for appointment in the Second Division.

  LOCHMADDY POORH0USE, INVERNESS-SHIRE.
  MR. J. G. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the condition of the Long Island Combination Poorhouse, at Lochmaddy, Inverness-shire; whether he is aware that there is no separate ward for the sick and dying paupers; that the so-called sanitary arrangements are of the most primitive and unsatisfactory kind; that the inmates have to drink roof rainwater
  634
  contaminated with the excreta of seabirds, or to use water from a pond in the grounds; and that the matron recently died from typhoid fever contracted through the insanitary state of the establishment; and whether he proposes to take any steps in the matter?
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN: There are two sick-wards in this poorhouse, and it is to be kept in view that the poorhouse is a small one, the number of inmates sometimes being as low as two. It is true that there is very great difficulty in getting an adequate supply of water by gravitation, but the County Sanitary Inspector has recently made a survey of the ground, with the result that he thinks it may be possible to introduce such a supply. Pending his Report, arrangements have been made on the suggestion of the Local Government Board for having a supply of water brought in for the use of the house by watercart. The house was, from a sanitary point of view, in an unsatisfactory condition, and the Board pointed this out to the local house committee, who are now taking steps to remedy its deficiencies. It is the case that the matron recently died of typhoid fever, but it is not known how the disease was contracted. I have requested the Local Government Board to furnish me with a further report, in a month hence, as to whether the sanitary arrangements have been put right by the house committee, and whether any further progress has been made with the water supply.

  TIUMPAN HEAD, LEWIS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Commissioners on Northern Lighthouses have, since the 19th March 1895, been able to obtain the statutory sanction of Trinity House for the erection of a lighthouse on Tiumpan Head, Island of Lewis?
  MR. BRYCE: I have received no communications from the Trinity Houses or the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses on the subject of Tiumpan Head since the 19th March last. I can only refer the hon. Member to my replies to him of the 19th and 20th of that month.
  MR. WEIRasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would make any attempt to obtain the information?
  MR. BRYCE: I have no right to interefere with the statutory discretion of the Trinity House. It is for them to say whether they approve or not.
  MR. WEIR: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask whether Trinity House as come to a decision?
  MR. BRYCE: The Estimate for this year is already made up, and therefore the matter is not urgent.

  NESS HARBOUR, SCOTLAND.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether steps will be taken to push forward the Ness Harbour works during the summer?
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN: The improvements of the Port Ness Harbour is in the hands of trustees. Acting on their own responsibility these gentlemen made terms with the contractor, which would have involved the expenditure of a much larger sum than has ever been contemplated. I have decided that these terms cannot be approved of, and that until affairs are on a more satisfactory footing, the Government subsidy must be withheld. In the meantime good progress is being made with the breakwater, which is being built under another contractor.

  "COSTA RICA PACKET."
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the preliminary proceedings in the matter of arbitrating on the claims of the captain, owners, and crew of the Costa Rica Packet have yet been brought to a conclusion?
  SIR E. GREY: The Convention providing for the submission of these claims to arbitration has been signed. The ratifications will be exchanged as soon as it has received the approval of the States General of the Netherlands.

  TAX COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that in many districts the Commissioners of Land Tax, who, according to law, are
  636
  the proper persons to elect the Commissioners of Income Tax, have not met for several years, and that in some cases the Commissioners of Income Tax are practically a self-elected body; and whether he will take the necessary steps to cause the Commissioners of Land Tax to be periodically summoned for the purpose of filling up vacancies in the office of Commissioner of Income Tax?
  SIR JOHN HIBBERT: I have no knowledge of the facts referred to in the question. The jurisdiction of the Board of Inland Revenue, or of the Treasury, is very limited in these matters; but if my hon. Friend will give me particulars of the cases to which he alludes, I will cause full inquiry to be made, and if—as would appear to be the case—the administration of the Income Tax in the district is found to be defective all practicable steps shall be taken to improve it.

  COLONEL LONGBOURNE.
  MR. D. SHEEHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has put a case to Colonel Longbourne, R.M., regarding the discrepancies in the statements which that gentleman has made about the presence of Lord Clanricarde's bailiff, Moran, on the Petty Sessions Bench at Woodford; whether Colonel Longbourne still adheres to his statements that Moran is not Lord Clanricarde's bailiff and did not sit on the Bench with the Magistrates, and that he only stood for a short time within the area reserved for the Magistrates; and, if so, whether he will give an opportunity of proving by sworn evidence that Moran sat on a chair beside Lord Clanricarde's agent for the space of an hour on the Bench; and what action he proposes to take in this matter?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have already communicated with Colonel Longbourne, and informed him that it would have been more satisfactory had he, in the first instance, stated that, although no bailiff was on the Bench on the occasion in question, yet another person employed in some other capacity by Mr. Tener did occupy a place. The person referred to was present as the friend, and at the invitation of Mr. Tener, not of Colonel Longbourne, and it does not appear to me, under all the circumstances, that

  637
  further action is called for. I am satisfied that Colonel Longbourne's original report was not intended to wilfully mislead; it erred on the side of omission in not being as full as it might have been, and, as I have pointed out, I have told Colonel Longbourne that in this respect it was to be regretted his report did not satisfactorily explain all the facts of the case.

  ALDERSHOT CAMP.
  MR. ALPHEUS MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the sickness and deaths caused by the sewage farm at the North Camp, Aldershot; and whether anything has yet been done to remedy the evils complained of?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid: It is not known that any case of death can be attributed to the sewage farm at Aldershot; but it is admitted that the farm is not in a satisfactory state. Negotiations with the local authorities are proceeding with a view to a new sewage farm being established at a greater distance from the camp; and, meanwhile, steps are being taken for the improvement of the present farm.
  MR. ALPHEUS MORTONasked whether it was the fact that in the case of some officers who were taken ill their friends had to defray the expenses of employing private doctors, and that the War Department had to refuse to refund the money?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: That seems to be a separate question altogether from the question on the Paper, which has reference to the sewage farm.

  TRAFFIC TO THE HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.
  MR. J. BIGWOOD: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, to lessen the congestion of traffic at the Palace Yard entrance to this House, he would permit the thoroughfare between Derby Street and the Embankment to be used by cabs and carriages during the Parliamentary Session?
  MR. ASQUITH: The congestion to which the hon. Member refers has been largely due to the Embankment being closed for repairs, and will, I hope, be lessened now that the Embankment is open again. The approach through Derby Street is a dangerous one, and so long as the Horse Guards' Avenue, a wide and open thoroughfare, is so little used, I doubt whether a sufficient case exists for adopting the hon. Member's suggestion. But the question shall be considered.

  NEW ZEALAND RAILWAY COMPANY.
  MR. BRODIE HOARE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Government of New Zealand have seized the New Zealand Midland Railway, the property of an English company, although the matters in dispute between the Government and the company are actually before arbitrators appointed in accordance with the company's contract; and whether the Government will use their good offices with the Government of the colony to secure for the company a fair hearing of their case?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Her Majesty's Government have received no communication from the colony on this subject, and are not at present, therefore, in a position to take any action in the matter.
  MR. BRODIE HOARE: Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to obtain some information? This is a matter of very serious importance.
  MR. BUXTON: If the company desired to make a complaint in reference to a matter like this, they would do so either through the governor or direct. We cannot act until we get some complaint.

  EAST AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE.
  MR. R. A. YERBURGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the number of cruisers now employed in patrolling the East African coast for the suppression of the slave trade; what is the cost per annum of maintaining this squadron; and what is the average amount per annum paid it in bounties?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,): At present there are three ships employed on the East African Coast, but the suppression of the slave trade is merely part of their duties, and probably as many would be employed if there were no slave trade. The cost of the ships cannot be stated without much time and labour. The average annual amount paid in bounties during the last six years was £3,604.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELLasked whether the hon. Member could give any figures as to the number of boats attached to these ships now employed that would not otherwise be employed?
  MR. ROBERTSON: I have no figures to show that.

  DISMISSAL OF A COASTGUARDSMAN.
  MR. J. ROSS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether his attention has been called to the case of Edward Holmes, late of the Coastguards, for 20 years in the service, and a man of good character, who refused his pension of £26 per annum, pending an appeal to the Lords of the Admiralty against his dismissal on the ground that he had not been afforded an opportunity of explanation; will he explain, on what ground this man was dismissed; and, whether he is aware that the man and his family are now in Londonderry in a state of extreme destitution?
  MR. ROBERTSON: My attention was called to this case by the hon. Member, and after due inquiry I informed him that there seemed no reason for re-opening the case, which had been already thoroughly considered by the Admiralty. Holmes was reported by a Court of Inquiry to have been guilty of several acts of breach of discipline and neglect of duty. The Superintendent of Naval Reserves, after careful consideration of the whole case, decided to deprive him of his good conduct badges, and ordered him to apply for his pension. I have no knowledge as to the man having refused his pension, nor as to his being in a state of destitution. If this latter be the case, it is his own fault for not taking the pension.
  MR. ROSS: If the man applies now for his pension, will he get it?
  MR. ROBERTSON: Of course. He is entitled to it.

  DUBLIN POST OFFICE.
  MR. L. P. HAYDEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for Dublin County, N. (Mr. J. J. Clancy), I beg to ask the Postmaster General, whether any settlement has yet been arrived at of the claims of the Second Division Clerks of the Secretary's Office, General Post Office, Dublin; and, whether, if there is no immediate prospect of a satisfactory arrangement being come to, he will consent to have the matter referred to the Commission about to be appointed to inquire into the grievances of the post office officials.
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. ARNOLD MORLEY,): The case referred to by the hon. Member is under the consideration of the Treasury, and I am shortly expecting a decision. The matter will not be referred to the Committee alluded to.

  MERCANTILE MARINE FUND.
  MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, when he proposes to comply with Section 679 of the Merchant Shipping Act, which requires the Board of Trade, as soon as may be after the meeting of Parliament in every year, to cause the accounts of the Mercantile Marine Fund for the preceding year to be laid before Parliament, by so laying the accounts for the year 1894; and, whether these accounts will be so laid before the Estimates for 1895–96, in connection with the Mercantile Marine Fund, are brought on for discussion.
  MR. BRYCE: Under an Order of the Treasury made in 1889 and renewed in 1894 under the provisions of the Accounts Presentation Act of 1869, the accounts of the Mercantile Marine Fund are now presented only as part of the appropriation accounts for each year, and are presented shortly after the meeting of Parliament. Those for the year 1893–94 were so presented in February last.

  PRESBYTERIAN CHAPLAINCY OF GIBRALTAR.
  MR. GILBERT BEITH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, if he is aware that a

  641
  grievance of long standing exists with respect to a Presbyterian Chaplaincy at Gibraltar; and, if, as recommended by the Army Chaplains Committee of the Church of Scotland, the Government will add a Chaplaincy to the Establishment to supply the want complained of, thus providing that the Presbyterian Acting Chaplain at Gibraltar may be under the same terms as to length of service as all other chaplains and all officers and men serving in the Army?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The number of Presbyterian soldiers usually quartered at Gibraltar, taking the average of many years, is not nearly sufficient to justify the appointment of a commissioned Presbyterian Chaplain to the Forces. At this moment the presence in the fortress of a Scotch regiment might seem to afford sufficient reason for such an appointment, but this reason will disappear when the regiment in question leaves Gibraltar on its tour of service.

  FORT GEORGE, INVERNESS-SHIRE.
  MR. BEITH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the Presbyterian Acting Chaplain, ministering at Fort George, Inverness-shire, does not preach in Gaelic, while the great majority of the troops at the depôt are Gaelic-speaking, and members and adherents of the Free Church; and, if the Government will grant the privileges and remuneration of an Acting Chaplain to a minister who can preach in Gaelic, and will be nominated by the Free Church of Scotland for service among the troops at that depôt?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Acting Chaplain of a depôt is appointed on the recommendation of the Commanding Officer, and while he holds the appointment it is not in the power of the War Department to grant the emoluments and privileges of the office to any other minister. I certainly think that at Fort George, where a large proportion, at any rate, of the recruits must be Gaelic-speaking, the Acting Chaplain ought to be able to speak Gaelic, and I am making some inquiry into this individual case. I may add that the present Acting Chaplain has held the appointment for eleven years.
  MR. WEIRasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would take some steps for the appointment of a Gaelic-speaking minister at a depôt where there were as many as 400 Gaelic-speaking soldiers.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I will inquire whether it is the case that there are so many Gaelic-speaking recruits at the depôt. If there are so many who are without the services of a Gaelic-speaking minister, that is—I am expressing my own opinion only—a state of things that ought not to exist.
  MR. BEITHasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would consider the advisability of appointing a Gaelic-speaking minister as suggested in his question.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No, Sir; an Acting Chaplain has been appointed, and while he is Acting Chaplain he must receive the payment in respect of the services for the Presbyterian troops. We cannot duplicate the emoluments of the Chaplain, and the present Acting Chaplain, as long as he holds the office, must, I am afraid, receive the emoluments.

  CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT.
  MR. ALPHEUS MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any Report of the Inspection, under the Cruelty to Animals (39 and 40 Vict., c. 77) has been made by the Inspector for 1894; and, if so, when will the Report be presented?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. H. H. ASQUITH,): The Report, so far as England and Scotland are concerned, is ready for presentation. We are waiting for the Irish portion, which is promised and will, I hope, be ready very shortly.
  MR. ALPHEUS MORTONasked whether it would not be possible to have these Reports presented much earlier in the year. When presented very late they were not of much use.
  MR. ASQUITH: These Reports are founded upon returns which do not come in until some time after the beginning of the year. There must, therefore, be some delay; but I will do what I can to expedite the presentation.

  STIRLING FREE CHURCH.
  MR. BEITH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the Presbyterian Acting Chaplain in Stirling, nominated by the War Office, receives capitation pay for troops who do not attend his ministry, and who worship in the Free South Church there; and, if the Government will order that capitation grant be paid to the clergymen of the Free Church who have ministered there to the troops without remuneration for nearly fifty years?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Arrangements are under consideration locally which will, I have some reason to hope, meet the wish expressed in the hon. Member's question.

  DISCHARGING FIREARMS IN COUNTY DONEGAL.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether his attention has been called to the fact that complaints were made to the constabulary authorities that, on the night of the 22nd May, a sheriff's bailiff and emergency man named Barney Mulloy discharged shots from a revolver in a public street of Mount Charles, Donegal; that about ten days previously he had also discharged his revolver in the village of Trosses, and had likewise drawn his revolver upon three sailors and threatened to shoot them; (2) whether he is aware that on the 20th May, District Inspector Flower attended in Mount Charles for the purpose of investigating charges by local gentlemen against Sergeant Woods, Royal Irish Constabulary, of the Mount Charles Station, or neglect of duty in not promptly prosecuting Mulloy; (3) was this investigation public or private; who were examined as witnesses; and were the witnesses sworn; (4) will the charges against Mulloy be investigated in the ordinary way by the institution of criminal proceedings; and (5) is Mulloy still licensed to carry firearms by the resident magistrate; and, if so, will his licence be suspended pending the investigation of the several charges preferred against him?
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: Complaints have been made to the constabulary to the effect stated in the first paragraph,
  644
  with the exception that the police are not aware, nor has any complaint been made to them, that the bailiff drew his revolver on the sailors. The district inspector had a conversation, on the date mentioned in second paragraph, with a man who made a complaint of of the nature indicated against the local sergeant. The District Inspector was on ordinary inspection on the occasion, and there was no investigation in the strict sense of the word, as it was not on oath and no witnesses were examined. The bailiff Mulloy was prosecuted at Petty Sessions yesterday for the offences to which I have referred in my reply to the first paragraph. He was fined 10s. (the maximum penalty) in one case, and bound over to keep the peace for twelve months in the second case.

  SNEEM PIER, COUNTY KERRY.
  MR. D. KILBRIDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what has been the cause of the delay in the erection of a pier at Sneem, County Kerry, by the Congested Districts Board; and whether he is aware that the construction of this pier was promised twelve months ago, and that the grand jury in the meantime passed a presentment for £150 to construct an approach road, the amount estimated by the county surveyor?
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: The question refers, it is presumed, to the erection of a pier at Sneem, County Kerry. I am informed by the Congested Districts Board that the difficulties in arranging with local owners about an approach road to the proposed pier at this place have caused delay, but that if the matter is settled in a reasonable time the Board will construct the pier.
  In answer to a further question,
  MR. J. MORLEYpromised to do what he could to influence the Congested Districts Board to proceed with the work.

  RECRUITING.
  MR. A. M. BROOKFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has

  645
  been directed to the fact that in the last Annual Report of the Inspector General of recruiting, some stress is laid on a gradual improvement having taken place in the social position of the recruits; whether such improvement is observable in the educational acquirement of the recruits; and whether, having regard to the importance of securing for the modern soldier a fair prospect of civil employment upon leaving the colours, he will reconsider the desirability of offering special encouragement to warrant or non-commissioned officers and men, in availing themselves of such facilities for technical education as the various garrison towns may afford?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: As compulsory attendance at school was abolished for soldiers in 1886 there are no means of ascertaining the educational acquirements of recruits. Little more than one-third of the men hold certificates of education, but there is a steady and satisfactory increase in the number of those who hold first and second class certificates. As regards the offer of encouragement to non-commissioned officers and men to improve their knowledge by taking advantage of technical schools, this is a very excellent object, and while I have nothing to add to my reply of Tuesday last, I will bear the matter in mind.
  MAJOR RASCHasked, with reference to the last paragraph of the question whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that out of 8,000 discharged soldiers on the official register last year only 350 had obtained employment under Government, and whether the right hon. Gentleman endorsed the optimistic report of the Inspector General of recruiting with reference to the recruiting establishment.
  MR. SPEAKERcalled the hon. Member to Order, on the ground that the matter did not arise out of the question on the Order Paper.

  LONDON POSTMEN'S UNIFORM.
  MR. BROOKFIELD: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether any complaints or representations have reached him as to irregularities on the part of the London Postmen in the matter of uniform; and whether any inquiry has been held on this subject by
  646
  the officials of the Postal Department; and, if so, whether it is probable that he will be in possession of any Report as to the facts, prior to taking the Vote for the Uniform Clothing of the Postal Service?
  MR. ARNOLD MORLEY: I have received no representations, except those of the hon. Member, as to irregularities on the part of London Postmen in the matter of wearing their uniform. An inquiry in the matter has been made by a Departmental Committee, which has made a report recommending certain changes with the object of promoting smartness as well as the comfort of the men. These recommendations are now under consideration, but some little time may elapse before a decision can be arrived at.

  SWINE FEVER ACT.
  MR. HENRY CHAPLIN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether it is true that, although the Swine Fever Act has now been in operation for nearly two years, the number of cases reported to the Board of Agriculture for the first 20 weeks of 1895 considerably exceeds the number reported for the first 20 weeks in 1894, and largely exceeds the number of cases reported for the similar period in 1893 and 1892?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. HERBERT GARDNER,): It is the case that the number of Reports of swine fever received during the first 20 weeks of the current year considerably exceeds the corresponding figure for 1894; but the proportion of cases in which the disease is actually found to exist is now very much less than it was, and during the last seven weeks there has been a slight reduction in the number of outbreaks as compared with 1894. This fact, coupled with the reduction of the number of cases reported from Ireland, gives me some ground for hoping that the position will continue to prove.

  RABIES.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether rabies is increasing to such an alarming extent in Great Britain that

  647
  339 cases of that disease have been reported during the first 20 weeks of 1895, as against 69 cases in 1894; 34 cases in 1893; and 9 cases only in 1892—during the first 20 weeks of each of those years respectively.
  MR. HERBERT GARDNER: It is unfortunately the case that rabies has increased to the extent stated in the question—the increase, however, being practically confined to the counties of Cheshire, Lancashire, and the West Riding. I need scarcely say that the subject is one which is engaging my anxious attention, and we are constantly in communication with the local authorities with a view to secure the efficient enforcement of the muzzling regulations which are now in operation over practically the whole of the dangerous districts. If in addition we secure adequate support from public opinion and from the magisterial bench when breaches of the regulations are brought under their notice by the police, there should be no difficulty in effecting an early and substantial improvement of the position as regards this terrible disease.
  MR. CHAPLINasked whether the Board of Agriculture were taking any direct action to check the spread of the disease?
  MR. GARDNERreplied that it was unnecessary for the Board to take direct action. The Board was in constant communication with the local authorities on this subject.
  MR. CHAPLINasked whether the right hon. Gentleman thought that action taken through the local authorities was sufficient in view of this extraordinary increase in rabies?
  MR. GARDNERsaid, that all the Department could do was to induce the local authorities to enforce the muzzling order.
  MR. CHAPLINasked whether no further action would be taken by the Board of Agriculture?
  MR. GARDNER: No, Sir; it is not necessary.

  POTATO CROPS IN IRELAND.
  MR. JASPER TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant whether he has received a Resolution from the Mohill Board of Guardians, praying that they
  648
  may be enabled to obtain as a loan from the Board of Works a sum varying from £100 to £300, for the purpose of supplying to the farmers of the union spraying machines for the protection of their potato crops, the loan to be repaid on the same terms as the Seeds Loan; and, whether he can state what steps will be taken with regard to this request?
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I regret I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the question addressed to me on this point by the hon. Member for Cork on the 16th instant.
  MR. BARTLEY: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can find another sum for the English farmers who are in the same condition?
  [No, answer was given].

  SPECIAL CAMPAIGN PENSION.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he can state on what ground a special campaign pension has been refused to Philip Curran, of Derrywillow, County Leitrim, who served in the 59th Regiment, and was two years with the colours in China, and assisted at the capture of Canton, and at several other engagements?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital do not trace any application from Philip Curran of the 59th Regiment. If the dates of the man's enlistment and discharge are communicated to the War Office, further inquiry can be made.

  PLYMOUTH POST OFFICE.
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE: On behalf of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth, Sir Edward Clarke), I beg to ask the Postmaster General, why the scheme for regulating the hours of employment of the sorting clerks in the Plymouth Post Office, which was approved by the Surveyor in 1894, and returned to Plymouth sanctioned in March last, has not been brought into force; and, whether he can say if it will be brought into operation at an early date?
  MR. ARNOLD MORLEY: Some delay in giving effect to the scheme referred to has unfortunately occurred owing to a misapprehension on the part

  649
  of the officers charged with carrying out the scheme, but I am now informed that the new arrangements of duties will take effect on Sunday next.

  GUN LICENCE, COUNTY GALWAY.
  MR. D. SHEEHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, on what grounds was Mr. Thomas Mulvahill, of Whitegate, County Galway, refused a gun licence by the resident magistrate of the district?
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: It appears that in December last the licensing officer did refuse to issue an arms licence in this case. It is, of course, open to Mulvahill to make a fresh application which will be promptly complied with.

  WOOLWICH ARSENAL.
  MR. J. KEIR-HARDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, can he state how many workmen have been dismissed from the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich, during the current month; and, whether the dismissals include any of the foremen or persons in authority?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. W. WOODALL,): Two hundred and sixty-five persons have been discharged in May from Woolwich Arsenal, including one principal foreman, one foreman, and one assistant foreman. This reduction is under 2½ per cent. on the number of men employed at the beginning of the month

  TAILORS' STRIKE AT ASHTON- UNDER-LYNE.
  MR. J. HAVELOCK WILSON: On behalf of the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. KEIR HARDIE), I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that a second batch of tailors on strike at Ashton-under-Lyne were fined 5s. and costs at the Police Court for alleged obstruction, although it was proved that the pickets kept constantly on the move, and did not of themselves cause any obstruction; and whether any action can be taken to prevent Magistrates from interfering with pickets who are acting legally?
  MR. ASQUITH: This is the same point as that raised by the hon. Member in a question to me a short time back. The facts were not disputed. The defendants were represented by Counsel, and the Justices expressed themselves willing to state a case for the opinion of the Divisional Court if Counsel considered they were wrong in their construction of the law. Under those circumstances I cannot interfere.

  RIOTS AT RUSSIAN COTTON MILLS.
  MR. LEES KNOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been called to the report from Moscow, dated 23rd May, which recently appeared in the Standard, to the effect that the frequency of riots at cotton spinning mills in the central manufacturing districts of Russia is increasing; that recently a riot broke out at a mill in the Ivanhoe district, Tekova, at which a Mr. J. Crawshaw was the manager, with two English foremen; and that, after the two foreman had held the crowd at bay for some hours, Mr. J. Crawshaw was beaten to death and his body mutilated beyond recognition; is he aware that Mr. J. Crawshaw leaves a widow and two young children; that no news has been heard of one of the two foremen, who is reported to have made his escape after being severely beaten; that the manager's house was completely sacked; and that two governesses, one being an Englishwoman, received more or less severe injuries; will he inquire into the accuracy of this report; and what action Her Majesty's Government propose to take in the matter? I should like to say that I ask this question on behalf of the elder brother of Mr. Crawshaw, who is one of my constituents.
  SIR E. GREY: The attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the statement, and Her Majesty's Ambassador at St. Petersburg has already been requested to report upon the matter and will make immediate inquiry. Until that report is received it would be premature to say what action should be taken.
  MR. LEES KNOWLES: Will the House have notice of the Report when the hon. Gentleman receives it?
  SIR E. GREY: As soon as the information is received it will be sent to the relatives. If the hon. Member likes to put down a question, I shall be pleased to give him all the information we obtain.

  DEATH AT CHARMOUTH, DORSET.
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if his attention has been called to the death of Charles Rowe, of Charmouth, Dorset, who was brought back to his lodgings at midnight on 16th December 1894 in an insensible condition, and died two days afterwards is he aware that Rowe was allowed to remain all night in the passage of the house where he lodged, and no medical man was called in to attend him until late in the afternoon of the next day; by whom was Rowe's death certified, and what was stated upon the certificate to have been the cause of death; was any inquiry made by the police into the circumstances under which Rowe met with the injuries which resulted in his death, or any inquest held; and does he contemplate taking any steps to carry out the recommendations of the Select Committee on Death Certification, and to ensure that every case of sudden, violent, or suspicious death shall be inquired into by a public official?
  MR. ASQUITH: My attention was called, in January, to the case of Charles Rowe, of Charmouth, Dorset, who was brought back to his lodgings at midnight on December 16, 1894, in an insensible condition, and died two days afterwards. The facts, as reported to me, are, that Rowe was allowed to remain all night in the passage of the house where he lodged, and no medical man was called in to attend him until late in the afternoon of the next day. Dr. Kerby, who attended the deceased, gave a certificate that death was due to concussion of the spine and paralysis. Before giving this certificate he informed the coroner of the facts, and was told by him that he might properly give the certificate. Inquiries were made by the police, but they failed to find any ground for supposing the injury to be other than accidental. The coroner, in whose discretion it lies to hold or not to hold
  652
  an inquest, did not consider it necessary to hold one. The recommendations of the Select Committee on Death Certification are receiving consideration by the Local Government Board, but they would hardly affect a case like this, where the facts came fully before the officer empowered by law to hold a public inquiry. I think the case is one where an inquest might properly have been held, but I have no power to give instructions in this matter to the coroner.

  PARISH PROPERTY.
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether it is necessary that a Parish Council should have a common seal before they can insist upon a transfer to them of parish property, being capital money now invested in the name of the churchwardens; and what steps a Parish Council should take to obtain such a transfer, when the bank at which the churchwardens' account has been kept refuses to make the transfer, on the ground that a Parish Council being a corporate body have no common seal?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The fact that the Parish Council have no common seal is immaterial. The hon. Member will see by referring to Section 3, Subsection 9, of the Local Government Act, that that is expressly provided. I would suggest that the attention of the bank should be drawn to this provision.

  MADAGASCAR.
  SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the letters by Mr. Bennett Burleigh from Madagascar which have lately appeared in The Daily Telegraph, and especially to the appeal addressed by the Queen of Madagascar to Great Britain; and whether Her Majesty's Government will offer their good offices in order if possible to stop the war, and to save this Christian and progressive people from the ruin of a military invasion?
  SIR E. GREY: I have not had time since the hon. Member's question appeared on the Paper to refer to the letters in

  653
  The Daily Telegraph, nor has any appeal been received in the Foreign Office from the Queen of Madagascar. Her Majesty's Government would view with the greatest satisfaction a peaceful settlement of the differences between the French Government and the Hovas, but there is no prospect that the method suggested in the question would contribute to that result.

  POACHING IN COUNTY DERRY.
  MR. W. KENNY: On behalf of the hon. Member for Antrim (Mr. W. E. Macartney), I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the Excise authorities have not yet prosecuted the three men who were poaching in the townland of Ballybrest, County Derry, on 8th August without licences, in the close season?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT,): I am informed that three poachers were met at Ballybrest on the 8th of August last by two keepers, and that after some words the two keepers fired at the poachers, two of whom they seriously wounded in the legs and feet. The keepers were tried and sentenced, one to 12, the other to 6 months' imprisonment with hard labour for the offence. The affair was reported to the Board of Inland Revenue late in November last; but they, in the exercise of their discretion, having regard to the date of the offence (between three and four months before the report of it) and the serious wounds inflicted on two of the poachers, decided not to take any proceedings under the Excise Laws. It would now be too late to do so.

  GOLD-MINING IN WALES.
  MAJOR JONES: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer—(1) how many tons of ore have during the nine months last past been treated at the Morgan Gold Mine, North Wales, what is the average yield of gold per ton of ore treated, and what is the gross value of such gold; (2) how many tons of ore were treated at such mine last month, and what was the average yield per ton; (3) how many leases or take-notes are at present held by lessees of the Crown for gold-mining purposes in North Wales, and what
  654
  aggregate acreage do such leases and take-notes embrace; (4) what amount has been paid to or is due to the Crown by way of royalties during the last nine months, and what amount by way of dead rents and fees for leases or take notes during the same period; and (5) is the Government taking any—and, if so—what steps to encourage the opening up and development of these mines?
  The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It is presumed that the mine referred to is the Gwynfynydd Mine, the property of the British Gold Fields Company. In the period mentioned, 10,747 tons of ore have been treated, yielding an average of 12¼ dwts. per ton. The gross value, assuming the price to be £3 10s. per oz., would be £23,105. The reply to the second question is 1,385 tons, yielding an average of 1 oz. 6 dwts. 19 grs. per ton. There are at present 27 leases for varying terms, embracing an aggregate acreage of upwards of 10,000 acres, and 50 take-notes for a year, embracing an acreage of similar amount. The receipt from fees for leases or take-notes has been, for the nine months, £129, and from rent and royalties, for the year to 31st March 1895, £642.
  MR. W. PRITCHARD MORGAN: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the date of a gold-mining lease granted by the Crown to Mr. R. H. Wood, of Rugby; what is the area of land so leased; what is the dead rent reserved by the Crown; what is the term of such lease; and are there any—and, if so, what—working conditions imposed by such lease; what other leases have been granted by the Crown to other landowners in Wales, and what area do such leases in the aggregate embrace; what are the terms of such leases, and do they contain any—and, if so, what—working conditions; have applications been made puring the last three months for licences to work royal mines upon private lands in Merionethshire; will he explain how it is that though applications have been in for months no decision has up to the present time been come to by the department as to how the applications should be treated; and does the Crown intend to grant leases of Crown mines to miners irrespective of the desires of the landowners?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: This question only appeared on the Paper this morning, and I could not answer it without further notice. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will put it off till after Whitsuntide.

  DEATH DUTIES.
  MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can say approximately when the Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue for the financial year ending 31st March 1895, will be issued; and, whether he can now state what details relative to the various Death Duties now levied, and their respective yield at the respective rates of duty, will be given in that Report?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It is hoped that the Report will be issued by the end of July, or the beginning of August. With regard to the Estate Duty, the yield at the several rates of Duty will be given, also the capital value of the various chief categories of property brought under the charge. The same information as heretofore will be given with regard to the other Death Duties.

  BALINTORE HARBOUR.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, having regard to the dangerous condition of Balintore Harbour as a shelter for fishing boats and vessels, he will state whether it is the fact that the Scotch Fishery Board refuse to consult an independent engineer; and, whether they act entirely upon the reports of their own engineers who were the constructors of the harbour?
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN: I cannot answer a question about the conduct of the Fishery Board without referring it to the Fishery Board. I will answer the hon. Member after Whitsuntide.

  CHITRAL.
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, before taking action as regards Chitral affairs, Her Majesty's Government will afford the House an opportunity of expressing its views on the subject?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Of course the question with reference to Chitral is a very grave one. The Government are not able at present to make a statement on the subject, but when a policy is decided on the House will certainly be informed of it.

  INCOME TAX.
  MR. M. BIDDULPH: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to remedy the omission in the existing law of any provision to enable a landlord to claim repayment of Income Tax, Schedule A, assessed upon his farms in hand (on proof of no rent or profits having been made) in the same way as he can claim reduction or repayment of Income Tax, Schedule A (Form 192), in respect of any rent remitted to any of his farm tenants?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I do not quite understand in what the defect in the law to which the questioner refers, consists. If a landlord who bonâ-fide farms his own land, makes no rent or profit, which I am afraid is often the case just now, he can can obtain repayment of Income Tax, Schedule A, under Section 23 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act 1890.
  MR. BIDDULPH: I have applied at Somerset House, and they have declined to grant me any relief.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: If I find out that my hon. Friend has not made a profit on his farm, I will see that he gets his money back again.
  MR. BIDDULPH: I have all my accounts.

  PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  MR. R. W. HANBURYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, as there were Amendments down on the Paper to the Naval Works Bill, he proposed to make any arrangement for bringing the Bill forward before Twelve o'clock?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I desire to make a statement to the House with reference to these Votes on Account to-night. There are two votes included in the Paper relating to Uganda and the surrounding

  657
  district. The first vote relates to the administration of Uganda, but there is also another vote for British East Africa. That vote relates to payment, by way of purchase or compensation to the East Africa Company, for the territories to be taken over by them—territories which lie between Uganda and Umbasa. On May 13 I was asked by the hon. Member for the Kirkdale Division (Sir G. Baden-Powell)—
  "whether, having regard to the interregnum in the administration of British East Africa, Her Majesty's Government will forthwith complete the agreement come to with the British East Africa Company, by inviting Parliament to provide the necessary sum of £50,000 by means of a Vote on Account or other method, which will avoid the serious delay incidental to the ordinary course of supply?"
  In answer to that question, I said:—
  "Yes, Sir; the matter will be included in the Vote on Account, which will be taken before Whitsuntide. That will be the proper opportunity for Parliament to express an opinion on the subject."
  In accordance with this statement I was prepared to include the Vote in the Vote on Account; but as I understood that objection was taken to that course, on the ground that the Vote dealt with new matter, and was not germane to the former Uganda Votes which had been taken, I consulted you, Sir, on the subject, and I found that your view was that this was not sufficiently ejusdem generis with the other Votes upon Uganda. Being anxious to observe the strict rules of the House, especially with regard to financial matters, I at once determined to withdraw this Vote from the Vote on Account. Vote II., in head 5, which relates to the administration of Uganda, will remain; Vote VII., which relates to the purchase from the company of their rights, must be postponed. Of course, if I had been aware of the objection I should have fixed a separate day for the discussion of this Vote. I thought until a short time ago that there would be no objection to including this Vote in the Vote on Account; but there is nothing now to be done, except to say that we shall not wait for the regular course of the Estimates. I undertake to put this Vote down for one day in the week in which we meet after Whitsuntide. That being so, of course, my hon.
  658
  Friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs will be unable to make the statement which he intended to make with reference to this territory lying between Uganda and Mombasa, and how it is to be dealt with. But we will fix a day for the full discussion of this subject. The hon. Member has asked me what we shall do to night. If the Vote on Account is finished about 10 o'clock or some hour of that kind, we shall be able to go on with the Naval Works Bill, and I hope that we shall pass it through the House to-night.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The speech of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to Uganda is quite satisfactory. He has clearly explained to the House the reason why the Government have not been able to fulfil the pledge, which they made for the convenience of the House, that the Vote should be taken before Whitsuntide. As the right hon. Gentleman has promised that the Vote shall be taken immediately after Whitsuntide, everybody will be satisfied with the course which the Government have adopted. I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is in a position to give us now a general view of the business during the week in which we meet again.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: As regards the first day, the most material thing is to fix some non-contentious measures, and we propose to forward some Bills which belong to that class. For Monday we shall put down the Local Government (Scotland) Bill, the Outdoor Relief (Ireland) Bill, the Light Railways Bill, and the Conciliation of Labour Disputes Bill. For Tuesday we propose to put down the Crofters Bill, the Truck Acts Amendment Bill, and the Coal Mines Regulation Bill. As the first Order, at any rate, on Thursday we shall put down the Uganda Vote. That is as much as I can say.
  SIR G. OSBORNE MORGAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Welsh Church Bill will be taken again?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: As soon as we possibly can.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: There is a rather important Amendment on the Naval Works Bill which will take some

  659
  time. Would it not be better to postpone the Bill till after Whitsuntide?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I was told on excellent authority that the Report stage would not take more than an hour.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: As the right hon. Gentleman says, the Local Government (Scotland) Bill is not a contentious measure, but it excites a very general interest among Scotch Members. Has the right hon. Gentleman forgotten that the Scotch Members cannot possibly be present on Monday, unless they leave Scotland on Saturday? In view of that fact, will he not on this occasion depart from what is becoming the permanent custom, of putting down Scotch business for the first day after the holidays?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The hon. Baronet has asked me that question before, and I must give him the same answer. It must be remembered that I have been rather liberal as to the holidays.

  THE GOVERNORSHIP OF NEW SOUTH WALES.
  MR. HANBURY: asked the Under Secretary for the Colonies whether it was not the fact that strong remonstrances had been made by the Government of New South Wales with reference to the long delay in the appointment of a new Governor; whether it was true, as announced in the newspapers, that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Walsall had been nominated for the post; and what was the reason for the delay?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I can only answer the hon. Member's question to this extent. No appointment has as yet been made by the Government, and the first intimation of such appointment, when it is made, will be given to the Government of New South Wales itself.
  MR. HANBURY: Have not strong remonstrances been made on this subject?
  MR. BUXTON: I cannot say anything more at present.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: What is the reason of the delay?
  MR. BUXTON: I am not at liberty to make any further statement.

  THE LOCAL VETO BILL.
  MR. C. J. DARLINGasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it was certain that the Local Veto Bill would not be taken immediately after the holidays?
  [No answer was returned.]

  LAND LAW BILL.
  MR. HAYDENasked whether the right hon. Gentleman could state when the Irish Land Bill would be taken?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I was asked to make a statement about the Business of the week after the holidays. I cannot go further.

  THE WHITSUNTIDE ADJOURNMENT.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in moving—
  "That to-morrow the House do meet at 12 of the clock, and at its rising do adjourn until Monday, the 10th of June, and that as soon as the Report of Supply is disposed of, Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without question put"—
  said, I make the Motion, of course, on the understanding that we take the Vote on Account to-night and the Report to-morrow.
  Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  Mr. MELLOR in the Chair.
  (In the Committee.)

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPART- MENTS, 1895–96 (SECOND VOTE ON ACCOUNT).
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a further sum, not exceeding £5,310,050, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charges for the following Civil Services, and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1896."
  MR. ALPHEUS MORTONsaid, that on another occasion he should certainly raise a question on Vote I.; but on Vote II. he wished to thank the First Commissioner of Works for having made admission free to Hampton Court Gardens. In reference to these Gardens, to Hyde Park, and to other such places, he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to consent to the erection of those public refreshment stalls to which he had often called his attention.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. HERBERT GLADSTONE,)said, he was considering the question which had been raised by his hon. Friend, but he could not hold out much hope of establishing what was desired in Hyde Park at present. It was desirable, however, to consider the question in the interests of the public.
  MR. HENRY LABOUCHEREsaid, that it appeared to him his right hon. Friend was himself in favour of the proposal. Was there, then, any baneful influence at work of which the Committee was not aware, and which was standing between the public and the providing of temperance refreshments? In the parks under the London County Council those kiosks were provided, and they were largely patronised by the public. If it were admitted that Hyde Park was a park for the general use of the public and not for the use of one particular class, he submitted that what had been done in the other public parks could also be carried out in Hyde Park.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid, they were aware that there was an influence at work behind the right hon. Gentleman, and until that influence was got rid of they must necessarily be charitable to the First Commissioner of Works. He invited the right hon. Gentleman to take a ride or a walk with him through some of the County Council parks, and to see the way in which the public were catered for there, not only in the matter of tea and other refreshments, but in bicycling and sports of every description which the County Council had provided in deference to public opinion. Tea and other refreshments were provided for in Battersea Park, and every day between 10 and 12 o'clock, there were at least a thousand persons learning to ride the bicycle.
  662
  There was no reason why a similar state of things should not exist in Hyde Park every day; but if the right hon. Gentleman contemplated extending the pleasure of learning the bicycle to the public using Hyde Park he trusted that the example of the County Council would be followed, and that three or four athletic policemen would be taken out of their uniform, dressed in plain clothes, mounted on bicycles with the object of preventing every Tom, Dick, and Harry of a "scorcher" from making himself disagreeable to the many hundreds of other visitors there. The Committee could not hold the First Commissioner of Works responsible for the dilatory way in which the Hyde Park authorities adopted reforms; but he wanted to know whether there were not certain stretches of Hyde Park which might be devoted to lawn tennis, and in some cases to cricket? It seemed to him to be unjust that there should be in the centre of Hyde Park a large stretch of available cricket ground not used by the children or pedestrians while the people resident in the north-west of London were compelled to go over to Battersea Park, and there congest the already crowded recreation-grounds there. Portions of Kensington Gardens and Hyde Park might be used for those games. They might be told that there was a danger of interfering with persons using the Row. He hoped not, for the riders using the Row had a right to have their convenience consulted. But there were stretches of ground in the park more than a cricket hit away from the Row, and these might very well be utilised. This would be the means of giving Whiteley's assistants, for example, the opportunity of recreation on a Saturday afternoon, and thus not compel them to go a long distance to Battersea Park. The right hon. Gentleman had done much good in Hyde Park already, but against the provision of music bands there had to be set off the absence of accommodation for the public obtaining a cup of tea or a glass of milk.
  MR. ALPHEUS MORTONsaid that he was very thankful for what the right hon. Gentleman had already done in connection with the parks, and for what he now promised; but he intended to bring this question forward

  663
  again on the regular Estimates. It should be clearly understood that these parks and gardens belonged to the people and not to rangers or anyone else. The public therefore were entitled to have the fullest use of these recreation grounds. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would let the persons in authority know that the parks and the gardens must be so used that the greatest number of the public should get the most benefit from them. Provision for refreshments ought to be allowed by the authorities in order to meet the convenience of the public.
  MR. T. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, that he had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman had done much for the parks during his tenure of office, but much still remained to be done. He knew Hyde Park and Battersea Park well, and he unhesitatingly gave the palm of superiority to Battersea Park. The macadam road in that park could not be beaten as a trotting ground for horses, while he did not know a worse piece of macadam than the road in Hyde Park. There was every reason for allowing games to be played, at least in Kensington Gardens, if not in Hyde Park. He was in favour of lawn tennis and cycling; but in the Tuileries Gardens in Paris there were two real tennis courts, and he saw no reason why tennis courts should not be built either in Kensington Gardens or Hyde Park. All games were good; they developed youth, and added in every way to their physical qualities. What had been carried out with so much success in Battersea Park could also be carried out either in Hyde Park or in Kensington Gardens.
  MR. W. R. CREMERasked whether it was not possible to provide more free seats in Hyde Park for the use of the public. In the north-west and other portions of the park there was an absolute absence of seats for the use of the public, and people when tired and weary were compelled to hire and pay for the use of a chair. Why should this be so? He also wanted information about the revenue derived from letting the chairs? Was there a contractor? If so, what did the contractor pay for the privilege of letting the chairs. An enormous revenue must be derived by some one
  664
  from this source. He thought, also, that the right hon. Gentleman might follow what had been done in Kew Gardens, and erect a kiosk for light refreshments. Some five or six years ago he appealed to the then Commissioner of Works to provide the public with some kind of light refreshments in Kew Gardens, and, after some two or three years pegging away, the right hon. Gentleman gave way, and undertook that a kiosk should be erected. This had been done by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin while he was in Office. Why, he asked, could not something of the same kind be done in Hyde Park? Those who visited the park, especially on Sundays, had no opportunity of slaking their thirst, except by leaving the park and going to the neighbouring taverns. He wished to ask the First Commissioner three questions: First, whether he would not provide more free seats for the public in Hyde Park? Secondly, who had the letting of the chairs, and where the money went to? and Thirdly, whether the right hon. Gentleman would see to the erection of a kiosk in Hyde Park for the sale of light refreshments as speedily as possible?
  MR. J. G. WEIRwas understood to refer to the wages of the men employed at Holyrood Park and the Edinburgh Botanic Gardens. In Kew Gardens, also, there were four women employed at only 9s. 4d. a week, which was very far from a living wage. He did not move a reduction, in the hope that his right hon. Friend would see to these matters.
  SIR RICHARD TEMPLEasked whether anything had been done with regard to the pay and allowances of the gardeners employed in Kew Gardens. A Departmental Committee was appointed some time ago, and he recently asked a question on the subject, and was told that the matter was still under consideration. The wages of the men should, he contended, be levelled up to the same class of workmen employed in the parks and gardens within the metropolitan area. He desired to ask the Minister whether there was any chance of an early settlement.
  MR. G. C. T. BARTLEYhoped that in any changes that might be made in the direction of allowing games in Hyde Park, the

  665
  comfort of elderly persons and others unable to take part in those games, but who still desired to use the Park, would be considered. He hoped that the First Commissioner would remember that those persons had to walk about the park for exercise, and that he would reserve some parts where they could walk in safety.
  SIR ARTHUR HAYTERsaid, that he remembered a kiosk in Hyde Park, and had himself played cricket there without interference. It must, however, be remembered that Hyde Park was used for exercising our horse soldiers, and, that the space was limited. If rough cricket were all that was desired, that was well enough, but he doubted whether there was sufficient spare space to lay out special grounds for cricket.
  MR. R. W. HANBURYasked for a definition as to the right of the public to play games in the public parks. He agreed to a great extent with the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. J. Burns) that games ought to be allowed in those parts of the parks which were not much used. No doubt Battersea Park was congested owing to the opportunities there afforded. He expressed a desire for a larger number of free seats for the accommodation of the poorer portion of the public. He did not know how the system of hiring out chairs originated, or, rather, of receiving a revenue in the park from a number of private chairs, which, if they brought in any money to the public, ought to figure in the appropriations in aid. He did not believe that a penny of that revenue ever reached the Treasury at all. If not, they ought to know where the money went to. If there were a contractor, whom did he pay? He was glad that a greater use was being made of our military bands. This was, he thought, good both for the bands and for the public, but he thought that the public ought to contribute towards the expense of the band, and not allow that expense to fall, as heretofore, on the officers of the respective regiments. So long as the bands played for the benefit of the regiments it might be fair that the expense should be borne by the officers; but if the bands were going to play in the parks for the entertainment of the public, it was not fair that the burden should continue to be borne by the officers only. He should like to ask
  666
  who had the appointment of park-keepers, and whether preference was given to discharged soldiers and sailors.
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid that, as far as he was concerned, all the appointments were given to old soldiers and sailors, and the soldiers were taken from all branches of the service. The park-keepers were appointed by the First Commissioner, and the gate-keepers by the Ranger. He was aware that the expenses of the military bands were largely defrayed by the officers, supplemented by the earnings of the bandsmen themselves. As to the paying of the bands for playing in the parks, one of the conditions which the military authorities made at the outset was that no payment should be made by the Government. If any representation were brought forward that it was desirable that some contribution should be made towards the expenses in connection with playing in the parks, he should be happy to consider it; but at present no such representation had been made. As to wages at Kew, it was now settled that the wages of gardeners and labourers should be brought up to the scale of those paid in the London suburban parks. As to games in the parks, he should be only too glad to see opportunities for the playing of healthy games wherever it was possible to allow them. It was not only in Battersea Park such opportunities were allowed, because in Regent's Park pitches were given to no fewer than 340 different associations. That of itself put a considerable amount of pressure upon those who had to look after the parks. There were, of course, two sides to the question. He had considered the matter carefully with regard to Hyde Park, although it did not rest altogether with him. One of the practical difficulties he saw was, that if the park were to be made available for cricket, it ought to be chiefly available on Saturdays, which was the day most open to schools; but that was the day when the park was used almost from end to end by volunteers. He would look into the matter carefully again. It might be possible at the west end of the park to find places where cricket might be played with the minimum of inconvenience to the general public; but the matter would have to be carefully thought out, as in the part

  667
  of the park which was crossed by the public footpaths, the interests of the public and of the hon. Member for Islington would have to be carefully safeguarded. It was a matter of considerable difficulty and he would give to it all the attention in his power. With regard to the seats, the practice which had existed for some time had been to put the matter in the hands of a contractor, who bore all the expense and took all he could get, paying nothing for the privilege. It might seem an advantageous bargain for the contractor, but he had to bear large expenses and to meet considerable losses. He had to keep up a large staff in proportion to the takings, and he had to do a good deal of work in removing the chairs continually when large meetings and other events occurred. There were, no doubt, outgoings which prevented the bargain being so good as some might think. The system had existed for some time, and he could not say he had had occasion to look into it closely; but he would undertake to do so. [Several HON. MEMBERS: "Who is the contractor?"] Mr. Shotton. [Mr. CREMER: "Are there private chairs in any other park?"] Yes, in St. James's, Regent's and other Parks. He would consider whether a sufficient number of free seats were provided; he was under the impression that there were a considerable number in the north-west corner of Hyde Park. He quite agreed that there ought to be an ample supply of free seats for the public in all the parks. He had general sympathy with the proposal of the establishment of kiosks, and as far as he could, he would meet the wishes that had been expressed.
  *MR. CREMERsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had stated that there was already a kiosk and refreshment place in Kensington Gardens. That might be all very well for the nursemaids and the guardsmen who frequented that particular part of the park, but it was very little use for the general public. There was near the Reformers' Tree a clump of trees where a kiosk could be erected, in an admirable position; to some extent it would be out of sight, and yet be very convenient for large numbers of people who frequented that part of the park. With regard to the chairs he was satisfied that there must be an enormous revenue derived from
  668
  the lending of them. How did the contractor obtain the right? Was it granted by the Ranger or by the First Commissioners? The wooden chairs could be bought for 2s. or 3s. each. There must be an enormous revenue made out of the transaction, and it ought not to be the monopoly of one man.
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE: The contract was granted some time ago. [Several HON. MEMBERS: "By public tender?"] I cannot say.
  MR. CREMERasked if the same contractor possessed the right to place chairs in any other park?
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE: Yes, in St. James's Park.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid, he did not want the whole of Hyde Park given up to games. There were parts of the park that were rarely used, and here there might be a certain number of lawn tennis and cricket pitches, which would not interfere with the enjoyment of the park by the public. One of the most pleasing signs of the times in Battersea Park was to see cricket matches started at Seven or Eight o'clock in the morning by workmen who had been on night duty, such as postmen, policemen, and gas stokers, who went from work to the park; these were types of men who were very amenable to order, and they might very well be allowed to play in Hyde Park in the forenoon. He had derived some acquaintance with seating in the parks in another assembly. The seats in Hyde Park were not so advantageously placed as those in Regent's Park or Battersea Park. Immediately bicycles were allowed in Battersea Park, 200 additional seats were provided, on which learners might rest. Why were not more seats provided in Hyde Park? It was, probably, not the fault of the First Commissioner of Works, but of some one else. The chairs were let on the contract system, and the contractor placed them where they were likely to let most readily and he would get the most money out of them. No regard was paid to the wants of the average number of the public. In Battersea Park the contract system had been abolished. The County Council supplied the seats, and they were placed where most needed. The seats in Hyde Park should belong to the Office of Works. In Battersea

  669
  Park the contractor who let out the boats was charged £400 a year for the privilege of having the boats there. This, however, was a temporary arrangement, for the Council intended to get the boats themselves. This £400 a year enabled the Council to keep the lawn tennis and cricket pitches in order. As the coster said: "What we gain on the swings we lose on the roundabouts." Hyde, Park should be put abreast of Regent's Park and Battersea Park. He asked the Government to remove the one and only obstacle to the proper management of Hyde Park. What that was he would leave the First Commissioner of Works to contemplate during the Whitsuntide holidays.
  MR. T. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, more boats were used on the Serpentine, in Hyde Park than in Battersea Park, and the contractor paid nothing for the privilege of letting the boats. Something should be got out of the letting of the boats on the Serpentine when, at Battersea Park, the contractor paid £400 a year.
  MR. HAYDENwished to move to reduce the Vote by £500, in order to call attention to the proposed erection of a statue, in St. Stephen's Hall, to Oliver Cromwell.
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid, it was not proposed to take any money under this Vote for the purpose, so he submitted that the Motion would not be in order.
  THE CHAIRMANagreed.
  MR. HAYDENasked when he could raise the subject?
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, it was not for him to point out to the hon. Member when he should introduce Motions. He only dealt with Motions when made, and he could assure the hon. Member that at that moment he was entirely out of order.
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE,in reply to Sir E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT, said, opportunity would be afforded on the Vote for amply discussing the subject.
  MR. WEIRasked, what had been done to improve the ventilation of the House and prevent the admission into the chamber of sewer gas, to the injury of the health of Members and that of the gentlemen in the Press Gallery and of ladies in the Grill. It appeared that
  670
  water for domestic purposes was supplied from the same cistern that supplied the water-closets. This was a scandalous state of things. He hoped this subject would be attended to at an early date, so that in the hot weather they would not be kept in a poisonous atmosphere. He knew that the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works would not like to spend £25,000 upon carrying out a scheme for securing the proper ventilation and the proper drainage of the building, but he did not believe that it would cost anything like that sum to execute the necessary works. He saw that the sum of £3,000 was put down for electric lighting while £1,000 was asked for oil lamps. Why could not the oil lamps be done away with altogether and the electric light substituted in their place, so that they might have electric light everywhere. He thought that there must be a considerable waste of fuel going on in the House or else so large a sum would not be required for it. He should like to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works to the item of £2,350 for new furniture for the past year, while the sale of old furniture and old materials only realised some £50. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would give the Committee some information on that subject. He should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that it was the practice of the Department not to replace a castor upon a chair unless the leg of the chair were broken and that this had led in some instances to the leg of a chair being broken in order to obtain a new castor. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would make some inquiries into that matter. In order that the right hon. Gentleman might give the Committee some information on the subject of the draining and the ventilation of the House he begged to move to reduce the Vote by the sum of £100.
  MR. ALPHEUS C. MORTONsaid, that he also should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works would give the Committee some further information on the subject of the drainage and ventilation of the House. They had tried last year to get the subject considered by the Committee upstairs, but they found that the officials

  671
  were against it, and the result was that the Committee had refused to entertain the question. It was an unfortunate fact that the officials should be opposed to any improvement that would secure better drainage and ventilation. It would seem as though they did not want any alteration, because it would give them a little additional trouble and possibly might interfere with their holidays. The officials of the House, however, ought to get out of the old-fashioned groove, and should be anxious to have these matters which were so essential to the health of hon. Members and those whose business required them to spend long hours in the building placed upon a sound footing. He knew that serious complaints had been made in relation to this subject of the bad smells in the building during the past few years, and he hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would cause some further inquiries to be made into the subject. With all due regard to the officers of the House he did not think that they understood much about ventilation, and therefore they did not want to go into the question. He did not want the right hon. Gentleman to do more than the best he could for them in the matter. With regard to the increase in the electric light, he was not quite sure that he agreed with his hon. Friend who had just spoken as to the desirability of expending a large additional yearly sum in that direction, but he thought that something might be saved by the Company being pressed to reduce their price for supplying it. He thought that the Board of Trade might come to their assistance in this matter, and insist upon the Company reducing their price in view of the advantages which they obtained under their Act of Parliament and in consideration that the Houses of Parliament were large consumers. In connection with the subject of oil lamps, he was glad to see that there had been a reduction this year in the annual charge from £1,250 to £1,000, nevertheless, it was impossible to comprehend how they could spend such a large sum upon oil lamps in that House, seeing that one might walk all over the building at night and scarcely see one of them. He was sorry to find that the old furniture of the building had only fetched £50, because it was
  672
  clear that such furniture must have a substantial value when so much was expended upon its purchase when new.
  MR. W. ALLANsaid, that when the drains of a large building like the House were condemned as being unsatisfactory and dangerous to life, he should like to know on whose authority the statement was made. If it were altered they would have to go down to the foundations of the building, through walls and party-walls, and it would take twelve months.
  MR. WEIRsaid, his authorities were Mr. John Taylor, surveyor to the Office of Works, and Mr. Keith, who was an authority on ventilation.
  MR. ALLANsaid the engineer to the House of Commons should have been consulted. It was an impossibility that the drinking water should be contaminated by the outflow.
  MR. WEIRsaid the water used for drinking purposes was supplied from the same system as that which supplied the water-closets.
  MR. ALLANsaid there was no connection between the outflow and the drinking water. As to the lighting, from his experience of electricity he did not believe it could be produced for 2d. a unit. To lay down the machinery for producing electricity would require structural alterations, and all the necessary paraphernalia, for which a very large sum would have to be spent. He was against such a proposal; at the same time, if the Chief Commissioner of Works could get the price reduced so much the better. He urged the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid he agreed with nearly all that the hon. Member had just said The hon. Member for Ross-shire had quoted from a pamphlet, written, no doubt, by a very competent engineer, written at his own initiative and without any responsibility either to the House or to his own Department. That gentleman had made in this pamphlet a great number of statements which were entirely inaccurate, because they were based on imperfect and insufficient knowledge. He was unable to follow his hon. Friend through his speech as it would really take too long. The question of the drainage of the House was considered by a Committee in 1891, before which independent experts were called, and the

  673
  Committee reported, he believed, that all the main defects had been then made good. As to the atmosphere of the Chamber, it was certainly as good as it was on the terrace, and they could not make it any better than that. The original designers of the House had chosen to place the House where it was, near the river on low-lying ground, and they had to make the best of it. With regard to the question of electric lighting, he had had the matter carefully looked into, and as far as cost was concerned there was probably not much difference between the cost of generating electricity themselves and taking it from an independent company, but he thought on the whole the balance of advantage lay on the side of going on as they were doing now. It might be that before, very long they would be able to get electricity at a reduced cost, at any rate he did not think the time had yet come for altering the system of lighting. He should certainly continue to give his careful consideration to the subject. With regard to the oil lamps, during late years the sum spent had been decreasing, and he had no doubt would continue to decrease as better arrangements were made.
  MR. ALPHEUS MORTONasked what oil was used.
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid it was colza oil. In regard to furniture, he believed his Department was extremely economical in that matter, and that they used up the furniture so well that when done with it was broken up for firewood. Of course, the cost was great, but he had no reason to think that there was any extravagance in the matter.
  MR. WEIRsaid, he believed the drainage of the House was very good what he had complained of was the sewer air which got into the House.
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid the sewer air went up through shafts to the top of the Victoria and Clock Towers, and in those shafts coke fire were kept going day and night. He had never known a back draught down those shafts, and no sewer gas came into the House.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD BARTLETTasked if it was possible to do anything to get better ventilation in the Division Lobbies, the atmosphere of which, just before the doors of
  674
  the lobbies were thrown open while the House was being cleared, was very close and trying.
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE,said he had spoken about the matter, and he did not know that anything more could be done. When they got 200 or 300 hon. Members crammed together in the Lobby, it was perfectly impossible that there should be a good atmosphere. What was now done was that an increased quantity of fresh air was forced into the Division Lobbies.
  MR. T. SHEPHERD LITTLEsubmitted that everything that might be done had not been done. At small expense one simple contrivance might be adopted, and that was to remove the glass from the windows at one end of the Division Lobby, which was the worst end. Again, everybody who frequented it must be aware that the ventilation in the Strangers' Smoking Room was exceedingly bad; while in the Members' Smoking Room the temperature was frequently above what it ought to be in any room in that House. In that mutter he was borne out by communications made to him by persons competent to express an opinion, namely, medical officers of health.
  MR. ALPHEUS MORTONhoped his right hon. Friend would try to induce his officers and their officers to look after these matters, and not to stand in the way of all improvement. His right hon. Friend had himself admitted that these officers had at last altered the water cisterns. Why was not that done years before, as the sanitary officers compelled the owners of every little cottage outside to do? [An hon. MEMBER: "There is nothing wrong."] If there was nothing wrong, sanitary officers all over the United Kingdom were wrong, and so was everybody connected with the Local Government Board, because they were compelling the owners of small cottages outside to make these alterations. He hoped they were wrong, and that consequently a stop would be put to the sanitary officers who were continually putting owners of property outside to unnecessary expense. They wanted all these matters attended to by the officers without the necessity for a Committee sitting upstairs or of Members taking up the time of the House in calling attention to them.
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid, the officers who were responsible for the drainage, &c., of the Houses of Parliament were continually attending to their work, and never offered the smallest position to any improvement whatsoever. Very large changes in the direction indicated had been made.
  MR. ALPHEUS MORTON: Not without a number of Committees sitting for many days. Until eight or nine years ago the drainage of the Houses of Parliament was in the worst possible condition. He was aware that about that time the drains were relaid and the whole system altered. But it was only after many years' agitation and talk that the officers were induced to do anything. He was satisfied from his own experience of 35 years that even now the drainage system was not perfect, and that the officers did not thoroughly understand it. There were officers outside who did.
  MR. W. ALLENasked, as his hon. Friend had professed to be an architect of great experience—[Mr. A. C. MORTON: "I never said that"]—where and when his hon. Friend had traced the existence of sewer gas from any outlet into this House?
  MR. WEIRasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES,referring to Item 4, the new Admiralty buildings, asked when it would be found possible to make the opening from the Mall to Charing Cross which was so urgently required.
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE: The opening referred to has not been decided upon at the present moment, though it has been suggested.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTERwith reference to Item 6, asked when a vote would be taken to complete the frontage of South Kensington Museum, which was at present a great eyesore, and with regard to which plans were exhibited in the Smoking Room some time ago. Did the right hon. Gentleman propose to take any steps to improve what was known as the Brompton boilers?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am as much responsible for this matter as my right hon. Friend. Everybody admits that money requires to be spent there, but we must wait till we have the money. Some time ago a very large sum was presented to me—£750,000—to be expended on South Kensington. I at once declared that I had not the money to enable me to agree to that expenditure, and that is the reason why the work has not been undertaken.
  MR. BARTLEYreminded the Chancellor of the Exchequer that several years ago, plans having been prepared for the completion of the buildings at considerable cost, a pledge was given that some money would be taken to go on with them, and in order to make a start at the corner next the Oratory. It was a disappoiniment to many that no sum had been taken. It seemed a grievous thing that buildings on which a large sum of money had been paid already, and to house a collection which was acknowledged to be unrivalled in Europe, should be left in their present miserable unfinished state. There was land adjoining which had been purchased and might be utilised, but it remained unused. He thought that out of the enormous sum spent for technical education sufficient economy might be exercised to provide a sum to proceed with the work. He hoped that in another year the right hon. Gentleman would remember the necessity of completing the buildings, and he would be content if the right hon. Gentleman would promise that he would then set apart a sum for the work if he could possibly do so.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the whole difficulty in the matter was the want of money necessary to carry out the work. He should be only too glad to economise somewhere in order to find the money, but at present it was not possible to do so. He accepted the suggestion or compromise of the hon. Member, though he could not, of course, give any pledge, that if in another year there was more money coming in and less to spend, and he had the means of doing so, he would devote a sum necessary to make a start with the work.
  MR. ALPHEUS MORTONsaid, he noticed there was an increase, in the Estimates this year of more than £25,000 for Revenue Department buildings under Vote 8. That was apparently a very large increase in one year for the maintenance and requirements of the buildings, and in those days when the Chancellor of the Exchequer refused money all round to hon. Members, except for the Navy, Army, or the Royal Family, it was necessary for Radical Members to look closely into such increase of expenditure.
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid, the increase was mainly for new works, alterations, and additions, which had been found, on ample authority, to be requisite, and it had been necessary, therefore, to take a larger amount this year to carry them out. For financial reasons, during recent years several new works had to be postponed, and therefore arrears had to be made up. A sum of £8,000 was asked for on account of a new laboratory for the Inland Revenue and Customs Departments.
  MR. WEIRcalled attention on Vote 9 to the fact that the item for brushes, brooms, baskets, glass and china amounted to £3,950, which he thought was a very large amount to spend in one year on such items. He hoped this was not another contract job; if it was, the sooner the Government got rid of it the better.
  MR. ALPHEUS MORTONcalled attention to the dirty state of the water supplied from the Orange Street works to the fountain in Trafalgar Square. He understood that the water, instead of being a constant fresh supply, was used over and over again for the fountains, the result being that a very unpleasant odour was frequently emitted from the water. Sometimes, and this was especially the case in hot weather, the water was more like sewage than anything else. If experiments were to be tried with regard to sewage, he hoped they would be tried somewhere else. He had raised this subject with several First Commissioners of Works, but hitherto without success. He saw the Home Secretary present. The right hon. Gentleman had allowed people to meet in Trafalgar Square, and he hoped he would be able to give them clean water by doing away with this system of re-pumping.
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid, that the supply of water at the Orange Street Works was diminishing. The opinion of the late Mr. Hawksley had been taken, and he advised against incurring a heavy expense for deepening the wells. With regard to the articles mentioned by the hon. Member for Ross (Mr. Weir), they were furnished upon the requisition of the responsible officials in the various offices, who took the, greatest care in the matter.
  MR. ALPHEUS MORTON: Are they supplied by contract?
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE: Yes.
  ADMIRAL FIELDasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether he could give the Committee any information as to the state of the works in connection with Peterhead Harbour? What progress had been made during the past year, and what hope was there of the harbour being completed within the time laid down in the Bill? It was a matter of great importance to all seafaring men that the works should be completed at as early a period as was possible.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONreplied that actual progress made during the past year was the extension by about 60 feet of the southern breakwater and the foundation of a further length of about 66 feet had been prepared, and partially levelled with concrete. All this work had to be done by divers, and it could not, therefore, be pushed on as rapidly as the work of a less difficult nature. When the present stage had been completed the progress, he hoped, would be greatly accelerated. He entirely concurred with the hon. and gallant Member as to the desirability of completing this class of work as rapidly as possible. He did his humble best in this direction last year, and he hoped that more rapid progress would be possible in future years.
  MR. ALPHEUS MORTONinquired when it was supposed the works were going to be completed. He saw the original sum voted was £737,530. Of that they were told that £23,200 were to be spent for 1895–96. Taking into account what had already been spent, there would be left £447,748, so that it looked as if the work would go on for the next hundred years. Could the

  679
  Civil Lord give them any idea as to when the works would be completed, or inform them if the Government had any intention of ever completing them.
  MR. ROBERTSONstated that the sum voted each year for the prosecution of the work was practically the same amount, namely, £25,000 or £26,000. At the rate at which progress had gone on, naturally it would take some time to complete the harbour, though not, he hoped, nearly so long as the period mentioned by his hon. Friend. He trusted the necessary works might be completed within a period of, say, 20 years.
  MR. ALPHEUS MORTONurged the hon. Gentleman to use his great influence with the Treasury to press on the works. If the harbour was to be of any use it ought to be finished before 20 years had elapsed.
  MR. ROBERTSONreplied, that he had already exercised any little influence that he possessed in the direction he suggested, and would continue still to do so.
  MR. ALPHEUS MORTON,on Class 1 of Vote 13, asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he could give them any further information as to the question of the rating of Government property. The other day the Government promised that Local Authorities should have the right of appeal from the assessments put upon property by the valuer. This was an important matter for London, because the period of the quinquennial valuation was approaching, and if the matter were not settled before that period was passed its consideration might be further deferred for another five years.
  SIR JOHN HIBBERTreplied, that it was such a short time since this question was before the Committee that there had not been an opportunity of making final arrangements, but he could assure the hon. Member that the Treasury were at the present moment engaged in considering how best they could provide for an appeal which would be satisfactory. In the meantime a provisional arrangement for giving an appeal had been made which, so far, had worked well. It was desirable, however that there should be some more formal way of giving authorities who were dissatisfied some system of appeal against the sums which had been settled as rates on Government property. He
  680
  hoped before they got to the Vote he might be able to make some announcement, if it should prove desirable so to do.
  MR. ALPHEUS MORTONremarked that the reason he had raised the question was because he was anxious to have the matter settled before the completion of the quinquennial valuation.
  MR. J. G. WEIR MR. J. G. WEIR rose to Move to reduce Vote 1 of Class 2—House of Lords Offices—by £100, for the purpose of drawing attention to the large sums paid to the Clerk and other officials of that House. He could not understand why clerks receiving salaries of £600 and £700 a year should also be drawing allowances of from £100 to £500. The poor housemaids, on the other hand, only received 14s. and 15s. weekly. Black Rod was paid £2,000 a year with a free house, and he also received fees as the officer of the Order of the Garter. He hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would state the amount of those fees. They were told that the office of Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod would cease on the retirement of the present holder. When would that retirement take place? He further asked for an explanation of the item of £50 for dusting the books in the library of the House of Lords. What annoyed him, he said, in regard to this large expenditure was, that he could not get a shilling out of the Treasury for good useful work in the Highlands of Scotland. He Moved the reduction of the Vote.
  MR. ALPHEUS MORTONsaid, he desired to support his hon. Friend. The absurdity of the present charges for the officers of the House of Lords was made apparent when they compared them with the charges for the officers of the House of Commons, who did thirty or forty times as much work. The charges for House of Commons officers amounted to £52,000, while the charges for House of Lords officers were £41,559. There were four further charges in connection with the House of Lords which brought the total up to nearly £100,000. The Lord Chancellor received £4,000 as Speaker of the House of Lords. What were the duties which he performed for that salary? He understood it was paid to him as an executive officer of the Government.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Any attempt to reduce the Lord Chancellor's salary in respect of any duties performed as Lord Chancellor would be entirely out of order. This Vote merely dealt with his salary as Speaker of the House of Lords.
  MR. ALPHEUS MORTONquite agreed with the Chairman's decision. He was desirous to know exactly what were the duties of the Speaker of the House of Lords. When they looked at the salaries of the officers of the House of Lords they found that, while those who were at the top of the tree and did not do much work were highly paid, those at the bottom—the messengers and housemaids—were not paid too much, in some cases not enough. The Chairman of Committees received £2,500. What did he do for it? The Chairman of Committees in the House of Commons was paid a like sum. It was a matter of common sense either that the one salary should be largely increased or that the other should be largely reduced. The charges were enormously excessive. But they were told that they could not reduce them until the present officers of the House of Lords died or were removed. He found that there was an increase in the expenses of the Examiner of Bills. He was surprised at that, for the House of Lords threw out most Bills. There was also an increase in other expenses, because the House of Lords sat an extra time. His impression was that last year the House sat rather less than usual, for there were no Liberal Bills for them to throw out.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member cannot discuss those matters on this Vote.
  MR. ALPHEUS MORTONsaid, he, was trying to find out why there were increases in the Vote this year over the Vote of last year. He did not understand the item for a Refreshment-room for the House of Lords. He did not know why a special Refreshment-room should be kept up for the half-dozen Lords who attend the House and their officials, when they might use the Refreshment-room of the House of Commons.
  MR. WEIRsaid he had been informed that although Black Rod got £2,000 a year and a residence, he had not appeared at his post for several years. That was a very serious matter. He felt this expenditure very keenly, since he could not get
  682
  even a penny for the poor Crofters in the Highlands of Scotland. He found that the duties of Black Rod were performed by the Yeoman Usher, who got £300 a year and a residence. He would like to know whether this was a case of sub-contract; whether Black Rod paid the Yeoman Usher? For, although it could not be said that there was any sweating in connection with that post, the duties being so light, yet he thought the sub-contract system in such a case was objectionable.
  SIR JOHN HIBBERTthought his two hon. Friends had taken a rather unusual course in discussing such small matters of detail on the Vote on Account. Their remarks would have been more appropriate on the substantive Vote for the House of Lords Offices. Neither of his hon. Friends was quite up to date on the question of the salaries of the officials of the House of Lords. Two years ago there was a considerable discussion on the question, and an Amendment for the reduction of the salaries of the officials of the House of Lords by £500 was carried against the Government. The Treasury had faithfully carried out that decision of the House of Commons. They had had sent into them from the House of Lords for two years running estimates without that reduction of £500 being allowed for, and they had refused to place such estimates on the Table of the House. He thought the Treasury deserved some credit for having fought the House of Lords on the question of that reduction. It was true that the salaries paid to the officials of the House of Lords were, in some instances, larger than the salaries paid to the officials of the House of Commons. But since last year the Treasury had been able, after a considerable number of meetings with a Committee of the House of Lords, to obtain from that Committee an agreement to place the salaries in the House of Lords exactly on the same scale as the salaries in the House of Commons. That agreement, however, could not come into operation all at once. It could only come into operation after the present officials had retired; but when that had taken place the same rate of pay would be given to the officials of the House of Lords as was given to the officials of the House of Commons. He thought that was a great step to have gained.
  MR. ALPHEUS MORTON: It is not fair to the House of Commons.
  SIR JOHN HIBBERT: We are not discussing the House of Commons now; we are discussing the House of Lords. The hon. Member had asked what were the duties of the Lord Chancellor. The duties of the Lord Chancellor in the House of Lords were similar to the duties of the Speaker in the House of Commons. The Lord Chancellor had not such long hours as the Speaker, but whether the Lords sat long or whether they sat short he had to be there, and he was also Chairman of the Grand Committee to which nearly all Bills in the House of Lords were now referred. For his duties as Speaker of the House of Lords the Lord Chancellor got £4,000 a year, in addition to the £6,000 he received from the Consolidated Fund as Lord Chancellor. It was quite true that Black Rod had not been in his place for a couple of years; but it had been arranged that on the retirement of the present holder of the office the salary was to be reduced from £2,000 a year with an official residence to £1,000 a year without a residence. At the same time the duties of the Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod would be, amalgamated in the Office of Secretary to the Lord Chamberlain, which would effect a further saving of a salary of £300 a year and an official residence. With regard to the housemaids of the the House of Lords, they were formerly paid fixed salaries and received pensions; but owing to the demand for economy in the House of Lords those salaries and pensions had been done away with. The housemaids were now paid 15s. a week; and his hon. Friends, who were rigid economists, got up and protested that they were not paid sufficiently. If his hon. Friends would wait until the Vote was brought on in Committee he would probably be able to give more information than he was now able to give.
  MR. ALPHEUS MORTONwould be only too pleased if he could agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this was not the right time to take the discussion on this matter. If Supply were brought on in a reasonable and proper manner—say once a week—he, personally, would be, quite prepared to allow Votes on Account to go without any discussion at all, but in the last two or three years they had had no opportunity at all of
  684
  discussing these matters in regular Supply Latterly, Supply was brought on in August, and then, hon. Members who attempted to raise discussions were begged to allow Ministers to go away for their holidays. They were accused of keeping Officers of the House away from holidays; indeed, all sorts of charges were made against those who wished to carry out their highest Parliamentary duties, for, after all, attention to Supply was one of the most important duties of a Member of the House of Commons. If the Secretary to the Treasury would give them an assurance that this Vote would be brought up at a time when it could be discussed he would say no more. He knew, however, the right hon. Gentleman could not give such an assurance, and, therefore, it was necessary to consider one or two remarks the right hon. Gentleman had made. They were told that an agreement had been made with some one in the House of Lords that the Officers of the House of Lords should receive what was received by the Officers of the House of Commons. That was a monstrous scandal. That gentlemen who did not do, who could not do, who had not the opportunity of doing, one-tenth the work of the Officers of the, House of Commons should be paid on the same scale was a scandal. Having now heard what the duties of the Lord Chancellor were, for which he received £4,000 a year, he should take another opportunity of taking a special vote upon a reduction of the salary. As to Black Rod he did not know how many years the gentleman who held that office had been in ill-health, and he would be sorry to make any remarks which would give an old Officer pain, but he understood Black Rod was in Scotland—where Officials went to spend England's money; he was somewhere in the neighbourhood of Midlothian.
  MR. BARTLEYasked whether it was in order to refer to the residences of Officers of Parliament?
  THE CHAIRMANwas sorry he could not say the remarks of the hon. Member were out of order, but he sincerely trusted the hon. Gentleman would not pursue his present line of argument.
  MR. ALPHEUS MORTONsaid, he was going to ask why they should give

  685
  this Officer an official house at Westminster. When they were considering the question of finding accommodation for the business of Parliament they would very much have liked to get Black Rod's rooms, but they could not do so. He understood, too, that the work of Black Rod was now done by the Yeoman Usher at a cost of £300. If the work could be done efficiently for £300 why should they pay £1,000 a year?
  MR. WEIRunderstood the Secretary to the Treasury to say there was no power to make Black Rod retire. But if there were no power to make that Official retire, surely the Treasury had reserved power to reduce the salary of the office. Again, the right hon. Gentleman had not said one word about the most important matter—that was the question of allowances to clerks. One clerk receiving £2,500 a year as salary received £500 for a house. In a house of business a servant received a certain salary and was expected to do the work required of him.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is now repeating what he said before, and is therefore out of order.
  MR. WEIRpointed out that the domestic servants were paid the small salary of 14s. or 15s. a week, and were expected to provide themselves with everything.
  MR. SHEPHERD LITTLEunderstood Black Rod had not performed his duties for some years. [Sir JOHN HIBBERT: "Two years."] Was it the fact that the House of Commons had paid year by year, and was asked to pay this year, a very large salary to a gentleman who had not performed the duties of his office in any way? So far as he understood, there was no likelihood that Black Rod would at any reasonable time be in a condition to perform his duties. If, as a matter of fact, he was altogether broken down in health would it not be well to pension him and appoint some gentleman at the salary at which they found the duties could be performed—that was £300 a year? The Treasury were exceedingly careful as to expenditure in some other quarters. Could not the Secretary to the Treasury give them a promise to some such course as he suggested would be followed?
  MR. WALTER HAZELLsaid, it seemed to him that with regard to offices of this kind, when such offices became vacant, the Government should consider whether they should be filled at all, and if they should be filled, at what emolument. If the Government would give hon. Members an assurance that they would adopt such a course, he thought there would be a disposition to let the matter pass.
  SIR JOHN HIBBERTsaid, this matter had been considered, with the result that the salary was to be reduced from £2,000 to £1,000 and the official residence was to be given up.
  MR. HAZELLsaid, that the rational way would be for a Committee of the House to consider what should be done when offices became vacant and before they were filled up?
  SIR JOHN HIBBERT,in reply to Mr. Weir, said, that the offices to which the hon. Member had referred were given to four or five of the senior clerks. The personal allowances were given while they held the offices. When the posts became vacant the question of the allowances would be reconsidered.
  MR. WEIR: And Black Rod's salary?
  SIR JOHN HIBBERT: That is a question for the House of Lords.
  MR. ALPHEUS MORTONsaid, that he objected altogether to these personal allowances which appeared all over the Estimates. They were often given merely by favouritism, and sometimes they were illegally given as increases to a maximum salary.
  MR. CYRIL DODDpressed his hon. Friends to withdraw the Motion now that they had brought their views sufficiently before the House.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On the return of the CHAIRMAN, after the usual interval,
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT,who had been called on before the interval, rose to speak, whereupon—
  MR. ALPHEUS MORTON MR. ALPHEUS MORTON rose to order. He said that he understood that his hon. Friend was going to speak on Vote 5. He himself desired to address the Committee upon a notice which he had put down on Vote 4, Clause 2.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is too late. Before I left the Chair I called on the hon. Member who is now in possession, and, unless he chooses to give way, he must go on.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, that he declined to give way.
  MR HENRY LABOUCHERE,on the point of order, desired to state that he was not aware until now whether the hon. Gentleman was going on upon Vote 5, 6, or 7, or whether on No. 1, upon which he himself had been anxious to move an Amendment. If that Amendment and the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough could be taken after the hon. Member had made his speech, it would meet the views of himself and his hon. Friend.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out that an Amendment was moved and withdrawn. Vote 1 having been passed, I called upon the hon. Gentleman who is now in possession. The ground on which I rule in favour of the hon. Gentleman is that he is in possession of the Committee. If notice had been given to me before I left the Chair that anyone wanted to move an Amendment to one of the earlier votes I should not have called on the hon. Gentleman. The rule is that when an hon. Member is in possession of the House he has a right to proceed unless he is willing to give way.
  MR. ALPHEUS MORTON: I understood that we were told by you, Sir, some months ago, that if we put down notices upon the Paper you would call upon us in order. I rose as quickly as I could to address the Committee, but I was not quick enough, and was forestalled by the hon. Member opposite.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. When there is a notice upon the Paper it is a notice to me that an hon. Member wishes to move or to speak. But so many of the notices on the Paper to-night having been passed over, there was nothing to call my attention to the fact that anybody wished to claim priority as against the hon. Member for Sheffield.
  MR. ALPHEUS MORTON: I beg leave to move to report progress.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I refuse to put such a Motion.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, that he would have been willing to give way to the hon. Member for Peterborough
  688
  if that hon. Member had not already enjoyed that evening a very considerable share of the time of the Committee. He must, therefore, adhere to the position which the Chairman had accorded him. He would not venture to address the Committee on that occasion on the subject of the foreign policy of the Government if it were not that their opportunities this Session, and during the last two years, for the discussion of the Government's foreign policy had been exceedingly rare. Owing to the eccentricities of a Vote on Account, eccentricities which were, perhaps, inevitable, this subject, one of the most important that they could discuss, had been put off until the dinner-hour, when comparatively few Members were present. If he could even see any prospect of being able to bring this matter before the House soon after Whitsuntide he should not intrude upon the Committee on the present occasion. But as matters abroad, as our relations with foreign countries, were in a critical condition, and were not likely to become less critical, and as a Dissolution was probably not far distant, he did not think it right to forego that opportunity to point out to Parliament and the country the real state of affairs. The Government could not complain that the Opposition had indulged in any excessive criticism of their foreign policy during the last three years. Seldom had a Government enjoyed such an immunity from criticism in matters so important. He ought to say that the views which he should express were his own views only, although he spoke with the assent of the Leaders of his Party. Many burning questions were pressing for notice and for solution abroad. He need only mention in proof of this the questions connected with the Ottoman Empire and our relations with Turkey, the issues raised by the war between China and Japan and the peace just concluded, and the questions arising with regard to Egypt, Madagascar, and the Upper Nile. These were all questions in which British interests were deeply concerned. The keystone or guiding principle of the foreign policy of the present Government appeared to be an alliance, or understanding at all events, with the Governments of France and

  689
  Russia. To that connection he attributed many of the mistakes in which the Government had become involved. He was not going to say a word against those two great Powers. He did not even blame them for the efforts they were making to advance what they believed to be their own interests, even at the expense of British interests. But any man who considered what were the interests of this country abroad, would realise that it was impossible for any lasting, stable, and successful foreign policy to be based—to be essentially based—upon an understanding or co-operation with Russia and with France. These two Powers were not necessarily our enemies—he hoped that they might never be our open, enemies; but they were undoubtedly our rivals in the Mediterranean, in Asia, and in the Far East. All the questions of difficulty by which the Government were embarrassed—and they were many—were caused by the antagonism, or perhaps he ought to say the rivalry, which was felt and acted upon by France in its relations with this country. He need only refer to the questions connected with Siam, with the Niger Territory, with the Congo, with the Upper Nile, with Madagascar and with Egypt, to carry conviction upon this point. And of course the rivalry of the great Russian Power was notorious throughout the East. What was the policy of the late Conservative Government based upon? It was undoubtedly based upon an understanding with what was known as the great Peace League of Central Europe, an understanding namely with the stable monarchies of Germany, Austria, and Italy. That policy was initiated by Lord Beaconsfield at Berlin in 1878. It was reversed by the right hon. Member for Midlothian when he held office from 1880 to 1885 with disastrous results to this country. The foreign policy of the Radical Government in those years collapsed all over the world, mainly, in consequence of the opposition of that Government to the German monarchies. The subsequent policy of Lord Salisbury, from 1886 to 1892, was based on a good understanding with the German monarchies and with Italy, and was remarkably successful. There were no wars or rumours of war during the late Government's tenure of
  690
  Office. The reason was not far to seek; not only on account of the wise and firm conduct of the details of Foreign Affairs by Lord Salisbury; but it was because the country possessed at that time strong and stable allies in Europe. With their support British interests were perfectly secure, and the peace of the world was also assured. British policy was then based on the co-operation of those powers that were bound to us by a real community of interest, the only solid and practical basis for any alliance. There were then no troubles for this country abroad; no French invasion of Siam or Madagascar, no grave disagreements with France as to the Nile Waterway and Egypt. There were no Russian stations in the Pamirs, no troubles between China and Japan with resulting complications, no serious difficulties as to the Ottoman Empire. But since the present Government's advent to Office the whole position had changed, and there were at this moment a series of troubles threatening us in almost every quarter of the world. He could not go now into the question of how it was that the present Government had incurred the indifference, and lost the support, of the German Powers. The diplomatic processes were intricate and curious; but the fact remained that whilst under the last Conservative administrations this country had the support of the German monarchies, those Governments, or, at all events, the organs through which they spoke, were now either indifferent or opposed to the interests of this country. Probably the exaggerated and pretentious entente with Russia of last winter, the absurd policy pursued with regard to Japan and China last October, and the blundering policy now adopted towards Turkey, had much to do with the alienation of the German monarchies. There had never before been a time, he regretted to say, when this country was apparently so isolated in Europe. He knew that it was easy to attach too much value to the opinions of the Press; but it was also well known that in certain countries abroad the deliberately expressed opinions of the Press did represent the opinions of the Governments. That was essentially the case in Russia, where the Press dared not adopt a policy regarding

  691
  Foreign Affairs without the encouragement of the Government. The same thing was the case, to some extent, in Germany, Austria, and France. It was well known that when a deliberate opinion on matters of Foreign policy was expressed by certain newspapers in Berlin, Vienna or Paris, those papers were faithfully reflecting the views of their Government. It was a lamentable fact that hardly a word was said in our favour in the Press of any of the countries which he had mentioned, and that, in many instances, we were openly attacked in the most violent manner. He invited the Chancellor of the Exchequer to read what was written in the leading organs of the French Press with regard to British policy and interests. He invited the right hon. Gentleman to look also at the Russian Press, in which he would find the most extraordinary hostility expressed against this country. The Press of Russia was attacking this country in the most open and general way; it was encouraging Turkey to resist us, and it unfavourably compared what were called les atrocités Chitraliennes with the alleged Armenian outrages. As the British Government were under the belief that Russia and France were thoroughly supporting them in their policy with regard to the Ottoman Empire, this extraordinarily hostile campaign in the Russian Press was well worthy of the attention of the right hon. Gentlemen, and especially of those who conducted the Foreign Affairs of this country. It was deplorable that England, at this moment, so far as one could judge by outward evidence, was isolated among the nations of Europe. The Government was given carte blanche in its Foreign Policy up to the publication of the Blue Book on Siamese affairs. He had believed that in the present Prime Minister this country had a Premier with Imperial instincts, who would conduct foreign affairs with firmness, patriotism, and more or less with success; but speaking for himself, and he believed, for the great majority of the Opposition, a total change had been caused in his feelings by the perusal of those official papers. Never in the whole history of official documents was a more lamentable record of weakness and surrender than was therein disclosed. Siam was partitioned and
  692
  heavily fined; she was deprived of one-third of her territory and had nearly lost her position as an independent State; French troops were still in possession of important points of what was acknowledged to be Siamese territory. He had thought when the Siamese difficulties were proceeding that at all events the Government had obtained some quid pro quo in other directions. He had thought that the Government had given a free hand to our rivals in Siam, because they had obtained some concessions as to West Africa, the Niger Territory, the Nile Waterway, or Madagascar. Nothing of the kind. As soon as the Siamese difficulties were composed, we had the Madagascar question. Now that great island, a most important position for us, commanding the whole of our commerce that passes by sea round the Cape of Good Hope to the East, and on the flank of our commerce that passes through the Suez Canal—an island close to our South African possessions, in every way valuable, fertile and rich in minerals—was subjected to invasion and in every probability would be added to the possessions of France. The same policy of backing down had been exhibited in regard to Sierra Leone, the Niger Territory, and the Nile Waterway. The Sierra Leone question, the Government boasted was settled; but it had been settled by the complete cession of its Hinterland to France. As to the Niger territories, the French were apparently doing exactly as they pleased—French troops seizing positions on the land and French sailors dominating Niger waters. The French Government had torn up the Anglo-Congo treaty of May 1894, driven the Belgians out of the territory in which the present British Cabinet placed them as a buffer, and were threatening to seize the Waterway of the Upper Nile. The Nile Waterway was of infinite importance to this country, because if any great European Power got possession of it, that Power, with the resources of modern engineering, would be able so to diminish, or increase, or even to divert the flow of the Nile, as to hold Egypt entirely at its mercy. That was the opinion of the highest authorities upon Egypt and the Nile. France would thus be enabled by one coup to force any policy that it chose

  693
  upon us in regard to Egypt and thus to nullify all the sacrifices of blood and treasure that we had made in order to establish British influence and to restore good government in that country. On all these points the Government had surrendered, and so far as the country knew, no concession had been made to us in return. There had been a steady backing down all round. The policy of surrender had borne no good fruits. It had only led to fresh demands and fresh encroachments on the part of the Powers to whom these surrenders were made. In regard to China and Japan, again, the Government had done a thing which was remarkable and unprecedented. In October last the Cabinet took it into their head to try and intervene between the contending parties. They went round Europe asking the Powers to support them in such intervention, and they did it in such a way as to inflict the maximum of injury upon all parties, and the maximum of humiliation upon themselves. They were unsuccessful, and were practically snubbed by Germany, Austria, and the United States. The result of the interference was that the war was renewed with tenfold greater energy by Japan, and great suffering was inflicted upon China, which might have been avoided if the Government had, in the old, sensible way gone in a friendly, private, and confidential manner to the two contending parties, and tried to bring them to terms. They might thus have put an end to the war instead of trying to conjure up a formal concert of Europe. The result of that blunder was being felt at this moment. It encouraged the Great Powers to believe that they also could intervene in their own interests. They had seen within the last few weeks a remarkable phase of policy in the East, the evil results of which were by no means yet exhausted, and which might cause this country great loss in the future. Two great European Powers had intervened, not in the interests of peace but in the interests of one
  694
  of them, to force certain terms upon the victor in the struggle. The possession of the Liao-Tung Peninsula had been wrested from Japan by the intervention of France and Russia, and the interests of this country had been greatly injured in consequence. The possession by Japan of tha Liao-Tung Peninsula was invaluable to this country. It put Japan in a position of almost impregnable strength, where she would have acted as a bulwark against the movement of Russia southwards from her present possessions in Asia. Yet we had allowed Japan to be driven out from that position so invaluable to us, British trade would not be affected beneficially by the removal of Japan from the peninsula. We should have in any case to meet the rivalry of Japan as traders, but Japan did not seek or obtain any advantage which Great Britain would not equally possess and enjoy. We had allowed Japan to be driven out of this great position by the action of our rivals, France and Russia. He would now repeat, what he had said in the absence of the Under Secretary, that the main point he wished to bring forward was, that the Government were basing their policy on a supposed understanding with France and Russia, our natural rivals all over the world, and rendering hostile to us the great German monarchies and Italy, who are our natural friends and supporters. Last of all came the most extraordinary phase of the Government policy, that which was happening with regard to Turkey. He did not wish to raise the question of the Armenian atrocities, about which he had his own opinion, until he saw the Report of the Commission. But there could be no doubt that the policy of the Government, whatever it was with regard to the Ottoman Empire, was based on a supposed understanding with France and Russia, and on their assumed support. The time might come when the support of Turkey would be of immense value

  695
  to this country—when the aid, if not of the Turkish Government, at all events of the valiant Ottoman people, might be of vital importance to this country. It was a remarkable fact that our policy was based on the alliance of France and Russia, two Powers that, beyond the shadow of a doubt, were rivalling, if not counterworking, our interests in many quarters. The whole Russian Press was denouncing and ridiculing this country, attacking our policy and our interests, and comparing the assumed deeds of our soldiers in Chitral unfavourably with the deeds of the Turks in the Sassun district. This Press campaign could not be undertaken without the encouragement and support of the Russian Government. Turkey was advised to put herself under the protection of Russia, and to treat our Ambassador at Constantinople as a quantité négligeable. This policy, he understood, was being urged on the Porte by Russian agents at Constantinople. If this semi-official action was really going on he need not point out how serious it was. He did not wish in any way to do or say anything which should encourage or promote evil deeds in Turkey or anywhere else. He should like to see those who were responsible for these deeds in Armenia, if they are proved true, punished as they deserved. At the same time, he must say it would be far better for the interests of this country if Great Britain had acted alone in this matter—had pressed a British policy, whatever might be the reforms thus advocated, in accordance with British traditions and on British grounds only, in a thoroughly friendly spirit towards the Porte, rather than run the terrible risk they have run of being misguided by the very superficial and most unstable co-operation of France and Russia. These points were important, and merited the attention of Parliament and the country. He was aware that the rejoinder that would probably be made to him was, that he was speaking for
  696
  himself, and for himself only, on this question. ["Hear, hear."] Yes, he spoke for himself; in the particular details he had put forward he was expressing his own views; he said so at the beginning; but as a Member of Parliament he was entitled to express his views. He had had the honour of a seat in the House for 15 years. He had given these questions very close and constant study and attention; he had given facts in illustration and proof of every statement he had advanced; and he could give many more, if time permitted. In conclusion, he would emphasise these points: first, that the policy of Her Majesty's present Government had proved a failure in almost every phase; secondly, that so far as could be gathered from the information available, the policy of this country was apparently based upon the alliance of those who were undoubtedly our rivals throughout the world, while those Powers we had hitherto rightly looked to as our natural friends and allies were, at the present time, if not opposed, yet at least strikingly indifferent to British interests.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The hon. Member, in the long speech he has addressed to us, said he was expressing his own personal views. So I gathered. Of course, he is perfectly entitled to express those views. He has made a speech and he is afraid the policy of the Government has been mistaken. That is an opinion he is entitled to hold, but which, of course, he cannot expect me to share. I have endeavoured to extract the real point of condemnation of the Government. His main condemnation is, that he believes the Government have acted cordially with Russia and France. I am here to confess that we are acting cordially with Russia and France. [Sir E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: "Where?"] Everywhere, even in countries where he says they are our natural rivals. The evidence he gives is the Russian newspapers, which, he says, I do not read. Well, I have the opportunity of reading

  697
  documents which, I think, represent those Governments a good deal more faithfully than the newspapers. I am not sure that, even in this country, the newspapers express altogether the views of the Government of the country. I have no reason to believe they do so in Russia any more than in England. The charge against us is, that we are acting with Russia and France in the matter of Armenia. That is the charge made against us, and it is one which I cannot admit, and the hon. Member cannot expect more than that. Then he is pleased to say we have repelled the German Monarchy. Wherein lies that fact, I do not know. All I have to say is, that in the official information we have there is not the slightest foundation for that statement. Where the newspapers gather the opinions from I do not know. The object of the Government has not been to ally themselves with any group of Powers in Europe, or elsewhere. That is not the policy of the Government, nor was it the policy of the preceding Government. They were invited to do so over and over again, and they wisely declined. The policy of this country is to act on friendly terms with all Powers in Europe and America alike. That is the policy which we have pursued, and it is for that policy that the hon. Gentleman is pleased to condemn us. I am sorry; but it is some satisfaction to know that he has only expressed his individual opinion, and I suppose we must sit quietly under his censure.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that he had heard with concern the speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield, because he said he spoke with the assent of his Leaders. If so, he for his part would have to reconsider his Leaders. He really did not know where the hon. Member for Sheffield got his facts, geography, or logic. One of his facts was that the French might go up the Congo and switch off or wholly divert the Nile. [Sir E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT shook his head.] But those were his words; he took them down. How were they going
  698
  to wholly divert the Nile? He thought he knew what that meant. The hon. Member was thinking about the at Atbara. No doubt it was possible to divert that affluent of the Nile and in that way deprive the Nile of the red mud of Abyssinia, its most important fertilising properties. But as to diverting the Nile it could not be done even if they went to the Congo to do it. Then the hon. Member told them that the keystone of the policy of Her Majesty's Government was an alliance with Russia and France, and he then, proceeded to say that from Siam to the Congo and in every French and Russian newspaper the greatest hostility was shown by those two powers to England. How could it be argued that the keystone of the policy of the Government was an alliance with two Governments who were opposing us in every quarter of the world? Then he came to Madagascar. The hon. Member said Madagascar was of the greatest importance to our trade. He himself contended that Madagascar was of no importance whatever. We had useful stations near there. We could do perfectly well without Madagascar. It might have been ours any time these hundred years, and every English Government had always, and most prudently, abstained from taking the island, but had left the French to plunge their hands into the hornets' nest of Madagascar. Then the hon. Member for Sheffield took exception to the conduct of the Government with regard to China and Japan. He thought the Government might have made a statement, but he was convinced that in their last action in refraining from joining the European Powers who had set out on a campaign of interference between China and Japan, the Government had shown the highest wisdom, and for his own part he paid a willing tribute to the wisdom they had shown in the matter. He did not think it was wise for a gentleman holding the position of the hon. Member for Sheffield to come down

  699
  to that House and make wild unthinking diatribes against countries like France and Russia. The language he had used was strong. They were told that they were our enemies in every part of the world. That was an expression which, in his own opinion, should not have been used by a responsible Leader.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he was sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but he had seriously misrepresented his speech on several points. He did not say that "the Nile could be switched off from the Upper Congo," but that its flow could be controlled or diverted by a European Power that held possession of its upper waters. He had used no diatribes againt Russia or France, but had spoken of those powers with perfect moderation. He did not say that Russia and France were our enemies, but that they were our rivals.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLES,resuming, said, he thought the Committee had derived the same impression that he did. The hon. Member's language was very strong. It was language that might be used by a private Member like himself, but was inappropriate in the mouth of a responsible Leader of a Party. He agreed that it was extremely unfortunate that the Government should hold themselves out or be held out to Europe as engaged in carrying on a new crusade in Turkey with any other Powers—he would not name them. If there were any grievances the Government were entitled to represent to the Turkish Government they should do it by themselves. He had the strongest suspicion of the concert of Europe. He thought it better this country should act as it had in regard to China and Japan by itself—and he deprecated the attempted crusade which was being made against Turkey in concert with other Christian Powers. At the same time, in the review of foreign affairs that the hon. Gentleman had made he could not follow him, and he
  700
  trusted he would reconsider some of the opinions he had expressed.
  SIR RICHARD TEMPLEasked, with respect to France and Siam, whether there was any possibility of France and Russia evacuating Chantaboon? They long ago expressed their intention of doing so. Siam had fulfilled all her treaty obligations. Nevertheless, France was still in possession of that very important situation. How long was her tenure there to last? Was it to be for ever?—because the position was one of the first importance in that part of the world. Her remaining there was a direct menace to the independence of Siam, and was also a menace to British influence in that quarter of the globe. He thought that it was high time that France should quit, as she had promised to do so, and her presence at Chantaboon was nothing short of territorial aggression. With regard to Turkey, he wished to know whether it was true, as stated in the newspapers, that a project of reform was complete and was to be applied in Asia Minor. He understood that, owing to recent events in Armenia, great pressure had been brought to bear by the Powers of Europe upon Turkey in a very specific and practical shape in order to bring about the required reforms. Was this so or not? If it were true, it would be very satisfactory. He would say nothing as regarded the probable result of the inquiries into the truth or otherwise of the alleged atrocities in Armenia, but, of course, they were in hopes that Turkey would be able to clear herself of the charges that had been made against her. Whatever the result of the inquiry that had been undertaken into the so-called Armenian atrocities, it was certain that Turkey would have to take in hand the reform of her administration in Asia Minor. He might point out to Her Majesty's Government that, by existing arrangements, England was most gravely responsible in this matter before Europe and the world for the state of affairs in

  701
  that part of Turkey. After the Berlin Conference we undertook to maintain the independence of Turkey; and Turkey, on the other hand, undertook to complete the reforms that had been pressed upon her. The condition of Asia Minor would, under any circumstances, remain a serious menace to the peace of Europe. The whole civilised world had been agitated by the reports that had come from that unhappy country, and it was a most merciful dispensation of Providence that Russia had not interfered, although she had too many pretexts for doing so. If, however, she had once stepped into Armenia there was no knowing where she would stop. Therefore the Armenian question was a most serious one, because, even supposing Turkey should clear herself of the awful charges brought against her, there was no denying that the state of Armenia was of a most uncertain character. It was, he asserted, essential that either the combined Powers were, or at all events England was, bound to put such pressure upon Turkey as would secure some administrative reforms being carried out in Armenia. The primary responsibility rested upon us, because we were answerable for our own arrangements by our own political acts. Consequently it was essential that we should take this opportunity of settling once for all whether there were to be these reforms in Armenia or not. Considering the very favourable effect which the recent speech of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in regard to the Upper Nile Valley produced in Europe, he thought it best not to re-open that question
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,)said, in dealing with the points on which he had been asked for an explanation he had only to say as regarded Siam that he did not think there was any occasion for fresh discussion in that House at the present moment. If he thought that anything he could say in a discussion
  702
  of that moment would have a useful or beneficial effect at the particular stage at which this question had arrived, he should, of course, be ready to say it. He did not, however, think that was the case, in view of the fact that Siam had been so often discussed in that House, and he did not propose to enter upon it that night In answer to the question addressed to him about reforms in Armenia, he had only to say that a scheme of reforms, as was stated the other day, had been presented to the Porte, and that the reply of the Porte on that scheme of reform had not yet been received. He did not think at the present moment, while that question of reform was in the stage of suspense which it had reached at this moment—which they did not anticipate would last very long—it would be altogether useful to say more on that subject.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked whether the hon. Baronet's attention had been directed to the extraordinary incapacity for translation, particularly from French into English, which was displayed in the Foreign Office. He found that in the Foreign Office they habitually translated "dans undélaide," which meant "within an interval of," by "in a delay of;" and "prendre acte de," which meant "to take note of," by "take act of." In the Treaty of Utrecht, on which the Newfoundland question turned, the French were forbidden to "aborder" (i.e. to land) on the coast; this was translated "to resort to." In the Franco-Siamese Treaty, which prohibited Siam from having on her own lakes or rivers "des embarcations" (i.e. small boats) this word was translated by "ships." It seemed to be a tradition of the Foreign Office not to have anyone there who understood either French or English, and he should like to know whether better arrangements would be made in future for the translation of important documents like treaties or despatches, so that the Blue Books, which were often the only accessible means

  703
  of reference hon. Members had, might be more intelligible.
  MR. R, G. WEBSTERasked what the Government were going to do in regard to the proposed cession of Formosa to Japan, which might be of serious detriment to British commerce unless great safeguards were provided in regard to the channel between that island and the mainland. He spoke from a thorough knowledge of the county. There had, no doubt, been a great change in the history of the Far East. Japan had become a great maritime power; but England had more interests than any other nation in the Far East, and he thought they were entitled to know if any steps would be taken to safeguard our interests. Though he did not altogether agree with the speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield, he thought that some of the criticisms of the hon. Member for Lynn Regis were of a somewhat unfair description.
  MR. T. W. LEGHsaid, his hon. Friend (Mr. Bowles) had been, very severe on the criticisms of the previous speaker, but he felt himself bound to repudiate the want of knowledge he attributed to the Foreign Office clerks. All these gentlemen had to pass an examination before they joined the Foreign Office, and the faults the hon. Gentleman appeared to have discovered were extremely rare. These clerks might not possess the omniscience of his hon. Friend, but they would compare very favourably with the Foreign Office officials of any other country.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTERpressed for an answer to his question with reference to the Far East.
  SIR E. GREYsaid, he did not think it would be wise at the present time to discuss that question. With reference to the other question about the excellence of translations, he was ready to admit that now and then a slip might occur, but that might rather point to the excellence of the translator's French
  704
  than to his command of English. As to the difference of opinion expressed by the hon. Member for King's Lynn and the hon. Member for the Newton Division as regarded the way in which that work was done by the clerks in the Foreign Office, he could only say that he sided entirely with the hon. Member for the Newton Division. He thought that, considering the immense amount of work that had to be laid before the House, it was, on the whole, admirably done.
  THE CHAIRMANthen put the Amendment which stood in the name of Sir E. Ashmead-Bartlett, to reduce the Vote for the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs by £500, and it was negatived without a Division.
  CAPTAIN BETHELLsaid, he wished to take the opportunity of asking his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Colonies a question with regard to Bechuanaland. He would like to know whether it was intended to keep up the police force to its full present strength. Things in that country were so much more quiet, and the country was so much more settled, that there seemed to be good reason for supposing that the Vote on Account of the Police might be reduced. He noticed from the last Report on Bechuanaland, that no effort whatever was to be made in the direction of the education of the people. There was no grant for schools. It seemed to him that the Government would be rather neglectful of their duties in respect of this Crown Colony unless some money were expended in that way. When he called attention to this subject two or three years ago, he was told that it would receive consideration, but nothing had been done, and it appeared to him that if they were able now to reduce the police force the money saved might be expended on education. There had been considerable discussion, more especially in South Africa, on the question of handing Bechuanaland over to

  705
  the Cape Colony. There was, no doubt, a good deal to be said both for and against that step; but as far as he knew, the Government had not expressed any intention in the matter. He was told, however, that they had recently had it again under consideration, and he would be glad to know whether it was still their intention, as it was two years ago, to retain Bechuanaland as a Crown Colony. While he was on this subject, perhaps his hon. Friend would allow him to ask about the return of the Zulu Chiefs to Zululand. He had several times asked questions on the subject, and he would be glad to know whether it was intended to send them to Zululand or to bring them to this country. He would also like to know whether there was any considerable sum arising from taxes in Zululand which was being kept for future purposes. He was told there was a sum of something like £17,000 or £18,000 to the credit of Zululand. He did not wish to press the question as to the return of the chiefs any further just now. It had been pressed over and over again now for four years, and he must own to some astonishment at the result that had taken place in spite of the action taken by his hon. Friend when he sat on the Opposition side of the House. He had been very happy to associate himself with his hon. Friend then, and he had thought that when a Liberal Government came into power, the attacks made on their predecessors in this matter, would have borne some earlier fruit.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid, with regard to the Transvaal, he would like to raise a respectful protest against the attitude of his hon. Friend the Under Secretary with regard to questions put to him on that subject. The proposition his hon. Friend had laid down to the House was that, being represented in South Africa by the High Commissioner, the House would on all occasions be informed by the High Commissioner of what took place. He protested against this doctrine. He thought they had a perfect right to interrogate the Government on any matters concerning the Colonies. They had been told that the High Commissioner had the confidence of the Government, and that if anything detrimental to this country occurred he would inform them,
  706
  and they would inform the House. He submitted that that was not sufficient, and that it could not prevent hon. Members exercising their right to interrogate the Government with regard to their policy. Some hon. Members, perhaps, had not the great confidence in the High Commissioner which the Government professed to have. Doubtless with regard to intention, ability, and energy, Sir H. Robinson was all that could be desired; but, at the same time, he was in a position which made it absolutely impossible for some hon. Members to feel perfect confidence in his course of action. They could not get over the fact that Sir H. Robinson occupied a very peculiar position. His hon. Friend, on behalf of the Government, gave the House certain information in regard to the commercial undertakings in which the High Commissioner was interested in South Africa, and it was thought at the time that the list was exhausted; but he was afraid, from information which he had received, that the statement did not exhaust the list. If he was correctly informed, Sir H. Robinson was interested, in addition to the companies which had been stated, in one of the most speculative enterprises in South Africa—namely, the Consolidated Gold Fields of South Africa, If that were all, however, he would not complain, but they knew what might possibly be the effect of those enormous speculations in warping the judgment and influencing the views of men. Under these circumstances, he thought hon. Members were justified in pressing the Government for further information regarding South Africa. With respect to the Transvaal again, he thought there was absolute necessity for more frankness on the part of the Government. What was going on there was not fully made known to the House, and what was known did not come through the medium of the High Commissioner at all. Hon. Members learned through private sources many things connected with the Transvaal which were never communicated to the House, as they should have been. Although he had frequently questioned the Government in regard to matters affecting the Transvaal, yet he did not think he could be charged with having pressed them unduly, because inquiry was absolutely necessary. A statement

  707
  had recently been published to the effect that a field-cornet—a subordinate officer—had fired out of the town a number of British subjects who were employed in it by a British firm, and the act was regarded in certain quarters as a meritorious one. On two or three occasions he addressed questions to the Government on the subject. At first he could get no information, but was eventually informed that these and others had suffered in consequence of their non-compliance with some sanitary law. The fact was, that a great deal of jealousy existed against British subjects in the Transvaal, and it was becoming more formidable every day. The Transvaal authorities decided that British subjects should not be allowed to carry on certain businesses without a licence. That was, of course, perfectly within the powers of the Boer Government. But what happened? Having made this regulation they declined to issue the licences, and the effect was to exclude those British subjects from carrying on their businesses in the Transvaal at all. Another disadvantage under which the British subjects suffered was their inability to obtain, in any of the towns, the publication of the laws of the State in the English language. In conquered countries—in Russian Poland, Austrian Poland, and in other countries similarly situated—the laws were published in the language of the country. But in the Transvaal the laws were published, not in English at all, but in Dutch, and the consequence was that British subjects laboured under disadvantages from this cause, a condition of things which was simply intolerable. Again, with regard to education, there was a deliberate attack on England. In towns in the Transvaal, where there were only two Dutch children going to school, and the remainder were British, they were all compelled to learn Dutch in order to obtain a grant, although it was perfectly useless to them. There was, further, the exercise of a power to search and imprison people entering the Transvaal with English money in their possession, although this could not be regarded as any offence. With regard to the Franchise, also, there was no equality of treatment. The Franchise legislation during the last two or three years had been deliberately
  708
  sharpened as against their fellow subjects. Some three or four years ago the legislation as to the Franchise was severe enough, and it was then almost impossible for an Englishman to become a burgher in the Transvaal, but that legislation had been deliberately and notoriously accentuated and sharpened and made more detrimental to British subjects than it was before. The same remarks applied to the question of taxation so far as it affected their fellow subjects. These were some, but not all, of the indications of this ill-will towards British interests, which was really becoming something like a scandal in the Transvaal. They had no means of learning these things in the ordinary way, and there was a difficulty in the way of obtaining knowledge of what was going on in the Transvaal which ought not to be allowed to exist. They objected to their fellow subjects being made the objects of a system of perpetual attacks by the minority in the Transvaal. None of the matters that he had alluded to had ever been stated in the House by the Under Secretary on behalf of the High Commissioner, and it was not such a monstrous thing that an hon. Member should bring them forward and show the necessity for fuller and more rapid information from that quarter of the world. Any hon. Member who knew anything of South Africa personally knew that the name of the Colonial Office absolutely stank in South Africa. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, perhaps that expression was not strictly Parliamentary, and he would say that the Colonial Office was a most unpopular name in South Africa, because people or interests or concerns who had been made to suffer, and who had relied for redress and support on the British Colonial Office, were beginning to feel that their dependence had been misplaced, he did not, therefore, wonder that there should be a strong feeling in South Africa that it would be a good thing to be quit of the whole business, and to manage South African Affairs independently of the Colonial Office. He should regard such a thing as a calamity. So long as England had any responsibility in the matter, do not let them quietly acquiesce in anything that would be detrimental to her interests or the interests of her subjects. He could not help thinking

  709
  that there was too great a readiness to believe that everything that distinguished man, Mr. Rhodes, did, was perfect and beyond criticism. His influence was enormous; but, after all, the British Empire would live when Mr. Rhodes had gone. He recognised the great work that Mr. Rhodes had done, but what he had accomplished with his enormous financial resources was as nothing compared with the exploits of our great English statesmen and soldiers, who had not the slightest pecuniary interest in the administration with which they were charged. He hoped the Under Secretary would acquit him of having thoughtlessly brought this matter forward, for he could assure the hon. Gentleman he had been overwhelmed with communications from his fellow subjects in the Transvaal giving him information as to the points he had ventured to bring under the notice of the Committee
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,)said, he very much regretted to hear the renewed attack of the hon. Member for Belfast on Sir Hercules Robinson. The hon. Member had a full opportunity of attacking Sir Hercules Robinson when the latter was in this country and could answer the charge. But he did not avail himself of that opportunity, and it was very unjust against a public servant that such an attack should now be made on him when he had gone out to take up his public duties.
  MR. ARNOLD FORSTERsaid, that on a former occasion he made a statement with regard to Sir Hercules Robinson by which he was prepared to abide. The Under Secretary made a reply to that statement, which he naturally thought was an exhaustive reply, and the opportunity was, therefore, allowed to pass. He found, however, that that reply was, so far as his information went, inexact in regard to the interest which the High Commissioner had in South African matters, and he now took the first opportunity that had offered of stating that that was so.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid, the hon. Member might, by means of questions, or in other ways, have pursued the subject before Sir Hercules Robinson left the country. He understood the
  710
  hon. Member's accusation to be that Sir Hercules Robinson had a pecuniary interest in the Consolidated Gold Fields. As a trustee he had necessarily some interest in that company, but personally he had no pecuniary interest in it. The hon. Member had charged the Colonial Office with refusing information. He could only say in reply that he had always been anxious and willing to give the fullest possible answer to any question addressed to him in reference to a specific matter. But the hon. Gentleman was in the habit of putting general questions which could only be answered in debate. He had, for instance, asked questions with reference to the Indian traders. That was a very complicated question, and the hon. Member had better wait until he saw the information which would be laid on the table before he moved further in the matter. The statements which he had made on the subject were totally and entirely inaccurate. The Colonial Office received detailed information from their officers in South Africa, and were fully conversant with all that was going on in the Transvaal. But they were precluded under the agreements with the South African Republic from moving in regard to the internal affairs of that country. In cases where British interests were affected they had not hesitated to move, arid they would not hesitate in the future; but it certainly was not their policy to attempt a general roving interference. With regard to the questions put by the hon. and gallant member for Holderness Division, the Bechuanaland Police was now being diminished, and one of Sir Hercules Robinson's first acts when he arrived would be further to diminish it very largely. As to the question of expenditure on education and public works, their difficulty was that they had to come to the House for a grant in aid of £80,000; and until the revenue improved they did not feel justified in entering on any further large expenditure. With regard to the question of handing Bechuanaland over to the Cape, the position was this: the Cape Government in the Governor's speech put in a paragraph saying they were prepared to take over British Bechuanaland. The subject had not yet been discussed in the Cape Parliament, but when they

  711
  came to some decision on it they would, no doubt, approach the Colonial Office. Until that time it would be impossible for him to give any reply in regard to the matter. With reference to the case of Dinizulu, they had endeavoured to carry out the views which he had expressed more than once—that that chief should be allowed to return to Zululand at the earliest possible moment. The Colonial Office advised the sending back of the chiefs, but unfortunately the Natal Government protested against it until Zululand was handed over to Natal; and, as we did not see our way to do that at present, the return of the chiefs was necessarily delayed. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that Zululand funds were not applied to the purposes of any other colony, but were used exclusively for Zululand interests. The country had got a large surplus every year, and had £20,000 invested in English Consols, so that Zululand, which a few years ago was no man's land, was now one of the most prosperous countries in South Africa.
  CAPTAIN BETHELLadmitted the right of the Natal Government to make representations to the Colonial Office in the matter of the return of the Zulu chiefs, but it seemed to him to be a grave question whether such representations ought to weigh so much with the Colonial Office in such an important matter.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERasked whether any representations had been made by the Government to the Transvaal in regard to the non-translation of the sanitary laws into English, the alteration of the Franchise Laws, or the special taxation of foreign residents as unfriendly acts.
  MR. BUXTONsaid, those were matters of internal government in the Transvaal, and as they affected all foreign subjects and not British subjects specially, the Government had made no representation in regard to them.
  ADMIRAL FIELDdrew attention to the subsidy of £6,000 a year paid by the Government to the Messageries Maritimes for the carrying the mails of the Mauritus. He held that that was a mischievous policy, and that when the present contract had terminated it ought not to be renewed. The London Chatham and Dover boats, which were formerly
  712
  manned by Englishmen, were now compelled, because they were subsidised for the carriage of the French mails, to carry the French flag, to be officered by French officers, and to be manned by Frenchmen. He did not complain of the French Government for doing that, but he thought it was an example that ought to be followed in the case of the Mauritius. It was only recently that a scene took place in the French Chamber, and the French Government was nearly being turned out of office because a contract had been given to an English Company to carry French boats to Madagascar. What were the vessels of the Messageries Martimes? Every naval officer knew they were very powerful boats and very powerful cruisers. They were officered and manned by officers and men of the French Naval Reserve, and he was told that there were now guns in their holds. If war were to break out to-morrow the guns had only to be hoisted into position, and the men had only to put on their uniforms. He was not an alarmist, but he maintained that that was an immoral state of things. What France required from us when dealing with our boats we should require from France when dealing with her boats, or the subsidy should be withdrawn. He was told that at the time the subsidy was granted, an English Company was ready to run steamers.
  MR. J. HAVELOCK WILSON MR. J. HAVELOCK WILSON (Middlesbrough) rose to a point of order. He would like to know whether the vessels of the English Company were manned by Englishmen?
  THE CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order.
  ADMIRAL FIELDsaid, he did not intend to go into details, but what he stated was a fact. He trusted the hon. Gentleman would be able to give the Committee some satisfaction on the point he had raised.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONadmitted the importance of the point raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. This particular system, however, had been in force for 25 years, and we were entirely in the hands of the Colonial Government, over whom we had slight or no control. He might add that the boats which really touched the Mauritius, were not armed cruisers in any way.
  ADMIRAL FIELDwas aware that these great steamers stopped at Reunion, and that smaller steamers went on to the Mauritius. He did not think it quite fair he should have been met by such a statement.
  SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, there were two questions he wished to ask. It had been stated lately that along the sea board on the east coast of Africa, opposite the Transvaal, some naval stations were being established, or other naval arrangements were being made, on behalf of England, which would prevent the Boers from ever establishing themselves on the sea board. He was not sure whether that important information had been confirmed officially: at any rate there could be no harm in asking for confirmation of it now. Again, he desired to know whether it was true or not that the South African Republic were establishing some administration in Swaziland. The other day he asked the Under Secretary a question on the point but received a very unsatisfactory reply. They knew from former Debates that the supremacy of the Republic had been established over Swaziland, but they understood the control was to be merely of a very general character. They now understood something more was to be done, something more specific, and that something approaching to a Boer administration was to be established there. He hoped that was not correct. If it were not correct it would be satisfactory to them to be so informed.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid, the South African Republic were administering Swaziland in accordance with the terms of the Convention of 1894. The hon. Gentleman's first question he took to refer to the territory between Zululand and the Portuguese part of Tongaland. We had annexed that territory and had declared a Protectorate so that as far as the sea board was concerned no other Power could have access to it.
  MR. CYRIL DODDcalled attention to the action of the
  714
  Board of Trade in regard to preferential railway rates in favour of the foreigner and against the English producer. His complaint was, that the Board of Trade at the present day was carrying out the same policy as its predecessors; there had been no change in that policy, notwithstanding that the law had been changed in many respects with regard to the railway companies. It was common knowledge to all who had studied the Reports of the Sub-commissioners sent out by the Agricultural Commission, that foreign produce had been carried to the English markets at rates very much lower than those charged for homegrown produce, and the discrepancy was very startling. The railway companies said that it was because the foreign produce came in large quantities, and was handled as wholesale consignments, while the English farmer sent his produce in smaller quantities, which had, therefore, to be charged higher rates. The Board of Trade might do much to mitigate the disadvantage to the English producer. The railways from the first had been regulated by Act of Parliament, and one of the earliest of those Acts of Parliament was still in existence. It provided that the Committee of the Treasury, and now the Board of Trade, should have power to require the Attorney General to take action if the railway companies in any respect transgressed any of the powers entrusted to them. In 1873 the Railway Regulation Act was passed, giving power to the Board of Trade to take up cases of unfair preference, and to bring them before the Railway Commissioners. From that date to this the Board of Trade had never taken up a single case, or done anything on behalf of the British producer; but the time had now arrived when the Board of Trade ought to take action. In 1888 new powers over the railway companies were given. Among other provisions, the duty was imposed on the Board of Trade, when questions as to the justice

  715
  of rates were raised, to act as arbitrators between the parties, and to try and arrange matters. It was urged that because that power of arbitration had been entrusted to the Board of Trade it was impossible for the Board to act under the powers conferred by the Act of 1873. The answer to that contention was to cite recent legislation with regard to the hours of railway servants. By that legislation almost the same duty of arbitration was imposed on the Board of Trade in respect of questions whether the hours worked were or were not too long; and it was provided that if the arbitration failed, the Board of Trade might take up the case of the railway servants and fight it out in the courts. The Board of Trade ought now to take up the case of the British merchant and producer as against the foreigner, because it was impossible that the former should fight the railway company, or that even a combination of private traders should do it. The intervention of some public Department was necessary. He would give one or two instances of the preferential charges which were established. English meat, carried for 84½ miles, was charged 36s. 9d.; the same quantity of foreign meat, carried 76 miles, was charged 12s. 6d. English hops, carried 45 miles, were charged 20s.; the same quantity of foreign hops, carried 76 miles, was charged only 6s. So far he had referred only to the statutory powers of the Board of Trade, and he did not believe in new legislation if there were a possibility of doing what was required by the law as it stood. But the Board of Trade had other powers. The railway companies frequently came to the House to get fresh powers; and in those circumstances it was not unreasonable that the House should know how the powers already given to the companies had been used. The House should be told whether the companies asking for new powers had been amenable to the Conciliation Clause, and had been reasonable with
  716
  regard to rates and charges; or whether the Board of Trade had found it impossible to arbitrate between them and their customers. These facts ought to be laid before the Committee which had to deal with any Railway Bill.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. J. BRYCE,)said, that no one who had followed these Debates in connection with railway rates could fail to recognise the assiduous attention which has been given by the hon. Member to this question. The suggestion, however, that when Bills came before the House, promoted by railway companies, it should be the duty of the Board of Trade to call attention to the conduct of companies in other respects, was one which he could not entertain. The two subjects were entirely different, and he was sure that the hon. Gentleman would feel that it would be very difficult for the House to mix up two questions so entirely opposed the one to the other as whether Parliamentary sanction should be given to the making of a new line or the widening of a line, or the improvement of shunting yards, only on condition that some other question in connection with traffic rates was settled at the same time. In many cases Bills were promoted quite as much in the interest of the public as in the interest of the railway company; and the interest of the public would suffer if a Bill carrying our railway improvements were rejected on account of some alleged transgression in another respect by the company. The question of difference in railway charges was a very difficult one, and he was sensible of the discontent felt with regard to the question, especially in the agricultural districts. The matter had been raised recently in an important case, the time for hearing which had not yet elapsed. It would, therefore, not be right for him to express an opinion with regard to it. But the Board of Trade were carefully watching the question, though at present they had no right to interfere; that was

  717
  a matter for the Railway Commissioners. They considered, however, whether in any way the influence which they possessed with railways could he brought usefully into play. Under the Act of 1888 the Board of Trade had power to act as conciliators or arbitrators in cases brought forward by traders. In those cases the Department frequently exercised the power of conciliation to good purpose and to the relief of the traders from heavy costs in appearing before the Railway Commissioners.
  MR. J. HAVELOCK WILSONcalled attention to the action of the Board of Trade in relation to sailors and firemen. He understood that it was the duty of the Board of Trade to protect the lives of men who went to sea on board our ships, and this country spent £51,000 ostensibly for that purpose. Yet foreigners, who did not know a word of the English language, were constantly being signed on board British ships; the agreements were read out to the men and they were asked to sign them and abide by them. It was, he maintained a disgrace for any public Department to ask men to sign agreements which they did not understand, but this was what was taking place constantly in Mercantile Marine Offices throughout the country. He had repeatedly called attention to this matter, but had never received a satisfactory reply. He had seen men of seven nationalities signing on board one ship in Cardiff, and not one of those men knew the English language. The Board of Trade officials, moreover, were not fair in their dealings with the men. What right had State officials to interfere between men and their employers for the purpose of preventing higher wages being paid to the men? The Board of Trade ought, at any rate, to see that the men got fair and reasonable wages, and not sweaters wages. In Cardiff, some time ago, the seamen wished for an advance of wages which would have brought the pay up to 2½d. or 3d. per hour, and could not be said to be an extravagant rate for men to ask. The shipowners refused, and the men would not sign on unless they got that rate. Then the shipowners began to sign their men on inside the Bute Docks, the dock gates being shut and men only admitted on promising to sign
  718
  on at the old rate of wages; and Government officials were sent into the docks to sign on crews there, whereas the proper place for all ordinary ships to be signed on was at the Mercantile Marine Offices. For what purpose did the Board of Trade spend thousands of pounds on large offices in different parts of the country unless they intended to sign crews on there? They signed on tinkers, and tailors, and carters who had never smelt salt water. He had met a tailor going about his ordinary business with his flat iron, and had seen that same man signed on a few hours later as an able-bodied seaman. He had also heard of a carter who was signed on and went on board with his hob-nail boots, and it took the ship's carpenter two days to remove the hobnails. ["Oh!" and laughter]. In one case, he heard of a vessel having to put back to port because all the sailors and firemen were sea-sick. The attention of the Board of Trade was called to this state of things at the time by written communications, but no satisfactory replies were received. If the business of the Department was to be carried on in this way the sooner they dispensed with the Mercantile Marine Office and its well-paid officials the better it would be for all concerned. On several occasions he had called the attention of the President of the Board of Trade to the treatment of Lascar seamen on board English ships. The owner of any vessel who failed to supply each seaman with 72 cubic feet of space was, under the Merchant Shipping Act, liable to a penalty of £20 for each offence. He had asked several questions with reference to the accommodation on the Himalaya, and the answer given him was that the forecastle was intended for the accommodation of 125 men, and yet 154 men slept there. The President of the Board of Trade was apparently afraid to act. He wished to know for what reason? Why did not the right hon. Gentleman enforce the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act? Another evil which demanded attention was due to the present mode of constructing the interiors of forecastles. They were now built of iron instead of wood. In hot weather the iron sweated and the result was that the men had to sleep in damp bunks. The Board of Trade could, and ought to, compel the owners to line the

  719
  interior, of the forecastles with wood. In 15 out of 20 ships the forecastles were in a disgraceful condition. In many cases they were so constructed that in the event of collision the men could not possibly escape from them in a reasonable time. Until these and other matters were put right by the Board of Trade he should continue to direct attention to them.
  Vote agreed to; Resolution to be reported to-morrow.

  FATAL ACCIDENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On the Order for Committee on this Bill,
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYANsaid, he hoped the House would allow it to be referred to the Scotch Grand Committee.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, he desired to move an Instruction to the Committee, and he did not know whether it would be in his power to do so if the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion were adopted. He was afraid he must object.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: May I ask, Sir, whether the Instruction is in Order?
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that this was one of the Bills that would be taken on Monday the 17th.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: Yes, Sir, I do not think we can press the matter.

  COURT OF SESSION CONSIGNATION (SCOTLAND) ADVANCE.
  On the Report of the Resolution in Committee,
  DR. TANNERsaid he was perfectly certain that£1,000 was being absolutely thrown away. He should certainly raise his objection to this expenditure on every possible opportunity, hoping that hon. Members on all sides of the House would kindly co-operate with him in preventing a really useless expenditure of public money. He was not going to raise the question now—
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not addressing himself to the question before the House.
  Resolution agreed to.

  POST OFFICE ACT (1891) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Read 2°, and committed for Monday, 10th June.

  FARM SERVANTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On the Order to resume the consideration of this Bill in Committee (Progress, Clause 1, 3rd of April).
  MR. SEYMOUR KEAY, asked that the Bill might be taken now.
  The MARQUESS OF CARMARTHEN, objected.
  MR. SEYMOUR KEAYsaid, it was only desired to pass the Bill into Committee pro forma for the purpose of reprinting it, with 39 Amendments which had been agreed upon as between the promoters and all sections of the House.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONconfirmed the statement of the hon. Member, and supported the appeal he made to the House.
  The House went into Committee on the Bill; whereupon,
  MR. BANBURY MR. BANBURY (Camberwell, Peckham), moved that progress be reported.
  Motion agreed to.

  RELIEF OF DISTRESS (IRELAND) 1895.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 30th May; Mr. John Morley]; to lie upon the Table.
  House adjourned at Eleven minutes
  after Twelve o'clock.

VISCOUNT MONCK.
Report made from the Lord Chancellor that the right of Henry Power Charles Stanley Monck Viscount Monk to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:—

1. Consolidated Fund (No. 2).

2. Finance.

3. Cruelty to Animals (Scotland) Act (1850) Amendment.

4. Courts of Law Fees (Scotland).

5. Military Lands Provisional Orders.

6. Great Eastern Railway.

7. Edinburgh and District Water.

8. Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours (Steam Vessels).

9. North Middlesex Gas.

10. Ayr Faculty of Solicitors' Widows' Fund Society.

11. Hayward's Heath Gas.

12. London Street Tram ways.

13. Aire and Calder Navigation.

14. Hebden Bridge and Mytholmroyd Gas Board.

15. Rhymney Railway.

16. Great Northern Railway.

17. Whitby Water.

18. Scarborough Gas.

19. York New Water.

The Commissioners were:—The Lord Chancellor (Lord Herschell), Lord Carrington, and Lord Kensington.

FISHERIES (CLOSE SEASON) (IRELAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; Read 1a.—(No. 141.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; Read 1a.—(No. 142.)
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TOWER BRIDGE SOUTHERN APPROACH) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; Read 1a.
Annual Statement of the Trade of United Kingdom with Foreign Countries and British Possessions, for 1894, presented.
RAILWAYS (CONTINUOUS BRAKES).
Return by the Railway Companies of the United Kingdom for the six months ending the 31st December 1894, presented.
INFANT LIFE PROTECTION BILL.— [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the Infant Life Protection Act, 1872—Was presented by the Earl of Onslow; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 140.)

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
The following Bills were read 3a (according to Order), passed, and sent to the Commons:—
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LLANGOLLEN) BILL.—[H.L.]
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONGBENTON) BILL.—[H.L.]
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (WILMINGTON) BILL.—[H.L.]
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (CROYDON) BILL.—[H.L.]
THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL,
and—
THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL,
were Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  MUSEUM AND GYMNASIUMS (AMEND- MENT) BILL.— [H.L.]
  Order of the Day for resuming the Debate on the Motion for the Second Reading, read.
  Debate resumed by
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)who remarked that, when the Bill was last before their Lordships, the question was raised whether it was competent for this House to consider the Bill, or whether, on the ground of privilege, the Bill could only be dealt with by the other House. He had looked into the matter, and undoubtedly there were certain Clauses of the Bill which were Privilege Clauses and which could not be dealt with in this House. They would have to be treated in the ordinary way as Privilege Clauses and they were those which determined how any expenses under the Act were to be raised. Subject to these Privilege Clauses he did not think the Bill in any way infringed any of the Privileges of the other House, and he had reason to think that view was taken by the authorities in the other House also. The Bill empowered public bodies to do certain things, but they would not necessarily cast any burdens on the rates or affect the incidence of rating, and therefore he did not think they would be a breach of Privilege.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (the EARL OF MORLEY)pointed out that Clause 9 of the Bill amended the Open Spaces Act from 1877 to 1890, although in the title of the Bill itself, which referred to Museums and Gymnasiums, there was nothing to indicate this. He suggested that such Amendment should be effected by a separate Bill, bearing some indication on the face of it of what its intention was. As he understood, the officers of the other House did not object to the Bill with the excision of the taxing clauses. He hardly thought it would be necessary to press the question of Privilege to the extreme.
  LORD HALSBURYobserved that his principal objection to the Bill was, that it gave the power of imposing additional taxation upon the ratepayers by clauses of reference without giving notice of what was going to be done.
  LORD THRINGobjected to referential or obscure clauses as much as anyone, but he did not think that this Bill carried out its purposes either in an unfair or obscure way. When it stated that a particular body should have the power under another Act to add to their existing powers, he thought that was a fair mode of dealing with the question. Though he had a repugnance to obscure clauses, he did not think that that objection applied to this Bill; and with respect to the question of Privilege, he had known numerous Bills exactly in this form passed with the assent of the House of Commons.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORintimated that, with regard to Clause 9, he doubted whether that could be dealt with by their Lordships. It transferred the powers of the Open Spaces Acts from one authority to another. That might include powers of payment, and it would be better to deal with the matter by putting the Expenses Clause among the Privileges Clauses.
  LORD THRING: I object to Clause 9.
  LORD HALSBURYsaid, he should withdraw his objection now until the Third Reading of the Bill, when he should be able to see what was left in the measure.
  LORD HAWKESBURYexpressed regret that, owing to other duties on Monday, he was unavoidably prevented from getting to this House until too late to be present when the Second Reading of the Bill was moved. The question of Privilege had already been dealt with by the Lord Chancellor, and so he would refer to the general principle of the Bill. Clauses 1–8 inclusive extended the power of urban authorities so as to enable them to provide and maintain winter gardens, and conferred on the vestries and district boards in the Metropolis and the Woolwich District Council the powers of an urban authority as regarded the provision of museums and gymnasiums and winter gardens. The general principle of these clauses was accepted by the Local Government Board, although on some minor points some Amendments

  601
  may be necessary at a later stage of the Bill. As regarded Clause 9, by which it was proposed that the powers of a local authority under the Open Spaces Act, 1887–90, should be conferred on County Councils, it was to be observed that by the Metropolitan Open Spaces Act, 1887, the Metropolitan Board of Works (now the London County Council) were empowered to acquire by purchase or gift and hold open spaces for public exercise and recreation; and by Section 12 of the Open Spaces Act, 1887, to purchase or lease, and maintain or contribute to the maintenance of public walks or pleasure grounds. The Metropolitan Open Spaces Act, 1881, enabled the trustees of open spaces acting under a local Act, and other owners of open spaces, to transfer them to the vestry or district board, or the Metropolitan Board of Works. It also authorised the transfer of disused burial-grounds to such authorities, for the purpose of being maintained as open spaces. These enactments were extended to urban and rural sanitary authorities (now urban and rural District Councils) by Section 5 of the Open Spaces Act, 1887, but in the case of a rural sanitary authority the Section required that the authority should first be invested by an Order of the Local Government Board with the powers of the Act. By a Bill now before the House of Commons, which had been introduced by the Government, it was proposed that the powers of a rural District Council under these Acts might be exercised whether the Council had been invested with powers under the Acts by an Order of the Board or not. Seeing that, under the existing law, provision had been made under which all urban and rural district councils might exercise powers under the Open Spaces Acts, there did not appear to be any necessity to confer like powers in respect of the same districts on the County Councils. It appeared undesirable that this concurrent jurisdiction should be given to the County Councils. If the powers were exercised by the County Council, the charge must either be borne by the whole county or by the particular locality; and if it were to be borne by the particular district, it would appear that the authority of that district should be the authority for the purpose
  602
  of these Acts, and should carry out their provisions. Whilst concurring in the Second Reading of the Bill, it must not be understood that the proposals in the concluding clause had the concurrence of the Government.
  THE EARL OF MEATH,in reply, expressed his readiness to yield to the desire of those Lords who wished Section 9 to be cut out. At the same time he thought there was some excuse for putting in the section, inasmuch as the Open Spaces Acts permitted in the open air gymnasia, and also conservatories, which would be practically winter gardens, in parks and public gardens. There was some slight connection between these matters, but he acknowledged it would be better to have a separate Bill if it were thought necessary that this subject should come before Parliament again. He knew there was a desire in the case of some County Councils to obtain these powers. It was only the previous day that the Chairman of the Middlesex County Council called upon him to express his great desire that this particular clause should pass, because, he said, he was continually being asked by the local authorities in his district when they wanted open spaces why the Middlesex County Council should not have the power enjoyed by the London County Council of giving half the purchase money for the purpose of assisting local bodies in adding to their parks.
  Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Tuesday, the 18th of June next.

  CHURCH PATRONAGE BILL.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  Clause 6:—

  PRELIMINARIES TO PRESENTATION AND INSTITUTION.
  (1) A presentation to any benefice shall not be complete until the bishop has received a statutory declaration in the prescribed form, by the patron, stating the date when and the manner in which he acquired the right of patronage, and that either he is not a trustee for the presentee, or if he is such a trustee, that the right of patronage has not been transferred to him since the passing of this Act, and that the patron has

  603
  not made the presentation in consideration of any benefit to himself or to any other person, and that no engagement has been made with any person that the presentee shall at any time resign the benefice, except as authorised by law: Provided that this subsection shall not apply when the patron is a public patron.

  (2) If a patron presents himself, such necessary modifications as may be prescribed shall be made in the declaration, and there shall be added thereto a declaration that the right of patronage has not been transferred to him since the passing of this Act.

  (3) The presentation shall not be complete until the bishop has received—

  (a) a statutory declaration by the presentee of all benefices, offices, and employments held by him since his Ordination as a deacon; and (unless the bishop shall otherwise direct)

  (b) letters testimonial in the prescribed form signed by three beneficed clergymen having such knowledge of the presentee as is stated in the letters, and countersigned by the bishop of the diocese in which each of the clergymen signing is beneficed, which countersignature it shall be the duty of every such bishop to give with or without qualification.

  (4) The bishop shall not institute any person to a benefice until the expiration of one clear month after notice that the bishop proposes to institute him has been sent by the bishop to the churchwardens of the parish, which notice shall be published by the churchwardens in the prescribed manner; and any parishioner may send to the bishop a representation in writing to the institution on any ground which by virtue of the next succeeding section entitles the bishop to refuse to institute.

  LORD LINGEN LORD LINGEN moved to leave out "benefit" and to insert "valuable consideration." The noble Lord observed that the word "benefit" seemed to him too great an extension of the intention of the clause. For instance, if a patron was to present his son, it could hardly be said he did not confer any benefit on him by that process. Clause 14, which gave the form of the declaration which had to be made seemed to contemplate rather such a consideration as was implied by the words "valuable consideration," and on that ground he moved the Amendment.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYreplied, that the word "benefit" had been in every Bill that had passed their Lordships' House on this subject and was first adopted on the highest legal advice. He thought the words "valuable consideration," conveyed a
  604
  meaning which was altogether too narrow to apply to a clause like this. The ordinarily accepted meaning was in connection with money, but there were many cases of presentations to benefices which would not come under the idea of money or valuable consideration at all. For instance, a patron might desire to present a clergyman to a living for certain personal reasons. He might give the clergyman in possession of that living a more valuable living in order to secure to himself the right of presenting a clergyman to the other, but no one could reason that he had thereby received a valuable consideration. He would say a word or two on the history of the word "benefit." In the original statute of Queen Elizabeth's reign the words ran much as they did here until they came to this: that a patron was not to present himself and not to make a presentation—
  "in consideration of any sum of money, reward, gift, profit, or benefit, direct or indirect."
  He had very good legal advice that all those words were covered by the word "benefit;" and as he thought it a much better word for the purposes of the Bill, and of much wider applicability than the words "valuable consideration," he hoped the noble Lord would not press his Amendment.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORthought the words "valuable consideration" would be too narrow for the reasons pointed out by the most rev. Prelate. But he was not quite easy about the word "benefit" standing alone; nor did he think the words quoted by the most rev. Prelate mere verbiage. He would, therefore, suggest to the most rev. Prelate whether it would not be well, on the Third Reading, to revert to the words which would meet with the objection of the noble Lord.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I shall be happy to propose them at the next stage of the Bill.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD LINGEN LORD LINGEN moved, in Clause 7, page 4, line 28, to leave out "if there be no other impediment," and insert "subject, however, to any existing right of a bishop to refuse, independently of this Act, to institute a presentee." He

  605
  understood the words "if there be no other impediment" to refer to objections taken to doctrine. The Bill did not include "doctrine"—in express terms—at any rate. It was confined to "competency" and "morals," and the words "if there be no other impediment" might cover doctrine. In all cases under the Bill the decision of the Archbishop upon appeal was final; but in the case of doctrine there was, by law which this Bill did not change, an appeal from the Archbishop to the Privy Council; and his Amendment, which he had imported from Clause 13, would cover rights which the Bishop might have beyond the Bill.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, he did not think the noble Lord had grasped exactly the very narrow scope of Sub-section 4 of Clause 7 which he sought to amend. The intention of the sub-section was, that when a bishop or Archbishop failed to institute when told after an inquiry to do so, then the Vicar General should institute the presentee. The question of doctrine had nothing to do with the sub-section. The words "if there be no other impediment" referred to such matters as, for instance, the patron's title. The words which the noble Lord proposed to introduce into the sub-section applied, when used in the 13th Clause or the Savings Clause, to the whole Act; and he thought it would be detrimental to the Act to remove them from their position of wide application, and apply them to this particular clause.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsuggested the insertion of the word "legal" before "impediment."
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, he would adopt the suggestion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD LINGEN LORD LINGEN moved to omit from Clause 9, page 5, line 28, the words, "without restricting the existing law." It seemed to him that the words would defeat the object of the clause or else they were superfluous.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, the intention of the words was to make it clear that the communications mentioned in the clause were not only made privileged by the clause, but that
  606
  any other protection for communications in the existing law also applied to them.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORconsidered that Clause 9 did not give any additional security to such communications beyond which the law already gave; but it was felt that the insertion of the words referred to would remove many apprehensions on the part of the people making those communications. He did not altogether like the words, "without restricting the existing law," and he suggested that some other words, such as "nothing shall diminish any privilege already existing," should be substituted for them on the Third Reading.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYadopted the suggestion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD LINGEN LORD LINGEN moved, in Clause 13, page 6, line 21, to leave out "a right of patronage," and insert "an advowson which being." The Amendment was merely verbal, and was intended to make the clause clearer.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, he had on the Paper an Amendment to substitute the words "an advowson" for "a right of patronage," which would perhaps meet the object of the noble Lord.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *On the Motion of the ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY the words "an advowson" were inserted in the clause in line 21, instead of "a right of patronage."

  REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (CHANNEL ISLANDS CHIL- DREN) BILL.
  Read 3a, and passed.

  TRAMWAYS (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL.
  On the Report of Amendments to this Bill,
  THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid, he desired to ask Lord Ribblesdale whether he could now answer the question put to him in the Standing Committee that arose upon Clause 3 of the Bill. Clause 3

  607
  provided that the redemption of their liability by the Treasury under this Act should not affect the obligation of the Company, and so on, as regarded the efficient maintenance and the working of the tramways, and it went on to provide, that if the Board of Trade informed the Lord Lieutenant that such obligation was not fulfilled, he should declare the same, and until he declared that it had been fulfilled the Grand Jury were to raise, and pay to the Crown annually, a sum equal to 3 per cent. upon the capital sum the Treasury had redeemed. What was to be done with that 3 per cent.?
  LORD RIBBLESDALEwas sorry he had not been able to answer this question before, but he was now in a position to do so. The 3 per cent. was to be paid into the Exchequer, and was not to be held up with a view to its increasing in body and bulk. It was a penalty payment, as it were, for the non-fulfilment of the obligation of these tramways being kept in efficient and good working order The whole of the Bill, of course, proceeded upon that understanding, and the commutation of the Treasury liability of 2 per cent. would not be undertaken unless part, as it were, of the exchange value of that redemption was the efficient and good working of the tramways. The object of the clause was, that the Treasury should be placed in no worse a position under the Bill than it was now. At present, under the Tramways Act of 1883, the Treasury was liable for 2 per cent. of this guaranteed interest, but it was only liable for that if the tramway was not in good working order. If the provisions of this Bill were taken advantage of, the Treasury would borrow at 3 per cent., and at 33½ years' purchase, and of course borrow on the understanding that the tramway was kept in good order. If the tramway, however, were dropped, or kept in bad order, they did not wish to be this 3 per cent. out of pocket, but required that that should be paid back by the grand jury. There was a question raised on Clause 1 which he would answer now. It was what "public interest" meant. A line in the
  608
  first clause was "public interest whether by means of directors or otherwise." "Public interest" meant the grand juries, because if the provisions of the Act were taken advantage of, the grand juries would become the owners of a very much larger proportion of the capital of those companies than they were at present; and, consequently, as they paid the piper, they claimed a greater right to call the tune, and required a greater control than they at present had. He did not think there was any intellectual difficulty in understanding the word "directors."
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, that the explanation of the noble Lord was quite clear. This was a matter of course affecting the localities and the ratepayers, and he assumed that those who were looking after their interests in the negotiations with the Treasury, and the negotiations with the House of Commons looked after this matter too. As far as he recollected the discussion in the House of Commons this was a consent Bill. He understood that the parties most interested had threshed the subject out on the spot, and had arrived at the conclusion that the locality would make money. He also understood that the Treasury had made up their minds that they too would make money. Everyone, therefore, being satisfied the Bill passed. Personally, he thought that Clause 3 was rather loosely drawn, for the Lord Lieutenant was given the power of declaring that he was satisfied with the efficient working of the tramways, in which case the 3 per cent. payment would stop. He supposed the localities were satisfied that they all put such pressure upon the Lord Lieutenant that he would be reasonably satisfied on this question.
  Report of Amendments agreed to.

  LOWERING OF BOATS FROM SHIPS.
  THE EARL OF STRAFFORDasked, whether the Board of Trade had given a trial to the method of lowering boats by flexible steel wire on board steam and sailing ships, as advocated by Mr.

  609
  W. Bell, naval architect, of Greenock, N.B., by which system it was said:—
  "That the heaviest lifeboat could be released and lowered by a couple of men in less than sixty seconds."
  LORD PLAYFAIRsaid, the Board of Trade had the power, under the Shipping Act, 1894, to take care that ships had good and efficient lowering gear for the boats, but the Act did not enjoin that any particular method of lowering should be followed. A Committee of experts inquired into the whole matter, and gave their own ideas of efficiency, but all the Board of Trade had, through its surveyors, to do was to see that when a ship passed examination the method of lowering boats was efficient. They could not enter upon an inquiry as to any particular method or invention. If the invention to which the noble Lord alluded were applied to one particular ship, and that ship applied to the Board of Trade to be passed as a ship well equipped for navigable purposes, the Board would send a surveyor to see the working of the method. Under the circumstances, the Board could not hold an inquiry as to the merits of the particular invention in question.

  ASIATIC TURKEY.
  LORD CONNEMARAasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to lay upon the Table of the House papers relating to the affairs of Asiatic Turkey?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (the Earl of KIMBERLEY)said, that at the proper time Papers upon this subject would be laid on the Table, but at the present moment, when negotiations were actively going on with the Turkish Government as to reforms in the interest of the Armenians, and when a project had been presented to the Sultan by the Ambassadors of the Three Powers who were acting in concert in this matter, it would not, in his opinion, be to the public interest that Papers should be laid on the Table.
  House adjourned at Ten minutes after Five o'clock till Monday, the 17th of June.