Sitting of 5 June 1896

GAS AND WATER WORKS FACILITIES ACT, 1870.
Paper [presented 4th June] to be printed.—[No. 213.]
GAS AND WATER WORKS FACILITIES ACT, 1870.
Paper [presented 4th June] to be printed.—[No. 214.]
TRAMWAYS ACT, 1870.
Paper [presented 4th June] to be printed.—[No. 215.]
INCOME TAX ASSESSMENTS, 1895.
Return presented,—relative thereto (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 165, of Session 1894) [ordered 27th May 1895; Mr. Bartley]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.—[No. 216.]
INCOME TAX.
Return presented,—relative thereto (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 39, of Session 1892) [ordered 27th August 1895; Mr. Thomas Ellis]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.—[No. 217.]
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  CITY AND SOUTH LONDON RAILWAY BILL.
  On the consideration of this Bill, as amended,
  SIR ALBERT ROLLIToffered the following clause:—

  LANDS AND BUILDINGS IN THE PARISH OF ISLINGTON TO CONTINUE LIABLE TO RATES.
  The company shall in respect of all lands and buildings acquired by them under the powers of this Act within the parish of Islington be liable to and pay all the rates and contributions leviable in respect of such lands and buildings, as if the company were assessed in respect of such lands and buildings in the valuation list in force
  502
  for the parish or place within which such lands and buildings are situate, at the time the company acquire such lands and buildings whether such lands and buildings be occupied or vacant, and shall continue liable to and pay all such rates and contributions until the undertaking shall be completed and assessed, or liable to be assessed to the before-mentioned rates and contributions, or until such of the said lands and buildings as may not be required for the purposes of the undertaking shall have been otherwise duly assessed or liable to be assessed, and become liable to the before-mentioned rates and contributions.
  He said he begged to move the insertion of the clause which appeared upon the Paper in his name, and he did so on behalf of the local authority of the constituency which he had the honour of representing. He thought that he might say that Parliament had always shown great respect for the wishes of local authorities where those authorities were actuated only by a desire for the public interest, which was the case in the present instance. The object of the clause was to require the payment by the railway company of the rates in respect of the property which they had taken for the purposes of their line during the time occupied in the construction of the railway. That was all that the clause proposed; because, of course, after the line was finished, it would be rateable in the ordinary way. He admitted that this was a somewhat late stage of the Bill at which to make this proposal, but the necessity for making it now was imperative.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid that as the clause proposed to put a greater tax upon the railway company, it was out of order on the Report stage.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid that, of course, he accepted the ruling of the Speaker at once; but he wished to know whether he was not at liberty to move that the Bill be recommitted for the purpose of the clause being inserted.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid that such a Motion would be in order, but that, if it were objected to, it would have to stand over until a future day.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid that he would alter his Motion, and would move that the Bill be recommitted.
  MR. C. T. MURDOCH(Reading) objected.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITgave notice that he would make the Motion on Monday next.

QUESTIONS.

  FLOWERS (CARRIAGE BY POST).
  MR. J. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that small boxes of flowers are sent from the south of France to any part of England, Ireland, or Scotland, a distance exceeding 1,000 miles, for a postal charge of less than 2½d.; what proportion, if any, of the 2½d. is paid to the English Government; and, whether he will give equal facilities to our own people for the conveyance of flowers from favoured climates in England and Ireland to London, as are enjoyed by the French peasantry?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): It is the case that in France, where there is a large industry in cut flowers, the Post Office treats small boxes of flowers, though sent by private persons, as samples of merchandise, and sends them to England and other countries of the Postal Union at the rate applicable to samples. In this country consignments of flowers are not regarded as samples, whether sent by traders or private persons; but, as the French Post Office found great difficulty in discriminating between flowers sent as samples by florists and flowers of trifling value sent by private individuals to their friends, it was decided some years ago to deliver, and not to return to France, all packets of flowers sent hither from that country by the sample post. The whole of the postage on samples sent from France to England is retained by the French Post Office, as that on samples sent in the opposite direction is by the British Post Office. In the inland postal service of this country consignments of cut flowers, whether sent by traders or private persons, could not be sent by sample post, although bona fide trade samples of flowers might, of course, be sent by a dealer under the regulations of that post, which prescribe, inter alia, that the trader's name must be printed on each packet. The Postmaster-General is not aware of any demand for further
  504
  facilities than the parcel and letter posts afford for sending flowers from place to place in this country, where the difference between the sample postage, parcel postage, and letter postage, payable on a packet not weighing more than (say) 8 oz. is trifling compared with the difference between the international rates.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked whether there was not reason to suppose that there might be a considerable trade with the Scilly Islands, where whole acres of flowers were grown?
  MR. HANBURY: I should certainly have thought there was, and I cannot understand this preference shown to the foreign trade.

  TYPE-WRITTEN CIRCULARS (POSTAGE).
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that circulars produced from the original or primary typewriting by means of carbon paper, and posted in batches of twenty, are charged as so many letters, contrary to the official notice admitting at the circular rate copies produced by means of a mechanical process from type-written originals; and, whether he will give directions that batches of twenty carbon copies shall be charged for as circulars?
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General is aware that circulars such as the hon. Member describes have hitherto been charged with letter postage, it having been held that they were typewritten and not produced by a mechanical process from type-written, originals, as required in the official notice referred to. The question is, however, a nice one, and, under the circumstances, the Postmaster General has decided to allow these circulars to pass at the halfpenny rate for postage if posted in batches of not less than twenty identical copies.

  MADAGASCAR.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United

  505
  States assent to the view that the bare conversion of the French Protectorate of Madagascar into a French Colony puts an end to the commercial and other engagements of Madagascar?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. GEORGE CURZON,): So far as this country is concerned the matter is receiving the attentive consideration of Her Majesty's Government, but I am not as yet able to make any statement of their views. We have received no information as to the views entertained by the American Government since the announcement of the French annexation of Madagascar.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will the Government communicate with the American Government on the subject?
  MR. CURZON: I think it is not unlikely that we may be put in possession of the views of the American Government on the subject.

  LETTER DELIVERIES (CAVAN AND BELTURBET).
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he has made inquiries into the complaints of late delivery of and early reply to mid-day letters in Cavan and Belturbet, and, if so, with what result; is he aware that the Great Northern Railway Company are mainly responsible for the delay by refusing small concessions unless they receive large subsidies; and, in view of the fact that the Midland Great Western Railway Company's trains run into Cavan also, could some arrangement be made with them in case the Northern Company refuse to give the facilities required?
  MR. HANBURY: Inquiry has been made in accordance with the promise made to the hon. Member whether any improvement is practicable in the hours of delivery and dispatch of the mid-day mail at Cavan and Belturbet, but the present arrangement of trains does not admit of better hours being afforded. As regards the second question of the hon. Member, the Postmaster General understands that the Great Northern Railway Company has been approached
  506
  by the public with a view to the improvement of the train from Dundalk which carries the day mail, but the Company have replied that such improvement was a matter for the Post Office to effect. So far, however, as the Post Office is concerned, there would not be any justification whatever for the establishment of a special train for the postal service. Although trains of the Midland Great Western Company run into Cavan, the hours are not so suitable for the day mail as the hours of the trains on the Great Northern Railway, and it was ascertained not long since that no alterations that would be of advantage to the Postal Service were in contemplation by the Company.
  MR. J. P. FARRELLwas understood to ask whether that depended upon the Railway Company?
  MR. HANBURYsaid it depended entirely on the Railway Company, and the only way would be by means of one special train for the mails, which would not be justifiable under the circumstances.

  LABOURERS (IRELAND) ACT.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he will agree to the insertion of a clause in the Labourers (Ireland) Bill making it compulsory on Boards of Guardians to consider representations lodged with them within a specific time of lodgment, after due notice being given to the lodgers of the representations of the ratepayers?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (MR. GERALD BALFOUR,): The existing Acts do not prescribe any period within which representations received by a sanitary authority must be taken into consideration by that body, and it does not seem desirable to lay down any hard-and-fast rule on the subject, such as is suggested by the question. As a rule, these representations are sent in singly, on behalf of individual labourers, and the practice hitherto has been for the sanitary authority to wait until they had received a large number, so that all might be dealt with together. This course, it is needless to observe, saves much expense, as, if notices had to be published

  507
  within a limited period after the receipt of each representation, the incidental expenses, which are at present heavy enough, would be largely increased.
  MR. J. P. FARRELLasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would not suggest that these representations should be considered annually?
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he thought that might prove inconvenient, but if the hon. Member had any special case the particulars of which he would forward to him, he would have inquiry made into it.

  RIVER LEA (POLLUTION) ACT.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether he is aware that the waters of the River Lea are polluted by the introduction of insufficiently disinfected sewage matter from the districts of Tottenham, Walthamstow and Leyton, greatly to the detriment of the health of the inhabitants of South Hackney and other districts; and whether he can take any, and what, steps to prevent this infringement of the Rivers Pollution Acts?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN,): As regards the pollution of the waters of the River Lea, I have been in communication with the district councils of the three districts referred to in the Question. In the case of Tottenham, I am informed that the whole of the sewage of the district is pumped direct from the outfall works into the sewers of the London County Council. I do not find that the Local Government Board, during the last two years, have received any complaint in this matter as regards the Leyton district. With respect to Walthamstow, proceedings were instituted by the Leyton District Council for the purpose of obtaining an injunction to prohibit the pollution of the river by sewage from that district. An injunction was granted and the district council have submitted proposals for additional works with a view to preventing a continuance of the pollution. The Local Government Board have no authority to institute proceedings under the Rivers Pollution Prevention Acts; proceedings under
  508
  those Acts may be instituted by the County Council or the council of any district affected by the pollution. Moreover, any powers which the Lea Conservancy Board have as regards the pollution of the river have been reserved to them by the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act of 1876.

  TELEPHONE CABLES (PARIS AND LONDON).
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether it is the fact that two new telephone cables and land lines are about to be constructed between Paris and London; could he state what is the estimated cost, and in what proportion will the expenditure and profit be shared by the Governments of the two countries; whether any provision has been made in the Estimates just passed; and, if not, when the Vote for the money necessary will be submitted to Parliament for the construction of the telephones referred to; and, whether any reduction in the present high tariff of 8s. for three minutes' conversation is contemplated?
  MR. HANBURY: The Governments of the two countries are agreed that at least one submarine cable for telephonic and telegraphic purposes ought to be laid; and the land lines to serve this cable are in course of construction. The question of a second cable is still under consideration. As a contract for the construction of the first cable has not been made, it would not be convenient to give an estimate of the cost. The expenditure on the cable and the receipts for the whole service will be shared equally between the two countries. Provision for the land lines and cable has been made partly in the Votes of the last financial year and partly in those of the current year. No reduction in the charge for telephonic conversations with Paris is contemplated.

  RHODES (MR. CECIL).
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he has asked or received from Mr. Cecil Rhodes any explanation with respect to the mention

  509
  of Mr. Rhodes' name in the cipher telegrams recently published, and to the imputations which have been founded thereon of Mr. Rhodes' complicity in the conspiracy against the South African Republic?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): The answer to both questions is in the negative.
  MR. ROBERTSON: The right hon. Gentleman himself, four weeks ago, made certain imputations upon Mr. Rhodes—
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: What imputations?
  MR. ROBERTSON: The imputations founded on these telegrams, that he knew and approved of proceedings—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! A question as to something that happened in a Debate on a previous day is not in order.
  MR. ROBERTSON: No, Sir; but what I propose to ask is whether the right hon. Gentleman has caused these statements with reference to Mr. Rhodes to be communicated to him, or whether Mr. Rhodes of his own accord has obtained the information and has himself volunteered any explanation?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have had no communication whatever with Mr. Rhodes.

  RIVER BRENT (POLLUTION).
  MR. G. C. T. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether his attention has been called to the filthy condition of the River Brent after it receives the sewage water from the sewage farm at Ealing, Middlesex; whether he is aware that this stream runs close to the large district schools with some thousand children, and through the densely populated district of Brentford; and, whether he will cause a local inquiry to be made with a view of putting a stop to the serious danger to the health of the neighbourhood from this polluted stream?
  MR. CHAPLIN: The attention of the Local Government Board was directed last year to the condition of this river, and the Board, after obtaining a report from one of their inspectors on the subject, communicated with the Thames
  510
  Conservancy Board and the County Council, urging that action should be taken with the view of preventing the continuance of pollution of the river. In consequence of the reference in the question to the Ealing district, I have made inquiry of the Council of that district, and am informed that there is no source of pollution within their district, and that, with the view of preventing pollution of the river by others, they have determined to take steps to obtain an injunction. With respect to the Willesden District Council, the effluent from whose works was regarded by the Thames Conservancy as unsatisfactory, the Local Government Board have now before them an application from the Council for sanction to a loan for the improvement of their works of sewerage and sewage disposal. Powers of instituting proceedings for preventing pollutions are vested in the Thames Conservancy and the County Council, and I will again communicate with these authorities.

  AGRICULTURAL LAND RATING BILL.
  SIR JOHN BRUNNER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether it is his intention to put down an Amendment to exempt building land occupied as agricultural land from the operation of the Agricultural Land Rating Bill?
  MR. CHAPLIN: The subject is under consideration. I hardly think it is one for question and answer across the Table.
  SIR JOHN BRUNNERthought the right hon. Gentleman had hardly gathered the point of his Question. Did he intend to put down an Amendment?
  MR. CHAPLIN: I have nothing to add to the answer I have given.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, if he can now state whether it is the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill this Session providing for Scotland a grant corresponding with the grant made for England in the Agricultural Land Rating Bill; and, if so, whether the grant will be confined to the relief of rates on agricultural land?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I have to say that a Bill on the subject has been prepared, but I will not anticipate it or any discussion upon it.
  MR. ROBERTSON: Will it be introduced this Session? [Laughter.]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Yes.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, when the Irish Light Railways Bill is to be introduced?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I propose to introduce the Irish Light Railways Bill as soon as the Bill dealing with Light Railways in England has passed the Report stage.

  EXECUTIONS AT NEWGATE.
  MR. HORATIO DAVIES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether, in order to prevent the possibility of a mishap at the execution of the three men now under sentence of death at Newgate, he will instruct the Sheriffs of the counties of London and Middlesex that each culprit should be executed separately, say at 8 a.m., 9.30, and 11 o'clock respectively?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,): The general regulations made by one of my predecessors under the Capital Punishment Amendment Act, 1868, among other things, recommend that for the sake of uniformity executions should take place at 8 a.m.; but the matter is left entirely within the discretion of the Sheriff, and I have no power to interfere in the manner suggested by the hon. Member.
  MR. H. DAVIES: Will the right hon. Gentleman advise the Sheriffs on the subject?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: No, Sir; I have no reason to doubt the discretion of the Sheriffs in the discharge of their public duties.

  PAUPER SCHOOL CHILDREN.
  MR. T. LOUGH: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether he has any confirmation of the statement made by Dr. Bridges in 1889, and confirmed by the Poor Law Schools Inquiry Committee, that from 63 to 64 per cent. of the children in pauper schools, are "ins and outs;" if so, what steps have the Local Government Board taken to effect a classification of these children, so that they may not mix freely with the permanent children and morally and physically contaminate them; and, is it a fact that only two Boards, and those in conjunction, out of the 27 in London have provided separate accommodation for this class of children?
  MR. CHAPLIN: The hon. Member appears to be under an entire misapprehension as to the effect of the statements in the reports of Dr. Bridges and of the Committee on Poor Law Schools. Dr. Bridges did not state that from 63 to 64 per cent. of the children in Poor Law Schools were "ins and outs," but that in the year 1889 the number of discharges from these schools gave the percentage referred to. The report of the Committee shows that out of a total of 14,282 children 905 were admitted to the schools more than once within the year, and that of that number only 248 were admitted more than twice during the year. The Local Government Board have not called upon the different Boards of Guardians to provide separate accommodation for the children of the class referred to, nor am I prepared to say that it is necessary that they should be brought up by themselves. The managers of the Kensington and Chelsea School District are the only metropolitan authority which have provided an intermediate school (an arrangement which I fully admit has many advantages), but this school is not in any way limited to children of the "in and out" class, as all children are sent to this school before being passed on to the main district school.

  EAST AFRICA (ANGLO-ITALIAN RELATIONS).
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,

  513
  whether the statement in the telegram of 12th March 1896, as it appears in the Papers recently laid before the Italian Parliament, from the Italian Ambassador in London to the Minister of Foreign Affairs in Rome, is correct, namely, that ''Lord Salisbury, after a meeting of the Cabinet, telegraphed to Lord Cromer to take steps for executing a Military demonstration towards Dongola, with a view to making a diversion in our favour;" whether, in taking this decision, Her Majesty's Government acted on the advice of Lord Cromer; and, whether any communication took place with the other European Powers in regard to such a military demonstration, before or after the decision of the Government?
  MR. CURZON: Lord Cromer was informed by telegraph on March 12th that Her Majesty's Government had decided to authorise an advance of Egyptian troops in the Valley of the Nile, for the security of the Egyptian frontiers, and also as a diversion in favour of Kassala. As I have twice previously stated, in reply to similar questions, Her Majesty's Government had, before this decision was arrived at, been in communication with Lord Cromer and the military authorities in Egypt, who had expressed the opinion that a forward movement against the Dervishes should be made, in view of the position of Kassala. No previous consultation took place with the European Powers. But they were informed afterwards that Her Majesty's Government had authorised the advance of Egyptian troops; and the objects of the expedition were explained to them.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I may, perhaps, ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there is any serious objection to producing the communication made to Lord Cromer on March 12th?
  MR. CURZON: No doubt the Secretary of State will consider the propriety of including that and other papers in any collection of documents that may subsequently be laid before the House.
  MR. J. MORLEY: May we know when that collection of papers is likely to be made? ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. CURZON: That is a question that I cannot answer without notice.
  MR. J. MORLEY: Will the collection of papers also include the commmunication made to the Foreign Powers to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred?
  MR. CURZON: That, again, is a matter which, of course, I must submit to the judgment of the Secretary of State.
  MR. LEONARD COURTNEY: The right hon. Gentleman, in his principal answer, has repeated again the ambiguous word "who." ["Hear, hear!"] I would ask him if the word "who" in this answer refers to Lord Cromer as well as to the military authorities?
  MR. CURZON: I apologise if my grammar is unacceptable to the House, but, as on previous occasions, so now, the word "who" refers to both parties.

  EMPLOYMENT OF INDIAN TROOPS IN EGYPT.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether the question of the dispatch of an Indian force to the Soudan, and of the proportion of the charge of the force, has been considered by the Indian Council?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): Both the questions referred to by the right hon. Gentleman were considered by the India Council before I gave notice of the Resolution which is awaiting discussion.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I believe it is the practice in a case of this kind, if there should be any dissent in the India Council, they are produced in this House. That was done, I understand, in the case of the Cotton Duties, and I wish to know will that precedent be followed in the present case
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I have not the slightest objection, if the right hon. Gentleman wishes them.
  MR. J. MORLEY: Then the noble Lord will lay them on the Table of the House?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Yes.

  EMPLOYERS' AND WORKMEN'S ACT (BALLYGAWLEY).
  MR. D. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland, what steps, if any, have been taken to quash the committal orders

  515
  recently issued by Ballygawley magistrates under the Employers' and Workmen's Act; can he state how many such committal orders under the said Act have been issued by the Ballygawley Bench since 1st January 1890, and how many persons have been arrested on those committal orders; can he state, actually or approximately, how many persons are known to the constabulary to have left the country to escape arrest under those orders; and, will he adopt means to have it intimated to the magistrates of Ireland that the Employers' and Workmen's Act does not apply in the case of borrowers from the Loan Fund, or in that of the sureties of such borrowers?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. ATKINSON,): In the few hours which have elapsed since this Question has been put upon the Paper, I have been unable to obtain a report on the numerous matters inquired after; but it might possibly satisfy the hon. Member to be informed that the warrants have not been, and will not be, executed by the police. As the magistrates are independent judges, it would be improper of the Executive to instruct them on questions of law arising from their decision.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  MR. CHARLES HENRY WILSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether Wednesday 17th June will be taken by the Government; and, whether he will give facilities for the Committee stage of the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday Bill?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Wednesday, the 17th, will be taken for Government business. At all events, it would not fall to the hon. Gentleman for the Second Reading discussion of the Bill. Other Bills would have priority if the Government gave up the day to private Members.
  MR. C. H. WILSON: Will facilities be given for the Committee stage?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Well, Sir, if all the Government Bills are satisfactorily and easily got through before August 12 I shall be very happy to consider that Question. [Laughter.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The right hon. Gentleman stated yesterday he would mention to-night what would be the business next week.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: We propose to devote Monday and Tuesday to the Irish Land Bill and to take the Committee on the Education Bill on Thursday.
  MR. JAMES BRYCE: When does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate taking the Report stage of the Light Railways Bill and the Conciliation Bill?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Both of those Bills will have to be deferred for the present.
  MR. BRYCE: Will the Education Bill be taken continuously after Thursday?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Yes, it will.
  SIR C. DILKE: Not on Friday?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No; Supply.

ADJOURNMENT.

  EAST AFRICA ANGLO-ITALIAN RELATIONS.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely:—
  "The keeping back from the House of Commons of communications between Her Majesty's Government and the Italian Government, and between Her Majesty's Government and Lord Cromer, in respect of matters connected with military operations in East Africa."
  The pleasure of the House not having been signified,
  MR. SPEAKERcalled on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places.
  All the Members on the Opposition side, with the exception of those on the front Opposition Bench, having accordingly risen,
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid the House would, no doubt, remember how surprised it was early in March, when the

  517
  announcement appeared in the newspapers that an expedition was about to take place—to cross the Egyptian frontier and to invade the Soudan. Questions were then asked in the House, and the answers, he was bound to say, were exceedingly vague. They were informed that the expedition would be most useful to the Italians who were besieged at Kassala. He, in common with others, was very much surprised at the statement that the expedition was for the benefit of Italy. They knew that the summer season was coming on, and that that was the worst season for launching an expedition. They were also in possession of the Report of Lord Cromer, dated February 23, in which he stated that there was no danger on the frontier from the Dervishes, who were perfectly quiet. There was not the least allusion, to the expedition. There was a reason for this. Her Majesty's Government intended to apply to the Caisse de la Dette for the money with which to pay for the expedition. It was obvious that' if it had been stated that the expedition was for the benefit of Italy, and not, or only incidentally, for the advantage of Egypt, the application of the money of the Caisse, de la Dette could not have been legitimately made. Since the making of these vague and ambiguous statements, the Italian Government had published four Green-books. It was rather remarkable how the first of those Green-books came to be published. Signor Crispi published a Green-book, but from it a great many Dispatches wore omitted, and a good many which did appear in it were doctored. Signor Crispi was ejected from power and replaced by the Marquis di Rudini. A member of the Italian Chamber asked whether all the Dispatches that had passed between the different Governments and the Italian generals in Abyssinia had been published. The Marquis di Rudini said they had not been published; he thought they ought to be, and he would publish a second Green-book. It seemed a little hard that Dispatches should be addressed to the Italian Government and should not be submitted to the British House of Commons. [Cheers.]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid his right hon. Friend the
  518
  Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs stated that the Dispatches would be laid before Parliament.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid the Under Secretary stated that only two or three Dispatches would be laid before Parliament.
  MR. CURZONsaid he distinctly stated that whatever Dispatches between Her Majesty's Government and the Italian Government had already appeared in the Italian Green-book, Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to lay on the Table of the House.
  MR. LABOUCHERE,continuing, said it was not only two or three, but a considerable uumber of Dispatches which ought to be published for the Information of the House. Of some of these Dispatches not one word had been submitted to the House of Commons—in fact, had it not been for the publication of the Green-book, hon. Members would know nothing about the business. [Cheers.] In Italy, as the House were doubtless aware, there were, as in this House, two Parties. Just as there were here Little Englanders and Big Englanders there were in Italy Little Italians and Big Italians. Signor Crispi was the exponent of Big Italy, and the Marquis di Rudini was for Italy acting alone and for no extension of the Italian kingdom, and he was supported by every Radical in Italy. Signor Crispi was Prime Minister of Italy at the time Italy obtained a strip of land on the Red Sea, and he came to the conclusion that he ought to take all the Hinterland. He therefore established a protectorate over a part of Abyssinia and the other part he declared to be part and parcel of the Italian colony. In order to safeguard the new frontier he occupied, with our assent, Kassala, but we assented on condition that the occupation should be only temporary, that Italy should hold it subject to the paramount right of the Egyptian Government to demand that it should be restored to Egypt. The Italian Government made two demands upon the English Government. The first was that we should send certain letters to Ras Mangasha, who had written a letter to the Queen asking her to take his part and to prevent the Italians

  519
  making war upon him. The following letter was therefore drafted:—
  "To Ras Mangasha, son of King John, King of Kings of Zion and Ethiopia.—Sir,—I am commanded by the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, Empress of India, to inform you that your letter dated the 21st of September last has been received, and that it has given her great pleasure to hear from you. While assuring you of the sincere friendship with which the Queen is animated towards you, I am to express Her Majesty's regret that hostilities should have broken out between Abyssinia and Italy, and I am to add that Her Majesty earnestly hopes that peace between the two countries may soon be concluded on satisfactory and lasting terms. Your sincere Friend, SALISBURY."
  That was a most proper and reasonable letter to write on the part of a country that was an enemy neither of the Italians nor of the Abyssinians, but the Italian Government were not satisfied with it. On February 22nd, the Minister of Foreign Affairs telegraphed to the Italian Ambassador in London:—
  "The draft of the answer of Lord Salisbury to Mangascia makes no difference between the English friendship to Mangascia and that towards Italy, whilst the answer of the Ministry of Rosebery to Mangascia spoke of Italy as the ally of England. We think that to send such a reply would harm our interests."
  On February 25th, the Italian Ambassador telegraphed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs:—" The Foreign Office has agreed that the draft of the letter to King Mangascia shall be corrected. Another is being prepared"; and on the 27th of the same month the Minister of Foreign Affairs telegraphed:—
  "The Foreign Office, in its answer to Ras Mangascia, should consider that, not only is he our enemy, but that he cannot be considered as a Sovereign; he never was one, but only a head vassal."
  Then the following draft was drawn up and humbly submitted to the Italian Government. [Opposition ironical cheers]:—
  "While assuring you of the friendly feelings with which the Queen continues to be animated towards you, I am to express her Majesty's great regret that hostilities should have broken out between Abyssinia and Italy, which is the friend and ally of this country."
  Thus a clear distinction was made between our relations with Italy, and our relations with Abyssinia. It was a
  520
  very remarkable thing this should be done at the bidding of Italy; but in any ease, when such communications had been exchanged, they ought to have been submitted to the Parliament of England. [Cheers.] Had it not been for the Italian Green-book we should never have known of them; certainly, we should never have heard of the first draft being submitted to the Italian Government. The next thing he found in the Green-book was a long correspondence with regard to Yeila and Harar, which form part of the British protectorate on the coast of the Red Sea. There was an agreement with France, which would be violated were any part of the protectorate to form the basis of military operations by Italy. A most acrimonious correspondence took place on this point with the Italian Government. The Italians asked that they should make these places the bases of operations against the Abyssinians. On January 11th, the Minister of Foreign Affairs telegraphed to the Italian Ambassador concerning, evidently, an interview with Sir Clare Ford. Sir Clare Ford must have sent a Dispatch to the Foreign Office, and that ought to have been published. The Italian Foreign Minister telegraphed:—
  "I added that I do not wish to describe the impression of our army and of the country respecting the English friendship when they see a simple demonstration in the neighbourhood of Yeila, which with a few troops would have produced so much effect in bringing back to Harar Maconen, who is now attacking Macalle, impeded, owing to an evident deference to France."
  On 5th February the Minister for Foreign Affairs had another conversation with Sir Clare Ford, and then sent this Dispatch to the Italian Ambassador:—
  "The British Government makes no objection to the Declaration of May 5, 1894. But, according to Lord Salisbury, if the publication of the Declaration were made in Rome this might lead to a demand for its presentation to the British Parliament, and the British Government might find it necessary to present at the same time the correspondence exchanged with the French Government regarding the Anglo-Italian Agreement. It is also possible that this might conduce to interrogatories in the French Chamber, which would lead to the publication of the correspondence by the Government of the Republic. It seems to Lord Salisbury that it is doubtful whether the publication of the Note of M. Hanotaux, dated March 12, 1891,

  521
  would prove agreeable to the Italian Government. I replied that we reserved our decision as to presenting to Parliament the Declaration of May 5, 1894. We did not ourselves see any objection to the publication of the correspondence between the Governments of England and France respecting the Anglo-Italian Agreement."
  The Dispatch went on:—
  "As to what concerns England, this correspondence shows the correctness with which the preceding British Government knew how to be just at once to France and to us. I am sorry not to have the same impression with regard to the action of Lord Salisbury, who, abandoning the attitude taken up by Lord Kimberley, has adopted in their entirety the French theses."
  He called attention to this because literally they had had nothing communicated to them in regard to this matter. A threat was held out by Lord Salisbury that if the Italian Government did so and so, he would have to publish this and that, and consequently the whole thing would have to be submitted to the British Parliament. Well, who was the master? [Cheers.] Was Lord Salisbury or the British Parliament the master? How could they possibly form an accurate judgment as to what was going on in this district when they were asked to declare their confidence in Her Majesty's Government without knowing one word of all these circumstances and of the negotiations which had taken place between the two Governments. ["Hear, hear!"] Then came the battle of Adowa and the defeat of the Italians on 1st March, and on the 3rd of that month the Minister of War sent this message to the Admiral commanding the Red Sea Squadron:—
  "Take such steps as seem desirable to assure or better the military position, including the abandonment of Adigrat and Kassala, whenever the evacuation may be required by the present situation, due count being paid to the powers of resistance of these forts and of the time needed to prepare the means to liberate the garrisons."
  Immediately after this there ensued a Ministerial crisis in Italy, and Signor Crispi was succeeded by the Marquis de Rudini, who, in a speech in the Chamber, stated that his object was to withdraw from everywhere beyond the strip of territory along the coast. Then the Italian Ambassador stepped in, and on
  522
  10th of March he sent this telegram to the Minister of Foreign Affairs:—
  "The telegram of Baldissera, communicated to me by your Excellency yesterday, announces the advance of Menelik. This has given me serious consideration. The advance would seem imprudent if not in accord with the movements of the Dervishes. My fears have been confirmed by your telegram of to-day. I have communicated the situation to the Foreign Office to see if it will agree to make a diversion."
  On March 12 the Ambassador telegraphed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs:—
  "Referring to my telegram of the 10th, Lord Salisbury, having consulted the Cabinet, telegraphed yesterday to Lord Cromer to have a military demonstration carried out towards Dongola in order to make diversion in our favour."
  [Cheers and counter cheers.] As far as he could gather from the Green-book, the action of the Ambassador in London was not particularly appreciated by the Marquis de Rudini, who appeared to think that his hand was being a little forced. Of course there were in Italy wild jingoes just as they had them here [laughter], but, though they did not pay much attention to them, still they had to count on them to a certain extent. On March 14 the Ambassador received the following telegram from the Minister of Foreign Affairs:—
  "The Government desires for the present to maintain the occupation of Kassala, unless military necessities do not impose on General Baldissera the decision to evacuate it. The Government is pleased on this account with the demonstration towards Dongola, although of small military efficacy for us. Please thank Lord Salisbury in my name and in that of the Marquis Rudini.''
  He thought that, after those telegrams no one with any common sense would assert that this expedition was planned for the benefit of Egypt.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member will not be at liberty to discuss the policy of the English Government in the Soudan. He is precluded by the notice given by the hon. Member for Peckham from discussing statements and allegations in regard to the Soudan Expedition beyond what is necessary for explaining and enforcing his Motion, his Motion being confined to the question that Her Majesty's Government has kept back

  523
  certain communications. It is only so far as it is necessary to explain that Motion that he is entitled to go into the correspondence. Beyond that he is precluded, not only because the general policy of the Government is not referred to in the Motion, but also because a discussion of the statements and allegations contained in the Green-book—beyond pointing out the importance of the documents which are kept back—will be out of order in consequence of their being anticipated by the Motion on the Paper.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I think these documents were of considerable importance in enabling the House to form a conclusion as to why this expedition took place.
  MR. SPEAKER: That is the very point which the hon. Member cannot discuss, because it is not in his Motion.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I am not going to discuss it.
  MR. SPEAKER: I understand the hon. Member to say he was justified in reading these documents, because they showed what the motives were in sending the expedition. That is a point he is not entitled to go into.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid he would not say any more about these documents. On Tuesday last the Under Secretary said that during February considerable discussion had taken place between the Government and military authorities and Lord Cromer as to the advisability and desirability of an expedition towards Dongola. They had asked over and over again for this correspondence, but it had been kept back. They wanted to know whether Lord Cromer did or did not recommend that this expedition should take place. ["Hear, hear."] They wanted to know whether it was intended that the expedition should take place at once or whether it was merely one of those vague generalities which had occurred in the lengthy correspondence which had taken place during the last 12 years. The Under Secretary told them the other day that he was not able to tell them whether Lord Cromer did or did not express his opinion as to the advisability of this expedition, because it was not usual in the House to give the opinion of subordinate officials. Lord Cromer was the very man who
  524
  could enlighten the House and not alone the Government, and anything more important to their forming a conclusion than the opinion of Lord Cromer on the subject he could not well imagine. Then the right hon. Gentleman had told them that no communications were made to Foreign Governments, but he should like to ask him whether the Foreign Office was seized with the fact that the German Emperor, with the view of maintaining the Triple. Alliance with Italy, was desirous that they should come to the aid of Italy in this matter. He thought it was very evident from the telegrams that in some way the German Government did interfere in the matter. He knew perfectly well that there were easy ways of evading and of being able to say:—" We have received no Dispatch on the subject." But he asked the right hon. Gentleman to tell them whether the Foreign Office were in possession of the fact, either directly or indirectly, that the German Emperor was desirous that they should come to the aid of Italy. Now occurred an extraordinary thing. At once a change took place in our tone towards the Italians. The latter, during all this time, were exceedingly anxious to withdraw from Kassala, and we commenced protesting against their doing so. Colonel Stevani, who was commanding the Italians there, had forced his way through the Dervishes, and thus evacuated his wounded, but then had to fall back. A formal Dispatch was sent from General Baldissera to the Minister of War on April 4, to the following effect:—
  "Stevani informs me that he intends to renew the attack on the Dervishes. I forbade it, and ordered him instead to evacuate Kassala with all his people, and to fall back on Agordat. This order is being executed. An expedition to revictual or free garrison is almost impossible, on account of the season and the exhaustion of the native forces. It is impossible to get white soldiers there. Kassala is not fit to sustain a siege."
  He now came to the protests of our Government in regard to the very sensible and reasonable desire of the Italians to evacuate Kassala. The Italian representative in Cairo telegraphed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs:—
  "Havas Agency refers to the announcement of the evacuation of Kassala, which has caused a bad impression. The Sirdar telegraphs calling

  525
  on me to deny the news, which he cannot believe to be true. It would make a great impression in the Soudan, where it would increase the prestige of the Khalifa. The forces now before Kassala would seriously threaten Suakim, from which place the troops have been withdrawn for the expedition to Dongola. Lord Cromer is impressed with the discontent in Egypt at seeing the Dervishes free to unite their forces against Suakim and Dongola, in consequence of the retreat of Italy, after the expedition to Dongola had been undertaken."
  The Ambassador in London, on April 8, telegraphed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs:—
  "The telegram from Massowah, which says that General Baldisserra has ordered Colonel Stevani to withdraw from Kassala, has been interpreted as the abandonment of that fortress, whereas it is probable that the ordinary garrison remains there. It would be well to clear up this doubt. Please telegraph to me if I may speak in this sense to Foreign Office."
  On April 9 the Minister of Foreign Affairs telegraphs to the Ambassador:—
  "The telegram of Baldissera respecting order given to Colonel Stevani is not clear. He had been asked to explain, but the explanation may take time to arrive."
  Then came a communication from the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Ambassador in London. He said:—
  "The English Ambassador has made me to-day the following verbal communication:— 'If Kassala is evacuated by the Italian garrison, the immediate and serious result would be to encourage the Dervishes. This, too, would free their forces, which could be employed in an attack on the Egyptian positions. If the evacuation should become necessary, the Government of the Queen desires to be informed of it as soon as possible. I have replied by taking a note of this desire which will be satisfied as far as possible. As for the rest, I have informed him of the instructions already sent to Baldissera, which are that we wish that Kassala should be retained, unless military reasons render the evacuation necessary."
  The Minister of War, after that protest, telegraphed to General Baldissera:—
  "If military conditions do not render the evacuation of Kassala necessary, the Government desires that Kassala should continue to be occupied for political reasons."
  That was to say, because the English Government insisted upon it. [Cheers.] What happened later on? On April 19, General Baldissera telegraphed to the Minister of War:—
  "What am I to do respecting Kassala? At present I have recalled Stevani with the greater portion of his forces."
  526
  On 20th April the Minister of Warreplied:—
  "Manage to maintain the occupation of Kassala until autumn, then we will see what is to be done; but, if any grave military danger requires evacuation, the faculty to do so is left with you."
  He thought, in view of the fact that these Dispatches had been communicated to the Italian Parliament and that the House of Commons were to be asked to decide whether Italy, or Egypt, or we should pay, they ought to be put in possession of these Dispatches, so that they might know what had taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Italy. As the Government persistently refused to give them any reasonable information, he had fulfilled an humble duty in laying before the House what he had culled from the Italian Green-book. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member concluded by formally moving the adjournment of the House.
  MR. CURZON: I must briefly acquaint the House with the circumstances under which the discussion has been raised this afternoon. It is true the hon. Member gave notice of an intention at some early date of taking advantage of the forms of the House to call attention to this matter, and I had thought, from what he said, that he might possibly find the compulsion too strong for him on some day next week. I have, however, received neither from him nor any one else any intimation whatever either of his intention to move the adjournment this afternoon—
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to explain. I am sure I did not intend to be guilty of any discourtesy to the right hon. Gentleman. It is perfectly true that in speaking to him I said I thought I should raise this matter next week. But next week I find will be occupied a good deal by Irish questions, and therefore would be somewhat inconvenient. I thought it would be more convenient to do it this afternoon. I very much apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for having to do so.
  MR. CURZON: I do not desire to blame the hon. Gentleman. I was merely stating to the House my own position. It is somewhat difficult for this House to acquire that acquaintance

  527
  with foreign affairs to which it is entitled, either by unpremeditated and improvised replies to carefully premeditated supplementary questions constantly put from those Benches, or in answer to a Motion the terms of which the Minister who has to reply has never seen, and which is founded on documents which have never been printed. [Cheers.] Under these circumstances it will not be incumbent upon me to follow the hon. Gentleman into any general examination of the policy of the Government. The lines of that policy have been more than once stated and defined. Looking to the time we spent some few weeks ago in discussing them here, I do not think the House of Commons will require me to repeat what I then said, or to cover ground with which the House is already familiar. ["Hear, hear!"] They will require me to address myself to the points raised by the hon. Member. I gather from the terms of his Motion—though not from his speech—that what he chiefly complains of is that this House has not been put in possession of certain communications that he conceives have taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the Italian Government on the one hand, and between Her Majesty's Government and Lord Cromer on the other. I venture to submit that the diplomatic and political doctrine which the hon. Member has laid down is one not only novel, but one which, if it were accepted, would be likely to lead us to inconvenient results. It is now not three months since Her Majesty's Government decided upon the authorising of certain military operations in the valley of the Nile. These operations are of a warlike character; they are still going on; they involve communications with more than one interested European Power; and yet, although this short space of time has elapsed, although the operations are still proceeding, the hon. Member comes down here and apparently demands week by week, and almost day by day, that the Government should lay on the Table of the House communications with foreign Powers relating to those proceedings without any regard whatever to the effects such communications might produce. ["Hear, hear!"] I venture to say that is not the method in which any
  528
  Government has ever conducted the Foreign Policy of this country, and that if the hon. Gentleman, in some wild freak of fortune, were to find himself transferred to this Bench and intrusted with the foreign relations of this country, no one would more emphatically repudiate such a proposition than he would. ["Hear, hear!"] What are the communications which the right hon. Gentleman says the Government have withheld? In the first place, they are communications with the Italian Government, and the hon. Gentleman appears to have got it into his head that there has been a wealth of constant communications between Lord Salisbury and the Italian Government upon all these matters to which the Green-book refers. Lord Salisbury's communications, as I have more than once explained, have been conducted by word of mouth with the Italian Ambassador. Some hon. Members seem to have thought, from a very imperfect study of the Green-book, that there were contained in it a large number of Dispatches from Lord Salisbury to the Italian Government which had been laid before the Italian Parliament and denied to the House of Commons. I have already pointed out, in reply to that, that I believe there is only one Dispatch from Lord Salisbury to the Italian Government in the Green-books, and there is in addition the letter to Ras Mangascia. The hon. Gentleman now shifts his ground and says he does not mean the Dispatches sent to the Government in Rome, but he asks for all the communications with the British Ambassador. He assumes that there have been a large number of communications with which I am not familiar. The intimacy which the hon. Gentleman enjoys with the inner working of the Foreign Office is most remarkable. [Laughter.] The communications between Lord Salisbury and Rome are communications which, of course, he will consider the propriety of laying before the House on a future date when the Papers are laid on the Table, but they are communications which I must say, on the part of the Foreign Office, we absolutely decline to be called upon this afternoon, in obedience to the hon. Gentleman and without any reference to the consequences, to lay on the

  529
  Table of the House. ["Hear, hear!"] The next point made by the hon. Gentleman was the letter to Ras Mangascia. He seemed surprised that the Dispatch written by Lord Salisbury had in the course of its evolution been revised by the Secretary of State. Does the hon. Gentleman never revise his own proofs?
  MR. LABOUCHERE: But I should never ask the Italian Government to do it for me. [Laughter.]
  MR. CURZON: No, Sir; nor was it done by the Italian Government. If the hon. Gentleman had been more familiar with what had passed he would not have made such an allegation. I am not here to inquire into the circumstances under which Lord Salisbury draws up his Dispatches, and it is not my duty to give any explanation on that point, and the fact that two forms of a Dispatch drawn up by Lord Salisbury have appeared in a Green-book of a foreign Government imposes upon me no obligation, as I understand, to make any observations whatever upon them. ["Hear, hear!"] Then the hon. Member proceeds to give his own views of the communications that have passed between the Italian Ambassador and Lord Salisbury, his views consisting, as they seem to me for the most part, of a gloss upon the language of that Minister. Well, we are not responsible for the Dispatches of the Italian Ambassador to his own Government. He does not consult us when he writes them. They were published in Rome without being previously submitted to us. That is a state of affairs accounted for by the political crisis which has existed in Italy, and the fact that this somewhat novel and unexpected occurrence has taken place does not impose on the Government any responsibility to explain to this House the Italian Ambassador's accounts of his own interviews with Lord Salisbury at the Foreign Office. The last point which the hon. Gentleman took was the correspondence that passed between the Government and Lord Cromer, and he seemed very much surprised that I had at a previous date said it was not the fashion for Governments to publish the Dispatches of subordinates. What I said was that it was not the habit of the Government to lay on the Table the opinions of its individual advisers upon operations then
  530
  proceeding. To that statement I must adhere. The only other questions that the hon. Gentleman asked were questions that should appear on the Paper, and which I respectfully submit ought not to be put without notice, in a speech or any other way whatsoever. If the hon. Gentleman desires information on other points and will give me adequate notice I will do my best to comply with his wish. But I cannot undertake at a moment's notice to get up here to answer any random questions that may be put, not, I am afraid, for the sake of information, but rather in order to embarrass. [Cheers.] What is the upshot of the whole thing? The Government have taken a certain step in the interest of the security of the Egyptian frontiers. That step had the additional advantage of being taken at a time when the Italians were hard pressed at Kassala and when the expected fall of Kassala would have enormously aggravated the danger to Egypt already threatened and impending in the valley of the Nile. That statement has been made and repeated over and over again from this Bench. What there is in it obscure or abnormal or demanding any peculiar explanation I cannot conceive, but it would seem that the hon. Gentleman has discovered a mare's nest, and something which in reality is the creation of his imagination. Any step that the Government took was taken as an advantage both to Egypt and Italy, and was not calculated to injure or offend any other Power. Under these circumstances I believe that the support given to the Government in the House on previous occasions and in the country will be continued, and the House of Commons will not expect me to be tempted, either by Motions for the adjournment or any other process, into indiscreet revelations which would have no effect but to retard the object we have in view. [Cheers.]
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,who was received with Opposition cheers, said: The right hon. Gentleman has given an importance to this Debate which it would not otherwise have had, by the doctrine he has laid down as to the relations between the Foreign Office and the House of Commons—a doctrine I venture to say absolutely unheard of in all the previous history of the House.

  531
  I see the Colonial Secretary smiles. He is the author of the "new diplomacy." [Laughter.] This is new diplomacy with a vengeance. You have the new diplomacy which communicates everything that is occurring, not week by week but moment by moment. That is one form of the new diplomacy.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Not mine. [Laughter.]
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Then he has reformed his views. But there is nothing so evil as to proceed by extremes. That is one extreme of the new diplomacy; the other extreme is to refuse all information at all times. That is the doctrine of the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. [Ministerial cries of "No!"] He says:—
  "These are military operations, and until they are concluded or have proceeded to a much greater extent the House of Commons is to have no information as to the reasons for the correspondence out of which these operations have arisen."
  Whenever this country enters on military operations, when the country goes to war, the first thing it does is to lay before the House of Commons the correspondence which will inform Parliament as to the ground for those operations. That is the constitutional doctrine and one which has always been acted upon by the Foreign Office. But then the right hon. Gentleman all through his speech said that Lord Salisbury may have done this or that—may have written two Dispatches which do not correspond in tone—but that it is not for him to explain what Lord Salisbury has done. Why does the right hon. Gentleman sit in this House unless it be for the purpose of explaining what Lord Salisbury has done? With reference to the verbal communications, it is of great importance that the country should know exactly where they stand. Some 30 or 40 years ago was introduced a practice of rather doubtful expediency—that of conducting a great part of the foreign relations of the country by private letters to Ambassadors abroad. I remember well discussing that with the late Lord Clarendon, who introduced that practice, and I ventured to suggest that that was a practice which if carried too far might defeat the authority of Parliament. But Lord Clarendon laid
  532
  down this doctrine distinctly. He said:—
  "I never allow a business of any great importance resulting in affairs of a serious nature to be left to personal correspondence without reducing the result of that correspondence into a Dispatch which may ultimately be submitted to Parliament."
  ["Hear, hear!"] For heaven's sake do not let us overthrow the whole of the relations of the Foreign Office with the House of Commons in that sort of light way which has just been done by the Under Secretary. In answer to a question as to what communications had taken place with Lord Cromer before the advance was authorised, the right hon. Gentleman said Lord Cromer had approved—of what? Of a new frontier for Egypt? Not at all. But he said that Lord Cromer had approved of an advance in order to support Kassala. Those were the words. Lord Cromer's approbation was confined to Kassala, and no word whatever was said of Lord Cromer's view having reference to the necessity of forming a new frontier. The right hon. Gentleman also said nothing else had passed with Lord Cromer since the Report of February 3, in which Lord Cromer had stated that the raids were unimportant which had taken place, and consequently shows that they had at that time no intention to desire any alteration of the frontier. Therefore it was perfectly plain that the pretence that this advance was inspired by the desire of Italy is utterly unfounded. But if we are mistaken in that view, and if it is true, as the right hon. Gentleman says, that the primary motive was an Egyptian motive and that it was merely a subsidiary accident that the Italian situation required support at Kassala, let us have the correspondence to see whether it is so. We are unquestionably led to the belief that this movement was a movement, if not instigated, inspired by the Italian situation and that all this about the frontier was completely an afterthought. If that is not so let us have the evidence. I say it is a false position in which to put the House of Commons, and a position which the House of Commons ought not to accept—that this country is to be plunged into a military expedition, the result and events of which no man can

  533
  predict, without having laid before it frankly by the Government the fullest information as to what led to the commencement of so dangerous and perilous an undertaking. [Cheers.] That is a fair demand on the part of the House of Commons, and I venture to say that there is no Government—even though it be a Government with a great majority—that ever refused to the House of Commons, when it called upon it to support an expedition of this character, a fair and honest declaration of the circumstances leading up to it [Cheers.] I cannot believe that the Government are going to get any advantage whatever by trying to play hide and seek in this way with the House of Commons. [Cheers.] It has been utterly unusual before. I do not know whether they are ashamed of avowing what are the motives or causes which have led to this expedition. I see nothing to be ashamed of. [Ministerial cheers.] Yes, but you lead us to believe that there must be something. [Ministerial cries if "No!"] Then why do you not give the information? [Cheers.] What is the reason of this refusal to give information? How can it hurt you to let it be known what has taken place between you and the Italian Government, what has taken place, if anything has taken place, between you and the German Government, or between you and the French Government? If this is an undertaking which is politic either as regards Egypt or as regards your relations with European Powers, surely, if you understood your own interest and your position with regard to the House of Commons and the interests of the nation, what you should most desire would be that the truth and the whole truth should be told, and that you should not let it leak out or ooze out in the White-books or in the Green-books of foreign Governments. Why is the English Government not to take the English House of Commons into its confidence in this matter? [Cheers.] I venture to say it is the most unusual tone and manner in which to handle and treat the House of Commons. ["Hear, hear!"] The right hon. Gentleman complains of this matter being brought forward now. Why, it was fully expected by the Government. It should have been brought forward yesterday. An arrangement had been made that
  534
  the Motion with reference to the Indian troops should be brought on yesterday, and you could not have discussed the question of bringing the Indian troops without discussing the whole question. ["Hear, hear!"] What were the Indian troops brought for? They were brought in in order that a certain number of Egyptian troops might be liberated for use in this expedition. Therefore it was quite plain that you would have been prepared for the whole question of this policy to be raised yesterday. ["Hear, hear!"] What intervened was this, that the Indian Government had made objection, as we understand, to the movement of these troops. At all events, the subject was postponed on the ground of the Indian aspect of the question; but what had been promised, what we had expected, and what you were willing to concede, was that the discussion on the policy should take place yesterday; therefore I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has any reason to complain of being called on to give to the House information upon this subject. ["Hear, hear!"] It is perfectly idle for the Government to attempt to continue this policy of concealment. The country is naturally deeply interested and considerably alarmed as to what may come out of the expedition, and you will not conquer these alarms and satisfy the natural demand for information by these evasive replies and by this refusal of information, and, above all, by the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs saying that it is not his business to explain to the House of Commons what Lord Salisbury intends. [Cheers.] Therefore I do hope, before this discussion ends, we may have an assurance from the Government that they will lay this information before Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman, as I gather it, says, "When the campaign is over we will do it." [Laughter.] What is the use of that? [Cheers.] That is nearly all the information we have received. He says there are Dispatches. We are not only asking for the Dispatches published in the Green-books; we are asking for all communications, whether verbal, or by letter, or by Dispatch—the substance of all communications that have taken place with foreign countries which have led and contributed to the determining on such

  535
  an enterprise as this military expedition into the Soudan. We conceive that to be a perfectly reasonable demand, and I hope the Government will say that without delay that information will be given to the House of Commons. [Cheers.]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Before I deal with the substance of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks I wish to say that he has entirely misunderstood the character of the objection my right hon. Friend the Under Secretary took this afternoon. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Under Secretary should have been prepared yesterday for a discussion upon the policy of the Government in sending Indian troops to Egypt and questions connected therewith, and that he had no right on Friday to require notice of questions of that kind. It is not in reference to the policy in the Soudan, or the Indian troops, or the Egyptian troops, or the Egyptian question at all that my right hon. Friend made any objection. Nor was it in regard to Egypt or the Soudan with which the greater part of the speech of the hon. Gentleman who initiated this Debate was concerned. What the hon. Member for Northampton talked about has not the remotest connection with Egypt or with the Soudan, or with the policy of Her Majesty's Government. ["Hear, hear!"] It is solely connected with the Italian troubles in Abyssinia and certain demands which they had made on the British Government in connection with the landing of troops. My right hon. Friend had a perfect right to say that before he is asked to give further information on that subject he should have notice of the questions to be put to him. ["Hear, hear!"] I quite admit that the right hon. Gentleman opposite has given the go by to all that part of the speech of the Mover, and has rightly confined himself to questions connected with the alleged suppression of information on the part of Her Majesty's Government in connection with their policy in Egypt and the Soudan. To that point, which is, after all, the only point of substance raised by the right hon. Gentleman, I now address myself. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that no Government before has ever initiated warlike operations without laying on the Table of the House the correspondence
  536
  with regard to the matters which led up to those warlike operations. In many cases that is quite true. If this Government were involved in hostilities with any civilised State, no doubt those hostilities would have been preceded by many months, or perhaps many years, of negotiation, and the House ought to be informed of the steps by which those negotiations were carried on and the reasons which led to their unsuccessful conclusion. Of course, before the House of Commons can be asked to judge of the propriety of a war of that kind, the correspondence with regard to the events which led up to war ought to be laid and is laid. But we have had no correspondence of that kind with the Khalifa. ["Hear, hear!"] He is not in the position of a civilised ruler with whom we have been in negotiation, for a long period and with whom negotiations have broken down, and it is absolutely incorrect and the right hon. Gentleman speaks under a misconception when he suggests that the Government have at their disposal a vast amount of diplomatic correspondence with foreign Governments explaining the reasons why the Soudan expedition has been undertaken. The phrase made use of by the right hon. Gentleman put in a clear light the error under which he is labouring. He asked for the correspondence with foreign countries with regard to the events which led to the warlike operations in the Soudan. That correspondence has not been laid and it never will be laid, because it does not exist. [Cheers and laughter.] There has been, no doubt, correspondence with foreign Governments with respect to the warlike operations, but that correspondence is subsequent to the determination of the Government to move towards Dongola, and, being subsequent, by a well-known logical law we may conclude it has nothing to do with the reasons which led to the expedition. [Cheers.]
  SIR W. HARCOURT: May I ask, does the right hon. Gentleman intend to state that before the Government in the month of March came to the conclusion to make the expedition to Dongola no communication had been made to the Italian Government? ["Hear, hear!"]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Well, yes, in the case of Italy. [Opposition cheers.] With foreign

  537
  nations in Europe no doubt there had been correspondence, and no doubt a Blue-book will be laid in due time before the House. The right hon. Gentleman constantly appears to be snatching up such scraps of evidence as he thinks he can find to prove that this expedition had no relation whatever to Egyptian interests, but was based solely on European interests in general, and Italian interests in particular. That is not the fact. There is no evidence of it, and no correspondence that could throw any light, upon it. ["Hear, hear!"] We have stated in plain language in this House that most undoubtedly the battle of Adowa, the Italian difficulties, and the siege and possible fall of Kassala were all circumstances which had great weight with Her Majesty's Government in determining the period at which the expedition should take place. [Cheers.] We have never made the slightest secret of it—[cheers]—and no correspondence we could lay would add to the knowledge we have already given to the House on the subject. We have been quite clear in our statements that, although the particular moment for the advance was one on which Italian interests had important bearing, the advance towards Dongola itself is, in our opinion, necessitated by Egyptian interests, and by Egyptian interests alone—[cheers]—and that, even if the Italians had never been heard of in that part of Africa, that advance would sooner or later have had to be undertaken. ["Hear, hear!"] There is nothing obscure or wanting in lucidity in that statement, or, as it seems to me, paradoxical. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion arid the right hon. Gentleman opposite appeared to think that the undoubted fact that the British Government would have seen with deep regret the triumph of the Dervishes at Kassala is a proof that all we thought of was the Italian interests at that place. Do hon. Gentlemen not understand that when you are dealing with any kind of Power, but certainly with an uncivilised Power like that of the Dervishes, the effect of the great triumph over a European Power would have been not only a menace to the Italian Power, but a very serious menace to Egypt? We do not conceal the fact that we should have regarded the abandonment of
  538
  Kassala in the face of a triumphant Dervish advance as a misfortune not only to Italy, but to Egypt and to interests which we are bound to safeguard. It has been made a matter of bitter complaint that information as to the communications made by Lord Cromer to the Government has been withheld from Parliament. Well, I ask the House whether it would be possible or desirable in the conduct of the affairs of a great Empire that the House of Commons should not merely be made acquainted with the course which the, Government are pursuing and the general reasons which have induced them to pursue it, but should also be made acquainted as a matter of course with the arguments advanced by all their advisers. I say such a proposal is grotesque. If the House of Commons goes so far it must clearly go further, and we must publish the correspondence between Lord Cromer and his subordinates which led him to the conclusion at which he arrived. There would evidently be no end to the information which the House would demand, but of which, when obtained, it could make no legitimate use. I do not believe that the general propositions relating to the conduct of public business which I have laid down will be disputed by any man who has ever been responsible for public affairs. But when the right hon. Gentleman opposite openly accuses us of having withheld information from this House which our predecessors or any other Government would have granted, I absolutely repudiate the charge. We have followed strictly in the steps of our predecessors, and we have been absolutely frank with the House of Commons from beginning to end with regard to the motives that have influenced our conduct. Our policy and the whole ground for that policy is before you, and no publications in Blue-books could add one tittle to the knowledge which the House of Commons already possesses of the reasons for which we have ordered the advance towards Dongola. The right hon. Gentleman appears to hold that the example of the Italian Government in publishing these papers is one which ought to be followed by this and other Governments. But what the Italian Government has done is, I trust and believe, an exceptional, I had almost

  539
  said an accidental, circumstance. It is a circumstance which may, no doubt, find excuse in the conditions of recent Italian administration; but it is absolutely certain that no confidential communications could be conducted between the Powers of Europe if greater discretion were not maintained by those Powers than has been maintained by the Italian Government in this case, and than would be shown by us if we were to follow this example. ["Hear, hear!"]
  SIR CHARLES DILKEobserved that, when the right hon. Gentleman said that no Government had ever been asked before to supply such information with respect to the origin of an expedition as was now asked for, he must have forgotten what occurred between 1880 and 1885. The right hon. Gentleman and the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs contended that they ought not to be asked to disclose the opinions of an individual adviser of the Government. Between 1880 and 1885, however, the Government of that time were asked almost every week to state the views of Sir E. Malet and Sir E. Baring with regard to Egyptian affairs, and the Blue-books were issued in which their views were explained. The Government of the day believed that in delicate affairs, like those of Egypt, they could not expect to carry the House of Commons with them unless they explained the views of the distinguished official upon which their decision was based. The supporters of the Motion did not ask that Lord Cromer's Dispatches relating to delicate questions, in which other Governments were concerned, should be published. What they demanded was the publication of the reasoned Dispatches which did not raise questions of that kind. The Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs had cast doubt upon the claim of the House of Commons to be told the substance of important conversations between a Minister for Foreign Affairs and a Foreign Ambassador. Surely a conversation of that kind, with respect to such a matter as the origin of the Soudan expedition, ought not to be withheld altogether from the House. The right hon. Gentleman declared that the Government had given a clear account of the reasons for the Soudan expedition. He
  540
  could not subscribe to that. Indeed, he was of opinion that different Members of the Government had given contradictory reasons for the expedition, and by their statements they had succeeded in thoroughly misleading their supporters in the Press. It was the impression of the Italian Government hat the advance towards Dongola was undertaken for their sake. That was clear from the official publications. But if there was a pre-existent intention on the part of the Government to undertake this expedition for reasons connected with Egypt, Lord Cromer's Dispatches ought certainly to be made available, so that the country might understand what those reasons were. Then it was essential that they should know Lord Cromer's opinion upon the question of the financial relations of the Government of Egypt with our Government. The latter said that the cost of this great military expedition was being defrayed by Egypt out of a particular sum of £500,000, but there was reason to think that the payment of that sum was likely to be refused by the Caisse de, la Dette, although it had been already spent. These were surely matters, so far as they concerned the taxpayers of this country, on which Parliament ought to be informed, and Lord Cromer's Dispatches on this question ought certainly to be laid before the House. If hon. Members would look back to 1884 and 1885, they would see the way in which the Liberal Government was pressed for the opinions of Sir Evelyn Baring on the subject of the Caisse and Egyptian finance, and how impossible it was to contend that the Government were treading in the footsteps of their predecessors. He directed special attention to the fact that the Government had differed in the accounts they had given of this matter; they had apparently differed among themselves on the question, and when the Members of the Government had been pressed by questions in Parliament they had contradicted one another in their answers. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer was specially pressed on the Budget Debate as to how in the course of the year the expenditure in Egypt was to be met, he said that no appropriation would be necessary, that he had no reason whatever to anticipate that any provision would be necessary

  541
  except for a few officers for the Egyptian expeditions. [Cheers.] Would the right hon. Gentleman make that assertion now? He doubted it. At all events, Lord Cromer's opinion and advice on the Egyptian financial question which was involved in the present trial of the Caisse de la Dette must be laid before the House very soon. It was impossible to hold the discussion that would take place in a few weeks time on the Motion with regard to the Indian troops until the House knew what had happened up to the present with regard to the finances of this expedition, and until they had received Lord Cromer's Dispatches on that point. The Government, at all events, could tell the House, roughly speaking, what was the expenditure in Egypt, how it was being met from day to day, and what the prospects of the future were as to the cost of the expedition. The whole question was one of extraordinary difficulty, and one on which the House of Commons stood in peculiar need of information. What was the only statement that had been given to the House as yet on behalf of the Government, as to the grounds for using the particular money out of which this particular expedition was being financed at the present time? The words were these:—
  "The funds are to from a surplus which we are not permitted to use in any other way fur the benefit of Egypt."
  Surely the revelation which has been made in Italy that this expedition, according to the Italians, was initiated solely at their request for the relief of the pressure on them at Kassala must have relation to the question as to whether this £500,000 was to be used for the finances of an expedition for the benefit of Egypt. No doubt it was the difficulty of that financial situation which forced the Government to the tortuous explanation which had been given of their policy. Their position was a difficult one, but the position of the House of Commons had to be considered as well as that of the Government. The Opposition would have to exact a great deal of information in the next few weeks before the discussion came on, as to the employment of Indian troops. He did not wish to anticipate that discussion now, but he wished to
  542
  enter his caveat that, unless they had more information before the time for discussion arrived than they had at present, the House would not be in a position to undertake the task adequately; they could not ascertain what was the object of the expedition being sent to Suakim, nor would they have information generally sufficient to justify them even in debating the question when it arose. His own belief was that the expedition though explained to be for the defence of Suakim, for the replacing of Egyptian troops and setting them free, was intended to occupy Kassala when the Italian troops retired from that town; but how was the House to consider and deal with that question unless it had some knowledge of the principles upon which the Government were proceeding? His hon. Friend had been anticipated by a Motion put down by hon. Gentlemen opposite to call attention to the papers in the Italian Green-book; but, apart from the Italian Dispatches, there had been Debates in the Italian Chamber which had a considerable bearing on the information sought for by the House. They had been told in the Italian Chamber a great deal of what they had since seen in the Italian Green-book. As to the position of the Italians at Kassala, it was absolutely true that the Marquis di Rudini decided to evacuate Kassala on coming into power.
  MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman, in discussing this Motion, is going far beyond its scope in entering into an examination of the policy of the Government.
  SIR C. DILKEsaid he would not dwell on the point except to say that they wished to know the object of the expedition. The Government had told the House two different stories—that it was for the relief of Kassala, and for the defence of Egypt.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The same thing.
  SIR C. DILKEsaid that the information given to the Italian Parliament showed that it was solely for the relief of Italy.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: That is their point of view.
  SIR C. DILKEsaid that if this was their point of view, the House of Commons wanted to see the other point of view.

  543
  They wanted more than a mere statement, made apparently as an afterthought, in order to justify the view that they could use the Egyptian funds for the expedition. They wanted a statement made on the authority of the representatives of the Government in Egypt—on the same authority which the Members of the Government made the Liberal Government vouch for when they took any step in Egypt from 1880 to 1885. [Cheers.] The Prime Minister had given a third account to the country of the reasons for this expedition. He had been ridiculed on a previous occasion for saying that the Government could not stop at Dongola; but since that date Lord Salisbury had amply confirmed the view he gave to the House on that occasion.
  MR. SPEAKERagain called the right hon. Baronet to order for entering upon a general discussion of the subject.
  SIR C. DILKEsaid he took up the challenge of the Leader of the House, In past days he had something to do with communicating to the House the opinions of Lord Cromer with regard to Egyptian affairs, and he affirmed that he had never known a case where the House of Commons had allowed such a refusal of information to pass as it had done on the present occasion. The information to be given with regard to what had appeared in Italy and the objects of the expedition was not more important, but in the long run even less important, than the information refused as to the position of Egyptian finance. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he most respectfully endorsed the request which had been made for further information on this question. He confessed that it somewhat alarmed him to hear that the whole of the reasons which were to account for this expedition had already been given to the public. They had heard almost positive statements made that there was something very threatening to the welfare of the Empire which had to be combated arid met by this expedition. If he thought that this was the case he should be the last Member in the House to venture to interfere or embarrass the Government, and as long as he was at liberty to suppose that this was the case, he would not have spoken. But the
  544
  House had heard a definite statement from the Leader of the House, and the reasons which had actuated the Government had been laid before the country. He believed that if they took the country through they would find that nine out of every ten persons had not the least idea—[Opposition cheers]—for what purpose this expedition was being undertaken at all. [Cheers.] He thought that before the final Debate took place, the House should have before it information in detail which would justify it in seeing and knowing what this country was fighting for. ["Hear, hear!"] The right hon. Gentleman said that the House was not entitled to receive information as to the particular opinions of Lord Cromer. That statement needed qualification, because Lord Cromer stood in an exceptional position. If this was an Imperial matter, well and good; the British Government were supreme in the matter; but he had listened to the discussions and he had heard a great deal about the interests of Italy, of Abyssinia, and of Egypt, but nothing whatever about the interests of Great Britain. If it was the fact that the expedition was being conducted solely for the benefit of Egypt, he thought it was a relevant fact to have the views of what the most important man there thought about the expedition. [Cheers.] It was distasteful to think that we should be expending the blood and the treasure of this country on something that was not closely connected with this country. It was a matter of more than common rumour that Lord Cromer did not associate himself with this policy, and it was desirable, in these circumstances, that the House should know whether the policy was being prosecuted with his approval or against his wish. It was a tremendous danger to this country, threatened as it was on every side by Powers in every quarter of the world, that we should now be risking the lives of our men, embarrassing our finances, and clouding our future by entering on a policy of this kind.
  MR. SPEAKERcalled the hon. Member to order for travelling wide of the Motion.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERwould not pursue the matter further. The Government should know that their supporters would take the least hint that it was

  545
  their duty to observe reticence in this matter, but after what had been said he could not understand that that was the case. They had all the main facts, as he believed, but they ought to have the main facts amplified and elucidated, so that the House might be able to enter into the subsequent discussion with more certainty than was now possible.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONdid not think the present Debate could be of any practical use; but he should like to call attention to the shifting ground which had been taking by those who were opposing the policy of Her Majesty's Government in Egypt. In the Debate about two months ago, what was the language which came from below the Gangway? Was it not intended to cast ridicule on the idea that any advance along the Valley of the Nile could possibly affect the situation at Kassala? [Opposition cheers.] That language had not been reasserted to-night, because it had been falsified by events. He had had a letter from a relative of his in the Soudan since that Debate, in which he said it was extremely amusing to read such assertions made in the House of Commons.
  MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that the question before the House is not the general policy of the Government in Egypt.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON,bowing to the Speaker's ruling, went on to say that the information which the Government had given seemed perfectly clear. It was in the interest of Egypt that Egyptian order should not be constantly raided by the Dervish troops. It would have been of the greatest possible loss and damage to Egypt had Kassala fallen into the hands of the Dervishes. It would have set free large numbers of Dervish troops.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, Order!
  SIR J. FERGUSSONremarked that the fact that the Speaker had been obliged to interfere twice on the point of order within the brief course of his observations, showed how injudicious it was to pursue this discussion. [Laughter.] Those who wanted to do so had no difficulty in understanding the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  MR. COURTNEYunderstood what the House was enabled to discuss was the withholding of information which
  546
  the Government ought to have communicated, especially information connected with the Reports made by Lord Cromer to the Government. Now, that struck him in this light. In the first week of February, Lord Cromer signed a Report in which he declared that although there had been raids, they were insignificant, and that although such raids might be anticipated in the future, they would not change their character. The Dervishes had been and were at that time remaining in a strictly defensive position. That was the first week in February. In the second week in March, orders were given to make an advance towards Dongola. What was the explanation? What had been the information received by the Government between those two dates to explain what had appeared to be a manifest discrepancy between the judgment of Lord Cromer in the first week of February, and the action of the Government in the second week in March? These were not the only facts to bear in mind. There was a third—namely, that the Italian Government had communicated to the Italian Chambers and nation their understanding that the orders given in the second week of March were in order to relieve Kassala, and for no other reason. [Opposition cheers.] Now, if that was true, of course, no intelligence from Lord Cromer might have been required, though he thought even if the Government had resolved to take that action on account of Italy alone, they would have consulted Lord Cromer about the possibilities of success, and the way of conducting the operation and the means by which it could be supported. But the Government told them that, though Kassala might have precipitated their notion, it was the result of a policy held by them before. They were under the belief that it would be necessary, sooner or later—a somewhat vague phrase—to give the orders and make the advance which had been given and made. Let it be assumed that the Government had in their minds that ideal to which the Secretary of State for the Colonies gave expression—the ideal of the reconquest of the Soudan. If their action was precipitated in March by the necessities of Italy, which was the Government's admission, there must have been communications which led them to start an expensive expedition. They must

  547
  have discussed with their advisers in Egypt how the expedition could be put in action, and by what means the money for it could be found. They must have had the materials on which to form a judgment; and if they had, they were bound to give them to the House of Commons. [Opposition cheers.] They were commencing what might be a long and most certainly would be an expensive operation. At the smallest estimate they were spending a quarter of a million now at Suakim. There was a suggestion that half a million was to be got out of the savings of Egypt. There must have been correspondence between the advisers of Her Majesty's Government in Egypt and themselves upon that situation. [Opposition cheers.] They must have discussed the ways and means. There must have been some discussion as to what would be the cost month by month, however limited the operations, and the Government would have to come to this House in order to get that cost supplied. ["Hear, hear!"] They were not going to throw—he hoped, and was glad to believe—any of the burden upon Egypt. They could not extract it from Egypt; that country lived under such international regulations that it had no free will of its own in these matters, and no surplus to give, so that the declaration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which gave the House so much comfort when he was unfolding his Budget, was already falsified by the course of events.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. COURTNEYbowed at once to the slightest indication that he was transgressing the limits. He recurred to the proper point. Within this month there was a great change. There must have been information leading to that change; but that information the House had no knowledge of. The last public expression of Lord Cromer' s opinion was hostile. It did not in the least favour any such enterprise. The House wanted some information to account for the change which manifested itself. That information had been withheld.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESentirely coincided with the views which the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had so ably set forth, and with regard to the remark of the right hon. Gentleman behind him (Sir J. Fergusson) that
  548
  the subject could not be debated now because the House was ignorant of the facts, that was exactly what they were complaining of. Attacks had been made on the Under Secretary. He did not think that was quite fair. [A laugh.] It must be remembered the right hon. Gentleman was only an Under Secretary, and that he did not know and was not allowed to know everything—[laughter]—and that, just as words were given to conceal our thoughts, so Under Secretaries were given to conceal our Foreign Minister. [Laughter and cheers.] The right hon. Gentleman had already stated that he could not give Dispatches without consulting his chief, and they did not know whether he had consulted his chief. That, by the way, was another article of information the House might have asked for. Moreover, it must be remembered that, before the information was put into a Blue-book, it would require the most careful expurgation arid editing. They must not expect to have the whole of it; and to ask the right hon. Gentleman at once to say what the House was to have and what it was not to have, would be like taking a prescription to a chemist's shop, and expecting the chemist's boy to make it up without any adequate knowledge of poisons and antidotes. [Laughter] Remarks had been made as to the new diplomacy in this connection. He was one of the admirers of the new diplomacy. He believed in telling the English people what you were doing, because, if you did, in nine cases out of ten they would be behind you whether you were doing right or wrong. [Laughter.] He did not believe in it to the extent of imposing upon a foreign people and Government amateur Constitutions, or publishing Dispatches before they had been received by the Government to whom they were addressed. [Laughter.] In fact, he did not call that diplomacy at all. Now, there were one or two matters to which he proposed to call attention in the ways of the new diplomacy. And, first of all, as to the letter of Ras Mangascia, which had been incorrectly described as an appeal for assistance against the Italians. That letter simply contained a touching reminder to the Queen of the ancient friendship subsisting between Her Majesty and his father, and stated that

  549
  the Italians were occupying his country A marvelous instance of the new diplomacy was shown in connection with this letter. The first thing the English Agent at Cairo did on receiving the letter from this one belligerent was to show it to the other belligerent. That was a very new diplomacy, for us, being friendly with two countries at war with each other, to show a Dispatch received from one of those Powers to the other. He wanted the Dispatch which would show what were Lord Cromer's reasons for such a step. Then Major Wingate went so far as to give the most Machiavelian advice to the Italian Agent. He recommended that Mangascia should be detached from Menelik, explaining that his position would not be real, but that he could be used against Menelik. That was another matter on which he wished for information. The Under Secretary had said that he could not give the Dispatches because warlike operations were proceeding. That was the very reason why the Dispatches were wanted. If nothing were going on, they would not want to know anything. These operations would compromise the finances and the political future of the country, and might possibly involve the most serious consequences. Steps were being taken, and expenditure was being incurred, and no one knew why. There had been no Dispatch published since that of Lord Cromer of 3rd February, explaining why these operations were not necessary. The Under Secretary said that the communications between Lord Salisbury and the Italian Government were verbal; but was it not the invariable practice, when a Foreign Minister had had an important interview with the Foreign Minister, to embody the effect of that interview in a Dispatch to our Ambassador at the Foreign Court? If that were not done there would be no record of the most important negotiations, and the continuity of business at the Foreign Office would be impossible. When the Italians applied for permission to pass troops through Zeila, Lord Salisbury said that they must not interfere with our engagements with France. Was that one of the verbal communications? Because the Italian Ambassador, writing to his Government on 4th January, declared that there had been a great conflict between
  550
  the Foreign Office and the India Office. He added, with regard to this verbal communication:—
  "I have thought it proper to put into writing these communications, and this was all the more necessary because Lord Salishury had encouraged me to ask for this passage through Zeila."
  The House must have the whole of these communications. They must know the grounds of the difference between the India Office and the Foreign Office, because, until they did, they could not properly deal with the question of the Indian troops. The Government would have to give the information, struggle as they might and give as many ''Under Secretary" answers as they would, because the English pecople would not be content with being dragged into an expedition which would possibly end in a great war, and a repetition of the awful events which brought discredit on the English name in the Soudan, without knowing all the full reasons for the course taken. The Government would be false to themselves, and to the traditions of the Tory Party, in refusing the information.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid that he had heard with considerable regret the last two speeches, though he was not surprised by that of the right hon. Member for Bodmin, whose utterances on foreign and colonial questions generally belonged to the "Little England" school. There were obvious reasons for the non-publication at present of important and confidential Dispatches. This question interested two groups of European Powers. On the one side was the Italian interest, and on the other side was the French interest, which had been working more or less against us. In the speeches of which he complained there had been a total ignoring of the fact that there must be great British interests involved in the whole of the Nile waterway, and in the security of Egypt. There was now being made a movement in the Soudan which might have the effect of relieving large populations from an intolerable oppression; and besides, the Italians were our allies. Why should they not be? Why should the hon. Member for Northampton sneer at them on that account? If there were trouble in the Mediterranean, the Italian fleet would be absolutely necessary to us.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I rise to order, Sir. Is the hon. Member speaking to the question?
  MR. SPEAKER: I think not.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT,continuing, said that the Government were now engaged in various military operations, and anything which would injure or embarrass the Government ought to be avoided. But he urged the Government not to fear meeting this question openly and courageously. He was not referring to the publication of delicate Dispatches; but let the Government boldly avow to the country that they intended to relieve the Soudan from its existing oppression.
  MR. JOHN DILLONsaid that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Manchester stated that this Debate could not possibly be productive of good results, and he seemed to be confirmed in that opinion by his failure to observe the Rules of Order. He (Mr. Dillon) could not at all agree with him either in his opinion or knowledge when the right hon. Gentleman said that he and other hon. Members who sat round him were content to look forward to future Debates when they would have more light. He was inclined to point out that the object and the only object, of the present Debate was to get more light. He understood that they were to be called upon at a very near date to discuss this question in such a shape that the whole policy of the British Government in reference to the Soudan would come up for consideration. The question they had to consider tonight was whether they would have such information before them when the future Debate took place as would be absolutely necessary to enable them to conduct the Debate. He asserted that if next week, or the week after, the House was called upon to debate the policy of the Soudan expedition without having before it all Papers concerning it from the Foreign Office of this country, that the spectacle would be displayed to the world of the British House of Commons debating a question of foreign policy, and deriving the main part of its information from an Italian Green-book, which is denied to the British House of Commons itself. He said that in the history of the House of Commons, no more extraordinary
  552
  spectacle would have been witnessed. He rose chiefly to press for information on one point which had not been alluded to. It was a point in which he took a very particular and keen interest, and unless the House got information on it before the coming Debate, he thought that Debate would be a very lame and useless one indeed. He wanted to know what was the present position of the Italian Government towards the African war. Because he had always held that the vast majority of the Italian people were thoroughly sick of this war, and he strongly suspected that the Government were in possession of Dispatches which would show, if published, that what the Italian Government desired to do was, if not to get out of Africa altogether, to evacuate Kassala and have done with the war. ["Hear, hear!"] If it be true that the Italian people, on whose behalf the House was told this Soudan expedition was mainly if not entirely undertaken, were anxious, and that the Italian Government were anxious to end their disastrous war, he asked, how could the House discuss the question until they had been put in possession of the views of the Italian Government? He would, therefore, respectfully request the Under Secretary, when he was consultng with his Chief, to ask whether the House of Commons should not be placed in the possession of Dispatches which would let them know the opinion of the present Italian Government in regard to the African war. Then there was another question, and that was, what was the opinion of Lord Cromer and the officials in Egypt as to the financing of this expedition. It would be absurd to enter into a discussion of this question unless Dispatches were laid on the Table giving definite and adequate information as to the probable cost of the expedition, as to the amount of money already spent, as to the views of the Government and their representatives in Egypt with regard to where the money was to come from. If it be true, as reported, that the Caisse of the Debt would not advance any more money, it would probably have to come out of the pockets of the taxpayers of this country. If it be true, as stated freely in the Press, that the sum of £500,000 had been expended without bringing the troops into collision with the Dervishes, not to speak of occupying

  553
  Dongola, it was perfectly manifest that the expedition, even if it stopped at Dongola, must cost at least £1,000,000, and he thought they should have the views of the Government as to where that £1,000,000 was to be found. He thought nothing could be clearer than that the Caisse of the Debt, if it had not the power to recover the £500,000 that had been paid out, would pay no more, and therefore the cost of this expedition must be derived from some other source. He thought everyone in the House had been very much impressed by the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. Arnold-Forster). The hon. Member said that the supporters of the Government in the House and in the country had been left under the impression that a demand was made on their loyalty, and that the Government had given them to understand that they were required to observe reticence in regard to this Soudan expedition, on account of the great international interests that were at stake. Nothing could be plainer, judging by his speech, and the speeches of other hon. Members, than that the Government, whether intentionally or not, had left their supporters in the House and in the country under a false impression as to the purpose and causes of this expedition. The Government, in reply to the Leader of the Opposition, had said that it was unusual and unprecedented to give information as to what led up to the military operations. It had always seemed to him that the Foreign Office adopted one of two alternatives when dealing with the House of Commons. Either it was said that the situation was such that no information could be given, and that they must trust the Government, or else to tell the House fully and frankly what had led up to these operations. He maintained that the Foreign Office had adopted neither of those alternatives in the present case. They had given—he would not say false information, but information so curtailed and manipulated that
  554
  the House and the country were undoubtedly left in the dark and under a false impression. He thought the hon. Member for Northampton had done a public service in moving this Motion. It was perfectly justifiable, because the demand it made was a necessary preliminary to adequate discussion of the Soudan expedition, and until the information asked for was laid upon the Table, it was mere mockery to ask the House to discuss the expedition.
  MR. J. H. DALZIELsaid that the object of his hon. Friend in making the Motion was to get, if possible, some further information from the Government in regard to recent negotiations with the Italian Government. The Government had thought fit to decline the demand of his hon. Friend. They had been compelled to admit the receiving of the communications published in the Italian Green-book.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No.
  MR. DALZIEL: Then, do we understand that the Government deny their accuracy?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: We have never admitted it.
  MR. DALZIEL: But the right hon. Gentleman has never denied it. [Opposition cheers.]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The hon. Gentleman asks whether we admit it? It is not our business to give formal contradiction to statements; but we do not admit the accuracy.
  MR. DALZIELasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would inform the House of Commons, for its guidance under the circumstances, what the purport of these communications really was? It was a very peculiar position for the Government of the country to leave the House of Commons and the people of the country in in regard to a matter of such vital importance, which might result in terrible consequences to

  555
  this country. The Members of the House of Commons had to get their information through Italian sources, and the Government would not admit the accuracy of the information thus supplied. If the right hon. Gentleman would not admit the accuracy of the conversations, would he be good enough to tell the House in what points they were inaccurate? Surely the right hon. Gentleman would see the importance of making a statement upon that point. But if the right hon. Gentleman was content to leave the matter so, the Opposition had no cause to complain. It was an advantage that the Government had been content to sit still while an hon. Member had declared his belief that Lord Cromer was against this expedition. This was a peculiar position for a Government to be in. Here we had our Minister in Egypt, a man whose opinion was of more importance than that of all the Members of the Cabinet put together, who it was not denied, refused to associate himself with the expedition—refused to take the responsibility of advising the Government to adopt the policy. If the Government were content to leave it there, the Opposition might be well satisfied. Members representing all shades of opinion had taken part in the Debate, but no one had said he understood what was the object and policy of the Government; it was an expedition in the dark, the policy of the blank cheque. Supporters of the Government demanded further information; and, if the Government were content to leave the matter there, the object of the Opposition was achieved, and he assumed it would be necessary to put the House to the trouble of a Division.
  Question, "That this House do now adjourn"—(Mr. Labouchere), put and negatived.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT (1894) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading upon Wednesday next.
  STEAM ENGINES AND BOILERS (PERSONS IN CHARGE) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred from Monday next till Monday 15th June.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPART MENTS ESTIMATES, 1896–7.

  CLASS III.
  1. Motion made, and Question proposed:—
  "That a sum, not exceeding £5,263, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Land Registry."
  SIR ROBERT REIDsaid there had already been a short Debate on the Vote before progress was last reported. The Land Registry as it existed had been exposed to a good deal of criticism for many years; and the criticism was natural, because the registry was so limited in its scope that it could hardly be said to be a living registry. The duties were well performed by the Gentlemen in charge of the office, but the registry did not yield to the country anything like the results that were to be expected for even the moderate expenditure. The hon. Member for Haddington (Mr. Haldane) had pointed out that the only way to make the registry useful was to carry out most necessary reforms, so that there might be an effective and proper system of land registry. The history of this business was remarkable. Lord Halsbury had twice or thrice brought in a Bill and passed it through the House of Lords. Lord Herschell had brought in a Bill of lesser scope in the hope of getting an instalment of what was necessary; but it had been defeated, largely by the action of well-meaning persons, solicitors —[laughter]—who had done everything they could, by putting pressure upon individual Members of the House, to induce them not to support it. In 1895 there was a Select Committee, of which he was Chairman, and he deprecated the

  557
  reappointment of that Committee, which was suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Haddington. The Committee was appointed because the late Government, with not so large a majority as it deserved, was anxious to pass a Bill; and he made terms with the Incorporated Law Society that the opposition to the Second Reading should be withdrawn if a Select Committee were appointed to conclude its business by the middle of June. Every witness tendered by the Law Society was examined; and then came the fall of the Government. The evidence produced upon his mind an absolute and certain conviction that the proposed scheme was workable, that it might be cheap, and that it would be of more value to agriculture and to landowners than many other nostrums. It was a very old subject. Oliver Cromwell expressed a very strong opinion upon it. [Laughter.] There were Royal Commissions upon it in 1828, 1850, 1854, 1878, and Select Committees in 1846 (Lords), in 1878 (Commons), and in 1895 the Committee appointed under the pressure he had indicated. We had got quite enough information, and the time had come for action. In his opinion, nothing was more serious in this House than the practice of referring disputed questions to Select Committees or Royal Commissions, as a means of postponing the responsibility of arriving at a definite conclusion. We had pyramids of Blue-books, which were never read, which had been produced merely as a means of putting off the responsibility of coming to a decision to a more convenient season. ["Hear, hear!"] The time had come when the Government ought to do something to make this office useful, instead of leaving it practically useless. He had no reason to think the Government would shrink from the responsibility of coming to a decision. They had the opinions of Lords Cairns, Selborne, Halsbury, and Herschell. For himself, he held a strong opinion that we could carry out a scheme similar to that which had been in operation for so long in Australia. No doubt there were honest apprehensions and fears of any innovation on the part of lawyers; but if in the past we had waited for reforms until we had satisfied Her Majesty's judges, solicitors, and a
  558
  large portion of the Bar of the United Kingdom, we should never have got many of our most beneficial reforms. When men of eminence who had attained to a high position, in which they were free from temptation, expressed their deliberate opinions upon this matter, we ought to take the responsibility of acting on their high authority. There was no reason why it should not be as easy in this country as in Australia to effect the sale of a piece of land in 20 minutes, at a cost of a shilling or two, without bundles and rolls of filthy parchments. [Cheers] He hoped the matter would not be left to members of the Bar, who usually favoured legal reforms while lay members hardly ever took the trouble to support them. Country gentlemen and owners of land listened to their solicitors, and did not take any step to help themselves in a matter which was of vital importance. The First Lord of the Treasury, in reply to a question, had said that a Bill was ready, but he could not undertake to have it introduced this Session. Next Session we might hope to have a less ambitious and more useful programme, which he hoped would include a Land Registry Bill. [Cheers.]
  SIR HOWARD VINCENTexpressed his hope that something would be done before long to simplify the transfer of land. Pressure was always brought to bear upon hon. Members when matters of this kind were about to come under the consideration of the House, with the result that useful reforms in this direction were not carried into effect. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. R. B. HALDANEsaid that he differed from the view taken by his hon. and learned Friend the member from Dumfries upon this question. He thought that the evidence that had been given before the Commissions which had sat to consider this subject was conclusively in favour of the principle of land registration, but that some of the evidence, notably that of Mr. Lake and the bankers, showed that the Bill required careful remodelling in parts of detail. For this purpose the re-appointment of the Committee was desirable.
  SIR G. OSBORNE MORGANexplained that the reason why the Select Committee on Land Titles and Transfer (of which he was Chairman) had not recommended the registration of

  559
  Titles was that before they registered Titles they must have Titles which could be registered. To register Titles without simplifying them was to begin at the wrong end. By simplifying Titles only could they facilitate the transfer of laud.
  SIR W. HARCOURTthought that a Measure dealing with the transfer of land was one of the highest importance. ["Hear, hear!"] He had for many years advocated the passing of a Measure for the registration of land, because nothing more disgraceful could be imagined than the title of land in this country. The fact was that no landowner in the kingdom knew whether he had a good title to his land or not. The title deeds to the greatest estates in the country were locked up in a box in a solicitor's office, and neither the landowner nor his solicitor really knew whether those documents have a good title to the property they referred to, and that was the condition of the title to all land. ["Hear, hear!"] When a landowner wanted to sell his property one of the first conditions he made was that the purchaser should not require him to make out an absolute title. It was astonishing that land should be held under such conditions, and it was still more astonishing that landowners should object to a reform that would simplify their titles to their properties. The fact was that the family solicitor always said to his client, "For heaven's sake do not allow your title to your property to be inquired into, because you may not have a good title to it." The result was that the landowner became alarmed, and the family solicitor, for obvious reasons, objected to any change being made in the law on the subject. The consequence was that when any attempt was made to abolish this scandalous state of things the whole body of solicitors came down and used all their legitimate influence to prevent that attempt from being successful. Unless hon. Members on both sides of the House were determined to meet the exercise of that influence against the reform of our land system by the adoption of a common-sense Measure no legislation on the subject would be possible. ["Hear, hear!"] Lawyers appear to have inherited the tendency of the priesthood of olden times who wrapped up their religion in forms that were unintelligible to ordinary people,
  560
  and it was to that fact that we owed the present position of our titles to land. He hoped the Government would use the great power which they possessed to arrive at same really satisfactory settlement of this question. ["Hear, hear!"] He did not say that such a settlement would be altogether an adequate remedy for agricultural distress, but it certainly would be greatly to the advantage of the owners of land and indirectly therefore, to the community at large. ["Hear, hear!"]
  SIR JOSEPH LEESEsaid that the title of land in the constituency he represented was mainly copyhold, and that the cost of the transfer of landed property under that system was about one-third more than that under the ordinary existing system. He hoped that the principle of the forthcoming Bill would be such as would cover the transfer of copyhold property.
  SIR JOHN BRUNNERsaid that if the Attorney General would accede to the request of his right hon. Friend he assured him that if he did so, and would make this registry a real and useful institution, the Bill would have no more hearty supporter than himself.
  MR. R. B. MARTINpointed out that a system of land registration was carried out in the Isle of Man. Another facility there was that auctioneers were paid by the day.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSsaid he had had practical experience of the convenience and cheapness of the system in Australia. He hoped the Government would consider the advisability of introducing a Bill at an early date, at any rate next Session, for the advantage of all who desired to have any transactions in land.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISsaid that on the Continent of Europe and in America there was a system of land registration. The system in America was far inferior to the Australian system, as the Americans themselves readily acknowledged. As far as the circumstances of the case would admit, he hoped that they should have a system as near as possible to that excellent, simple and cheap system which was found in Australia, It had been,

  561
  suggested that that House was terrorised by solicitors outside, and they knew that there was another place which had unquestionably suffered from that cause, and he hoped that both parties would make up their minds to carry this great and necessary reform.
  The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,)regretted that the right hon. Member for Monmouthshire had used so much exaggeration in his speech; the representations he had made as to the action of solicitors in connection with titles was not in accordance with the experience of any one who had to do with the transfer of land. Of course, they would all be glad if they could arrive at the simple Australian system, but it would be absolutely misleading to the House and to the country to suggest that it could be arrived at in this country. The real difficulties were due to the existing state of things here. The reason why the Australian system worked so simply was because there was one common root title—from the Crown.
  SIR R. REIDsaid it had been proved by an inquiry that there were a large number of other titles, but that not the least difficulty arose.
  The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid that every one who had studied the Australian system knew that its simplicity was due to the fact that there were but few titles to start with. He entirely agreed with his hon. and learned Friend that something should be done—("hear, hear!")—but they had got an enormous number of titles to deal with in this country. That did not prevent them from wishing to do all they could in the shape of reform, but he thought that lay members of the House very often forgot how much they had to do with the difficulty of passing a simple legal reform. It was no exaggeration to say that he could make ten or 15 small Amendments to the law urgently required, which would be of practical importance, and would be a convenience and save expense, only they attracted so little interest in the House of Commons that it was quite impossible to get that feeling behind them which was necessary in order to get them passed. He should be out of order in explaining, but he referred to amendments of the law in connection with trials, procedure, evidence, and a
  562
  number of such questions in which no considerations of Party were involved. Lawyers when they endeavoured to deal with these matters did not receive that support which they ought to receive from the House, and these reforms were postponed year after year. He assured hon. Members that it was very discouraging to bring in year after year Bills on such small matters and to have them blocked by private Members. The hon. Member for the Flint Boroughs referred to the obstructive action of the House of Lords, but he must be exceedingly forgetful of what the history of this question was.
  Mr. HERBERT LEWISsaid he had not meant to blame the House of Lords.
  The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid that to a large extent legal reforms had originated in the House of Lords. There was no doubt that the work of lawyers in the House of Lords had made more mark on the Statute-book than the work of lawyers in the House of Commons. ["Hear, hear!"] He had no idea that this Debate was going to be raised. There was first the demand of the hon. Member for Haddington, who had temporarily quitted the House after making his speech for the reappointment of the Committee. There might be some questions of detail to be settled and some points which might require further elucidation. The next point was as to the introduction of a Bill, but his hon. Friend knew that the responsibility for that did not rest with him. They were extremely anxious that the subject should be dealt with, and the present Lord Chancellor had shown no reluctance. ["Hear, hear!"] Of course the hon. Member did not mean this Session; that would be out of the question. Probably he would address some question to the Leader of the House. There was not the slightest reluctance to deal with this question as a whole or in part so as to get reform. He was surprised by the statement made as to the expenditure on copyhold property. He should like to see the system simplified. Before he sat down he wished to say a few words to remove an impression which rested in some minds with regard to the existing Land Registry. It was a mistake to suppose that it was doing no useful work, and it had paid its way during recent years. He wanted to be clearly understood on this point, for it was not fair to bring these charges with

  563
  regard to the Land Registry. He should merely say that it did not now show a loss; it was paying its way.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS MR. HERBERT LEWIS rose to continue the discussion.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! Nearly the whole of the discussion that has taken place is out of order. The discussion originated on a former occasion when I was not in the chair. No discussion on legislation which may be possible in the future, is in order in dealing with Votes in Supply. I must, therefore, ask the Committee to confine itself to the question of the administration of the Land Registry.
  DR. CLARKcomplained that it was difficult to tell the changes in the fees received under different Votes, the result being that they did not know how they stood. He wanted to see one general system applied all round. The form adopted should be the same in every Vote. He compared the Scotch and English Registry, and said that the former was superior. What they now wanted was to see how matters stood.
  MR. HANBURYsaid the net profit was £6,693.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEagreed with the Chairman's ruling. He would point out that the fees were too high; they could not make land registry a success if it cost more to register a title than it would to go through the whole process of preparing deeds. He also complained that they could only register their titles in London and urged that there should be district registries. He suggested to the Attorney General that the 118th Section of the Land Transfer Act of 1875 should be put into operation. He did not think it would be necessary to create separate registries. At the present moment there were, under the Judicature Act and the Probate Act, district registries in every centre of England and Wales. These registries contained men of considerable conveyancing experience, and it would be a very excellent thing to utilise these registries for the purpose of putting into operation the section he had just mentioned. What would then ensue would be that in every centre of population there would be a registry which would be within reasonable distance of any solicitor. Instead of having 20,000 titles
  564
  registered annually, the probability was that every title in the kingdom would be registered.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: 20,000 searches.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEunderstood that 20,000 titles were registered; 20,000 searches was a very small matter. There must be far more than 20,000 transactions with regard to title in the course of a year. What the hon. and learned Gentleman had just said only showed that land registration was a much greater failure than was thought. How many titles were registered? Searches meant little, because there might be half a dozen searches and only one registration. With the view of raising the question of the utilisation of the present district registries, he moved the reduction of the Vote by £1,000.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALwas a little surprised that, after the disposition he had shown to answer every question, the hon. Member should have thought it right to prolong the discussion upon a matter which, after all, had already been fully explained.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The point has not been raised before.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid he would, if the hon. Gentleman desired it, give the figures. The hon. Gentleman raised three points. First of all he complained of the magnitude of the fees in London. That matter was very carefully answered some two or three years ago, and it was then found that the fees in many cases were not sufficiently high. The fees were remodelled in order that there might be a fair relation between the amount of the work done and the charge made. He had no information which led him to suppose for a moment that the charges were too high. With regard to the establishment of district offices, he admitted that the present system of land registration did not promote registration of title to the extent it ought, and that in order to make land registration effective there would have to be some alteration in the law. But to establish district registries would only be to multiply the risk and loss which occurred in the London registries. It would be impossible for the present district registrars to do the work. The hon. Gentleman said the district

  565
  registries were causing great loss. There was no loss. [Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: "I did not say that."] The hon. Gentleman certainly conveyed that impression. The receipts more than covered the expenditure, and no one could say that the district registries were a burden to the country. But from the point of view of staff accommodation, position, and facilities, they were utterly unsuitable for the purpose of land registration. The hon. Gentleman had asked him how many actual registrations there were as distinguished from searches. In 1895 there were 934 actual registrations, and in four years the number had more than doubled. Land registration, he believed, was being carried on without loss and with substantial advantage to the country.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISdid not think the hon. and learned Gentleman fully understood the hon. Member for the Carnarvon Boroughs. The point of his hon. Friend was that a number of district registries had been established in connection with the High Court of Justice, that attached to those registries were a number of highly paid officials—he did not say too highly paid—and that it was possible to utilise those registries, and that a great deal more work might be got out of them. He agreed with, his hon. Friend that the present district registries were in a far better position to undertake the additional work than newly-created offices would be.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid the Attorney General had maintained that the district registries could not be expected to undertake the work which would be cast upon them if the suggestion of the hon. Member for Carnarvon were adopted.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: I said that from the point of view of staff accommodation they could not do the work.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid that, was an assertion he challenged. It so happened it fell to his lot to appoint a registrar to the County Court of Gloucester, and therefore to the district registry of Gloucester. The present Lord Chancellor intimated to him that it would be well if he nominated for the office a gentleman who would be willing to give up private business as a solicitor, with the especial
  566
  view of casting as many public duties upon the district registry as might from time to time be found convenient. He believed the special cause of this intimation was the idea that it would be well to amalgamate the Probate Registry of the Probate Division of the High Court of Justice and the District Registry of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice. Probably that was what was chiefly intended by the Lord Chancellor. A gentleman was appointed by him to the office of District Registrar of Gloucester, who complied with the condition. He had not been appointed yet to the Probate Registry, and he knew that at the present time the work of that office was not sufficient to take up the whole time of that gentleman, and that the staff was perfectly competent to carry on much larger work that it was now doing. He knew some other offices of which that assertion would be perfectly true. Therefore he must inform the Committee that the suggestion of the Attorney General was not in accordance with the facts of many of the registries. There could be no difficulty in that regard, and if the only point which could be urged against the argument of his hon. Friend was that the registrar's staff was not sufficient, then he undertook to say that in regard to the greater number of district registries it would be quite easy to carry out the suggestion.
  MR. E. W. BYRNEsuggested that the Amendment should not be pressed. The discussion appeared to be somewhat unprofitable, for the reason that it had been recognised by both Lord Chancellors that a change in the system of registration would be necessary before it could be made a success. If they were to attempt now to deal with district registries all over or in different parts of the country, they would find, at all events at first, that they would tend to perpetuate the system that was now going on, and that was recognised as not a successful system. He ventured to think it would be idle and foolish for any Government or Lord Chancellor to establish local registries until they had a change in the system of registration. The hon. Member had raised the question, which had been in the minds of lawyers for a very long time, and he would suggest that it would

  567
  be better for it to come on when the great land transfer question must be fully discussed in that House.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid they had been promised a Bill for years, and if they were going to wait until they got the Bill nothing would be done. What he suggested was that they should utilise the powers they had got at present. He did not see why the Attorney General should not make this recommendation, and he was sure it would be done. They could then make a start, and when the Bill came the registries could be improved. His suggestion was that they should utilise the registries already in existence. He knew some populous districts where the district registry was admirably manned and equipped. The Attorney General said something about fees, but he would point out to the Committee that it was because they had so few cases at the present moment that the fees were high. Every additional case they introduced into the registry reduced the fees, and if they simply put the Act into operation and by that means increased the number of cases, they were bound to reduce the fees at the same time. His complaint was that they could not utilise the powers they had got at the present moment. He could not withdraw his Amendment, but must take the sense of the Committee upon it.
  Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £4,263, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Lloyd-George).
  The House divided:—Ayes, 40; Noes, 118.—(Division List, No. 223.)
  Original question put, and agreed to.
  2. Motion made, and Question proposed:—
  "That a sum, not exceeding £20,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for the Salaries and Expenses connected with the County Courts."
  MR. HERBERT LEWISremarked that an item of £300 was voted during the last year for the purposes of prosecutions for assaults on bailiffs and other law expenses. He observed a similar amount was estimated for this year. What were the cases which necessitated the granting of so large a sum as £300?
  568
  He would ask the Attorney General whether the maintenance of the Established Church, for example, had anything to do with it, and whether they were to pay this amount so long as an Established Church was maintained in this country? How much of this particular amount was the tithe sales in Wales responsible for?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALdid not think this was a large item when it was considered that it applied to the whole County Court bailiffs of the kingdom. It was quite true that some years ago there was considerable difficulty in the way of tithe collection in Wales, but that difficulty had now, to a very large extent, disappeared. He believed some portion of the amount might be required for the purpose of prosecutions for assaults on bailiffs in connection with the collection of tithes. Looking at the amount of money recovered through the medium of the County Courts of the country, he thought the hon. Member would agree that this was really a small sum. As far as he could gather, the bailiffs of the County Court performed very difficult duties with care and moderation, and in those few cases where they were subjected to assaults it was requisite they should have protection.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONESagreed with the view that the bailiffs performed their work in an admirable manner, and, so far from complaining of this small amount, his opinion was rather that the Treasury did not always prosecute in all cases where a bailiff needed protection. He referred to an item of £400 on page 230 for "incidental expenses, jury lists," and asked how these expenses were incurred?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALreplied that this was the expense of the preparation of the jury lists by the Sheriffs at twopence per folio. There was nothing unusual in the charge, which was very small, the total amounting to only £400 a year.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS, referring to item a, for salaries, asked whether any of these officers were paid by fees and poundage, because, if so, the information should be included in the Vote, so that the Committee might know exactly the amount paid each officer in the way of salary.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,)said he was not in possession of information which would enable him to answer the hon. Gentleman's question, but he would make inquiries.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEagreed with what had fallen from hon. Members as to the necessity for protection being afforded bailiffs in the execution of their duty. He also agreed that some of those officials performed their duties in an admirable manner. What he objected to was this. The Attorney General had referred to prosecutions for tithe assaults upon bailiffs, and had said that these prosecutions had not been nearly so many as they were two on three years ago. But still there were yet prosecutions of that kind going on. The officers of the law were bound to be protected, and when they made their protests to the Treasury the Treasury was bound to give them protection. His case was that cases were brought where really the facts did not justify the prosecution. Within the last year cases of this kind had been brought in the county of Cardiganshire. The bailiff was exceedingly offensive, so much so that something in the nature of a technical assault might have been alleged. He brought the matter before the Court, and after a long, patient, and impartial hearing the magistrate dismissed all the cases. What he himself said was this, that where the Treasury declined to prosecute in cases of genuine assault, they ought not to consent to spend money in cases which were instituted, not for the purpose of protecting bailiffs, but for the purpose of creating the impression that there were breaches of the law in Cardigan-shire over the collection of the tithe, and to bring discredit upon a people who, though poor, were a law-abiding people. The cost of this prosecution must have amounted to at least £100, and as a protest he moved to reduce the Vote by that amount. Cardiganshire and Pembrokeshire were notably law-abiding counties. At the last two Assizes for Pembrokeshire the Judge was presented with white gloves, there being no cases for him to try. This was the rule, and not the exception there. Criminal statistics showed that no counties in the kingdom were so free from crime. He was assured that assaults of the kind
  570
  alleged would not have been committed without circumstances of aggravation which would justify the magistrates in saying the person assaulted had brought it upon himself. Little of this money was spent in Wales at all, and, with the exception of these tithe prosecutions, he did not believe a single penny of the money had been spent in Cardiganshire. He protested against the stigma sought to be cast on a peaceful, law-abiding people by moving the reduction of the Vote.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid the Secretary to the Treasury nor himself knew how much of the money was spent in Wales. He would endeavour to ascertain between this and the Report stage. He believed the hon. Member was right, and that little or none of it was spent in Wales. He hoped the hon. Member would be content with the protest he had made, and not put the Committee to the trouble of dividing.
  Question put, "That item H, for Prosecutions for Assaults on Bailiffs, be reduced by £100."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 29; Noes, 96.—(Division List, No. 224.)
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he wished once more to call attention to the exorbitant fees charged in County Courts for the recovery of small debts. The subject had often been discussed in the House, but nothing had as yet been done to remedy the grievance. Before proceedings could be commenced for the recovery of a small debt there was a fee of 1s. in the pound to pay. If it was sought to recover a debt of —6, 7s. had to be paid to commence proceedings. Often 2s. and 3s. in the pound had to be paid for fees before judgment could be obtained, and if the creditor proceeded to execution, etc., the fees often equalled the amount of the debt itself. If you entered an action for £20 in the High Court, the fees amounted to a few shillings only, and it was really cheaper to enter an action in the High Court than in the County Court. The jurisdiction of the County Courts had been greatly extended, but, owing to the high fees, the County Courts were not utilised as they ought to be, because it was found much cheaper to

  571
  come to London and enter an action without paying high fees. The continuance of the high fees was unjustifiable, because the Treasury received £425,000 from the Courts, which was more, he believed, than they received in fees from the High Court.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISsaid that the point raised was one of very great importance to a large number of small suitors, to whom a charge of 3s. in the pound on the amount of a claim was extortionate. There were many cases relating to small estates heard in the County Courts, and the fees amounted to a serious charge, which some estates could ill afford to bear.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid that County Court cases might be divided into two classes—first, debt-collecting cases, and secondly, cases which raised substantial issues similar to those tried in the High Court. The fees on the small-debt cases amounted to a heavy tax on the working classes, and fell with hardship on those who, living partly on credit, were unable to pay when they lost employment through a strike or otherwise. But, in the other class of cases, the fees were not too high, and in Admiralty cases they were not high enough. He did not think the Treasury would be a loser by reducing the fees in the ordinary debt cases.
  DR. CLARKsaid he was astonished that the people in England had so long stood the high County Court fees. In Scotland a case could be entered for 2s. 1d., which would cost between £2 and £3 in fees in England. It was difficult to get at the exact figures as to the receipts and payments of the County Courts, because some officers were paid partly by fees and partly by salary, and the registrar was paid according to the number of plaints entered. The information could be got at only by an examination of the Appropriation accounts; and he would ask whether it could not be presented in a more simple form.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid the account asked for would be a somewhat complicated one, but perhaps the information might be given in a modified form. This question of the fees payable on the recovery of small debts was an important one, and was constantly occupying the attention of the Lord Chan
  572
  cellor, and also of the Committee of County Court Judges. If the hon. Members who had raised the question would care to send him any suggestion or statement, he would forward it to the Lord Chancellor for his consideration. But they would understand that a mere general complaint about fees would not be helpful or have any practical effect. It was an extremely difficult matter to apportion the costs as between the different classes of suits heard in such large numbers. The hon. and learned Member, who had had experience as a County Court Judge, had made a practical suggestion which was worthy of consideration; but the adoption of his scheme would involve the raising of some fees, and that always created difficulties. The income and the expenditure were about balanced now, and, if the income continued to increase, it might be possible to make some reductions of fees. The matter was one for the Lord Chancellor, and not for himself; and the opinions of the Committee of County Court Judges would be taken on the matter before anything was done.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that a good principle of differentiation had been suggested. There were contentious cases that occupied a long time, and yet paid little more than small-debt cases and wages cases, which occupied only a few minutes. Still he was much obliged for the satisfactory answer which the Attorney General had given.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  On the return of the CHAIRMAN, after the usual interval,
  3. Motion made, and Question proposed:—
  £2,800, to complete the sum for Police Courts, London and Sheerness.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISobserved that, including the charge upon the Consolidated Fund, a sum of £55,056 was estimated for as the contribution of the country at large for a single year towards the cost of London police courts and police magistrates. It seemed most unreasonable that the country at large should be called upon to pay the expenses of law and justice in the Metropolis.
  DR. CLARK, interposing, said he thought the Government ought to be allowed to get this Vote because they had brought in the Metropolitan Police Courts Bill to transfer the charge under this Vote from Portsmouth to London.
  MR. LEWISadmitted the importance of the fact just mentioned, but they did not know whether the Bill referred to was going to become law or not, and in the meantime he objected to the expenditure in this year, because the benefit of it was entirely confined to the metropolis.
  MR. JOHN BURNS, called the attention of the Home Secretary to the extent to which young boys and girls were allowed into the police courts while the details of revolting and indecent cases were being heard by the magistrates. He made some special inquiries into this subject at the time of the Plaistow murder, where two boys of immature age killed their mother, and found that only a few days previously the boy who was the principal in the murder had been down to Southend and had gained access to the court when Read, the Southend murderer, was tried and condemned for the murder of his sweetheart. He felt the matter so keenly that he wrote to the Commissioner of Police, who replied in very sympathetic terms, but said it appeared to him that the matter was one for the consideration of the magistrates, who alone, he thought, could say who was or was not to be admitted to the courts over which they presided. Being doubtful as to who had the authority to exclude these young persons he wished to bring the subject under the attention of the Home Secretary, with the view of asking him to issue orders in that cause, because he was satisfied that no more fruitful source of manufacture of youthful criminals could be found than freely permitting them to listen to the unsavoury and revolting details of the police courts.
  THE CHAIRMAN, as a matter of order, said this question could not pro
  574
  perly be discussed on the present Vote, because the salaries of London magistrates were not borne upon the Vote. There was no objection to asking a question upon it, but no debate was permissible.
  MR. WEBSTERsympathised to some extent with the views just expressed by the hon. Member for Battersea, but with regard to the question and the expense incurred by the country generally in relation to Metropolitan police courts, hon. Gentlemen were not apparently aware that a very large amount of the taxation of the country was already thrown on the metropolis. Their jurisprudence was more delayed in London than it was in the country, and if they received some small portion of payment, he did not think that petty complaints should be made. The Metropolitan police courts were of use to those who came to London from time to time, and who sometimes found their way into the police courts. [Laughter.] Hon. Members seemed to object to anything that was for the benefit of London, even to the prevention of bilking cabmen. ["Oh!" and laughter.] Yes, it was the hon. Member for Wales who—
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
  MR. WEBSTERsaid he was more particularly referring to the London police courts, and he contended that London received less than its due.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONESexpressed sympathy with the complaint made by the hon. Member for Battersea, but he wished to point out, that after all the efficiency of the Courts of Justice depended chiefly upon what might be called the subordinate officers of the Courts of Justice. It a great deal depended on how the usher of a Court was dealt with.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The usher would act under the direction of the magistrate.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid that his experience, and he spoke as a barrister, was that the judges sometimes ordered

  575
  subordinate officers, but these did not always obey. It amounted to something like a scandal, for not only the ushers, but he was sorry to say sometimes the police, did not carry out the orders of the superintending judge or magistrate. He was speaking with some knowledge of the police courts of London as counsel, and it was a fact that it was sometimes a very difficult thing for magistrates to get their orders carried out with regard to the matter mentioned by the Member for Battersea. How could a judge sitting on the bench see that his order was properly carried out? He had known orders given, and 10 minutes afterwards he had seen persons in the Court who ought not to have been there if the orders of the judge had been carried out. He desired, not only with reference to the London police courts, but to many in the country, to emphasise the complaint made by the hon. Member for Battersea.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEcomplained that the statement that a Bill would be introduced was no answer to their point. Even if this Bill to transfer the charge were introduced, they were still called upon to pay the money.
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: No, Sir; the matter would be balanced.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that, apart from that, the late and the present Government admitted that it was unfair to call on the country generally to pay for the Metropolitan police courts. The country was not asked to vote for the police courts of Manchester and other provincial cities. There was nothing in London which was not applicable to other cases. He did not think they were going to wipe it out by Act of Parliament. Even so, that showed how unfair it was to ask for a Vote for another year. [A laugh.] No, it was not fair. ["Hear, hear!"]
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I do not admit it.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEunderstood that the Bill was to provide that never for the future would the country be
  576
  burdened with this charge, but they were voting the money for the current year. If it was not right that this money should be paid, why ask for the sum of £4,300? Was it right that the taxpayers of the country should be taxed for the maintenance for another year of the Metropolitan police courts?
  MR. F. G. BANBURY: How about Dr. Jameson and Dr. Herz? ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGErecognized the point raised by the hon. Member with regard to State trials; but they were very rare, perhaps only one every ten years as a rule.
  MR. WEBSTER: How about election petitions? [Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEdid not see the relevance of that interruption. [Hear, hear!"] He recognised the other, but State trials were not all conducted in London. Take the Walsall case. If taxes were to go to support the London police courts, why not Walsall, and Glasgow, and other places? As to the salaries of clerks, under the old system the fees paid the salaries, and if that had not been done away with there would not have to be a penny voted for these salaries.
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid the Bill, which he was extremely anxious to carry into law, did not pretend to be a settlement of the vexed question of the charges of the Metropolitan police-courts. It did not deal, for instance, with the salaries of the magistrates. But it proposed to transfer all other expenses of the Courts from the Imperial Exchequer to the Metropolitan Police Fund. He agreed with the hon. Member for Battersea that juvenile crime was often traceable to the presence of boys and girls among the spectators of London police-courts; but it did not come within his jurisdiction to direct the magistrates as to who might and might not be admitted to the courts during the hearing of cases. He hardly thought there was any foundation for the

  577
  statement that the Metropolitan police magistrates were not, in the matter of the admission of persons to the courts, obeyed by the ushers of the courts, He believed the London police magistrates were well able to maintain control over their courts, and see that their orders were obeyed. Every magistrate and every judge had the right, if he thought fit, to intimate to persons in his court that it would be desirable if they absented themselves; but to direct the magistrates as to the persons in regard to whom they were to exercise their powers of exclusion did not come within the province of the Home Secretary. With regard to the question of the fees, there was no provision for compulsory periodical examination of them. They were fixed by Statute, and not as in the counties, by the Standing Joint Committee.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Not in London. As regards London it is under the Home Office.
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid he did not believe it was in the power of the Home Office to order a compulsory examination every five years, as in counties, of the foes, but he was under the impression they were fixed by Statute. He would, however, consider the matter.
  MR. STUART WORTLEYhoped that the promised action of the Home Secretary would not lead to a reduction of the fees of the justices' clerks. He placed a very high value on their services. He thought the good they effected by preserving good humour and order in the police courts of this vast metropolis could not be over estimated, and they certainly were not overpaid.
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: There is no question of reducing the salaries.
  DR. CLARKthought those clerks ought to be ashamed of themselves for the way they sponged on the poor-box.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. JESSE COLLINGS,): What about Edinburgh?
  DR. CLARKsaid that in Edinburgh everything was paid for locally; and what he protested against was that while they in Scotland paid all the expenses of their police courts they should also have to pay a share of the expenses of the London police courts. The justices' clerks of the Metropolitan courts were paid £300 a year. In addition to that they had perquisites for furnishing copies of depositions varying from £9 to £75 per annum each, and one received £10, and another £5 for the management of the poor-box. He called that sponging on the poor-box. Until the Bill referred to by the Home Secretary was passed, they would continue to protest against the principle of the charges of the Metropolitan police courts being imposed upon the Imperial Exchequer.
  MR. J. CALDWELLsaid it had taken a good many years of calling attention to this subject to get the Home Office to do anything, and now the Bill that was promised would deal with only £4,500 out of the £60,000 which the Metropolitan police courts cost the country every year.
  MR. WEBSTERsaid that the metropolitan ratepayers would be quite willing to bear this £4,500 if the whole question of their rateability and taxability were gone into.
  COLONEL MILWARDsaid it was true certain national cases were tried at the Metropolitan police courts, and to that extent and no further the country ought to be called upon to pay for them. The hon. Member for Caithness ought to withdraw the statement that clerks "sponged" on the poor box. The extra payments that were made to them were placed upon this Estimate and no money went out of the poor box into their pockets. ["Hear, hear!"]
  Mr. T. LOUGHsaid that after the Home Secretary's promise of legislation, the London aspect of the case might be dropped for the present. He wished to ask whether

  579
  anything had been done in the direction of holding a special court or appointing a magistrate specially to hear School Board cases, so as to save the parents who were summoned unpleasant association with the police court. A Departmental Committee had been considering what could be done to facilitate the hearing of the charges against cabmen and other drivers for street offences. The Committee recommended that arrangements should be made for hearing the cases early in the forenoon so that the men might not lose a whole day, as they did, in waiting while other business was disposed of. Some remarkable evidence was given as to the City Court where, in a whole year, there were not as many cases as there were in a single week in the Marlborough Street and other Metropolitan courts. Another point to which he should like to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman was with reference to the remuneration given to female attendants at the police courts. He found that there was a total sum of £500 asked for under this head, some of the women receiving 15s. a week, and others only 7s. 6d. a week. He should like to know how many received the smaller sum. A sum of £900 was asked for for the charwomen employed in the same service some of whom received the fair remuneration of 42s. a week, whilst others received only 11s. 6d. a week. He wished to know the number receiving the latter sum. Full particulars were given in the cases of chief clerks, but no information whatever was given regarding the humbler classes of employées.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid that he wished to join hon. Members in pressing upon the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary the advisability of some arrangement being made for the trial of cab cases. It was very creditable to the 12,000 or 14,000 London cabmen that when taken to the police courts—very often innocent of the charges made against them for trifling offences—they
  580
  should have a repugnance to being compelled to associate with bad characters. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would consult with the London police magistrates to see whether one or two days in the week could not be set apart for the trial of such cases, so as to prevent the cab cases being mixed up with those of brutal assaults. Then, again, with regard to School Board cases, they had no right to ask a parent to a police court to give his reasons for not sending his child to school. The parents frequently took their children with them, and these children had to sit for hours in the courts listening to criminal cases of the worst description. If the right hon. Gentleman felt that he could not interfere in the matter perhaps he might make some observations on that occasion which the magistrates might read in the morning, and he was certain that those observations would receive every consideration at the hands of the magistrates. He also desired to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that boys and girls were in the habit of frequenting the police courts for the purpose of listening to the cases which came before the magistrates, and if a hint were given to police inspectors to carefully exclude juvenile persons from the public galleries and from the back of the courts much good would result.
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid he had no power to direct either the police or the magistrates as to whom they permitted to come into their courts. It was now the practice in London police courts to hear School Board cases immediately after the luncheon interval, when there were no cases waiting to be heard, and he had suggested the same procedure elsewhere. He had been in communication with Sir John Bridge in regard to the question of cabdrivers' summonses, and he reported that a great deal depended on the arrangement of the court, but that it would be very inconvenient if there were only one or two courts in the whole metropolis where

  581
  these cases might be heard. Sir John Bridge also said that his own practice was to take cab cases immediately after the School Board cases. He thought that practice might fairly be adopted by the other courts.
  DR. CLARKsaid that as he had been rebuked for the phraseology he had used he would call attention to the fact that the Appropriation Account gave three pages of the extra remunerations which were received by different officers. A chief clerk who received a salary of £500 a year, and in addition to various extra items, some of which were substantial, he received the sum of £5 from the poor box for managing the distributions. There were several of these items, the sums ranging from £5 to £10, and such a use of the funds was, he repeated, mean and contemptible. He moved to reduce the Vote by £100 as a protest against the system of fees, and this method of sponging on the poor box.
  Mr. LEWISsaid the statement of the hon. Member had at first been specifically denied, and he thought the Government should give some explanation of this extraordinary procedure. It was merely a charitable function which was performed, and the very least they could do was to see that all contributions to the poor box should be devoted to the poor. Although it might not be illegal, it was a most improper proceeding, and he therefore supported his hon. Friend in his protest.
  MR. LABOUCHEREthought that the Secretary to the Treasury ought to consider this point. It was well known that these poor boxes did a vast amount of good, but if it was known that out of these funds which were subscribed an individual clerk, who had a salary of £450 or £500 a year, received £5 per annum for what was called "managing" the thing, the contributions might fall off. As it might affect the contributions, it was therefore an important point, and he would urge the right hon. Gentleman to put an end to this abominable system.
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: My right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury is not responsible. I am quite ready to give a full answer.
  COLONEL VICTOR MILWARDsaid that he would put a Question to the Treasury, and if he found that the money did come out of the poor box, he would apologise to the hon. Member for Caithness. He agreed that no such payment should be made from the poor box.
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGEthought that a good deal of cheap indignation had been wasted on this subject. If these funds did so much good, it was because they were so well administered. The administration involved more work, and a small sum spent in getting it well done was well spent.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid that Gentlemen of the legal profession never could realise that anyone could do anything without being paid for it. [Cheers and laughter.] The hon. Gentleman's speech was a six-and-eightpenny speech. [Laughter.] The Home Secretary had declared himself ready to answer; but he had not answered. Let him say why these Clerks, who got a comfortable living out of the public, should have to "cadge" out of the poor box. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid that, unless the right hon. Gentleman gave a satisfactory answer, the receipts of the poor-boxes would suffer; because nothing influenced the charitable so much as the suggestion that the contributions went to pay men who ought to work for nothing. If the clerks would not surrender these payments, let the funds be handed over for distribution to the inspectors of police at the different courts. They would undertake the work willingly, and would not be mean enough to ask for reward.
  MR. DALZIELthought it a matter of regret that the Home Secretary had not expressed his sympathy with the complaint which had been made. Probably,

  583
  however, the clerks returned the cheques which they received. Would the right hon. Gentleman make inquiry at some of the principal police courts as to whether the money was actually drawn; and, if it had been, would he promise to consider the matter before next year's Estimates?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid that had the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy been present throughout the discussion, he would know that he had dealt with the subject—that he promised to look into the complaint. He agreed with hon. Gentlemen that it should not be supposed for a moment that there was any unfair call upon the poor-box, or that anything was taken out of it which ought to go to the deserving poor. He was informed that two clerks who received salaries of from £100 to £300 a year administered the poor-box fund, and received £5 or £10 for doing so. He could well imagine there was a good deal of work connected with the administration of the fund, and that the men were not improperly rewarded by some payment. Some time ago the question of the payment of these clerks was brought before the Treasury, and that Department considered that the clerks should not be paid sums they now received, that no subsidiary payments of this sort should be required—["hear, hear!"]—but in face of the Act of Parliament they were powerless to make any alteration. He would look further into the matter.
  MR. DALZIELsaid the right hon. Gentleman was a little unjust in his remarks concerning him. He had been present during the whole of the Debate, and could safely say that until this moment, the Home Secretary gave them no indication at all with regard to the administration of the poor-box fund.
  DR. CLARKsaid that as this was a dying charge, he would not press his Motion. He hoped, however, the body who would control the clerks in future would give the latter salaries befitting their work.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Vote agreed to.
  4. Motion made, and question proposed:—
  "That a sum, not exceeding £40,927 be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for the salaries of the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police, and of the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District, the pay and expenses of Officers of Metropolitan Police employed on special duties, and the salaries and expenses of the Inspectors of Constabulary."
  MR. E. H. PICKERSGILLsaid there was a charge of £600 for a scientific adviser. Would the Home Secretary say who the scientific adviser was, and what was the nature of the duties he performed? Another point he wished to raise was the mode in which the police supervision of ex-convicts was carried out in the metropolis. He had asked the right hon. Gentleman for information, and he declined to give it. He desired to know what proportion of ex-convicts who reported themselves were to the total number who were liable to report.
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid he had not declined to give any information he could possibly give. He would give the hon. Gentleman every information in his power.
  MR. PICKERSGILLsaid there was no doubt as to the ability to give the information as the statistics were in the hands of the Department at New Scotland Yard. He desired the information so that the question might be settled whether the system of giving ancillary punishment was a satisfactory one, or whether it was, as many well-informed persons in official positions had declared it to be, a miserable failure.
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid he would give the hon. Gentleman any information upon that point which was in his power; he had nothing to conceal.
  MR. BANBURYasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he could make some changes in the tunic of the police. It was extremely heavy during the hot weather, and if a lighter tunic were substituted, it would not interfere with the appearance or the efficiency of the men, and, at the same time, would give them more freedom of movement, and conduce greatly to their comfort.
  DR. CLARKsaid he strongly objected to the charges for the Metropolitan Police being placed upon Parliament, and he wished to press upon the Home Secretary to go further than they were proposing to go in their Bill, and to place these charges upon the Metropolitan Police Fund, as well as those for the Metropolitan Magistrates. They had one Commissioner, and two Assistant Commissioners under this Vote. There was a third Assistant Commissioner who did not come under this Vote, but was paid from the Fund. They paid the Chief Commissioner £1,500 a year, and then they paid him £300 a year for doing something else. They gave the Assistant Commissioners £800 a year, and paid them three or four salaries besides. He objected to these matters from the standpoint of a Scotch Member, because Scotland had not only to pay all their own costs, but they had also to pay a portion of England's. The cost to the Imperial Government for police in England was nearly £300,000 a year. Under this Vote alone it was £227,000. They paid in Scotland for all these Departments about 1,000 guineas. He did not mind foolish expenditure in England in some Departments, because they got an equivalent grant for themselves in Scotland. But they got no equivalent here. If they did then he would not care very much how much they spent, because in Scotland they would get their equivalent share. The actual Imperial expense for police in Scotland was £1,000. In London, under this Vote, they had got about £60,000. It was grossly unfair that they should compel the people of Scotland to pay all their own charges, and also to contribute their share, under this Vote, to the London police. He strongly objected to London getting all this more for police than Scotland got. The people of London had now got a central government in their County Council, and he thought now that that was the case, all these charges should be defrayed not by the Imperial Parliament, but by the metropolis.
  MR. COHENobserved that the hon. Member for Caithness had said he had only been able to look into that branch of the subject which alone they were entitled to discuss. As a London Member, and a Member of the London
  586
  County Council, he protested against the subject being discussed and approached when it could only be discussed from one point of view. The hon. Member had contended—what he was not prepared to concede—that upon London should be cast the entire charges to which he had raised objection. For his part he did not shrink from, but, on the contrary, challenged an investigation into the whole subject, but he said that until the question was investigated in its entirety, in order that London might be protected where she paid too much in the way of Imperial contributions, it would be unfair to enter upon a debate, the only object of which was to try and establish that London did not pay enough. It would be impossible to establish such a claim if the matter was looked into fairly, but it would not be regarded from an equitable point of view if they ignored the difference in the responsibilities discharged by the Metropolitan police and those of provincial towns like Edinburgh. The Metropolitan police discharged a number of varied duties which were national, and not in any sense local and which, therefore, entitled the metropolis to a grant from the Imperial Exchequer for its police, to which no provincial town in any other part of the United Kingdom could establish any claim whatever.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEprotested against all contributions towards London which placed it on a different footing to other parts of the Empire, or such small provincial towns like Edinburgh, as the hon. Member had described it. [Mr. COHEN: "Or Carnarvon!"] At any rate Carnarvon, small as it was, paid for its own police, whereas a great city like London had to come to the Imperial Exchequer and say: "Give us £54,000 to pay for our police." He denied that the duties of the Metropolitan police were more national than those of the police of small provincial towns like Edinburgh, Manchester, and Carnarvon, to which the hon. Member had referred so contemptuously. They had simply to protect the life, and property of the inhabitants of the Metropolis. At the same time they had got £5,000,000 of people in London to contribute towards the maintenance of the police, whereas in Edinburgh they had only got 200,000

  587
  or 300,000 people. He failed to see why a distinction should be made between the police of London and those of other towns, and for his part he should press the matter to a Division.
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYremarked that if hon. Members would look at the Vote they would see that the only charge in respect of the Metropolitan police was a charge for salaries of Commissioners and the expenses of officers who were specially employed in connection with the public buildings and other duties which were Imperial. With reference to the question as to the scientific expert, the gentleman was Dr. Carson, who was appointed by his predecessor, before he left Office for three years certain, at a salary of £600 a year. His duty was to instruct the warders, and those who had charge of the metric system how to conduct that process, and he hoped he might be able to give sufficient instruction so that it would not be a permanent appointment. As to the uniforms of the police, he had more than once discussed the question with the authorities who had the management of the police, and who, whilst willing to consider everything likely to improve the efficiency or conduce to the comfort of the police, did not look upon the change suggested with favour. He had been assured that during the hottest weather there had been no larger percentage of illness by the tunic in use than there had been in any other portion of the year.
  DR. CLARK DR. CLARK moved the reduction of Vote by £1,000 as a protest against Scotland, which he said was already overtaxed, being called upon to contribute towards the cost of police in England. £100,000 was about to be voted for the cost of the police in London alone. Edinburgh was to Scotland what Dublin was to Ireland and London to England. All the Law Courts were there. Yet in Edinburgh the Inspector General of Constabulary only received £850 a year. In Dublin the police cost
  588
  £90,000 a year and the Vote for police generally in Ireland was £1,500,000. Over £300,000 was the cost of police in England. None of this went to Scotland. He protested against Scotland having to pay towards the maintenance of police in England.
  MR. ROBERT WALLACEsupported the Amendment. He would not have risen but for the reference that had been made to the standing of different cities in connection with the Vote. Allusions had been made to the metropolis with which he was connected in a representative capacity. He undertook to say that allusions of that description were not only uncalled for, but totally unfounded. The principle on which his hon. Friend the Member for Caithness went seemed to him quite incontrovertible, and he could not understand on what ground it could be contended that a city like Edinburgh should be placed in a more humiliating position than the place in which they happened by accident to be then assembled. It had been a long-standing grievance that London, simply because it was the Metropolis of the United Kingdom, should be selected for favourable advantages from the public purse. On that simple and single consideration he felt himself perfectly justified in supporting his hon. Friend. He could not understand why a rich place like London should desire to be supported out of the public purse in a way that was not allowed to any other part of the Kingdom.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid this Vote was an application of the principle already conceded by the Home Secretary. On the last Vote the right hon. Gentleman admitted that there was no reason or principle why London should get any special advantage as regarded the Metropolitan Police Force. He now asked the right hon. Gentleman to adopt the same principle with regard to this Vote. In Scotland the police were paid for, one-half by the local ratepayers, and

  589
  one-half out of the Scotch share of the Probate Grant. So far as the Imperial Estimates were concerned, not one single penny was borne by them for the police in Scotland. Why, then, should England grant money from the Imperial Exchequer for her police? It might be asked, what was the use of discussing this question now, when it had been discussed year after year; but every discussion had its effect, and on the previous Vote they got the Government to do away with an injustice so far as the Metropolitan Police Force was concerned. Equal justice ought to be meted out to Scotland and England in matters of this kind. There ought to be no distinction in favour of England. The very object of the Probate Grant was—
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! That question does not arise on this Amendment.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid that since Scotland had had the Probate Grant all the Scotch charges which were formerly borne on the Imperial Estimates had been defrayed out of Scotch money. The distinction made between England and Scotland in regard to the payment of police was unjust.
  Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £39,927, be granted for the said Service."—(Dr. Clark.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 23; Noes, 141.—(Division List, No. 225.)
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported.
  5. Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "That a sum, not exceeding £426,290, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for the Expenses of the Prisons in England and Wales, and the Colonies"
  MR. PICKERSGILLcalled attention to the appointment of Captain Harris as Inspector of Prisons. Of Captain Harris he knew nothing except that he
  590
  had been the Governor of Portland Prison, and he thought it was a question whether a gentleman whose main experience had been gained in connection with the methods and discipline of a convict prison was the best qualified to be made an inspector of local prisons. Portland Prison was the one convict prison in England to which the Howard Association and other prison reformers had for some time been directing the special attention of the Home Office. In their Report the Association said:—
  "They have reason to believe that there is room for further humanity and consideration in the discipline of two convict prisons—Portland in England and Peterhead in Scotland."
  Now, he found that the populations at Portland and Dartmoor were about the same, but there was a marked difference in the degree and number of punishments inflicted at these two institutions. He found that at Dartmoor there were three floggings during the year; at Portland 13. At Dartmoor there were 963 cases of dietary punishment; at Portland 1,777. The test of a good disciplinarian being the minimum of punishment by which he could control the men over whom he had charge, he was afraid that, tried by that test, Captain Harris, whatever his special qualifications, had not proved himself a success. With reference to the Report of the recent Committee upon Prisons, he paid a tribute to the high-minded service to the State of Sir E. du Cane. The value of that gentleman's work lay in this—that under his régime order and physical cleanliness had been carried in prisons to the point of perfection. There was perhaps only one recommendation in the Report of the Departmental Committee with which he did not agree, and that was their suggestion that the Home Secretary should appoint a number of inspectors for the purpose, in effect, of inspecting the Prison Commissioners. To that proposal the present Commission were not unaturally opposed, and he cordially agreed with them. It seemed

  591
  to him that whilst they must take the greatest possible care in the selection of the Prison Commissioners, they had no other alternative, when they were once appointed, than to trust them almost implicitly. The trend of prison reform upon the Continent was quite in that direction. He cordially recognised that the Prison Commissioners had done a great deal towards carrying out the recommendations of the Departmental Committee, but in some respects they were absolutely opposed to those recommendations. The Committee recommended that for short sentences the diet of the male prisoners should be improved; but the Commissioners had declined to do that. The Committee recommended that the silent system should be abolished; but the Commissioners had decided that the rule was to remain, though it was not to be rigidly enforced. That decision was not logical. The Committee recommended that as far as possible useful and productive labour should be imposed. But he found that in 36 prisons the labour was still purely unproductive and mechanical. What progress had been made with the Departmental Reports on Prisoners' Aid Societies, the instruction given to prisoners, and the supply of books? Nothing was contemplated in the direction of an intermediate prison recommended by the Committee, though the Lord Chief Justice had thrown the weight of his authority into the scale in favour of the recommendation.
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEdid not think that the Departmental Committee had overlooked the work of Sir E. du Cane. A more zealous, upright, and able public servant had never acted in any Department. The Committee had embodied in their report a review of Sir E. du Cane's work given in evidence by Sir Godfrey Lushington, which in itself formed a remarkable testimony. With regard to the criticisms of his hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green, the
  592
  Committee did not make any substantive recommendation as to whether the inspectors should report direct to the Secretary of State. They merely put the question forward for consideration. He did not agree that the Home Office had been slack in giving effect to the recommendations of the Committee, and the acknowledgments of the Committee were due to Mr. Ruggles-Brise for the zeal, energy and ability which he brought to the consideration of the Report. For his part he rose more with a view to obtain information than to criticise. Out of the 25 recommendations of the Prison Committee, eight had been fully adopted; eight were reserved for further consideration with a view to their adoption; three had been given partial effect to; and only six had been up to the present rejected. Therefore action had been taken with regard to 19 out of the 25 recommendations. They dealt with the treatment of juvenile offenders and weak-minded prisoners, the regulations in regard to visits to prisons, and the general treatment of prisoners, all of which were most valuable, and he thanked the Home Secretary for having carried them into effect. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he had any information to give the Committee in regard to the proposed Royal Commission on the duration of sentences, also as to the treatment of habitual criminals and inebriates; whether the Report of the Sub-Committee on the Discharged Prisoners' Aid Societies would be laid on the Table of the House. He had one criticism to offer on the observations of the Prison Commission on the subject of the amalgamation of local with convict prisons. The Commissioners agreed to amalgamation provided the distinctive nomenclature was maintained. The dual Reports were to be thrown into one. Would this include the statistics? The point to which he wished to draw attention was the present method of determining and awarding punishments in convict prisons. Each director had two prisons

  593
  allotted to him, which he visited once a month to hear charges and award punishments. The Committee thought that the director ought not to be an intermediate authority in the case of an appeal from his award of punishment by the prisoner to the Home Secretary. The Prison Commissioners in their reply said it was misleading to suppose that the director was an intermediary in his own case, and that increased facilities had been given to prisoners to appeal to the Home Secretary. He would point out that though in local prisons, where punishment was awarded by the Visiting Justices, a prisoner's rights were fully safeguarded, it was not so in convict prisons. Yet there was a greater need for precaution in convict prisons where convicts were separated from the public for long periods of their lives. Men were committed for long terms, and their very existence was forgotten by the outside world. The Committee did not think the system offered sufficient security, he would not say against abuse, but against mistakes which might be harmful and also misleading to the public mind. He agreed with the Commissioners that the system might have worked well till now; but he did not agree with the statement that every facility was given to a person to petition the Secretary of State, and that thereby the rights of a prisoner were safeguarded. What did this come to? It was quite true that at certain intervals a prisoner might send a petition. How could the Secretary of State examine thousands of petitions coming from convict prisons? It was impossible. When he received a lengthy petition full of allegations which required examination in detail, what could he do with it? The Home Secretary's hands wore full; he could not give his attention to one petition in twenty. Petitions were naturally referred for comment to the prison directors; they made their observations, and it was practically upon those the Home Secretary had
  594
  to come to his decision. That did not seem to be an altogether satisfactory state of things. The decisions might be right in 99 cases and wrong in the hundredth; and in any circumstances the public had no guarantee that the system of punishment and discipline was in the hands of a fairly impartial authority. The Commission said that there might be an appeal from one director to the full board. He had full confidence in the good intentions of the board; but still, they were interested parties; if anything went wrong their tendency would be to stand together. For these reasons he hoped the matter would be further considered. With regard to further action upon the Report, in fairness more time ought to be given to the Home Secretary and the Prison Commissioners for a full consideration of the various details. The Committee relied not only upon specific recommendations, but also upon the recommendation that certain influences should be brought to bear upon prison work, which influences had hitherto been absent. These influences could not be brought into play at once; it was a matter of time; the work must be taken in hand gradually. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman for the progress he had made in carrying out the recommendations of the Committee, and hoped that satisfactory results would be seen in diminishing the amount of crime in the country. He was glad to read the paper laid on the Table with regard to juveniles and reformatories; and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could tell them what chance there was of the Committee appointed to inquire into reformatories reporting within a reasonable time. He was glad to see that the Prison Commission approved of the proposal to increase the grants to societies which are proved to do good work for prisoners. He wished to draw special attention to the practical experiments of the Salvation Army in receiving discharged prisoners, teaching them trades, finding

  595
  situations for them, or sending them out of the country. It was a valuable experiment, and one that, up to the present time, had been attended with a considerable amount of success; and he sincerely recommended it to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman.
  And, it being midnight, further proceeding on consideration, as amended, stood adjourned.
  Bill, as amended, to be further considered upon Monday next.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.
  UGANDA RAILWAY [CONSOLIDATED FUND].
  Committee thereupon deferred till Tuesday next.
  LIVERPOOL COURT OF PASSAGE BILL.
  Third Reading deferred till Wednesday next.
  LAW AGENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Consideration, as amended, deferred till Monday next.
  MERCHANT SEAMEN (EMPLOYMENT AND RATING) BILL.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.
  ASSISTANT COUNTY SURVEYORS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [3rd March] further deferred till Monday, 15th June.
  COUNTY AUDITORS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.
  CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

  COMMONS
  Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider every Report made by the Board of Agriculture, certifying the expediency of any Provisional Order for the enclosure or regulation of a Common, and presented to the House during the last or present Sessions, before a Bill be brought in for the confirmation of such Order.
  Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power in respect of each such Provisional Order, to inquire and Report to the House whether the same should be confirmed by Parliament; and, if so, whether with or without modification, and, in the event of their being of opinion that the same should not be confirmed, except subject to modifications, to report such modifications accordingly with a view to such Provisional Order being remitted to the Board of Agriculture.
  Ordered, That the Committee do consist of Twelve Members, Seven to be nominated by the House, and Five by the Committee of Selection.
  Ordered, That Mr. Seale-Hayne, Mr. Hopkinson, Mr. Jeffreys, Mr. Heywood Johnstone, Mr. William Jones, Mr. Paulton, and Mr. Taylor be Members of the Committee.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Five be the quorum.—(Sir William Walrond).
  House adjourned at Five minutes after Twelve o'clock till Monday next.