Sitting of 29 January 1897

QUESTIONS.

  CONGO RAILWAY (NATIVE LABOUR).
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, with reference to his statements in the House on 12th March and 16th July 1896, whether in or about September last, nearly 1,000 natives were recruited at the Gambia and about 150 at Sierra Leone, to be employed as labourers on the Congo Railway, and conveyed by the Leopoldville to Matadi; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government sanctioned this arrangement; and whether he can tell the House the number of natives whom Baron Dhanis was allowed, earlier in the year, to recruit as soldiers for service in his expedition into the north-eastern interior of the Congo Free State?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): After careful inquiry, I satisfied myself that the men employed by the Congo Railway Company are well treated, and the Governors of the West African colonies were authorised to allow men to be engaged for that purpose. The number of men engaged by Baron Dhanis was 350. I may add that since I came into the House, I have received the copy of a Dispatch from Consul Pickersgill, who has been along this line of railway, and in communication with the natives employed. The latter he found thoroughly contented, happy, and well treated.

  HEALTH OF TROOPS (UNITED KINGDOM).
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what number of cases of venereal disease of all kinds were under treatment on 31st December 1896, respectively in the Aldershot, Portsmouth, Woolwich,
  782
  and Irish commands, in military hospitals or elsewhere, and what proportion does this give to the total strength of the troops in the above garrisons?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): On the 1st January 1897, the men under treatment for venereal disease at the several stations were 155 at Aldershot, 77 at Portsmouth, 84 at Woolwich, and 169 in Ireland These gave the following rates respectively per 1,000 of the strength—12·13, 18·06, 16·79, and 8·93, with an average of 11·84 per 1,000.
  MAJOR RASCHinquired if the Government intended to take any steps to remedy this state of things.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid that the whole question, as related to India, was under inquiry by a Departmental Committee of the India Office, and no decision with regard to any steps could be taken until the results of that inquiry were laid before Parliament.

  NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY (POLICE PROTECTION).
  LORD BALCARRES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether any steps have been taken to increase the number of police stationed at the National Portrait Gallery, in view of the increasing number of visitors, and the damage done to pictures during last summer?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBUBY,): I informed the noble Lord, in reply to his Question of August 13th last, that there were then in attendance at the Gallery ten curators and three constables. Two more constables have now been added, so that the total number of attendants during the day is now 15, in addition to a head porter, a head messenger, and nine pensioner messengers. The attendance of the public shows no increase. Indeed it has gradually fallen from 49,000 when the Gallery was first opened in April 1896, to 12,000 in December—the last complete month. As regards other means of preventing damage, I may say that the Treasury have agreed to ask Parliament to provide funds during the next two years for glazing the portraits which are immediately within reach of the public.

  PARCEL POST CHARGES.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, will he explain why the rate of postage on a parcel sent from Malta to Gibraltar is 7d. per pound, so that a parcel weighing five pounds would be charged 2s. 11d., whereas a parcel weighing five pounds can be sent from Malta, past Gibraltar, to Edinburgh, Dublin, or elsewhere in the United Kingdom (or vice versa, from the United Kingdom to Malta) at a charge of 2s., namely 8d. for the first and 4d. for each additional pound; and, whether he will use his influence to secure a reduction of the rate from Malta to Gibraltar to that from Malta to the United Kingdom?
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General does not know the reasons of the Government of Malta for maintaining the scale mentioned. He will, however, make inquiry on the subject; but until he knows what the views of the Colonial Government are, he cannot pledge himself to try to influence them. I must, however, warn my hon. Friend that would be equally valid against the measure advocated by the hon. Member for establishing Imperial penny postage; for, if that were done, a letter sent through Italy to Malta would cost the sender id., while a letter sent by the same mail only as far as Italy would cost him 2½d.

  BOOK POST CHARGES.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, (1) will he explain why it is that an author or publisher, on sending gratis, in accordance with Law, a copy of a newly published book to the British Museum Library, is required to pay postage upon such book, and that in default of pre-payment a fine of double the deficient postage is levied by the Post Office upon the copyright office of the British Museum; (2) whether he has been informed that authors and publishers resent the obligation to supplement the compulsory contribution of the books to the national library by paying postage, and that some of them on principle refuse to pay such postage and challenge proceedings to enforce it; and (3) whether, seeing that the privilege of free postage is
  784
  conceded in the case of parcels forwarded to the South Kensington Museum, the Public Record Office, the Royal College of Science, the Royal College of Art, and similar institutions, he will recommend that authors and publishers shall only be required to convey their books properly addressed to the nearest post office?
  MR. HANBURY: The question raised by the hon. Member has been repeatedly considered by various Governments. The Law 5 and 6 Vict., cap. 45, has thrown upon publishers the duty of delivering their publications at the British Museum and at other Libraries besides—the Bodleian at Oxford, the Public Library at Cambridge, that of the Faculty of Advocates at Edinburgh, and Trinity College, Dublin. There seems to be no reason for relieving publishers of the duty by throwing the burden of delivery on the State. The deficient postage is apparently readily recovered by the British Museum, whose estimate for postage is only £200, and that for their law charges £20. The amount of such postal matter is very small, most of such publications being sent by other agencies, and amounting to about one ton a day. The Postmaster General has no such information as is suggested in the second paragraph of the hon. Member's question. The argument derived from the intention of the Copyright Act does not, of course, apply to the other institutions mentioned by the hon. Member.

  RAILWAYS (IRELAND).
  M. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland can he indicate the districts to provide railway accommodation in which it is proposed to allocate any of the money voted last Session; and has he been able to include in this allocation any of the districts of the county Cavan which petitioned for railway facilities to develop local trade?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,: I do not think it would be expedient at the present moment to make any general announcement regarding the manner it is intended to allocate the moneys provided by the Railways (Ireland) Act of last year. I cannot however, hold out any hopes that lines

  785
  in the County Cavan will be included in I the allocation.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the sum of £600 is annually levied off the cesspayers of the County Cavan for the line from Crossdoney to Killes-handia by presentment of the Grand Jury, and against the will of the great majority of the cesspayers; and does he propose in cases of this sort to utilise any of the money voted by Parliament last Session for the relief of congested districts, by the building of railways in Ireland to relieve the people of such taxation?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: This line is part of the Midland Great Western system, and is worked by that company under the Act of 1881, 44th and 45th Vict., cap 97. I am aware that certain baronies in the county have guaranteed to pay to the company the sum of £600 annually towards the construction and maintenance of the line for a period of 35 years from its opening. The money provided for the construction of light railways and for other purposes by the Act of last Session could not be legally applied in relief of taxation in respect of railways already constructed.

  IRISH LIGHTS BOARD.
  MR. W. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is prepared favourably to consider the two memorials which have been presented to the Irish Lights Board by the lightship men asking for an increase of wages, and also for an increase of pension from £25 per annum to £40 a year, similar to the amount granted to the men in Her Majesty's Navy, as the rules and discipline are almost alike?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,: No memorial on the subject has been received by the Board of Trade since 1891. I will carefully consider any further memorials which may be sent to the Board of Trade, together with any recommendations or observations of the Irish Lights Commissioners by which they may be accompanied.

  LAND TAX.
  MR. ARTHUR JEFFREYS: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Land Tax is this year being levied on the assessment of the annual value of lands and hereditaments under Schedule A (without any deduction such as is allowed for income tax purposes), instead of on the rateable value of property as hitherto; that an increased amount of Land Tax has in many cases been levied in consequence of this new procedure; and that Land Tax has this year been demanded on certain lands which have hitherto been considered to have been exempt from the tax; and whether he will consider the desirability of instructing the Land Tax Collectors not to alter the basis of assessment on which the tax has hitherto been collected?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): It is impossible for me to make any general statement as to the basis on which the various local bodies of Land Tax Commissioners throughout the country, with whom the matter rests, and over whom I have no authority whatever, have made the assessments for the current year. The Land Tax is raised by a fixed quota on each parish, which quota, under the Act of last Session, can in no case exceed 1s. in the pound on the total assessment to Schedule A of the lands in the parish liable to Land Tax; and this quota is unaffected by any change in the method of assessing the various properties in the parish liable to the Tax as between each other. The power of deciding when a new assessment should be made, as between the various properties in a parish liable to the tax, rests with the Commissioners of Land Tax in each district; and when a new assessment is made, it is quite possible that there may be changes in the incidence of the tax on the various properties in the parish, corresponding to changes in their relative values. It is possible also that in some cases property may be brought into charge which, though liable, has hitherto escaped assessment. But, as the total charge on any parish cannot be increased (though, under the Act of last Session, it may be largely diminished), it follows that an increase of the tax on some properties in a parish

  787
  must be balanced by a corresponding decrease on others. The Act of last Session did not require any alteration of the basis of assessment on which the tax has hitherto been collected.

  TREASURY LOANS (IRELAND).
  MR. PATRICK M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury will he explain why, when the Corporation of Sligo expressed a desire to pay off, at the rate of 20s. in the pound, all loans contracted by them with the Board of Works, the Treasury refused to accept 20s. in the pound for the outstanding principal of the loans, the Corporation in consequence being unable to accept offers made to them from private sources of loans at a much cheaper rate than that charged by the Treasury; and will he consider the advisability of relieving heavily-taxed public bodies in Ireland by reducing the present rates of interest charged by the Treasury on loans, or by accepting on behalf of the Treasury the repayment of such loans at par?
  MR. HANBURY: From the correspondence which took place on this subject last year the hon. Member must, I think, understand that, so long as the market price of Local Loans stock is considerably above par as at present, the solvency of the Local Loans Fund might be seriously affected by premature repayments of Local Loans at par only; and as I then explained, if the Government lends money on condition that it is to be repaid in a given number of years, it is obviously justified in refusing prepayment unless there was a specific stipulation that the loan might be repaid earlier. As regards the question of reducing the rates of interest on Local Loans generally, I can only refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a question put by the hon. Member for North Louth on the 22nd instant.

  NEWRY BOARD OF GUARDIANS.
  MR. PATRICK M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) will he explain why the Local Government Board has issued a writ against the Newry Board
  788
  of Guardians for £21. 6s., paid by the Board to Mr. M'Govern, Cavan, for treatment of four persons bitten by a rabid dog in the Newry Union; (2) is he aware that in Ulster and Connaught there is an almost universal belief in the efficacy of M'Govern's cure of hydrophobia, and that clergymen and magistrates of all denominations have publicly proclaimed their belief in it; and (3) will he instruct the Local Government Board to leave Boards of Guardians free to exercise their own discretion in cases of this kind?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: In answer to a Question put to me yesterday by the hon. Member for West Cavan, I stated fully the circumstances under which legal proceedings have been taken by the Local Government Board in this matter. I have no information as to the statements in the second paragraph, and as regards the suggestion at the end of the Question I must again point out that the Local Government Board are advised that M'Govern's house is not a hospital within the meaning of the 7th Section of the 25 & 26 Vict., cap. 83, as it is not an institution under the professional control and management of duly qualified medical practitioners in which the treatment is openly avowed and subject to proper investigation. The Local Government Board do not interfere with the discretion of Boards of Guardians as regards the selection of the hospital to which the inmates should be sent for special treatment so long as the terms of the Statute are complied with.

  ARMY CONTRACTS (IRELAND).
  MR. PATRICK M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that tenders for Army contracts at Athlone, Birr, Boyle, Carlow, Castlebar, Dublin, Galway, Killbride Camp, Longford, Maryborough, Mullingar, Naas, Navan, Sligo and Wicklow, were called for on 18th November 1896. Is he aware that advertisements calling for tenders were inserted in Dublin papers but not in any local papers; and, will he instruct the persons responsible for the issue of such advertisements to have them in future inserted in local papers circulating at the stations named?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): The selection of newspapers in which to advertise local contracts is left to the discretion of the General Officer Commanding the district, who in the case referred to thought it right to advertise in Dublin papers only. The Secretary of State does not consider it desirable to interfere in the matter, as the officer on the spot is most likely to be able to judge accurately of the necessities of each case.

  TRAINING SHIP (BELFAST LOUGH).
  MR. SAMUEL YOUNG: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, considering the large seafaring population living on the coast of Antrim and Down, he will now see that a training ship is placed in Belfast Lough?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): As at present advised, the Admiralty does not propose to increase the number of stationary training ships.

  RAILWAY MAPS.
  MR. W. E. M. TOMLINSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has received any answer to the communications which he addressed to the Railway Companies Association, prior to the 26th July last, with reference to the withdrawal from circulation by the Clearing House Committee of Airey's sectional railway maps; and whether he has considered the desirability of the Board of Trade or some other Government Department undertaking the preparation and sale for public use of maps giving the distances in an authentic form along the lines of railway in the United Kingdom for the use of traders?
  MR. RITCHIE: I regret that the correspondence with the Railway Companies Association has not led to any satisfactory result. The Association hold that the question of the publication of these maps is one for the consideration of the Committee of the Railway
  790
  Clearing House. I cannot hold out any hopes that the Government will undertake the preparation of such maps.

  ROYAL CANAL (IRELAND).
  MR. JAMES TUITE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, having regard to the persistent neglect of the Midland Great Western Railway Company of Ireland to carry out the recommendations of the Board of Trade with reference to the Royal Canal, he will sanction the application of whatever portion of the fund reserved under Sections 33 to 35 of 58 Geo. III. as may be necessary for the carrying out of the necessary repairs of the canal?
  MR. HANBURY: All the requirements of General Hutchinson and Major Marindin have (with the exception of warehouse accommodation) either been carried out or are in hand or arranged for. The maintenance reports of the engineers of the Midland Railway on the Royal Canal up to the 31st ultimo mark satisfactory progress towards the fulfilment of the Board of Trade recommendation. There does not seem at present any necessity to put in force the powers of the Board of Control.

  TELEGRAPH FACILITIES (LIMERICK CITY).
  MR. F. A. O'KEEFFE,: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if, to consult the convenience of the citizens of Limerick, he will, in accordance with a numerously signed memorial, direct that a telegraph station be opened at the William Street Post Office in Limerick?
  MR. HANBURY: No recent memorial for the opening of a telegraph office at the William Street Post Office in Limerick has been received by the Postmaster General. The question has, however, from time to time received very careful consideration, and the circumstances do not appear to have changed since the answer given to a question of the hon. Member in the last Parliament on the 5th September, 1893, when he was informed that, as there were already two telegraph offices within a short distance of the William Street Post Office, the application could not be favourably entertained.

  ROYAL ENGINEERS (CIVILIAN CLERK).
  MR. J. L. CAREW: I bog to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the fact that the Officer commanding the Royal Engineers of the North Eastern District at York, referring on 6th January 1896, to the death of Mr. James Ore Marshall, described him as a gentleman who had served his country for upwards of 40 years, and by his zeal and experience in the performance of his duties, as well as by his upright bearing and conduct, contributed very largely to the credit and efficiency of the Royal Engineer Service, the Secretary of State for War would advise Her Majesty to grant an allowance to his widow and children, who are in poor circumstances?
  MR. BRODRICK: Mr. Marshall was a civilian clerk in the Royal Engineer Department, and there is no regulation under which an allowance can be granted to a widow or children of a civilian.

  UNDER SHERIFFS (IRELAND).
  MR. RICHARD M. DANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has considered the case of the under sheriffs in Ireland; and, if so, whether it is the intention of the Government during the present Session to deal with the subject?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I cannot give a promise to deal with the subject in the present Session, but the matter is under consideration.

  ROYAL BARRACKS DUBLIN.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the printed evidence of the Inquiry held in 1893 regarding the reconstruction of the Royal Barracks, Dublin?
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: On the 25th February 1896 I explained, in reply to the hon. Member, that although the whole case of the Royal Barracks had been made the subject of careful investigation, it had not been deemed necessary to hold any special Inquiry. There is no evidence therefore to lay before the House.

  SLIGO UNION.
  MR. BERNARD COLLERY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether an instalment of seed loan amounting to £1,000 odd becoming due by the Sligo Union, and payment being unavoidably delayed for about three months, a sum of £53. 10s. was exacted by the Treasury, and paid by the guardians after remonstrance; (2) whether this sum was charged as interest for the overdue time; and, if so, at what rate; (3) and, if a similar rate is charged on loans of this kind in England?
  MR. HANBURY: The answer to the first paragraph is Yes. The answer to the 2nd paragraph is No. The sum in question represents not interest but Receiver's Fees which are charged in all cases where instalments are not paid within one month of the date when due. The charge was a statutory one, imposed by Section 6 of the Public Works Loans Act 1892. Interest on these loans is payable not by the localities but out of the Irish Church Fund, so if these fees were not enforced, there would be little inducement to the localities to repay the loans. I am not aware that there are any loans of this kind in England.

  NIGER DELTA (LIQUOR TRAFFIC.)
  MR. MICHAEL DAVITT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the attention of the Foreign Office has been called to the need of some other currency than that of gin in the Delta of the Niger, with the view to the ultimate adoption of one less injurious to the natives; whether missionaries and others are now compelled by the character of this intoxicating currency to promote, however unwillingly, the demoralisation of the people which results from this medium of exchange; and whether some steps will be taken to abate the evils resulting from this state of things?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. GEORGE CURZON,): It is not correct to speak of gin as a currency—still less as the sole currency on the Niger. It is one of several articles that are taken in barter by the natives. So far from there being

  793
  any compulsion, or any willingness to promote the demoralisation of the people, the tax upon gin has been lately doubled, and now stands at 2s. a gallon in the Niger Coast Protectorate, whilst it is heavily taxed in the portions of the Delta administered by the Niger Company, and is altogether prohibited in their inland territories. The danger of prohibitive taxation is, that the trade is then taken up by neighbouring countries, among whom France and Germany do not appear to share our view as to the desirability of increased duties, and that smuggling is fostered on a large scale.

  STATUTORY TERM APPLICATIONS (IRELAND).
  MR. DANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what is the number of applications now pending in the Court of the Land Commission and County Courts in Ireland, respectively: to fix first statutory terms; to fix second statutory terms; under Redemption of Rent Acts; and also the number of appeals pending in each of the foregoing class of cases?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am informed by the Land Commission that the preparation of a return containing the desired information would occupy a very considerable time, and it is suggested that a reference may usefully be made to the return of proceedings up to the end of November last, which has been presented to Parliament. The similar return to December will be presented in the course of a few days.

  OIL LAMP ACCIDENTS.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the numerous fatal accidents occasioned by the incautious use of cheap oil lamps and, whether he will consider the desirability of taking steps to secure some system of inspection and registration of oil lamps for the protection of the public?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,): I am fully alive to the importance of the question which is
  794
  raised by the hon. Member, and he will remember that it was one of the subjects which the Select Committee of last Session on petroleum was considering. That Committee will, I hope, be reappointed shortly and conclude their labours at an early date.

  DUBLIN PORT AND DOCKS BILL.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether any decision has been arrived at by the Government in respect to the Dublin Port and Docks Bill; and (2) whether he has seen reports of the meetings held regarding its proposals by the merchants of Dublin?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No decision has yet been arrived at by the Government in respect of the Dublin Port and Docks Board Bill. The Government are in communication with the Board of Trade on the subject. I have seen newspaper reports of the meetings referred to in the second paragraph of the Question.

  MILL ACCIDENT (BATLEY).
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to an accident at Phœnix Mills, Batley, on Friday last, the inquest relating to which was held at 11 a.m. on Saturday, the Factory Inspector for the district not being present, and the Coroner stating that he was unable to get into communication with him; whether it is provided by the law that the inspector should have 24 hours' notice; and, if so, whether the Coroner was justified in the course he took; and whether the Home Office will instruct the inspectors in the heavy woollen district to inquire into the cause of this accident, and into the need for the employment (according to the practice of many firms) of "hangers," where long belts are used?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: Yes, my attention, has been called to this case. The action of the Coroner appears to have been irregular; he should either have given the inspector 24 hours' notice, and a telegram to the factory office of the district would have reached the inspector in charge at once,

  795
  or, in default of such notice, have adjourned the inquest. I am making further inquiries into the particulars of the accident, and the means of prevention that may be required.

  COLLISIONS AT SEA (NEW REGULATIONS).
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the new regulations for preventing collisions at sea, ordered by Order in Council to come into operation on 1st July next, have been submitted to and agreed to by all the Powers represented at the Washington Conference of 1889; and, if not, which Powers have failed or refused to agree to them; whether he is aware that the Merchant Service Guild, a representative body of merchant captains and officers in active service, have made a public protest against the enforcement of these new regulations as being calculated to lead to disasters; whether he has received any communications to this or to similar effect, either from the Merchant Shipping Guild, or from other bodies or persons connected with seafaring; and whether he proposes to take any notice of or any action with reference to the representations made against the new rules as being calculated to add to the dangers of the seas?
  MR. RITCHIE: The regulations referred to by my hon. Friend have been submitted to all the Powers represented at the Washington Conference of 1889. All have agreed to them except one Power, from which no reply has yet been received, viz., Venezuela. I am quite aware of the attitude of the Merchant Service Guild on this question, and I have received communications from that and some other bodies to the effect stated in the Question, but having regard to the exhaustive manner in which this question has been discussed and considered, I am not prepared to depart in any way from the position taken up by Her Majesty's Government with the concurrence of the other Powers.

  CRETE.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
  796
  when the papers promised respecting the affairs of Crete will be in the hands of Members?
  MR. CURZON: The Blue-book in question is a very bulky one, and delay has arisen from the necessities of translation and of reference to so many quarters prior to publication. I hope its appearance will not now be much longer delayed.

  ARMY MEDICAL STAFF.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the rule which prevents candidates for the Army Medical Staff who have twice failed in the competitive examination again presenting themselves for examination has been or is to be set aside; and, if so, how many trials a candidate is to be allowed?
  MR. BRODRICK: In future, on the recommendation of the medical authorities, three trials will be allowed.

  EDINBURGH UNIVERSITY LIBRARY BUILDINGS.
  MR. J. G. WEIR: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether arrangements will be made in the Estimates to provide for the cleaning and restoration of the Edinburgh University Library buildings, which have not been cleaned for upwards of thirty years, and which are admitted by the University Court to be in a condition urgently requiring the expenditure of money?
  MR. HANBURY: No, Sir. Under the Act 52 &53 Vict., cap. 55, the Scottish Universities receive an annual grant of £42,000 in full discharge of all claims on public funds. The hon. Member should, therefore, address himself to the University authorities, with whom the expenditure of Edinburgh's share rests.

  LEE-METFORD RIFLE (ROYAL MARINES).
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state whether the Lee-Metford rifle has been issued to the Royal Marines; if so, will he state whether the issue has been confined to Mark II.; and, if Mark I. * has been issued, will he say to what extent?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first two questions is in the affirmative. There are a few of the Mark I. and Mark I.* rifles at Eastney and the depot, which are solely for drill purposes.

  HOLYROOD PALACE.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he is now in a position to state that the fee charged for admission to Holyrood Palace will be abolished; and if so, when?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): In reply to the hon. Member's Question, I have to inform him that this subject is at present under consideration; but I have every hope to be in a position to make a definite statement when the Estimates are under discussion.

  RAILWAY RATES (IRELAND).
  MR. TUITE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Midland Great Western Railway Company of Ireland have recently reduced their rates on coal, bran, oil cake, flour, oats, seeds, and manure in bags, to Mullingar to a competition rate with the rate on the Royal Canal, which runs alongside their system to that town, to the detriment of the bye traders on the canal; and whether, as the Canal is the property of the Railway Company, the Board of Trade will take steps to put in force Section 38 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, which makes it illegal for railway companies to charge competition rates in such cases?
  MR. RITCHIE: If an application is made by any person interested in the traffic of the Canal, the Board of Trade well be happy to consider it under Subsection 3 of the Section referred to in the Question, with a view to putting the trader in a position to carry his complaint to the Railway and Canal Commissioners.

  PROTECTION OF ANCIENT MONUMENTS (IRELAND).
  MR. O'KEEFFE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if, referring to the Report of
  798
  the Irish Board of Works dated 1895–6, he will state what progress has been made to place Clare Abbey, Ennis, county Clare, and Canon Island, River Shannon, under the provisions of the Ancient Monuments Protection (Ireland) Acts, 1882 to 1892?
  MR. HANRURY: Clare Abbey was vested in the Board of Works in December 1896, and works of preservation are under consideration. Canon Island has not been yet vested in the Board, but negotiations with the owner are proceeding.

  AGRICULTURAL EXPENDITURE (IRELAND).
  MR. C. J. ENGLEDOW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he would grant a Return, giving, with details, the total amount expended in Ireland on the various heads which in England are dealt with by the Board of Agriculture?
  MR GERALD BALFOUR: It would be extremely difficult to give with accuracy in the form of a Return the total amount expended in Ireland on agricultural work, inasmuch as the functions which in England are discharged by the Board of Agriculture, are in Ireland distributed over a number of Departments, and the administrative and other expenses properly chargeable in each case under the head of "agriculture" could not be stated. If, however, the hon. Member will be content with an approximate statement of the expenditure of public money on objects connected with agriculture by the various Departments concerned in Ireland, the following figures may be sufficient for his purpose, namely:—By the Agricultural Department of the Land Commission, £1,000, exclusive of the salaries of the clerical staff; by the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council, a sum of £15,000, representing a grant in aid of the cattle pleuro-pneumonia accounts, in addition to £12,164, the salaries and expenses of the Department; by the Registrar-General's Office, £2,083; by the agricultural establishments of the Board of National Education, £11,288; by the Congested Districts Board, £14,312, exclusive of the general administrative expenses of the Board

  799
  amounting to £5,944; by the Public Works Office, £8,150; total expenditure £69,941. The figures quoted are in respect of the current financial year, except in the case of the expenditure of £14,312 by the Congested Districts Board, which is for the year ended 31st March 1895.

  TURKISH LOANS.
  MR. PHILIP STANHOPE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been directed to the statements recently current with respect to the financial schemes of the Imperial Ottoman Bank for raising a new Turkish Loan, and the reported proposal of a guarantee in connection therewith by the European Powers; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will give an assurance that it will not undertake any further financial guarantee or liability whatever for the Government of the Sultan of Turkey?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The matter has not yet come before Her Majesty's Government in an official shape. If it should do so it must be considered by them in concert with the Governments of the other Great Powers. They cannot, therefore, at present express any opinion or give any assurance with regard to the matter.

  FINANCIAL RELATIONS (GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND).
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE,: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can arrange to take the Debate on the Financial Relations between England and Ireland in the second week in March.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The Government are, and have been, very anxious to give facilities for an early discussion of this important question. They fully recognise that the Irish Members have a special claim in the matter, and a right to be considered in fixing the date for the Debate. The Government are prepared, without pledging themselves to any particular day, to meet their views as far as is consistent with the exigencies of Government business. ("Hear, hear!")
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELLasked the Secretary for the Colonies whether he could now state what steps were being taken to enable the Colonies and dependencies of our Empire to take official part in the celebration of the completion of the 60th year of Her Majesty's reign.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no doubt that this Question of the hon. Member is founded on a statement in the Daily Mail this morning, which is not quite accurate, and I think a little premature, since I have learned by experience it is desirable to postpone announcement of invitations until I can at the same time say that they have been finally answered. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter] But as it has come from the Colonies I may now state that with the approval of Her Majesty I have, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, invited the Premiers of all self-governing Colonies to come to this country to take part in the celebration of the completion of the 60th year of Her Majesty's reign. ["Hear, hear!"] I have also informed them that if they accept this invitation, Her Majesty's Government desire that they shall be treated as guests of this country. [Cheers.] It is also proposed that detachments representing the military forces of the several Colonies shall come to this country, and a similar endeavour will be made to secure representations of military forces from Crown Colonies. ["Hear, hear!"] I may say that up to the present time replies in general terms have been received only from Canada, the Cape and Natal. In every case the replies are extremely gratifying in tone, testifying to the loyalty of the Colonies and their desire to take part in this celebration. [Cheers.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,)moved:—
"That Standing Order 11 be suspended and the provisions of Standing Order 56 be extended to the sitting of the House this day. "
In moving this Resolution he hardly thought that any explanation was required. The House was aware that on

801
the previous day it had been proposed to take certain Government business, it being a day allotted by the Rules of the House for the purpose. But, in the exercise of their undoubted right, hon. Gentlemen opposite initiated a Debate which lasted to within an hour of midnight, the ordinary time for suspension of business. Practically, therefore, the whole of the Government time was taken up with a matter which had nothing to do with the ordinary progress of Government business. The Government, therefore, thought themselves justified in asking the House to afford them this privilege with regard to the business for the day, and the proposal would not operate to the prejudice of private Members, inasmuch as—Friday being allocated as a rule to Motions on the order for the Speaker's leaving the chair—he believed there were no Motions down in the name of any private Member. Under the circumstances he hoped the House would agree, without prolonged Debate, to the Motion he now made.
Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA COMMITTEE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [28th January],
  "That a Select Committee he appointed to inquire into the origin and circumstances of the incursion into the South African Republic by an armed force, and into the administration of the British South Africa Company, and to report thereon, and further to report what alterations are desirable in the government of the territories under the control of the Company.
  "That the Committee have leave to hear Counsel to such an extent as they shall see fit, and have power to send for persons, papers, and records."—(Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.)
  Question again proposed:—Debate resumed.
  Amendment proposed, in line 1, after the word "That," to leave out to the end of the Question, in order to add the words
  "in view of the peaceful settlement of affairs in the Chartered Company's territories, the punishment of all persons connected with the
  802
  raid into the Transvaal, and the inexpediency, in the interests of all South Africa, of reopening questions which have now been disposed of, this House thinks it unnecessary to reappoint the Select Committee of 1896."—(Mr. Maclean.)
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,)who on rising was received with cheers, said: I rise at once, for I understand from my right hon. Friend (Sir J. Lubbock) that he has concluded the speech he was making when the House rose last night. My light hon. Friend and the Mover of the Amendment have made an appeal to the Government to treat this Resolution which they have proposed as an open question—to leave it to the House to decide whether or no this further inquiry shall be made. Well, Sir, I may say at once that is an unusual request—I will not say an unprecedented request; but the circumstances of the case are not such as enable me to comply with it. ["Hear, hear!"] I am glad to know from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, as well as from the speeches of the mover and seconder of the Amendment, that the objects on all sides of the House are the same in reference to this matter, and that it is the desire of all sections of the House to do everything in their power to allay the feeling of race animosity in South Africa, and to promote those good relations between the Dutch and English there without which the peace and prosperity of the country are absolutely impossible. Now, that is my policy, that has been my policy, and that will be my policy consistently so long as I have the honour to hold my present office. ["Hear, hear!"] I have patiently pursued it, not without being subject from time to time to some misunderstanding. If my conduct has not always appeared to be absolutely consistent to some of my hon. Friends, it has not been because my lines of policy have changed, it has only been because, from the nature of the circumstances, I have not always been able to pursue that policy exactly by the same means. ["Hear, hear!"] But my policy, and the policy anyone in my position must put forward, has for its primary object to remove causes of disagreement between the Dutch and English inhabitants

  803
  of South Africa. The mover of the Amendment said he was actuated by the same desire; but I must honestly say that I do not think he was fortunate in the manner in which he proceeded to accomplish his desire. I have no doubt it was entirely unintentional, but he did contrive to put his finger on every sore spot in connection with this controversy, and I am afraid that speeches of this kind will do more to promote than to allay the irritation we all deplore. The hon. Gentleman no doubt is a harbinger of peace, but at the same time I do think that upon reflection he himself will be convinced that the precise way he took to secure peace was not exactly the most discreet. ["Hear!"] I make no complaint whatever of the speech of my right hon. Friend who seconded the Amendment, who spoke with great moderation and evident sincerity on the subject. I will go further and say that I sympathise not only with his motive in bringing forward the Amendment, but I agree with many of the arguments he used. The House is perfectly well aware that the position of affairs in South Africa is still unsatisfactory. In dealing with matters at this juncture I am myself in a difficult position, and I am sure the House will show me every consideration. ["Hear, hear!"] I am not altogether disinterested. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment referred to rumours current during the last few months with regard to my action and policy previous to the raid. I cannot ignore these rumours, and if there be any person in or out of the House who believes that I knew of the intended raid or was cognisant of that raid beforehand, or that I did not take every step in my power to prevent the raid and to turn it back after it commenced—if there be any such person, then I have above all persons in the House the most reason to desire inquiry. [" Hear, hear! "] But I endeavour to put aside all personal considerations, and must then say to the House in my position as Colonial Secretary that undoubtedly the situation in South Africa at the present time gives cause for considerable anxiety. ["Hear, hear!"] Disquieting reports reach me every day, and I do not know how to distinguish in every case between baseless rumours and actual truth with solid foundation,
  804
  but undoubtedly there has been within the last few months a recrudescence of that unrestfulness which it must be the desire of all of us, if possible, to allay. ["Hear, hear!"] The situation has not been improved by recent legislation of the Transvaal Government, and there is no doubt that provisions in some of that legislation are contrary to the Convention of London, and if that legislation is enforced, undoubtedly a situation will be created which will require all our prudence, all our impartiality, and all our patience. ["Hear, hear!"] Then, again, there is the question of reforms which have been asked for on behalf of the Uitlander population. The President has again and again promised to give full and favourable consideration to requests, to suggestions which may be made, to friendly representations, I should say, made by Her Majesty's Government in regard to the population in the Transvaal. These friendly representations from Her Majesty's Government have not been wanting. These respectful requests from the majority of the Uitlander population, who pay nineteen-twentieths of the taxation—[cheers]—and who have no substantial representation whatsoever—["hear, hear"]—have also not been wanting. But up to the present time the response of President Kruger and of the Transvaal Government has, to say the least of it, been inadequate. Reforms have been proposed and carried in the last session of the Raad, as to which I have asked Mr. Conyngham Greene, our very able Agent at Pretoria, to furnish me with a full report as soon as he himself is in a position to do so. But in the meantime, there is no doubt that they go only a little way to satisfy what I believe every impartial man in any civilised and constitutional State would admit to be the legitimate requests on behalf of the majority of the population. [Cheers.] I do not recall, I do not withdraw, anything I have ever said with regard to this matter. The hon. Member who moved this Resolution referred to the Dispatch which I addressed to President Kruger immediately after the raid, and he said that since then I have been overborne by the timid counsels of Sir Hercules Robinson. Of course I take full responsibility for everything that is being done or said by Lord Rosmead—

  805
  [Opposition cheers]—so long as he remains the Governor of the Cape and the High Commissioner of Her Majesty in South Africa. I do not attempt for a moment to get rid of that responsibility, but I say for him and for myself that we have no reason to withdraw the statement which I made to President Kruger that there would be no security for peace and for the good relations between the races in the Transvaal until some consideration had been shown and some attempt had been made to redress their grievances. [Cheers.] Let me not be understood in saying this to cast blame upon President Kruger. President Kruger has his own difficulties to contend with. ["Hear, hear!"] He is a constitutional ruler; he has his people to deal with, and it is quite possible he has objections to overcome which up to the present time he may have failed to overcome. We can only wish that his hands may be strengthened to carry out the policy to which he has again and again committed himself and as to his sincerity in regard to which I, at all events, have no occasion and no right to comment. While, however, I believe that President Kruger and the great majority even of the Dutch in the Transvaal desire to follow out the policy indicated by the President in that speech which he made, I think, shortly after the munificent subscription which was raised in the Rand for the sufferers by the dynamite explosion, and in which he said his policy was "to heal sores, to forget and to for give "—I do not doubt that that is the policy of the majority in the Transvaal—it is only too evident that there are extreme sections on both sides—["hear, hear"]—who apparently have an interest, or at all events are willing, to maintain the state of unrest. ["Hear, hear."] These are the circumstances which it is my duty to bring before the House. It is in face of these circumstances upon which my right hon. Friend the Member for the London University has laid stress, that we ask you to proceed with this Inquiry. It is an Inquiry in two branches. It is in the first place to inquire into the origin and the circumstances of the raid. It is in the second place to inquire into the administration of the Chartered Company. As to the second portion of the Inquiry, I do not imagine that there will be any
  806
  difference of opinion. [Opposition cheers.] Undoubtedly a new work, a gigantic work, is being carried on under very difficult and novel circumstances by this great organisation. [" Hear, hear!"] We have had some experience, we have had some knowledge; it is natural we should wish for more. We have come undoubtedly to a critical point, it may be to the turning point, and it is desirable that this House should be in full possession of all the facts with regard to the way in which this company has, up to the present time discharged its liabilities—[Opposition cheers]—in order that we may see whether we shall be justified in continuing its authority. ["Hear, hear!"] I am bound to say, and I say it in order that there may be no misapprehension, that, so far as my own official knowledge goes, and having regard to the magnitude and the difficulties of the task, I believe the Chartered Company will be able to make out a very good case for itself, and that the development of this country, which, could not be undertaken by the Imperial Government without, at all events, involving continuous and very large demands upon the taxpayers of this country—that that duty has been fulfilled by the Chartered Company with great energy and with great public spirit. [Cheers.] But there is no reason whatever, I imagine, why the Chartered Company should fear the Inquiry or why this House should not desire it. As regards the other branch of the Inquiry, no doubt it is a portion of the examination into the affair which requires great care and discretion. The raid is indissolubly connected with the discontent in Johannesburg. The discontent in Johannesburg is founded upon the grievances of the Uitlanders. No inquiry into the origin of the raid would therefore be complete—it would be a sham—unless it went carefully into this question of grievances—[cheers]—and unless it determined how far those grievances afforded a justification for that discontent and agitation in Johannesburg which, as I have said, made the raid possible. ["Hear, hear!"] Of course, I say again that an inquiry of that kind is a delicate and a difficult inquiry, and I think that it will require great care upon our part and upon the part of the Committee so to conduct it

  807
  as not to re-open old sores. I think my right hon. Friend will admit that at all events I appreciate the difficulties in the way, the pitfalls in the path, to which he himself has so well called attention. But in spite of that I think it necessary, on behalf of the Government, to press for the appointment of this Committee. It is quite true that no promise was given either to President Kruger or, so far as I know, to any outsider in this matter. The promise was made to the House of Commons—["hear, hear!"]—and when a promise is made to the House of Commons it does not mean to one side, but to both sides of the House and to the general opinion of the House as a whole, and the Government could not without failing in honour retire from a promise so given unless it were relieved by the general wish of the House. ["Hear, hear!"] I have pointed out that the Committee will have before them a task of great difficulty, but I have confidence in a Committee of the House of Commons. I believe it will be equal to this difficult task. ["Hear, hear!"] It will know that it has to shield great national interests, and it will know how to subordinate personal prejudices to those higher and patriotic considerations. Although the House will be placing a great responsibility upon its shoulders, I believe that it will show itself quite able to deal with it in a manner satisfactory to the country, and that this Inquiry may therefore result in securing that object which we all have at heart—that is, allaying, and not increasing, the animosity which may at the present time prevail. [Cheers.] Before I sit down there is only one point on which I wish to say a word; that is with regard to the composition of the Committee. The Government have been anxious that this Committee should not be a large one. We think that its deliberations would be shortened and probably improved by its being confined to a limited number of members. But a difficulty has arisen with regard to the representation of the Irish parties on the Committee. Of course we are not responsible for that in any way; we have merely fulfilled our formal Ministerial obligation in accepting the list, which is the true proportion according to numbers, and which has been handed to us in the usual course as the representation of the other side. But it appears that there
  808
  are certain sections of the Irish Party who consider themselves overlooked in the matter, and all I have to say is that I am so desirous that everyone should, if possible, be satisfied, that if it will conduce to that object the Government will be ready, though they do not recommend it exactly, to accept the proposal to increase the Committee to 17 in order that the Irish may have another representative. [Cheers.]
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I certainly do not rise for the purpose of criticising or differing from what I will call the prudent and moderate speech made by the Colonial Secretary. My right hon. Friend the Member for the University of London last night attributed to me a part in this transaction which I should have no wish to disclaim if I had any right to it. He really attributed to me the principal part in the moving for the appointment of this Committee. [Some Ministerial cheers.] There is, fortunately for me, a much higher authority than I am in this matter. Who is the first person who announced to the world that there was to be a searching inquiry into this matter? The only point in which I differ from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman is his statement that the promise was made to the House of Commons. No, it was not made to the House of Commons. It was an announcement made by the Sovereign of this country to the world at large. In the Speech from the Throne in the year which is just past the Queen, referring to this transaction of the raid, said:—
  "A sudden incursion into the South African Republic by an armed force from the territories under the control of the British South Africa Company resulted in a deplorable collision with the burgher forces. My Ministers at the earliest possible moment intervened to prohibit, through the High Commissioner, this hostile action, and to warn all my subjects throughout South Africa against taking part in aid thereof. The origin and circumstances of these proceedings will form the subject of a searching inquiry."
  There is the promise that was made, that there should be an Inquiry into this matter. The hon. Member for Cardiff has asked to whom this promise was given. In the first place, I say it was given by the Sovereign, and not given to the House of Commons alone. It was given, not indeed in the definite terms of a

  809
  letter or Dispatch, but, in my opinion, and I think in the opinion of the House, it was given to the Government which had suffered from this transaction. [Cheers.] What is the situation there described? That an attack upon a friendly Government had been made by forces apparently, on the face of it, under the control of a body representing the British Sovereign. In the Speech from the Throne it was announced that an attack had been made upon a friendly Government by such a force, and that a full and searching inquiry into the origin of that attack should be made. What is the language in which the right hon. Gentleman properly described this transaction? He addressed the Chartered Company in these words:—
  "Mr. Chamberlain desires you to note that the South African Republic is a foreign State with which Her Majesty is at peace and in Treaty relations; and in this connection I desire to remind you that the obligations imposed by the 22nd Article of the Charter of the British South Africa Company to perform and undertake all Treaty obligations of Her Majesty towards any other State."
  No one can doubt a violation of those obligations has taken place. In a fuller Dispatch, to which the right hon. Gentleman has very properly referred, he gives this account of the relations of the British Government to the Government of the Transvaal. He says:—
  "Since the Convention of 1884, Her Majesty's Government have recognised the South African Republic as a free and independent Government as regards all its internal affairs not touched by that Convention."
  I would not say a single word which should weaken what the right hon. Gentleman has said with reference to his friendly representations in regard to the interests of the Uitlanders at Johannesburg. On the contrary, I should feel that in anything I could say it would be my duty to reinforce the representations which are being made by the right hon. Gentleman. ["Hear, hear!"] But that is not the question here. What we have to do, if we are going to give force to these friendly representations, is, in the first instance, to place beyond all doubt our own good faith. [Cheers.] That is the first and material point. That is the ground of the promise of this full and searching Inquiry which was made by the
  810
  Queen to this Government, with whom she was in friendly relations and at peace when this outrage was committed. In this Amendment we are called upon to pass, there are some assertions which, I confess, appear to me to be not well founded. The hon. Member for Cardiff says:—"In view of the peaceful settlement of affairs in the Chartered Company's territories" there should be no further action. He seems to think that because the rebellion has been put down the Inquiry should not take place. But at the time the promise of this Inquiry was made there was no disturbance whatever in these territories. ["Hear, hear!"] Then the hon. Member goes on to say that it will reopen questions which have now been disposed of. ["Hear, hear!"] But what questions have now been dispoed of, and how have they been disposed of? Certainly the trial of Dr. Jameson and his companions did not dispose of the questions. It disposed only of the question of the relations of those individuals to these transactions; it did not dispose of the question put forward by the right hon. Gentleman in his first Dispatch—namely, how far other persons and how far the Chartered Company were in any way responsible either for the earlier or the later part of the transactions. Therefore, the Jameson trial has not disposed of the principal part of this Inquiry? Then it is said by the hon. Member for Cardiff that the Inquiry at the Cape had disposed of the matter. The Inquiry at the Cape did not dispose of any question relating to the Chartered Company at all. It did not profess to do so; but, on the contrary, absolutely and carefully excluded it. The Inquiry at the Cape professed to be and was merely an Inquiry into how far the colonial authorities at the Cape were in any degree mixed up with or responsible for this matter, and the finding of that Committee confined itself explicitly to persons in that relation. ["Hear, hear!"] But that is not the question which, according to the Speech from the Throne, we were to inquire into. We were to inquire into the relations of the Empire in these transactions, and in regard to its relations to the other States who might be affected by it. It is, therefore, an entire error to suppose that either of these Inquiries has dealt with, or even touched, the main questions that were

  811
  to be inquired into. I confess myself I regret the language which the hon. Member for Cardiff used with reference to President Kruger. I do not think it was just language; I am quite sure it was not wise language. ["Hear, hear!"] I believe, as the right hon. Gentleman believes, that the object of President Kruger is to establish and to keep peace between his own people and the subjects of the Queen. ["Hear, hear!"] I believe that his object is not to exasperate but to heal the differences which exist between the two peoples. Are we likely to strengthen his hands, to conciliate his disposition to remove the evils which are complained of, by such language as the hon. Member for Cardiff used in regard to him? [" Hear, hear! "] But, Sir, it is not only with reference to the Government of the Transvaal that I think we are bound to set ourselves clearly in the right. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, and, I think, we on this side of the House have a right to claim, that from the beginning of these transactions we have done nothing to interfere with or make more difficult the very difficult task with which the right hon. Gentleman is charged. [Cheers.] We have done nothing that should weaken his hands in the task which he had to-night avowed as his principal object—of reconciling the British and Dutch races in South Africa. [Cheers.] I have always considered that is the main object of the policy which ought to be pursued by any Government, of whatever Party, or on whatever side of the House it sits. Then this Inquiry is addressed also to the Dutch population of the whole of South Africa; not only in the independent Governments of the Transvaal and of the Orange Free State, but the Dutch population, whether they be in a minority or majority, in every part of South Africa. ["Hear, hear!"] Therefore, what this Committee has to do is to do its best to ascertain what the real facts of the case are, and to give an assurance to the Government in South Africa and to the people in South Africa that the British Government and the British House of Commons desire nothing except to do justice and to deal fairly as between them. ["Hear, hear!"] But I understand that the promise of this Inquiry has a still wider extension. It is intended to give an assurance to the
  812
  world that this country has the desire and has the resolution to deal fairly with other nations. [Cheers.] I have heard language of this kind sometimes: "After all, what does it signify what is done, or by whom it is done, so long as England can derive profit and advantage from it?" Sir, that is language which is used by enemies, and not by friends, of this country. [Cheers.] I was very glad to read some words by a Minister of the Crown the other day—I think in relation to this matter, for they followed very soon after some observations he had made upon the extension of the Empire and of Chartered Companies—e.g., I refer to a speech made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Bristol, which he concluded in these words:—
  "They would feel that there was one thing more important than money, more important than men, more important than ships, when they dealt with the affairs of such an Empire as ours. It was honour and good faith, that the word of an Englishman should be maintained, and that, when we made a Treaty, we should keep it. [Cheers.] It was that our neighbours should know, wherever they were—in Europe, or Africa, or America, or Asia—that the word of an English Government was the bond of England. [Cheers.] They might depend upon it that, however great our power and our means, our Empire was maintained more surely than by anything else by honour and good faith."
  [Cheers.] That was language worthy of an English Minister; and when my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of London says that I pressed upon the Government to keep their pledge as to this Inquiry, I tell him I never thought of dishonouring an English Government by supposing it was possible that, under any circumstances, they could think of retiring from it. [Cheers.] It is utterly untrue that I have ever put any pressure on the Government, or thought of doing so. My only object has been to facilitate, as far as possible, the method by which that Inquiry might be most completely and satisfactorily carried out. [Cheers.] So far with reference to the first point of the Inquiry—I mean the origin of this raid and its consequences. Of course one of the subjects of the Inquiry must be how far that raid and its consequences have contributed to the recent disturbances in Matabeleland

  813
  and Mashonaland. Then there is another branch of the inquiry which is still more important—that is, with reference to the action of the Chartered Company, how far it has fulfilled the duties for which it was constituted, and how far it is to be trusted in the future. Those are inquiries which the House of Commons has always made in connection with organisations of this kind, which have been subsidiary to the central Government. Of course the great example of inquiries of this kind is that of the East India Company, which was the subject of periodical inquiry and revision by the House of Commons. There were great Indian Committees from time to time to consider how far the East India Company was competent, and how far it had fulfilled the great duties which had devolved upon it. No man can doubt that the circumstances of the time demand an inquiry of that kind with reference to the Chartered Company. That is a subject which ought to be gone into. Here is a territory containing a handful of English and some millions of natives. It is, I do not know how many times larger than the United Kingdom, and the company is now in a condition, if I may use the phrase, of disorganisation and revolution, because the right hon. Gentleman has thought it necessary, wisely I believe, to suspend the whole of its military and police authority. That, of course, is only a temporary situation, and it is for the House of Commons Committee to inquire into what shall be the future organisation of the Company. These are grave matters demanding that they should be dealt with with prudence, but also with firmness and courage, and with a desire not to do mischief but good; and I am quite sure that any Committee appointed by the House of Commons will address itself to those duties with a sense of grave responsibility. There is one thing which I have omitted to say. I regretted more than anything yesterday the sentence in which the hon. Member for Cardiff attacked Lord Rosmead. ["Hear, hear!"] I must deprecate the habit of going behind the responsible Ministers of the Crown to attack servants of the Crown who are acting under the authority and direction of their chiefs. I regret deeply that a man who in all that
  814
  dangerous and difficult situation which arose in the Transvaal and at the Cape just 12 months ago rendered the most eminent services to the cause of peace and the reconciliation of the two races should have been attacked by the hon. Member. He said that he hoped that the policy of Lord Rosmead might be reversed, and I think that was a most unfortunate observation. It is not in that way that the affairs of your country will be well conducted or the interests of the British Crown well served. If the responsible agents of the Crown are to be attacked in this way in the House of Commons, I am quite sure they will always be defended by the responsible Minister, as Lord Rosmead has been defended by the right hon. Gentleman tonight. ["Hear, hear!"] I am extremely anxious not to introduce any controversial matters into this Debate, and I hope I have said nothing tending to cause sentiments of exasperation. I have only desired to express my deep sense of the responsibility which is imposed upon the Committee which the Government intend to appoint, and I am quite sure that in whatever part of the House the members of that Committee may sit they will have but one object—namely, to strengthen our Empire by bringing about the union of all the races within its boundaries. [Cheers.]
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid that the right hon. Member had uttered his usual panegyric on the policy of the Colonial Secretary, and had made statements in the course of his speech which it would be exceedingly difficult to substantiate. The House, he thought, would have noticed from the speeches of both the right hon. Gentlemen who had spoken that there was a very considerable feeling even in their minds against the institution of this Inquiry. The House was apparently pledged to this Inquiry of statements made in the past, statements made rather prematurely and too much under the direct inspiration of the Leaders of the Opposition. Of course, there was no doubt that the two men chiefly responsible for this Inquiry were the hon. Member for Northampton and the right hon. Member for West Monmouth, who usually followed the lead of the hon. Member. He admitted that it

  815
  was exceedingly difficult for the Government to avoid proceeding with the Inquiry, but he was at the same time convinced that it could only result in evil, and he believed that that was the real opinion of five-sixths of the Members of the House. What good would the Inquiry do? It would drag on to a weary and very possibly exasperating length. If it had any results it would end either in the acquittal of the persons who were likely to be accused, or in a recommendation for their prosecution. Such a prosecution could not well be brought to a close in less than 18 months from the present time, and for a year or more the bitterness of race antagonism, which it was so desirable to allay, would be kept alive in South Africa. The Colonial Secretary's speech was a practical confession of the failure of the policy of the last twelve months. The tone of the right hon. Gentleman that afternoon was very different from his tone in August last, when he delivered a speech full of roseate promises, and led the House to believe that all was going smoothly between the two Governments and the two races in South Africa. The right hon. Gentleman declared on August 13 that everything was going on in the most promising way, and that the Boers were passing valuable measures of reform. But what were those measures? The first was a sham Education Bill. Then there was the promise of a Municipality for Johannesburg, which had never been fulfilled, and the law relating to the sale of liquor to natives, which had not been carried out. But what had the Boers done on the other side of the account? No sooner was the British Parliament prorogued than the Volksraad at once passed laws of the most repressive character. The Colonial Secretary never tired of telling them that President Kruger showed a most conciliatory spirit and a desire to promote good will. Could the right hon. Gentleman be ignorant of the fact that President Kruger held the Volksraad in the hollow of his hand, and that he was responsible for the legislation of the Transvaal? What was the character of the recent legislation there? First there was the Aliens Expulsion Law, under which the Boer Executive was entitled to expel from the Transvaal any non-Boer citizens without trial. The whole of the 80,000 Uitlanders were thus
  816
  placed at the mercy of the six persons who constituted the Boer Executive. Then there was the law for gagging the Press, which gave the Executive special power to fine, imprison, and exile. Thirdly, an Aliens Immigration Law had been passed, under which the Executive was able to prevent the entry into the Transvaal of any aliens whatever. [Mr. T. M. HEALY: "They got that idea from Lord Salisbury's Bill!"] In their negotiations with the Transvaal on these subjects it would be well if the Government were to exhibit a little less patience and a little more courage. How could the Leader of the Opposition tell the House that President Kruger was the friend of moderation, conciliation, and peace, in view of the fact that these monstrous and oppressive laws, so contrary to the tenour and spirit of the Convention of 1884, had been passed and put into execution? Those laws had been put in force, and already the most independent and pro-British newspaper in the Transvaal had been violently suppressed by President Kruger, thereby depriving the Uitlanders of the only means of making their grievances known to this country, and inflicting great financial injury on the proprietor. Those facts changed the situation altogether. The acts of President Kruger were not conciliatory; they were most hostile. The Transvaal was steadily increasing its armaments, and foreign mercenaries were being imported in large numbers. [Ironical cheers.] The situation in this country had also changed. Those responsible for the raid had been tried and punished, and this was another reason why it was not necessary to pursue this Inquiry further. The Leader of the Opposition said that the object of the Inquiry was to redeem the good faith, the pledges, and the honour of this country. Those sentiments from the right hon. Gentleman reminded him of the "unctuous rectitude" they had heard of on another occasion. No Member of the House had done more to break the pledges and depreciate the honour of this country than the right hon. Gentleman. [Ironical cheers.] Almost every pledge given to British colonies in the past by Governments of which the right hon. Gentleman had been a prominent Member had been deliberately broken, to

  817
  the great injury of the colonists. The principal object of the Inquiry had never been concealed. The hon. Member for Northampton had committed himself in the strongest way to an ex parte view of the conduct and character of the Inquiry, and his wish was to drag down if possible the eminent man who had done so much for British dominion and commerce in South Africa. If the Inquiry was to be satisfactory to the Boer Government, who hated Mr. Rhodes with a bitterness that could scarcely be expressed, it must result in injury to the position and influence of that great man. In view of the practical confession of the Colonial Secretary that the policy of conciliation, tried with so much patience and persistence and at the expense of very considerable humiliation, had been proved to have completely and absolutely failed, he thought it most unfortunate that the Committee should be constituted.
  DR. CLARKsaid that during the 12 years he had been in the. House he had not spoken with a greater feeling of responsibility than he did now. When the speech of the Colonial Secretary was read by President Kruger and the Boer Government he thought that it would hardly tend towards peace, or to that union of the States and colonies of South Africa which was so much desired. The policy of the right hon. Gentleman, as declared that day, would, he feared, prevent certain reforms which were necessary in the Transvaal from being carried out so quickly as might otherwise have been the case. The Colonial Secretary had again repeated certain statements which he ought to know the Transvaal Government repudiated. The right hon. Gentleman said that certain Uitlanders paid nineteen-twentieths of the taxation. The Transvaal Government asserted that this was utterly untrue—that it was a fiction. The Boer Government denied that there were legitimate grievances among the Uitlanders. [Ironical cheers.] The two charges that had caused a great deal of trouble in South Africa and had rankled in the minds of certain Africander statesmen had been made, one in the House and one outside. The Colonial Secretary at a South African banquet accused the gentlemen who formed the Government of the South African Republic with being corrupt.
  818
  The right hon. Gentleman had not repeated that charge in the House; but he had now made the charge that the condition of things in Johannesburg and the grievances there were such that unless the Boer Government brought about a radical change there would probably be a recrudescence of troubles. Those two charges might be true or not, but he asked the House to contrast the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman with what occurred a few years ago. The Jameson raid was not the first raid. The first raid was the Shepstone raid. For four years the British Government controlled the Transvaal—from 1877 to 1881. Did the Government during those four years give a vote to the Uitlanders? Did they carry out the pledge made by the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman that representative Government would be granted? No; during those four years the Transvaal was ruled by the British Government as despotically as Turkey or Russia was now ruled. With regard to President Kruger he believed him to be as honest a man as there was living. Could they say so of the British Government and the Colonial Secretary (Sir Theophilus Shepstone) who formerly administered the Transvaal? If anyone wanted to ascertain the facts he had only to inspect the letters to the Colonial Secretary by the right hon. Member for Bodmin, where it appeared the Colonial Secretary swindled and cheated us, where his presents, his mistresses, even his fishing-rod were all put down as forage, and the British Government had to pay for it, and stopped Sir Theophilus Shepstone's pension for the purpose of making up for the money stolen by himself or his family. Well, it was too strong to say "by himself," for he should not think the old man knew the work he was doing by his sons. With that fact before them, however, it was not advisable to bring a charge of corruption against the men who formed the present Government of the Transvaal. Speaking from the standpoint of the Boers he said they had done all that men possibly could do to aid the Outlanders. He must be frank, however; he did not think the powers given to the Second Chamber were adequate and that reform in this direction was necessary. But the Outlanders appeared

  819
  to think they ought to be allowed to hold the country in four years for nothing. Why, it was not yet ten years since he went down from Pretoria to lay the foundation stone of the first house in Johannesburg. What had caused all this estrangement? It was the policy adopted by Lord Derby. He agreed with the Secretary of State for the Colonies that the Aliens Bill was not in accordance with the provisions of the Convention of 1884, and if he, by force or otherwise, compelled the Transvaal Government to see that that Convention, as regards the rights given by the Sands River Convention, the Pretoria Convention and the London Convention were carried out, he would be perfectly justified in doing so. Apart from reform of the Second Chamber, the only other grievance was that the Transvaal Government carried on a system not of free trade, but of protection, and gave monopolist concessions for the purpose of developing industry. But was not that the case with other Republics, the French and the American, with the German Empire and other civilised countries. If there were any special taxation put upon aliens different from citizens there would be reason to complain, but the alien had almost the same rights and privileges, so far as taxation was concerned, as the native, and no special burden was placed upon him. All the gold was open to everyone, native or alien. There was no royalty at all in the country, though there ought to have been. With regard to Mr. Cecil Rhodes he had a high respect for him on account of his great ability, high character, and charming personality; and he regretted to see him placed as he was. In his reply earlier in the day the Colonial Secretary seemed to say that one of the questions that must be considered by the Committee was whether the condition of things before the raid was sufficient to justify a rising. He could only say that if the Committee accepted evidence on that point the Boers would tell them it amounted to a breach of the 1884 Convention and affected their right of self-government, and would refuse to give evidence; and if we persevered Heaven knows what terrible results would follow. He regretted that he had been compelled to state so strongly the view held by the Transvaal people in regard to this matter; but it was better
  820
  that that view should be stated as it was held in the Transvaal.
  SIR HENRY HOWORTHsaid that the question which many hon. Gentlemen had been asking themselves, independently of Party considerations, in regard to this Committee was, Cui bono? If the agent of this country did a wrong there must be a complete and drastic inquiry into the whole transaction. And if this country entered into obligations to bring certain people to trial, the promise must be carried out. But the obligations of this country had been carried out to the letter. There had been trials both here and in South Africa, and every possible issue had already been raised in regard to some of the subjects of this proposed inquiry. The Committee would inquire into the administration of the territory of the Chartered Company, into the circumstances of the raid, and into the internal administration of the Transvaal. As to the first of those subjects, he could see very little harm in the inquiries of the Committee; though he could not agree with the Leader of the Opposition in comparing the position of affairs with the position of the East India Company. The East India Company was a separate and substantive governing authority outside the authority of the Colonial Office. The Chartered Company had been subject immediately to the Colonial Office, and the Colonial Secretary last year altered the whole constitution of its military arrangements. But in regard to the other two subjects of inquiry he saw every promise of difficulty and danger. A great English proconsul was to be put on his trial. He did not know Mr. Rhodes, and he had never seen him; but he could not help feeling that, a hundred years hence, the men who had added to the Empire a territory seven-fold as great as the United Kingdom, would stand in the rank of men like Clive and Hastings. And if a man like that were to be brought to trial, for a great offence against the State, he ought to be tried by a proper and judicial tribunal. A Committee of the House of Commons, the Members of which were selected because they were partisans, and everyone of whom had more or less made up his mind as to the issue, was not the proper tribunal for such a case. The trial might

  821
  have been transferred to the grandest Court of Justice in the world—Westminster Hall—where Bacon and Strafford were tried. As it was, the verdict of the Committee, whatever it might be, was discounted beforehand both here and at the Cape. If the Commitee found that no blame at all attached to this great proconsul, he would go back with such power and prestige that he would be a dangerous citizen of the Empire, because he would be sore and angry that he had been brought here not to be impeached for high crimes, but to be brought before a mere Committee of the House of Commons. And was such a Committee to be intrusted with the very delicate questions of alterations and reforms in the internal Government of the Transvaal? He would rather leave such questions in the hands which hitherto, under desperate difficulty and strain, had conducted affairs with admirable skill and prescience. From the day when the Colonial Secretary jumped in front of the German Emperor with that famous dispatch, he had conducted the affairs of South Africa with singular prudence and skill. It must not be forgotten, either, that ours was not an Empire of Englishmen only: and that in these matters we had to deal with a large population which did not speak our language, and which possessed different traditions. In Holland he had seen many newspapers with correspondence from the Cape, showing that angry feeling had been roused in Cape Colony; and he could not help feeling that unless we were careful in handling these questions, we should have a fire ablaze in South Africa which could not be put out without a desperate strain on our resources. It was impossible to deny the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman—that if this matter were to be settled with the concurrence of this country, the Outlanders must he conceded the rights and privileges hitherto denied to them. The right hon. Gentleman had fought hard for that position; and it was impossible to face with equanimity the question being left to a tribunal so inappropriate as a Committee of the House. This was not the time for blustering words. Recriminations ought to be avoided, in order that those subjects of the Crown, who had always been very loyal, but who were very sore just
  822
  now, should not feel that this Mother of Parliaments was, where Englishmen and Dutchmen were at issue, treating the latter with any want of justice.
  MR. LEONARD COURTNEYsaid he had had hopes of not taking part in this discussion, because he was satisfied that, whatever might result from the labours of the Committee, very little good would result from any more speeches which might be delivered. ["Hear, hear!"] After the speech of the Colonial Secretary the House might wisely have allowed the discussion to lapse. [Cheers.] The hon. Member for Salford had spoken anxiously as to the effect of appointing the Committee; but one comfort was that, at any rate, the Committee would not make speeches. [Cheers.] They would ask questions and elucidate facts, and possibly they would come to conclusions which would command respect. But they would not make speeches. [Cheers.] There would not be that danger of exasperating opinion in South Africa which, he feared, would result from a continuance of this discussion. The hon. Member for Caithness had used language which he could not accept as accurate, when speaking of corruption in the administration of the Transvaal, when the country was under the British Government, and had referred to letters bearing his signature as having exposed that corruption. It was quite true that when the Transvaal was administered by our Government the accounts were kept in an exceedingly loose fashion—especially at the beginning of affairs—and vouchers were not forthcoming for much of the expenditure, or when they were produced they were not considered satisfactory by the Treasury. But the whole amount involved was exceedingly small, and nothing transpired that could sustain a charge of corruption. However, he did not rise to continue the discussion. He felt sure the speech of the Colonial Secretary had persuaded everyone that if we were to clear ourselves this Commission should sit, and that we should wait in patience until its exhaustive inquiries were concluded.
  MR. J. M. MACLEANsaid that, after the discussion which had taken place, and especially after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary, that the Government thought

  823
  they were bound ill honour to reappoint the Committee, he would ask leave to withdraw his Motion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put and agreed to.
  Ordered,—That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the origin and circumstances of the incursion into the South African Republic by an armed force, and into the administration of the British South; Africa Company, and to report thereon; and further, to report what alterations are desirable in the Government of the territories under the control of the Company.
  Ordered,—That the Committee have leave to hear Counsel to such extent as they shall see fit, and have power to send for persons, papers, and records.—(Secretary of State for the Colonies.)
  MR. J. L. CAREWrose to move an Amendment which stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. P. O'Brien (Kilkenny), proposing "That the Committee do consist of 17 Members."
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, Order! An Amendment of which notice must be given can only be moved by the hon. Member who put it down.
  DR. TANNERpointed out that a Member of the Government had often introduced a Bill of which notice had been given by another Member of the Government.
  MR. SPEAKER: All Members of the Government are considered one person for all such purposes.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN,who had been absent from the Chamber, now returned, and moved his Amendment. He said he understood from the statement of the Colonial Secretary that the Government were prepared to accept his proposal.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid he should not object to the enlargement of the Committee from 15 to 17 Members if the reason were that the Opposition were not fairly represented upon it. But his right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary had stated as the reason for the proposed increase in the membership of the Committee that a
  824
  certain section of the Irish Party was not represented upon it at present. He had no personal objection whatever to Nationalist Members sitting on the Committee. He acknowledged their ability and he had experienced their eloquence. [Laughter.] But he failed to see a sufficient reason why another Irishman should be added to the Committee, in the fact that the Nationalist Party happened to be divided into sections, and that no Gentleman in that Party could speak on behalf of all his colleagues. [Laughter.] Besides, there were other Irishmen in the House besides the hon. Gentlemen Opposite. It appeared to him a strange thing that when the Government came to the conclusion that it was necessary to add another Irishman to the Committee they should have overlooked that Irish Party which was mainly responsible for placing them on the Treasury Bench. [Laughter.] He did not see why the divisions in the Nationalist ranks should be officially recognised by the Government, especially in view of the fact that it was not at all improbable that before long there would be 80 Nationalist Parties. [Laughter.] Great constitutional and Imperial questions might arise before this Committee, and if it were necessary to add another Irishman to the Committee he should not be chosen from the ranks of those who had never shown that Imperial instincts dominated their policy. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid the hon. and gallant Member was entirely mistaken in the view he had taken of the matter. The Government in the course they proposed to pursue in regard to the enlargement of the membership of the Committee were not doing a special favour to any section of the House. They were simply doing a bare act of arithmetical justice to the Nationalist Members. When the Committee consisting of 15 Members was appointed last year with only one Nationalist Member upon it he urged that, in proportion to the strength of the Opposition, the Nationalist Members were entitled to two representatives on the Committee. He failed then to carry his point, but the Government had now yielded to that view, and in order to equalise the representation of parties on the Committee they proposed to add also to the Committee one of their own supporters in

  825
  the person of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for London University. It was quite true that, as the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh had said, great Imperial questions were to be considered by this Committee. But all those who took alarm at the prospect of its appointment might be assured by the recollection of what had happened in the case of the Financial Relations Commission, for if the Government were not satisfied with the findings of the Committee they could appoint another. [Laughter.]
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I desire to say that the Government understood it was the general wish of the House that the Committee should be increased, and they put down the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for London University as the Member they suggested as the representative of this side of the House in the event of another Member being-added to the Committee as the representative of the opposite side of the House. Of course, if the House should decline to increase the Committee, and should retain the original number, 15, the name of my right hon. Friend will be withdrawn. I would point out that in the appointment of a Committee practically only two parties have to be considered—that is to say, the Government of the day, and the Opposition, and the Committee is divided in proportion to the Members sitting on the two sides of the House. In the case of a Committee of 15 Members the Government nominate nine members, but they have nothing whatever to do with the nomination of the remaining six. We did nominate our nine members, and a difficulty arose—with which we had nothing whatever to do, and as to which we wash our hands entirely—as to the composition of the other six members. We understood there was a difficulty in substituting another Irish member for one of the members from the Opposition side who had already been nominated, and in order to meet the wishes of the other side we suggested that in that case it might be convenient to increase the number to 17, so that the difficulty might be removed. The decision which the Government came to was really with a view to conciliate everybody; if it has not that effect, and any objection is
  826
  taken, the Government are perfectly indifferent in the matter. If we have any preference, I may say we would rather go back to the Committee of 15. [Cheers.]
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid that as his name had been mentioned, perhaps the House would allow him to say that he thought, from the turn the discussion had taken, it would be very much better to leave the Committee with 15 members. ["Hear, hear!"] Personally it would be a great relief to him.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Committee do consist of 17 Members," put and negatived.
  The names of the Attorney General, Mr. Bigham, Mr. Blake, Mr. Buxton, and Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman as members of the Committee were agreed to.
  On the Motion that Mr. J. Chamberlain be appointed to serve on the Committee,
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid the right hon. Gentleman had said himself that he knew there were charges brought against him. He thought those charges were most abominable, and he was not in the least implying that there was one word of truth in them. [An HON. MEMBER; "What are they?"] The right hon. Gentleman alluded to them himself, and was it not rather strange, if these charges were made, that the right hon. Gentleman should sit upon the Committee and act as a judge? That was a rather difficult position for him to be in.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURThoped his hon. Friend would not press the point. This Committee would be utterly useless unless they had the Colonial Secretary upon it—["hear, hear!"]—who had had all the means at his disposal of placing before them the information on the subject which they had had.
  The name of Mr. Chamberlain was then agreed to, as were also the names of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Cripps, Sir W. Hart Dyke, Mr. John Ellis, Sir W. Harcourt, and Mr. Jackson.

  827
  On the Motion that Mr. Labouchere be appointed to serve on the Committee,
  MR. HENRY SETON-KARRsaid he desired to take the opinion of the House whether the hon. Member for Northampton should occupy a place on this Committee. The hon. Member stood in a category by himself, as he had expressed in his interesting journal views hostile to the Chartered Company and to Mr. Rhodes, which, it seemed to him, absolutely pledged the hon. Member to one side of the question. ["Hear, hear!"] It was impossible to suppose that any evidence brought before the Committee would alter the hon. Member's opinion.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope my hon. Friend will withdraw his objection. I think I can give him two reasons why he should do so, which, I trust, may be conclusive to his mind. The first is a general reason which applies to the appointment of the members of all Committees. The arrangement is, as I have said, that, the proportions being settled, the nomination of the members on each side is left to their respective side, and for the Government, therefore, to interfere and to object to a nomination from the side of the Opposition, or vice versâ, would be to strike at the system under which our Committees are elected and would give rise to endless difficulties in the future proceedings of Parliament. ["Hear, hear!"] As to this particular objection, I am bound to point out to my hon. Friend that it is entirely in accordance with precedents that the hon. Member for Northampton, who has undoubtedly taken an extremely strong view, and expressed an extremely strong view in respect to this matter, should be a member of the Committee, and be enabled thereby to bring his charges to the test. ["Hear, hear!"] If a Member of this House thinks that he has an allegation to make of serious importance against any person who may be a witness before a Committee of Inquiry, that is the only proper and reasonable way in which his allegations may be brought to the test. I can quote precedents, such as that of the Hyderabad and Deccan Committee, in regard to which very strong charges were made, I think also by the hon. Member for Northampton. [Laughter.] The hon. Member,
  828
  however, was appointed to that Committee, and did very useful service to the Committee in their endeavour to elucidate the question. Another precedent is the case of the Foreign Loans Committee, in regard to which my noble Friend Lord James of Hereford had made certain charges, and Lord James of Hereford was appointed to serve on that Committee. I think, therefore, we are only following a course in accordance with precedent.
  MR. SETON-KARRsaid he would withdraw his objection.
  The name of Mr. Labouchere was then agreed to, as also were the names of Mr. Wharton and Mr. Wyndham.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—SUPPLY.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYmoved:—
"That so soon as the Committee of Supply has been appointed and Estimates have been presented, the business of Supply shall (until it be disposed of) be the first Order of the Hay on Friday, unless the House otherwise order on the Motion of a Minister of the Crown moved at the commencement of public business to be decided without Amendment or Debate; and the provisions of Standing Order No. 56 shall be extended to Friday.
"Not more than 20 days, being days before August 5 on which the Speaker leaves the Chair for the Committee of Supply without question put, counting from the first day on which the Speaker left the Chair under Standing Order No. 56, shall be allotted for the consideration of the annual Estimates for the Army, Navy, and Civil Services, including Votes on Acount, the business of Supply standing first Order on every such day.
"Provided always, that on Motion made after notice by a Minister of the Crown to be decided without Amendment or Debate, additional time, not exceeding three days, may be allotted for the business of Supply, either before or after August 5.
"On the last but one of the allotted days, at 10 o'clock p.m., the Chairman shall proceed to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the outstanding Votes in Committee of Supply; and on the last, not being earlier than the 20th of the allotted days, the Speaker shall, at 10 o'clock p.m., proceed to put forthwith every question necessary to complete the outstanding Reports of Supply.
"On the days appointed for concluding the business of Supply, the consideration of such business shall not be anticipated by a Motion of Adjournment under Standing Order No. 17; nor may any dilatory Motion be moved on such proceedings; nor shall they be interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
"Provided always, that the days occupied by the consideration of Estimates supplementary

829
to those of a previous Session, or of any Vote of Credit, shall not be included in the computation of the 20 days. Provided also, that two morning sittings shall be deemed equivalent to one 3 o'clock sitting. That this Resolution be a Standing Order of the House."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I think this rule, which was in operation all through last Session, on the whole gave satisfaction to all quarters of the House. I am the last person to suppose that any rule that we may adopt is absolutely without inconvenience, there must always be a balance of inconveniences. I am myself of opinion that the balance in this case is in favour of the rule which we tried experimentally last Session becoming part of our permanent rules. I desire once and for all to put upon record my sense of the manner in which all Parties of the House co-operated to make this rule a success. [" Hear, hear!"] I have seen it attributed to my peculiar foresight and ingenuity that what some critics describe as a reform was carried out with success, but I disclaim all merit whatever in the matter. The merit belongs entirely to the majority and minority in this House, who together resolved that, as far as they could, they would see that our Debates on Supply were conducted in a manner and with that moderation as regards the expenditure of time which can alone make it possible for a Government to give time to the adequate criticism by private Members of our general financial and administrative system. The Government endeavoured, as I believe every Government will always endeavour, to so allocate the Fridays in each week as to meet the convenience of Members of the House. It was in the power of the House last Session, and would be in any future Session, to so deal with the Votes that came on on the earlier Fridays as to drive very important questions on to the later Fridays, and no doubt if that be done the rule would unquestionably break down and we should then revert to the unfortunate system which prevailed so many years, under which the Government first passed all the legislative measures which they thought necessary, and then squeezed into the last weary fortnight of the Session the necessary discussions on the Estimates. I understand from some quarters of the House that there is a desire—I think a natural desire—to try this rule as an experiment, at all events for one more
830
Session. [" Hear, hear!"] I entirely sympathise with that view, and I shall not press the last line of the Resolution which proposes to make the Order part of a, permanent legislative arrangement. While the Government will continue in their earnest endeavour to so arrange the business of the House on the successive Fridays as to suit the convenience of Members in all parts of the House, I trust the House, on its side, will during this Session, as during last Session, do all they can to make the rule which was passed in their interests, and not in those of the Government, a real working success. I do not think it needful to say more. If objections are raised I shall be glad to deal with them as far as I can in the reply which I shall have the right to make. Meanwhile, I hope the House will enter upon the experimental part of the Motion with an earnest desire to make the experiment a success. [" Hear, hear!"]
MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman does not move the last line?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No, Sir.
MR. SPEAKERread the Motion omitting the proposal to make the order a Standing Order, and was about to put it to the House, when
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTrose and said: I think we are all in an agreeable humour this afternoon. [Laughter and " Hear, hear!"] The Leader of the House has spoken in very moderate terms of the introduction of this new practice—too moderate, I think, because after the experience of last Session we are grateful to him for the introduction of this rule, and particularly for the manner in which he has worked it. [Cheers.] Its success depended entirely on the manner in which the Leader of the House dealt with the rule, and on this side of the House I think we have every reason to acknowledge that the right hon. Gentleman gave us every facility we could have desired, and he has given us credit, which I think was deserved, on this side of the House—[The FIRST LORD of the TREASURY: "Hear, hear!"]—for our efforts to make the rule a success. But the permanent success of the rule must always depend on the manner in which it is dealt with. In framing a permanent constitution we must not rely too much on the virtues of

831
the living Sovereign, because we do not know how far they may be inherited or not by his successor. So I think the right hon. Gentleman has done wisely by stating that there should be further revision of the rule before it is permanently established on the Standing Orders. Of course the danger is that we might have a great block of undiscussed Estimates at the end of a Session. That did not happen last year, but if ever it did, I do not think the rule would prove a success or be accepted by the House. We ought all to endeavour to avoid such a difficulty, and of course one that must be experimental is whether the number of days allotted to Supply are exactly the right number, and it might in the future be necessary to consider whether a large number of days ought not to be allowed. The right hon. Gentleman has shown a wise moderation in agreeing that the rule shall be a sessional order for this year, and I think he may rely upon its being met, as it was last year, by every inclination on our part to make it a success. [Cheers.]
MR. SETON-KARRsaid that as a private Member he viewed with a great deal of suspicion this cordial co-operation of the Leader of the Opposition with the Leader of the House. He himself objected to the Order, chiefly because it contained a time limit and the hateful principle of the guillotine. This rule worked well last Session, but it did not follow that it would work well every Session, any more than it followed that the present Government would always be in power with a majority of 150 at their backs and a weak and demoralised Opposition in front of them. [Opposition laughter.] They might have a man ruling over them in the future who would make a very different use of the rule. [" Hear, hear!"] He submitted that the Leader of the House should be satisfied by taking Fridays and leave out the time limit, which was unnecessary. He also asked the Leader of the House to secure Tuesdays to private Members who wished to move resolutions on abstract subjects. In Supply there was not sufficient scope for discussing such subjects. Private Members would take the uncertain chance of the ballot if Tuesdays were left to them, say, until Whitsuntide. ["Hear, hear!"]
832
He should like to know whether the Factory Acts, the Free Trade Acts, and the Acts for the Protection of Seamen, would ever have been passed had the private Members of the time been deprived of the opportunities they then possessed of bringing forward abstract questions before the House. All the subjects dealt with by those Acts were brought forward by men like Mr. Bright, Mr. Cobden, Lord Derby, and Mr. Plimsoll, when they were private Members of that House. Yet those measures remained unimpeached for their value at the present day. By depriving private Members of their opportunities for addressing that House they were causing the oratorical power of the House to deteriorate. As matters stood, under recent innovations the oratory of the House was confined to the two Front Benches and to the hon. Member for King's Lynn. The time of the House was now entirely occupied by the Government, and the privileges of private Members were entirely taken from them. There could be no doubt that private Members were desirous of retaining some, at all events, of their old privileges, the existence of which was now threatened. He did not intend to divide the House upon the question, but he sincerely hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would give his attention to the points that had been urged upon him in the course of this discussion, and would give hon. Members a satisfactory assurance with regard to them.
MR. T. LOUGHthought that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down would scarcely be satisfied with what had fallen from the two Front Benches in reference to this subject. He however, was very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury for the assurance he had given the House that the claims of private Members would receive his sympathetic consideration. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman had been a little too modest when he attributed the success of the rule last Session, not to the Government, but to hon. Members on both sides of the House. Hon. Members must not rely upon the accuracy of that assertion in too great a degree. The resolution of last Session had placed the time of the House absolutely in the hands of the Government. The Government having brought forward that resolution,

833
were bound to make the working under it a success, and in every way to meet the wishes of the Opposition in connection with it. But that might not always be the case, and he should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman could not introduce some words into this very drastic resolution which would prevent any subsequent Government from abusing it. The right hon. Gentleman might himself be a private Member some day, and he appealed to him therefore to so frame the resolution as to prevent its abuse by some future unscrupulous Government. Another point to which he desired to draw attention was that last Session many hon. Members, especially those sitting on the Opposition side of the House, did not approve of the sudden closing of Supply, which they feared might lead to some indecent expressions of objection. Happily, last Session those fears proved to be unfounded. But on the concluding day some 30 votes remained for discussion, and five Divisions were had upon them before the guillotine fell. Fortunately hon. Members were all in such an amicable mood on the occasion that the passing of the last vote was received with general cheering. On that last day some two millions of money were voted, and in his opinion it was a very serious matter to vote such a large sum at a single sitting under the procedure which the rule imposed, especially seeing that the votes included those relating to Uganda and other highly contentious subjects. The fact that such was the case ought to make hon. Gentlemen thoughtful before they agreed to this resolution. Another point was that before this resolution was passed the House had the power of selecting the subjects in the Estimates which they desired to discuss, but after the resolution was passed that power passed to the Government, who might postpone the passing of a vote on which an inconvenient discussion was likely to arise until the guillotine had fallen. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman might effect a great improvement in the resolution by striking out the words "Votes on account." He would not move an Amendment to that effect himself because he had no desire to take up a hostile attitude towards the resolution, but he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would consider the
834
point. He might, however, remark that the introduction of votes on account was an evidence of the careless way in which the Estimates had been prepared.
MR. G. C. T. BARTLEYthought that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury had taken away a great deal of the objection which private Members had to their time being taken away. He, however, could not account for the extraordinary fatality that always rendered it necessary for a Conservative Government to make drastic rules still more drastic. It was now proposed to institute a "time gag." He fully appreciated the excellent way in which the principle of the resolution had worked last year. Of course they had now in office a perfectly sound Government who would do nothing that was unfair, but that might not always be the case. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies speaking on the subject in 1893, had said that a "time gag" might be used by an unscrupulous Government for avoiding debates on inconvenient subjects. He asked why in the name of common sense should the Conservative Party seek to emphasise and enlarge the effect of this rule, and to give the Government of the day such a power. The Government ought to rest satisfied with obtaining Fridays for Supply, and should not ask the House to go further in that direction.
MR. HENRY LABOUCHEREsaid that he wished to point out to the hon. Member behind him, that there had been ample time to discuss all matters of interest arising out of Supply last Session. He did not think the Government were open to the complaint urged against them by the hon. Member. For that side of the House it might be said that they seemed to pass their time in defending the Government against their own followers. He and those on the Opposition Benches said that, although the Government was a bad one, they might go farther and fare worse. ["Hear, hear!"] He observed, however, that hon. Gentlemen on the other side limited their opposition to making complaining speeches. The Member for St. Helens was a gentleman who, vowing he would never consent, consented; he said that he disagreed with the Government, but

835
that he acquiesced in their wishes as a faithful follower. He doubted whether the Government cared one sixpence whether the hon. Member took their view or not. [Laughter.] All that they wanted from the hon. Member was that he should acquiesce and that, as a dutiful follower, he should walk into the Lobby with them, which he was sure the hon. Member would do most faithfully and humbly. For his part, he was glad the Government were going to renew this rule. He regarded it as an advantage to the Opposition. He thought they had under it more time for discussing the Estimates and that the time was better apportioned than formerly.
MR. B. L. COHENsaid he had not intended to take part in the Debate on this most reasonable, and, he would add, most useful proposal of his right hon. Friend, which he thought would have been accepted by the House with the unanimity and alacrity which the success of last year, in his judgment, justified, if, indeed, it did not dictate. But he was unwilling to leave the support of the Government proposal entirely to the intermittent compassion of the hon. Member for Northampton. He did not yield to either of his hon. Friends who had spoken on that side in his horror of the gag when applied to check discussion on proposals for legislation. Hut it seemed to him that both his hon. Friends lost sight of the difference between the gag when applied to Supply and to Bills submitted to that House. That difference was emphatically pointed out by his right hon. Friend when he last year made for the first time a proposal similar to the one now under discussion. Supply must be, and always was, voted sooner or later in each Session of Parliament. This was a proposal to make it sooner instead of later, and to render more effective the discussion of Supply than would be possible were it left, as was done by the late Government, to the last week or ten days of the Session. He was surprised that the Government proposal should be objected to as abridging the privileges of private Members. For himself he should not regard that as a great calamity, but as a fact the suggestions of the Leader of the House would give greater and not less opportunity to private Members, as they
836
insured a certain and a considerable number of days to Supply, which was the delight of the critical private Member. His hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens spoke of what was accomplished on private Members' days in old times by such illustrious Members as Bright, Cobden, and Lord Shaftesbury. Yes; but in those days they did not have 70 to 100 questions put on every Government afternoon to Ministers which took one hour or one and a-half hours of Government time; they did not have two or three Motions for the Adjournment of the House in each Session; and Government Bills were not discussed at the length and during the number of days as now. He had no right and no desire to criticise these altered conditions, but he said they necessitated altered procedure, and because he believed the proposals of his right hon. Friend would conduce to the more efficient and more expeditious dispatch of the business of this House that he should give them his cordial support, and he hoped they would be unanimously accepted by the House.
MR. F. A. CHANNINGsaid there was one matter to which he wished to call the attention of the Leader of the House. His hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens had endeavoured to drive a bargain with the right hon. Gentleman as to the days to be given to private Members. He did not wish to drive a bargain, but to ask for an act of justice—to make a suggestion which he thought had not been made before. During the last Session it was inevitable that foreign affairs and colonial affairs should occupy a large portion of the time of the House, and he supposed that it was inevitable that their active and energetic Irish friends should manage to obtain a very large and disproportionate share of the time of the House. He asked the Leader of the House and the Secretary to the Treasury to consider the necessity of providing adequate time for the consideration of the large English Votes—Votes for the Home Office, for the Board of Trade, and other Votes. He did not blame the Government that these Votes were postponed to a time of the Session when it was impossible that full time should be given to many important questions. He should ask the right hon. Gentleman and

837
the Secretary to the Treasury to bear in mind, in allocating the time, that although the English Members did not press the Government with vigour and vehemence, there were many questions of great importance, not necessarily controversial questions, to be brought up on the Votes. ["Hear, hear!"] He had urged last year when this proposal was before the House that the House should be associated with the Government in the allocation of the time to be devoted to the various Votes. He was only desirous of saying now that if they did not find a spirit of fair play and reasonable consideration, as to which he appealed to the Government, this question would come up again.
MR. VESEY KNOXventured to protest against the suggestion that Ireland took up too much time of last Session. Certainly it was not in excess of their tactical capacity—[laughter]—and he rather gathered from the statements of the Leader of the House, that this Session Ireland, particularly on financial questions, would have to be heard. It was evident that for the future every patriotic Irish Member, on whatever side of the House he sat, must watch carefully every proposal either of an Irish or an Imperial character. Certainly it would be the duty of himself and hon. Friends to take up rather more of the time of the House in Supply during this Session than they had done of late years. [A laugh.] He mentioned that point as one which might be taken into account in calculating as to the probable success of this Rule in future.
DR. CLARKhoped the Leader of the House would consent to the slight modification suggested on his own side of the House, namely, to strike out the words of the Rule giving power to a Minister to allot three additional days to Supply. If that alteration were made he thought it was probable the clause would work well and might safely be made a Standing Order. The Rule had been successful because the Government carried out the reform suggested by Members below the Opposition Gangway. The late Government accepted it and agreed to give Fridays for Supply; they agreed to lay down the principle that they should have two lines, so to speak, one for legislation, and the other for
838
Supply. When Members knew that by obstructing Supply they could not obstruct legislation, they would not be inclined to waste time in Supply. At the same time he thought the votes for the Board of Trade, the Local Government Board, and the Board of Agriculture should have a better place than they had last Session, because last year the House passed Bills practically giving those Departments the right to legislate. The First Lord must admit that the discussion had been very reasonable. To-night they had adopted a new precedent, and the right hon. Gentleman would agree that never before had a Government been allowed to take the nights of private Members without a protest. [The FIRST LORD of the TREASURY: "Hear, hear!"] As a matter of conciliation the right hon. Gentleman might agree to the Amendment suggested.
SIR ROBERT REIDcongratulated himself upon having been one of the very few Members on the Opposition side of the House who throughout had supported these Rules. The Rules had unquestionably been successful, but at the same time they had taken something away from private Members. It therefore seemed to him that something was due from the Government to private Members in return, and he suggested that that might take the form of a little further progress on the part of the Government in the direction of reforming the Rules of Procedure of the House. There was one way in which, without disadvantage to public business and with very great advantage to the business of any Government, some equivalent could be given to private Members, and that was to make some provision for the continuance of Bills in one Session at the stage at which they were left in the preceding Session.
MR. T. M. HEALYhoped that the time which the Government necessarily saved by rules of this kind would not be used to pass Bills of a minor character, to which strong objection was taken, without giving some return to the general body of Members. Towards the end of the Session there was a great desire on the part of subordinate Members of the Government to push on their own schemes, and they were quite ready to take advantage of the indulgence which

839
the House allowed to the Government as a whole by rules like this. He and his Friends were entitled, under the circumstances, to claim that the Government should use their power and influence with their own supporters to prevent those Irish Measures to which there was no objection being blocked, so that Irish representatives should not return to their constituencies empty-handed.
SIR JOHN LUBBOCKdid not think it would be to the general advantage that Bills should be hung over from one Session to another, but he believed it would be a great boon to private Members if they were allowed to ballot on Tuesdays for Bills or Notices of Motion. The result would be that many valuable Measures in the hands of private Members would have some chance of passing, which was almost impossible under the present Rules.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of London had made a suggestion which he should, of course be glad to consider, although it was not strictly germane to the rule they were now discussing. It was undoubtedly the fact that only those private Bills that were not only uncontroversial, but so uncontroversial that no kind of opposition existed against them, had any chance of passing, and he was afraid there had been cases such as those alluded to by the hon. and learned Member for Louth in which Bills that were really quite unopposed had been, for one reason or another, objected to at 12 o'clock. One side of the House thought the other side had taken an unreasonable objection, and they directly retaliated by taking opposition to a Bill or Bills, and so the contest went on to the general injury of all concerned. It was inevitable that that kind of vendetta should be pursued, and the only suggestion he had to make was that great care should be taken that mere arbitrary objections should not be taken to Measures after 12 o'clock at night. Before he came to the criticisms and suggestions nearly connected with the Rules before them he ought to notice what fell from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dumfries. When the hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that a
840
Rule should be passed to carry Bills over from one Session to another he must have recognised the fact that there were no body of gentlemen in the House who would probably more object to that than private Members, in whose interests the change was proposed. He had always thought there was a great deal to be said for the change which was long ago advocated at great length by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Plymouth, but he believed it would be found that any Government who suggested such a plan would meet with very severe opposition from the first persons whom the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries desired to benefit—namely, the private and independent Members of the House. He would now leave these subsidiary questions and come to what was more revelant on the present occasion. The hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Seton-Karr) backed up by the Parliamentary authority of the hon. Member for North Islington (Mr. Bartley) had raised grave objection to what was called the time limit, which was part of the rule, and he suggested that the first part of the rule should be passed, and that referring to the time limit left out. This, it was thought, would be the better arrangement. But his hon. Friend must see that in making that request they were asking for a great deal. The Government in laying down a time limit did so in order that the rule should not be used as an instrument for obstructing legislation; for if there was no time limit—if that part of the resolution was deleted they might find themselves in August or September with a mass of the Supply undisposed of, and the time being occupied in delaying legislation. ["Hear, hear!"] That, he thought, would be a one-sided bargain. He recognised that the present or any other Government might be driven out of the rule, but the consequence of this would be that they would have to revert to the old system and cram Supply into the late days of August and September. They would really give the Government more power without a time limit than with one, as they could not force the hand of the Government to bring on Supply at their desire, for the Government could easily put off Supply by Votes on account until the months he had just mentioned. Of course he did not approve of that course

841
—of postponing Supply until the House had partly emptied itself, and when hon. Members were too exhausted to discuss any difficult question fully. ["Hear, hear!"] He admitted, therefore, that the rule might be passed without a time limit, but he urged that that rule as it stood tied the hands of the Government far more than the course for which the hon. Member for Islington contended, and even under the worse management with regard to Fridays it would be impossible to prevent hon. Members from discussing, week by week, the administrative shortcomings of the Government. The hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Lough) had remarked that he would like to see Votes on account left out of the rule. He doubted whether it would be wise to do so, but before definitely pronouncing on the point he should like to see how the rule worked for another Session. The hon. Member seemed to think that the necessity for Votes on account had something to do with the laxity, or bad arrangements of the Government. But that was not so. All Governments must take Votes on account in order to carry on the business of the country, and no skill on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Secretary to the Treasury, could possibly avoid the necessity. The hon. Member for St. Helens, referring to Tuesdays, had said with perfect truth, that questions could be brought on and discussed on those days under the old rule which it would be practically impossible to discuss on Fridays under the Estimates, and he referred to discussions on Tuesdays which had been of great value, and which had been calculated to bear fruit in the development of the policy of the country. That was true, and he should be desirous to preserve, as far as possible, a reasonable number of Tuesdays for the use of private Members, but private Members, as far as his experience went, constantly showed their appreciation of this privilege by having an early count and going home to dinner. [Laughter.] When his hon. Friend appealed to him that no Tuesdays should be taken before Whitsuntide he must surely have felt that he was making a request to which neither the present, nor any other
842
Government could possibly accede. But the Government had no desire to take more Tuesdays than was absolutely necessary. Last Session the Government adhered to this rule; Fridays were never interfered with except in respect of Government Bills, and he hoped that experience would be repeated. He hoped that under no provocation would the Government be induced to infringe the rule to take Supply every Friday during the Session. ["Hear, hear!"] While there was every desire to preserve Tuesdays as far as possible for private Members, that must be made subordinate to those private questions in which not only the Government, but large numbers of private Members were interested. His hon. Friend appeared to think that unless private Members were bringing forward or discussing some abstract resolution they were no better than blind animals, following blindly the direction of the Government or the Opposition as the case might be. That was not the view he took of the functions of a private Member. He was for many years a private Member, and he did not remember that he ever brought forward an abstract resolution on a Friday, and he repudiated the idea that during those years he was nothing better than a blind animal. [Laughter.] He thought it would be desirable in the course of the present Session to give some priority to those important Votes in Supply, winch were not discussed at great length in a previous Session, and if the House would consent for the purposes of Supply within reasonable limits, to regard two or three Sessions as one, these important Votes which had not been adequately discussed in a previous Session, might, in course of time receive the full attention of the House. [Cheers.]
SIR FRANCIS POWELLthought that after a Bill had passed the Second Beading and through the Committee stage, no single private Member should be allowed to oppose it on the Report stage, or on the Third Reading. This was the practice under the old Half-past Twelve o'Clock Rule, and did much to facilitate useful legislation.
Resolution agreed to.

SUPPLY.
Considered in Committee:—
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, Chairman of Ways and Means, in the Chair.]

SUPPLY.

  ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1896–7.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £255,300, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Capitation Grants and Miscellaneous Charges of Volunteer Corps, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897."
  MR. VESEY KNOXmoved to reduce the Vote by £20,000, which was approximately the Irish contribution to that sum. He took this course for this reason. This was a large Vote for the physical education of the English people, and there was no similar provision for the physical education of the Irish people. This Vote was placed among the Army Estimates, but they knew that that was not a correct description of the Vote. From the military point of view, no one could seriously contend that the Volunteers were a great advantage to the country.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSsaid the hon. Member would be quite out of order in discussing the general question on this Vote. The hon. Member must strictly confine himself to the limits of the items of the Vote which was now presented to the Committee.
  MR. KNOXsaid he saw the Vote related entirely to Volunteer Corps. These Volunteer Corps were entirely in Great Britain. There was not a single Volunteer Corps in Ireland, and he took objection to that distribution of Imperial expenditure. This expenditure was confined solely to one part of the United Kingdom.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: Order, order! That argument is applicable to the original Vote. It does not apply to this part. The hon. Member must confine himself strictly to this Supplementary Estimate. He must not discuss the general principles of Volunteers Corps or whether the money applied to Volunteer Corps should be applicable to Ireland or not. It does not arise on this Vote.
  MR. KNOXsaid he should postpone the greater part of his remarks until they came to the Army Estimates. On that occasion he should go into the whole subject. He wished merely to move, as a matter of protest, the reduction of £20,000. He wished to ask why it was that this extraordinary course was taken every year in succession, of presenting an enormous Supplementary Estimate for the Volunteers. He wanted to know why this payment, which was really made in April, should not be included in the original Estimate, and why there should be an entirely fallacious decrease shown on the original Estimate. Surely it was known that the Department would have to propose this additional sum before the close of the financial year? It was a false principle to proceed on the basis of first bringing in an estimate which they knew would not do them, and then bringing in this fresh Estimate, having got some sort of apparent credit for having kept their Army Estimates down. He saw nothing in the items of this Supplementary Estimate which could not in the ordinary course have been foreseen in the original Estimate that was set down by the Department. The present course was not, in a financial sense, being quite fair with the House. This Supplementary Estimate was vicious in principle, and it was entirely contrary to the financial principles which ought to guide that House. It was not right to cut down at the beginning of the year and to claim credit on a ground which they knew was baseless, and on these grounds he moved to reduce the Vote. They knew it was usually done; they knew it had become customary, and he would like to ask this simple question—whether it is contemplated by the Government to make this an exceptional arrangement, or whether they intended to repeat it year by year?
  SIR HOWARD VINCENTsaid he desired to offer his hearty thanks to the Government for the enormous deal they had done for the Volunteer Force. In reply to the hon. Gentleman opposite, he would like to ask how was it possible for the Government to foretell what was the number of efficients in the Volunteer year before that year was completed? The Volunteer year only ended on the 31st of October, and it was quite impossible for the Department to tell what would be the

  845
  number of efficients at the end of the Volunteer year, be was sure the Committee would be delighted to see the great increase in the number of efficients in the Volunteer Force, and the diminution of those earning the third-class grant. There was one point on which he would like to ask his right hon. Friend for information. That had reference to the matter of Sergeant-Majors of Volunteer Corps.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSsaid it would not be in order to discuss this matter, which was not included in the Vote.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENTsubmitted that there would not be a capitation grant at all without sergeant-majors.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSsaid it was not the capitation grant that came under discussion, only the Supplementary grant.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENTsaid he would not trespass further on the time of the Committee; he simply gave this indication of the desirability of giving attention to the matter.
  MR. LOUGHasked the right hon. Gentleman in his reply not to confine himself to meeting the argument advanced on behalf of Ireland, but to give some explanation of what this increase of the capitation grant meant. If it was to provide more efficiently for the Volunteers in order that they might be an economic substitute for the army, then he would be very glad to hear it. He would far rather vote for better provision for the Volunteers than add to the extravagance of the regular army.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid there was one item in the Vote he did not quite understand, and it seemed to him to be original, and if so, it raised a question of principle, and that was the additional capitation allowance for engineers efficient in submarine mining. As this stood, it would seem to be, not a continuation of the original Vote, but a new additional grant. All the other portions of the Estimate were continuations of the original Vote, but with regard to this item, as it was described, it looked as if it were not in the same category. He only wished to know whether any new method was to be adopted for promoting efficiency of engineers in submarine mining. His own idea was that this duty ought not to be
  846
  confined to engineers, but, should be entrusted to sailors. Did this involve a new grant?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,)said he thought, perhaps, the description was not the best that could have been chosen. The intention was that it should be a special allowance for efficiency in submarine mining. The fact was, engineers had to spend considerable extra time to make themselves efficient, and bad greater wear and tear of clothing than other Volunteers, and in consequence it was found extremely desirable at the ports to offer inducements to Volunteers to enter this particular service, and about ten years ago the War Office offered this special capitation allowance, enabling these corps to be kept up. His hon. Friend, who was continually taking the Navy under his charge, thought that sailors would do the work better, and he could inform him that sailors did undertake the work at some ports, and did it very well. As to the general criticisms offered by the hon. Gentleman opposite, there was nothing in the nature of that evasion the hon. Member assumed there was in presenting these Supplementary Estimates. The fact was, that last year about this time the Government asked Parliament to give the whole capitation grant to the Volunteers, in order to bring up to date payments they considered, in some eases, remained in arrear, and such, according to the War Department's view, were made in advance. The hon. Member was of opinion that the Volunteers began their year with the financial year, but the Volunteer year began in November, and consequently in paying them in April they were paid when live months of the year had run, and some of the officers said they were paid only half way through the year. For this reason, the Chancellor of the Exchequer assenting, and it being convenient, public funds permitting, the advances were made at a rather earlier period this year than in other years. There was no fetish about the 1st of April, and this was done in the present year because it was convenient to public funds, and there were economies also allowing it, and so it was arrange the payments should be made in January and February. It was, he understood, convenient to the Volunteers,

  847
  and there was no reason whatever why it should be withheld until the month of April.
  MR. KNOXsaid the right hon. Gentleman had not met the point raised. He could not see any reason why this should not have been estimated at the time the original Estimates were drafted. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, who invited him to join his regiment, took the ground that it was impossible to foretell how many Volunteers there might be to come in for these grants for efficiency, but he did not understand it was the view of the War Office that there was this extraordinary fluctuation in the Volunteer force. Their point was, that certain capitation grants were due on April 1, and they asked Parliament to allow them to adopt the course of paying them in the same year before April 1. That was a bad principle. If the Volunteers ought to get payment in February before it was absolutely due, then this ought to be done every year. The Volunteers were not more hard-up this than another year. Naturally they wanted it every year, and if there was a good reason for it then the payment should be made in advance every year. What would happen if this were not paid now, but allowed to go over? The payment would come into the new Estimates for a new year, and probably at the end of that year there would be another payment to meet because it was convenient, and working out this it would be found that the Volunteer Estimate for one year might be double what it was the year before. He did not suppose that would be done, for it was perfectly clear that if the Treasury adopted the principle of allowing payments to be made in advance they must follow it out every year, or there would be loud complaints from Volunteers of going back on the arrangement. It must have been known at the beginning of the year that this would have to be paid out before April, and therefore provision should have been made for it in the Estimates.
  MR. J. G. WEIRwas not at all satisfied, and did not think that a satisfactory reason had been given for not including this in the original Estimates. He was quite sure that if a board of directors in a commercial enterprise were to make such a blunder in an original estimate they would be bundled
  848
  out of office by the shareholders. Why did not the War Department conduct its affairs in a businesslike way?
  Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £235,300, be granted for the said Service."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 23; Noes, 127.—(Division List, No. 8.)
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (REPORTS OF MONEY COMMITTEES).
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYmoved:—
"That the Proceedings on the Reports of the Committees of Supply and Ways and Means and other Committees authorising the expenditure of Public Money may be entered upon at any hour though opposed, and shall not be interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order regulating the Sittings of the House, except of Standing Order No. 5."

MILITARY WORKS (MONEY).
Considered in Committee:—
[CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS in the Chair.]
MR. BRODRICKmoved:—
"That it is expedient to authorise the issue, out of the Consolidated Fund, of any sums not exceeding in the whole £5,458,000, for the expenses of certain Military Works and other Military Services, and to authorise the Treasury to borrow by means of terminable annuities, payable out of moneys to be provided by Parliament for Army Services, and, if those moneys are insufficient, out of the Consolidated Fund, such sums as may be required for the purpose of providing money for the issue of the above-mentioned sum of £5,458,000 out of the Consolidated Fund, or the repayment to that Fund of all or any part of the

849
sum so issued, and also to authorise the application of the Surplus of Income above Expenditure for the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1897, towards paying any sums authorised to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund for Military Works."
He said: I rise to renew the Motion made in this House in June last. On that occasion I briefly explained to the House the reasons which, in the judgment of the Government, made it necessary to ask Parliament to undertake certain urgent military services by loan. The House may, perhaps, desire that I should justify the proposal to proceed in this manner rather than through the medium of the annual Estimates, and it is desirable, for the benefit of those who may not have the past history of this matter in their recollection, to remind the Committee that the services proposed to be undertaken are such as it has been customary for the last 50 years to undertake out of capital moneys and not out of annual Estimates. ["Hear, hear!"] In 1854–6, at the time of the Crimean War, a sum of £860,000 was spent on building large camps for the extra soldiers then under arms. In 1860 Lord Palmerston and succeeding Ministers applied to Parliament for loans amounting to a sum of £7,460,000 in respect of forts and other defences round the coast. In 1872, Lord Cardwell carried out the Localisation of the Forces by an Act, under which £3,500,000 of capital money had been spent. In 1888, Mr. Stanhope, by the Imperial Defence Act, obtained £2,600,000 for the fortification of our Military Ports and Coaling Stations. In 1890 a sum of £4,100,000 was granted for the reconstruction of barracks, in consequence of the representatives before Lord Randolph Churchill's Committee that the condition of some of our barracks was a disgrace to the British nation. This last loan, I should mention, differed from those which preceded it, in that it was repayable, and is being repaid, by annual instalments charged on the Army Estimates. It is in pursuance of the policy accepted by Parliament in relation to the loans of 1888 and 1890 that we are now forced to come to Parliament again. There was no pretence at the time—as any reference to Mr. Stanhope's statement will show—that the loans then
850
granted represented a final or complete treatment of the services for which provision was asked. On the contrary, Mr. Stanhope, in introducing the Bill of 1888, spoke as follows:—
"It will be fully understood that the scheme now submitted does not pretend to be an exhaustive one, or to complete all the defences which the Military Authorities think necessary and desire to see carried out. What it does aim at is to carry out in the next three years, or in other words, as quickly as possible, all the most urgent of these defences."
He said: I rise to renew the Motion asked for by the Military Authorities amounted to £9,000,000; Lord Randolph Churchill's Committee vouched for the necessity of the service; and the amount voted by the House of Commons in 1890 was £4,100,000. We are thus brought face to face with the difficulty which we are asking Parliament to enable us to meet. Loans have been granted for the more urgent fortifications which could be carried out in three years, and for the barracks which it was estimated could be erected in five years. Those loans are now exhausted, and we are obliged to come to Parliament again. In the face of the above-named precedents, I do not know whether any question will be raised as to the course we propose to take of proceeding by loan. The advantages of this course are so overwhelming that if is not astonishing that Parliament has sanctioned it again and again. It is obvious in all matters connected with fortification or the renewal of barracks, that it is unwise and uneconomical to proceed haphazard. A recognised scheme must be drawn out. ["Hear, hear! "] Contracts must be entered into, and work proceeded with regularly from month to month. This is exceedingly difficult under annual Estimates. Money may be available in one year, and not in another, which causes postponement and delay. Even when money is available, no contract can be made for a fresh work till the Vote is passed by Parliament—an event frequently delayed till the best building months of the year are gone. When money has been voted and the building-commenced, a long frost in the winter may upset all calculations, and perhaps reduce the expenditure in the financial year by one-third, which money returns to the Exchequer, and the funds have,

851
in the following financial year, to be re-voted, this course possibly necessitating fresh taxation by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose provision for this service in the preceding year has been torn from him by the ruthless clutches of the National Debt Commissioners. [Laughter.] If we proceed by loan, all these inconveniences are avoided. Moreover, I submit that this process opens the most convenient channel for Parliamentary criticism. A scheme can be put forward as a whole; it can be discussed, modified, or rejected. Whatever is approved can then be carried out in the promptest and most economical manner. The Resolution to which we ask the Committee to assent is to the expenditure of £5,458,000. Of this sum £1,120,000, or about one quarter, relates to services in which the Navy has an equal interest, with the Army, if not a primary interest. I do not refer to the cost of guns or ammunition, which, being of a less permanent nature than the works, will be provided on annual Estimates. We have four classes of ports for which defence has been authorised by Parliament in the past. We have military ports, and naval bases at home of the type of Portsmouth, Plymouth, and Cork. We have to defend mercantile harbours, such as the Clyde, Forth, Dublin, Belfast, and the Bristol Channel. We have Gibraltar, Malta, and other fortresses abroad; and we have coaling stations in every part of the globe, which though fortified and manned by the Army, are maintained for the service of the Navy. The additions which are now proposed to the defence of these ports are due to two main causes. The first of these being the provision of works for medium and quick-firing armament, which has not hitherto been supplied, and the defences against torpedo-boat attack at our naval bases which has been strongly urged by the Admiralty. The second is that the large Admiralty works contemplated at Gibraltar have made it necessary further to strengthen the armament at that fortress, while the development of foreign power in the seas to the east of the Cape, make it incumbent on us to secure our ports in those seas against, such an attack as could be made upon them. ["Hear, hear!"] So far
852
we are asking Parliament for nothing except to make good a policy which it has already sanctioned. But we have been obliged, under urgent pressure from the Admiralty, to consider the fortification of four harbours at home, to enable trading ships to find protection on reaching our shores in the event of war, and to enable Her Majesty's fleet to act with greater freedom and activity in the Atlantic. These four harbours selected for their naval tactical character are Berehaven, Lough Swilly, Falmouth, and Scilly. Now, before I justify these proposals, I ought to make it clear to the Committee how these questions, which involve more than one of our two great services, are dealt with. Any question of defence or of combined attack which arises at the Admiralty or the War Office is referred for consideration to the Joint Naval and Military Committee on Defence, on which the Senior Naval Lords and two other Naval Members represent the Admiralty, while the Army is represented by the Adjutant General, the Inspector General of Fortifications, and the Inspector General of Ordnance. Their conclusions are considered by the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Secretary of State for War, who cither decide the question or, if its importance warrants it, as in the present instance, bring it before the Cabinet Committee, presided over by the Lord President of the Council, at which the Commander-in-Chief and the Senior Naval Lord are present. This system has worked with great harmony and smoothness, and the House, may rest assured that the proposals now submitted are founded on the best expert opinion, reviewed not only in principle, but in detail by the Cabinet Committee. The addition of quick-firing guns to the defences, and the further provision necessary against torpedo attack were put forward after exhaustive inquiry by the Joint Naval and Military Committee in 1892 and 1894, and the Government included them in this Bill when it was proposed to introduce it last year, because they felt that, with due consideration to the safety of the ports affected, they could no longer be delayed. [" Hear, hear!"] With, regard to the mercantile strategic ports named above, the Naval and Military Committee were unanimous in attaching a just importance to the

853
defence of these strategic naval positions. They reported in these words:—
"Berehaven and Lough Swilly are natural harbours admirably situated as strategic harbours on the verge of the open ocean. If defended they would not only afford a very considerable safeguard to our trade and commerce, but would enable Her Majesty's Fleet and ships to act with greater freedom and activity, confident in the existence of a coal supply at the very points where it would be wanted by vessels covering our trade and acting against hostile squadrons in the Atlantic. With the resources of these ports available, our ships would be able to chase further and would he placed at an advantage as to coal endurance compared with the ships of any nation to which we may be opposed. It is certain that the waters to the south and west of Ireland will receive much attention from an enemy seeking to injure our trade. Berehaven would save 180 miles of coal distance to Her Majesty's vessels cruising in the Atlantic. Lough Swilly is a most important point, especially for the American trade, which would in case of war pass round to the north of Ireland. Falmouth is required for a dispatch station. The Scilly Isles, connected as they are by telegraph with England, form a most important signal station. With a coal supply available at this spot, a fleet covering the channel could he kept coaled up ready at all times to chase in full strength."
Nothing that could be said from this Bench would add anything to the combined and deliberate opinions of our Naval Advisers on these points, but I would beg the Committee to notice that the sum it is proposed to vote to complete the defence of these ports and coaling stations all over the world will not in all absorb more than the price of a, single ironclad or than that of any two of the great Atlantic liners, which for the Jack of a single one of these protected harbours might become a prey to an enemy's cruiser on the outbreak of war. ["Hear, hear!"] The second heading of the Schedule, and pecuniarily the largest, is that for barracks and completion of large camps, on which we ask Parliament for £2,989,000. I do not propose to detain the Committee long on this head, because the question is one which is familiar to the House and to the country. In 1880 £9,000,000 were pressed upon us by the Military Authorities to meet the necessary amendments of barrack accommodation, and £4,100,000 was voted as immediately urgent. If I am asked to state why £9,000,000 were required, the answer is that for the first two-thirds of this century the housing of
854
the troops was greatly neglected, that there has been a, great advance of sanitary science in the last few years, and a general rise of the standard of accommodation for all classes of the population. ["Hear, hear!"] Moreover, there is a continuous and healthy pressure from this House that the Army, for the benefit of recruiting and for the credit of the country should be properly housed. ["Hear, hear!"] The sum now' proposed is necessary, first, to complete the replacing of wornout and unsanitary wooden huts at Aldershot, the Curragh, Colchester, and Shorncliffe. These were originally built to last 20 years, and although those erected at the time of the Crimean War were dealt with in 1890, those erected between 1855 and 1875 have far outrun their span of existence, and are most costly to maintain in repair. Next we have to provide for the increased garrisons at fortresses and coaling stations abroad, which have been pressed upon us by the Colonial Defence Committee or by the increases of garrison under successive Governments. We have also to build a cavalry barrack in Ireland, in place of Island Bridge Barracks, from which the troops have had to be withdrawn owing to typhoid fever; we have a Military hospital to build in London; we have to replace the barracks destroyed by fire at Winchester; and we propose to erect a large number of married quarters at various stations, in order to obviate the inconveniences which fall on a class on whom Military service often presses hardly. The details of the proposed expenditure under the head of Barracks will, as in 1890, be laid before the House in a schedule. So far I have been dealing with undertakings for which we have already received the authority of the House. I come now to the last head of the Loan—£1,149,000, the main items of which represent proposals of a, novel character. To these proposals I beg the special attention of the Committee. We have, however, in the first instance, to complete the arrangements for mobilisation for the defence of London, for which sums have been taken in the annual Estimates. The principle on which our troops will be employed for defence in case of invasion was drawn out ten years ago by the most eminent

855
soldiers of the day, and was then approved by the Government. The points at which the various army corps will be stationed for the immediate attack of an invading force have been clearly laid down. But it has been held that, apart from the Mobile Army and the recognised garrisons, London must be surrounded by defensive positions strongly held and fortified with artillery, as a second line of defence. ["Hear, hear!"] By this means alone can, the field army be given absolute freedom of movement, and have the security that a light column striking at London from some other point of the coast will meet with determined resistance. ["Hear, hear!"] These positions therefore have, after an exhaustive survey, been selected by trained officers, and approved by the Commander in Chief and Adjutant General. Since 1888, by successive votes of Parliament, 13 of these centres have been acquired; storehouses have been erected on several of them, and works commenced. The scheme, therefore, is in full working, and the expenditure hitherto has been about £68,000. A further sum of £96,000 is required mainly to complete the storehouses and the access to the works. The objects attained will be recognised by every Member of the House. Sites have been chosen deliberately instead of hurriedly; concentration at these sites has been worked out; the storehouses will contain the ammunition and entrenching tools assigned to the lines of entrenchments to be manned, and we shall thus carry further the decentralisation of stores. Ten years ago the stores were all concentrated at Woolwich; and it was estimated that it would have then taken six weeks to distribute the stores in the event of war. In addition to the more easy and expeditious distribution of stores, we shall moreover have the very large forces assigned to these positions so placed as to be available within a few hours, to be drawn forward to support the field army in any place where additional numbers are required. ["Hear, hear!"] Even at a distance of nearly a century it may be worth quoting the opinion given by the Emperor Napoleon as to the value of fortified
856
positions, especially in the case of the less highly trained troops:—
"At the time of great national disasters Empires frequently stand in need of soldiers; but men are never wanting for internal defence, if a place be provided where their energies can be brought into action. 50,000 National guards, with 3,000 gunners, will defend a fortified capital against an army of 300,000 men. The same 60,000 in the open field, if they are not experienced soldiers, commanded by skilled officers, will be thrown into confusion by a few thousand horse."
The last, but not the least pressing of our requirements which I have to bring forward is the provision for the training of the troops by means of ranges and of manœuvres. ["Hear, hear!"] The question of ranges in this densely populated country is becoming yearly more difficult. [" Hear, hear!"] We have to find means for Corps of the Regular Army, of Militia, and of Volunteers, to shoot every year. We could not of course undertake to provide ranges in every county or for isolated companies. But our proposal is to expend a sum of £500,000 in setting up ranges at various centres throughout the country—with, it is hoped, camping grounds attached to them—at which it will be the duty of the General Officer Commanding to see that every description of troops has the opportunity of firing during the year. [" Hear, hear!"] I am sure the Committee will agree that that is the only way in which we can meet this great national dilemma in regard to the provision of ranges. ["Hear, hear!"] I cannot, of course, indicate localities, but I can assure the House that cheapness and ease of access will be the primary considerations. The Military Authorities have also pressed upon the Government a further step which, subject to the assent of Parliament, we propose to take without delay. The difficulty experienced in training the troops owing to the absence of manœuvres was brought before the House last year. We have in all 400,000 infantry, cavalry, and mobile artillery in this country. In case of war a General would have to handle at least 100,000 men. But there is no ground at present in this country where a General can learn the tactical command of more than 10,000 men. We are therefore asking our Generals to go into action, each with one, of his arms tied behind his back—["hear, hear!"]—and the fact that the

857
House of Commons did not sec its way last year to pass the Military manœuvres Bill has rendered it more necessary that we should take steps to rescue our troops from their present hampered position as regards effective manœuvring. [" Hear, hear!"] Representations on this subject have been showered upon us by the Military Authorities. Lord Wolseley, the Commander in Chief, writes to the Secretary of State for War:—
"The regiments drill well and march past admirably, but neither the Generals, the Staff, nor the regimental officers are as well instructed in the practical side of a soldier's training as they should be. Our best officers know the theory well, but are sadly in want of experience in practising what they have learned from books. That experience they cannot obtain under existing circumstances in England, and I can see no prospect of their being as efficient as the nation expects them to be until they are annually given an opportunity of learning their work practically over a sufficiently wide extent of country. I think it my duty to impress on your Lordship, once more, the urgent necessity of purchasing a large and sufficient manœuvring area for the instruction of the home Army in the art and method of war."
Lord Roberts, than whom there is no officer who has had greater experience in India, and who is now Commander of the Forces in Ireland, writes in a similar strain of the absolute necessity for instructing the troops in manœuvring. Sir Evelyn Wood, Quartermaster General, writes of the difficulty at present of training the Transport Service, which is not the least important of the services of the Army. He says that extended manœuvres are absolutely necessary if transport is to be trained. The Duke of Connaught, who commanded the manœuvres this year at Aldershot, reported to the War Office that the space available at Aldershot in August was such that manœuvres were impossible, and that only tactical instruction could be given. Finally, I quote the opinion of General Luck, Inspector-General of Cavalry, who has had immense experience in the handling of cavalry, which no man in Europe or Asia understands better than he. General Luck says:—
"Nowhere in the United Kingdom where Cavalry are quartered is it possible to even drill a Cavalry division; to manœuvre one is quite out of the question. At Aldershot and the Curragh there is barely room to drill a
858
weak Brigade; no room to manœuvre one. At none of the other stations is there even room to practise a Regiment so as to fit it to take part in a Brigade. To send a large force of Cavalry on a campaign under inexperienced officers would be simply courting disaster."
Lord Lansdowne, with these opinions before him, felt that it was quite impossible to take the responsibility of ignoring these demands. We feel the necessity of holding from time to time such large manœuvres as those for which we asked for a Bill last year. But we hold, beyond this, that we ought at all times to be able to manœuvre our cavalry, and to give a reasonable force of infantry an opportunity of training. Having regard to the fact that at Aldershot and in the neighbourhood the value of land since our occupation of it has gone up four or five-fold, and that we cannot purchase land round there at anything like a reasonable price, we have been obliged to seek some manœuvring ground in some other quarter. For this purpose my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary (Mr. Powell-Williams) early in the autumn entered into negotiations for the purchase of a tract of land with a considerable number of landowners, with a view of obtaining a provisional agreement in case the step proposed should be approved by Parliament. We have commenced to enter on those agreements, and we have every hope that, as a considerable number of them are concluded already, we shall be able to purchase a tract of land amounting to 40,000 acres, or about 60 square miles, on Salisbury Plain—[Cheers]—a proceeding which will, at a cost of less than £450,000—not more, that is the extreme amount required—give us a manœuvring ground three times the size of any available at Aldershot. This site is pronounced by the military authorities to be admirably fitted for military purposes; it will give us a good rifle range, and may also enable us to do our artillery shooting-there instead of at the present distant ranges. As regards price, if it be thought that we are asking for a large sum, I should like to remind the Committee that the State of Wurtemburg alone about two years ago spent a larger sum in providing a manœuvring ground for cavalry. We should, therefore, be making a good bargain for the nation, and I think it would certainly be an

859
extraordinary thing if the British nation should refuse its troops the training which was pronounced necessary by all the military advisers simply because of this sum which we now ask for. I have desired to make it clear that the expenditure we ask for is of a permanent character. The fortifications which we propose to put up will be at places which always remain undefended; the barracks which we should substitute for these wooden huts ought to last for a hundred years; the land which we propose to buy will be a permanent and probably an increasingly valuable investment; and the sum which the Committee ask for for the whole loan will be repayable within 30 years. Therefore, we have not lightly entered upon this expenditure. There has been no time when the co-operation between Army and Navy has been closer than it is at the present moment. The heads of the two services are being constantly brought together, and the proposals, so far as they connect the two services, have the common consent of both. The Committee should remember that although large sums were voted for the Navy last year, we ought not to let our zeal thoroughly to equip the service on which we primarily depend prevent us from doing what is necessary to enable the Army to fulfil its functions. After all, an army besides its duties has its rights; every soldier who joins the service has the right to be housed fairly, and in a sanitary way—[hear, hear!"]—and every soldier has the right to get such training as will give him a fair chance with the soldiers of most foreign countries, and to know that he goes into action under Generals qualified to lead him. ["Hear, hear!"] We have asked for this expenditure because we think if is a sound and economical way of carrying on the work. I cannot conceive a worse economy than that we should vote 21 millions every year for the Navy, and not render impregnable the coaling stations on which the Navy depends for its utility, and in the same way I suppose we could not do a worse service to the country than to ask them to vote 18 millions for the Army and deprive our troops of the training which all foreign countries and every British officer considers necessary. Under those circumstances, having explained our motives, and having assured
860
the Committee that we are asking for the minimum sum which is considered necessary for military efficiency and national safety, I can only say that I look with confidence to receiving a verdict of the House of Commons in our favour. [Cheers.] He moved the resolution authorising the expenditure of the money necessary for the purposes of the Bill.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he should support the Resolution as a friendly critic. He felt regret that the Government were not able to proceed with the Military manœuvres Bill of last year, and thought that, considering the importance of the interests involved, they were not quite stern enough in their desire to carry it. ["Hear, hear!"] He thought the present expenditure ought to have been entered upon as soon as it was considered necessary. He dared say that many of his hon. Friends on that side of the House might differ from him in regard to the present Bill, but he doubted whether they would sec their way to oppose it as a whole. As to the proposal to proceed by way of loan, there was, of course, a great controversy as to this system applying to the Navy, but he thought there had never been any difference of opinion in regard to measures such as the present. There could be no doubt that fortifications, barracks, and coaling stations had been so dealt with on former occasions, and there could be no ground for a new departure on this occasion. He wished that for all proposals of this kind, for which the Defence Committee of the Cabinet was responsible, they could have an even stronger statement from the Government. He had noticed in Parliament this Session, and in speeches during the recess, signs that the authority of the Committee of the Cabinet presided over by the Duke of Devonshire was increasing, and was stronger than it was this time last year. It then seemed doubtful whether it had the authority it was desirable it should possess. The statement of the Under Secretary for War involved considerations of policy larger than the mere figures of some of the items. The first of the heads under which the right hon. Gentleman divided his speech concerned works which, although technically military, were, in fact, naval works for the benefit of the fleet in its maritime defence of the British Islands and the

861
Empire. He himself shared with the former First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton) the opinion that we should follow the example of foreign countries by taking out of the hands of the Army, which did not manage them properly, stations intended for naval purposes. The Army should not have the management of what was intended for the Navy. The example of almost all the military Powers of the world was against us on this point. An American gentleman, who had recently made a careful survey of the coast defences and coaling stations of the various Powers, had reported that our arrangements were primeval and antiquated. The naval stations of the other Powers were under the control of their navies, and this gentleman thought it a much wiser plan than ours. It was shown last year how the Army and Navy had thrown backwards and forwards, like battledore and shuttlecock, the garrisoning of the naval bases of the country. All these bases should be under the control of the Navy, as was the case in Italy, Prance, and Germany. The second head of the Under Secretary's statement covered the question of barracks. It was a question as to which past experience should make the House careful and prudent. He did not complain of the expenditure or its amount. But where barracks were built sometimes had an undue effect cm the disposition of forces. The localisation of our forces often depended on considerations which, when trace I out, came to the accident of where barracks had been built under former loans. Therefore the policy of barrack loans should be carefully watched, that they might not continue the evil system former barrack loans involved them in. The building of cavalry barracks in town had been fatal to the efficiency of cavalry, and they should follow the example of Belgium by stationing them where they could perfect themselves in their duties. The Under Secretary seemed to think the proposal in connection with forts for the defence of London was a novelty. His chief reason for supporting the Vote of £96,000 asked for for this purpose was that it was not a novelty. The forts were begun under the last Government but one, and continued under the last Government, It was an extraordinary
862
thing, considering the hundreds of thousands of Londoners who at least once a week walked about the hills where the forts were, that they should be unaware of their erection, but the policy of erecting the forts had never been discussed by the House of Commons. He did not believe a single word was ever said in the House of Commons on the point. On the panic argument alone the small expenditure the forts involved was worth incurring, for undoubtedly, if we got into a serious war the Admiralty would have to send the fleet about in a way that neither the public nor the Press would understand, and pressure would be brought upon them at a time when they would be unable to tell the public the reasons for what they were doing. The public would be more likely to keep their heads under dangerous circumstances of the kind if they thought there was something between them and invasion other than a fleet which might not be in the Channel at all. The defence of the country against invasion must always be, under any circumstances, a protecting fleet, and if the Channel should be clear in the sense of the seas being clear of the British fleet—not in the sense that it was a certain distance off attacking the enemy's fleet—than, he was bound to say he did not believe any military defence would save the capital from invasion. He agreed that it would be an improvement in our military system if the Volunteers were formed into brigade divisions and were placed under the command of men who thoroughly understood their work. One ground of objection that might be taken by some hon. Members to the Government proposal was that the cost of our military system of defence was enormous with an inadequate result, and that a great deal more might be done with the money. That was a point, however, that might be discussed more satisfactorily when the Army Estimates were under consideration. He, however, did not think that this particular Bill was open to attack upon that ground, and as he believed that most of the proposals it contained were sound he should be prepared to support the Measure.
SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid that he most heartily joined the

863
right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down in his appreciation of the clearness and frankness of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War. He was quite certain that there could be no misapprehension with regard to the right hon. Gentleman's statement. It was most unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman's speech should have been delivered at an hour when the House was nearly empty, because if the House had been full it would have facilitated the Debate and would have saved any hon. Member from entertaining any misapprehension in reference to the subject. With regard to the acquisition of land for ranges and military manœuvres it was clear that if we desired to have an efficient Army we must have the means of training, not only our soldiers, but also the generals who were to command them. The advance that had been made in recent years in the range of our weapons rendered it absolutely necessary that we should acquire land for the purpose of shooting ranges, and therefore he could not understand any persons raising objections to the purchase of the necessary land by the Government, unless they belonged to that class who objected to our having any army at all. He should be surprised if any arguments were put forward against that part of the Bill. With regard to the barracks which it was proposed to build, he did not think that the carrying out of the works should be intrusted to the Royal Engineers, who, able and cultivated men as they were, had not the experience necessary to enable them to properly construct such buildings. Indeed, the consensus of military opinion, rightly or wrongly, was that the Royal Engineers were the last in whose hands the carrying out of the arrangements and the spending of the money should be placed. Next in importance came the question of mobilisation in the neighbourhood of London. He thought that if it were necessary to spend this sum of £200,000 as a sort of soothing syrup to the nerves of the people of London to induce them to believe that if the money were expended they would be secure from attack, the expenditure might be justified. In his view, however, the scheme could not be regarded as forming any part of the general system of defence upon which we should have to rely. His right hon.
864
Friend was most particular in emphasising the fact that in other matters the Naval and Military authorities were agreed. Under the present Administration a great advance was being made towards unification of policy of the Naval and Military authorities, and he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman who had preceded him that the Defence Committee of the Cabinet was beginning to show signs of life. They could not separate the question of defending London from the naval question—they could not do it. They could not have troops coming over from Boulogne without raising the question of transport, and that raised the naval question, before a foreign army could be placed on these shores. Therefore he should like to ask his right hon. Friend whether he had full and entire consent of the Committee of the Cabinet. They must have the whole subject and the numerous questions involved approached in a practical spirit, and practical conclusions come to before they could say whether invasion was a bugbear or whether it was not. He should not labour that point any more, but he should say they had wasted money enormously in the past from having no fixed principle whatever. They came down one night and passed votes for the Navy, altogether disregarding other factors; and then on another night they voted money for the Army, as if no Navy existed. They were now trying to improve on that, and he hoped they would get rid of those mixed and confused notions, which cost so much and which landed then in a sea of difficulties. When he looked at the military question he looked at it from the point of view of military operations carried on over sea; and the first thing they had to see to was the efficiency of the British Army in connection with sea transport. If they were going to incur a large expenditure for the purpose of training their army, he did not see why they should not kill two birds with one stone, and give their soldiers transport training. He should have thought they could have got land, less costly than land near London, on the coast of Wales, Scotland, or Ireland, where the land was much less valuable than land in England. What he contemplated was organising a brigade every year, and landing it on some of these coasts, the land to be acquired by the State; then, after the training in

865
transport and other duties, bringing the brigade back again. He doubted whether the difference of cost would be very much, and he questioned whether the saving in land would not go a long way towards the cost of the sea transport. That very question of sea transport they could not get away from. It appeared in this matter they were still very much in the old rut. They looked on the Army and the Navy as abstract quantities, and until the Committee of the Cabinet came to be masters of the position and exercised that influence which they ought to exercise on the Admiralty and the War Office they could not say that they had arrived at a better state of things. One more point he wished to refer to—the amount demanded for fortifications by the Admiralty. He believed that if the Admiralty were responsible for the naval bases they would find that the naval bases could be secured from attack by a less amount being expended on fortifications than the military authorities thought necessary. They had the authority of the Defence Committee to say that the Navy undertook to secure all possessions abroad from organised invasion from the sea. That being so, all we had to protect our naval bases and coal stations against was predatory attack of a limited character. He was most anxious to know what increased garrisons this contemplated Vote would involve. He remembered hearing a Debate in the House of Lords when the programme was put forward, as a result of Lord Carnarvon's Commission, and the Duke of Cambridge then warned the country that they should be cautious as to what they did in regard to enormous fortifications, for, he said, they were making no provision respecting garrisons. He asked his right hon. Friend to say distinctly whether the £1,200,000 would be spent on fortifications, and what his estimate was of the increase of garrisons. If an increase of garrisons was intended, that meant an increase of the Army, and an increase of that portion of the Army which he believed was too big already—namely, that portion that was to sit down and wait until it was attacked. Every pound spent upon garrisons must be taken from the striking force of the Army, the part which had to go abroad to fight. He trusted the Measure would pass speedily through the House, but
866
confessed that, while he approved generally of the Bill, he, should feel it his duty to vole against the proposals in regard to the fortification of London.
MR. LOUGHviewed the proposals of the Government with considerable alarm, and thought such far-reaching suggestions as those laid before them somewhat suddenly might have been printed so that they could have considered them and been able to take a more intelligent part in the discussion than they could under present circumstances. When he read in the Queen's Speech:—
"Your consent will be asked to provisions which, in the judgment of the military authorities, are required for adding to the efficiency of the military defences of the Empire,"
he did not anticipate that those provisions would be introduced at so early a period of the Session, and he did not expect anything so bad as the reality proved to be. They were asked for 5½ millions sterling, one million of which was to be spent on making certain of the most remote harbours in the United Kingdom impregnable—that was the word used by the right hon. Gentleman—three millions on barracks, and 1¼ million on proposals which the right hon. Gentleman very properly described as novel. He objected to each one of those proposals. [Ironical cheers.] They were told there were only two men in favour of economy, the Leader of the Opposition and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Leader of the Opposition was not present—[Ministerial cheers]—indeed there was no one on the front Opposition Bench—[renewed cheers]—to give any guidance to those who sat around him. He was sorry to say, too, that the Opposition Benches generally were comparatively tenantless—[Ministerial cheers]—and that the Irish Benches were absolutely deserted the whole time the right hon. Gentleman was speaking. He was glad, however, to see present one of the two economists, the Chancellor of the Exchequer—[Ministerial cheers]—and he hoped they would hear a word or two from him. He objected to the effort to make the remote harbours impregnable. Hundreds of years ago martello towers were erected in remote parts to make the country impregnable. The attempt did not succeed.

867
If the attempt to make the coast, impregnable did not succeed, the Government would merely say, "We must make another effort." He wished the proposals of the Government had not been so large. For instance, they asked for no less a sum than three millions for barracks. It had been said that they had their duties as well as rights in respect to the soldier, and he sympathised with the remark, and thought they ought to make the soldier as comfortable as possible in his quarters. ["Hear, hear!"] But what he objected to was that the proposals were not put before the House on a more moderate scale. Had the Government come for a more moderate sum each year for barracks he should not have objected; but to ask for £3,000,000 at one stroke for the purpose seemed to him to be an extravagant demand. And what was worse was that, notwithstanding the large increase of expenditure, they had no security whatever of effectiveness. But the most novel and startling of all the proposals submitted was that referring to the fortifications of London. They had heard of 13 strong places to be erected round the Metropolis. To him the proposal was a startling one, and he should like to have some information as to where these fortifications were to be built.
MR. BRODRICK: I explained, on the line of hills round London. I am afraid I cannot make my meaning clearer to the hon. Gentleman. [Laughter.]
MR. LOUGHsaid that was not very definite. The line of hills round London embraced a circle of 120 miles; but what he wanted to know was where on those hills the 13 fortified places were to be erected. Was that the way the Government were going to expend money for the defence of the sea-coast? [Laughter.] Then it was proposed to spend half a million for rifle ranges although nut a word of explanation had been vouchsafed to the House why the expenditure was necessary. ["Hear, hear!" and Ministerial laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite might laugh, but many hon. Members on his side of the House, and the public outside, would demand further explanation than had been given on the point. Another half million was to be spent on providing training grounds for the troops, and it appeared that little
868
heed had been taken of the fear expressed by the people last year when the Military Manœuvres Bill was before Parliament, lest the country was going to be turned into a vast camping-ground for military purposes. ["Hear, hear!" and Ministerial laughter.] Again hon. Gentlemen opposite laughed, but the Bill was not passed. ["Hear, hear!"] The objection he wished to make was that this proposed expenditure was on too great a scale. For years they had been spending large sums on increasing the Navy, and many hon. Members had been induced to vote for this expenditure on the ground that by doing so they would save in that on the Army. He confessed that he was disappointed with the tone that had been taken by the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean on this point. The right hon. Gentleman had always supported proposals for strengthening the Navy, but he had always thought that the right hon. Gentleman did so on the ground that the Army was much too costly, and that they might save on the Army a very large portion, at least, of the extra sums spent on the Navy. ["Hear, hear!" and Ministerial cries of "Oh!"] The expenditure on the Navy was now £21,000,000 a year, instead of £12,000,000 twenty years ago. Now, the Government having wrung some money out of the country for the Navy, turned round in the other direction to get more for the Army; contending, not withstanding all that had been spent extra on the Navy, and the vast sums already spent on the Army that the country was still defenceless. At the present moment the amount expended on the Army was about £20,000,000 a year, and yet they had only a little army of 100,000 men—[Ministerial cries of "No, no!"]—he meant only an effective army of that number. France spent £25,000,000 on her army, but for that expenditure she secured an effective army of 600,000 men, with a practical reserve of over 2,000,000 men. He repeated that no security was given that, even if this large increase was granted, the country would have a thoroughly effective force. If judicious economy had been exercised the large sum granted for the Army last year might have been made to go much further than it had done, and in no administrative work of

869
the Government was the hand of economy needed more than in that of the Army. ["Hear, hear!"] In 1860 the total Vote for the Army was £14,750,000, and the force was 5,000 more than at present. It seemed to him, therefore, that the more they spent on the Army the less effective it became. ["Hear, hear!" and Ministerial laughter.] He looked with suspicion on such serious proposals of increased expenditure at so early a stage of the Session, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would adopt a suggestion which had been made and provide hon. Members with a paper giving adequate information, and would give them an opportunity of considering it, before launching definitely on this increased expenditure. ["Hear, hear!"]
GENERAL LAURIEsaid that in the matter of the proposed fortifications round London the Government were either going to do too much or too little. If they were going to build a few blockhouses round London they would lead the people to believe that there were fortifications on which they could depend. The experience of Paris did not commend itself as an example to be followed. He was very much afraid that they would be placing their dependence on these fortifications, and considering them rather than increasing the efficiency of their active forces. It seemed to him much more important to increase the efficiency of their Army than to devote themselves to fortifications. With regard to the proposal as to barracks, he must say he thought it was high time they did spend some money on them. The hon. Gentleman opposite complained that they were going to spend £3,000,000 at one time upon barracks, but he would point out that that was because they had been neglecting to spend money for so many years past. They had now to meet the neglect of all those years. He could not help thinking it was very desirable that they should purchase and own a ground for manœuvring. It was one of the great objections to Aldershot that after three or four years had been spent at that station everyone knew the ground and there was nothing fresh about it. If that was so, was there not the same danger if they purchased and had one fixed ground for training. While it was desirable to have a ground of their
870
own for training, was it not important that their troops should go over new ground every year, and that they should be trained on ground which was unknown to them. He was thoroughly with the Under Secretary in the matter of decentralisation. He had seen great confusion arise simply because instead of decentralisation, instead of the officer commanding the troops being able to make his own arrangements for his stores, separate and independent bodies dealt with those stores. Let them have decentralisation and their Army would be much more efficient.
MR. WILLIAM ALLANsaid it seemed to him that this money was requested on the assumption that forts were required for London. He held that the insular position of Great Britain rendered Great Britain practically invulnerable. Provided they could hold the seas, provided they could smash any fleet in the Channel or elsewhere with their fleet, there need be no fear of invasion. Then there was this point. No nation, he cared not what nation it was, could invade this country for the simple reason they had not got transport enough to carry the troops. Granted that their fleet was smashed up in the Channel what was their position? There was no need to invade the country at all. All the enemy had got to do was to block their ports and they would be "end up" in six weeks. They would be brought down to their knees by starvation. Grant that London was invested. He asked in all seriousness how long could they feed the population? He should have liked to see the Under Secretary bringing in something more practical. He quite agreed with the necessity of fortifications, but there was something far and away beyond that. Where were their national storehouses of food to feed their soldiers and their millions of inhabitants? They were beginning at the wrong end of the stick. He cared not for the money so long as it was for the safety of the Empire, but he held that a nation would go down if it could not feed its population and defend itself. He would have liked to see the advisers of the Under Secretary lay down a plan of large storehouses from which in case of invasion, they could feed the population. If they could not feed the population what was the use of their forts?

871
There would be no fear of invasion so long as we kept up a strong Navy and ample Naval reserves, though if it should come to pass that the nation generally had to take to soldiering, each man would shoulder his rifle and certainly make as good a soldier as the French conscript. But the weakness of Great Britain was that she could not supply national food for two months. What, then, was the use of spending all this money for forts around London? He did not object to spending money for necessary military works and barracks; he did not object to fortification of our coaling stations; indeed, he had advanced this in the House, and still thought that in the want of fortifications for our coaling stations was a source of weakness. But the military advisers of the Department were shortsighted in paying attention only to the southern coasts of England and Ireland. Why neglect the west coast of Scotland? Why not fortify some of those natural harbours we had—for instance at Mull, where a whole fleet could be hidden? Did not history tell of the not unsuccessful exploits of Paul Jones? As he had said before he said again—he knew no Party in this matter. ["Hear, hear!"] He had no objection to spending money to maintain the greatness of the Empire—he was a Radical Imperialist. ["Hear, hear!"] But the problem he commended to the consideration of the Department was how to provide national storehouses, how to feed our population in the event of a great war. ["Hear, hear!"]
COLONEL WELBY,as a practical soldier, realised the value of the announcement made by the Under Secretary and the grasp the right hon. Gentleman had shown of the requirements of the Army. Whether it be on his own initiative or as the mouthpiece of the Defence Committee, every practical soldier would be indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for his statement. ["Hear, hear!"] In his criticism of some of the details the hon. Member (Mr. Lough) seemed to have forgotten that new weapons had been invented that would carry three or four miles, and if the hon. Gentleman had any doubt of the range, let him spend his summer holiday two miles from these new weapons. As to the hon. Gentleman's remarks about martello towers, he should
872
be aware that these were never intended for more than the prevention of the landing of a small foreign force, and no more intended to make a coast impregnable than the military canal through Romney Marsh was intended to make New Romney impregnable. He was glad to find it was intended to use a large portion of Salisbury Plain for the manœuvring of troops. Undoubtedly it would be better to manœuvre on fresh ground each year, but the objections and difficulties in doing this were well known. They must get what they could, and though it might become well known, a space of 40 miles square would be a useful ground.
MR. BRODRICKexplained that he spoke of 40 square miles, not 40 miles square.
COLONEL WELBYsaid the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth wished to have money spent in embarking troops, but in his experience this did not require much training. It would be well if it were possible to train troops not to suffer from sea-sickness. The hon. Member for Gateshead had dwelt upon what no doubt was the great difficulty in defending London, the finding of food for the population. If London were completely encircled and the port closed by a fleet, London would be starved, perhaps in a fortnight, being such a large place. But he would point out that there was a strategical possibility of the invasion of this country. There might be a fleet or combination of fleets sufficiently strong not to hold the whole of the seas, but to block the two ends of the British Channel. With a fleet at each end the waterway would be free, and an army could pass from France into England and an invasion might take place, while the rest of the sea might be sufficiently open for large convoys of provisions to come in which would enable this country to struggle against the invaders for a few weeks. The result of that struggle, he believed, would be that the foreigner would be hurled back across the seas. He thought, with regard to the item for barracks, that the words which had fallen from the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, should be considered by everybody. He did not know that there was any other Member in the House who had such a wonderful and intimate

873
knowledge of the details of the army and navy, and of foreign armies and the larger principle of organisation. The right hon. Baronet had pointed out that this money, which was to be devoted to the defence of London and the building of barracks, should be expended in a systematic way. They had got no organisation at the present time. Surely it could not be that in this country they had got no organiser of sufficient capacity to work out a scheme to which they could look forward in the future. They could not perhaps, find all the money for carrying out the scheme immediately, but they could have the details and principles of it and work up to it. With regard to the spending of money on the fortification of London, the Under Secretary said that he looked upon it as part of a large scheme of decentralisation. He seemed to look upon it as a system of building some fortified camps round London which were going to be centres of organisation, and therefore, decentralisation of the present system. It seemed to him, however, not so much decentralisation as extension of the centralisation which existed at the present time. Whatever it be, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would look carefully into the question and see whether the money to be devoted to the defence of London and the building of barracks could not be spent in a systematic way. The problem of organisation was a difficult and complicated one to face, but there must be military advisers of the Crown who could work out a real system to which they could look forward in the future. If the money was spent with regard to such a scheme as that, he could only say that any objection which he had to this small amount of money being spent on the defence of London—he believed insufficient because it would only repel a very small invasion—would be instantly removed.
MR. WEIR,while congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on his statement thought it would have been much better had it been published and placed in the hands of hon. Members sometime before the discussion came on. He complained that the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers had not paid sufficient attention to the West Coast of Scotland, which was
874
in need of more adequate protection. An enemy's ships at the present time could very easily make an entrance through the North West Coast of Scotland. At present there was nothing to prevent an enemy's ships from gaining access to the Pentland Firth, and steps ought to be taken to strengthen the ports on the north west side of Scotland, so that they might be available for naval purposes. He was glad that provision was to be made for the erection of better quarters for our soldiers than wooden huts. Too many of the existing huts were insanitary, rotten, and worm-eaten. It was also well that there should be an improvement in married soldiers' quarters. He approved of the proposed expenditure on rifle ranges. Ranges for the new Lee-Metford rifle were wanted all over the country. If there were only a few such ranges, the cost of conveying men to the places where the ranges were situated would in the long run cost more than the £500,000 now asked for. The item of the proposed expenditure which was open to criticism, was the sum allocated to the defence of London. It was too small for effective purposes, and, instead of their present plan, the Military Authorities might just as well surround London with a number of ginger beer bottles filled with powder. To expend only £96,000 on the defence of London would be simply playing with the question. Effective defences would cost eight or nine millions. To prepare defences for London similar to those that existed round Paris at the time of the German siege would be of very little use.
Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

LAW OF EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL CASES.)
Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [21st January], "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Law of Evidence in Criminal Cases."—(The. Attorney General.)
MR. T. M. HEALYasked what were the intentions of the Government with regard to Ireland in these cases?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,)said he would consult the Attorney General for Ireland and the Chief Secretary as to whether any exception could be made in the case of Ireland.
Question put, and agreed to; Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Attorney General, Secretary Sir Matthew White Ridley, and the Solicitor General.
Bill presented accordingly, and Read the First time; to be Read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed.—[Bill 101.]

EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS (IRELAND) ACT (1885) AMENDMENT BILL.
MR. T. M. HEALY,in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, explained that it was intended to settle a difference which had arisen between two Judicial Commissioners of great eminence in Ireland as to certain intentions of a pious founder in an educational endowment. As the Act was at present drawn there were no means of settling this difference and bringing it to a close. He was quite willing to accept the suggestion that the difference between the two Judges should be remitted in the first place to the Irish Privy Council, a body which would have to settle the scheme finally. Rut in any case it was absurd to allow the Act to remain a dead letter. He moved that the Bill be now read a Second time.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,)said the Government were not opposed to the principle of the Bill. He was by no means certain that the method proposed for settling the question was the best that could be suggested, and he should reserve on the part of the Government the right after Second Beading to move extensive Amendments, and, if it should turn out that the Bill as it stood could not be amended in the sense the
876
Government desired, he should further reserve the right to oppose the Bill at a later stage.
MR. W. JOHNSTONwas sorry the Government had given its assent to the Second Reading. This was another attempt to meddle with Protestant endowments in Ireland. Erasmus Smith made a certain endowment for a number of Protestant children in Ireland, and the matter was before two eminent Judges, the Protestant Judge taking one view and the Roman Catholic Judge another view, and the result was that the endowment remained as it was originally intended by the will of the founder. He trusted the Government would pause before they inflicted another blow upon, and fresh discouragement to, the loyal people in Ireland who had done their utmost to uphold the union and integrity of the Empire.
Bill read a Second time and commited for Monday next.

UNLAWFUL POSSESSION BILL.
Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question proposed [26th January.] '"That the Bill be now read a Second time."
Question again proposed.—Debate resumed.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid the Bill contained a dangerous principle, because it proposed to change the Criminal Law, and that without discussion in the House. It introduced for the first time, with perhaps one exception, the principle that a man must prove his innocence; whereas the cardinal principle of the English Criminal Law was that every man charged with crime must be taken to be innocent until his guilt had been proved by process of law. The possible exception to this cardinal principle was a recent decision of the Judges to the effect that once it has been proved

877
that any property has been stolen, then if anybody is in recent possession of it, the duty is cast upon him of showing how he came into such possession. That was a sufficient safeguard against any crime on the part of a receiver, but here it was proposed, not by the Government but by a private Member, that before anything was proved to have been stolen at all, anybody might be charged, with having in his possession or conveying anything which might be reasonably suspected of being stolen or unlawfully obtained, and without appeal, sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The Bill also imposed a penalty on anyone who might be reasonably suspected of having "unlawfully obtained" goods. Where were those words to be met with in the criminal law? It was only under the game laws that a man could be punished under suspicion; and it was too much to ask the House nowadays to extend the principle of legislation passed when every Member of the House was a game preserver. To read the Bill a Second time would be to affirm an objectionable principle, which could not be eliminated in Grand Committee. He hoped the Attorney General would say that this dangerous amendment of the criminal law ought not to be made on the motion of a private Member.
SIR BENJAMIN STONEsaid that this was not a new enactment. The provisions of the Bill were already in force in Manchester, Liverpool and other large towns. It was simply convenient to make the law of general application.
MR. REES DAVIES,said that he had been asked by the chief constable of his county to communicate with the hon. Gentleman as to the provisions of the Bill. But unless the Bill received the assent of the Attorney General it would be extremely dangerous for the House to give to it a Second Reading, as it involved a serious change in the Criminal Law of the Country. The onus of proof was shifted from the Crown to the prisoner. It would very
878
much enlarge the powers of the police, and might render possible a system of police espionage—he invited the Attorney General to give his opinion on it.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid that he was not satisfied that this was an amendment of the law which ought to be made at the instigation of a private Member. He had always held that alterations of the criminal law ought to be made on the responsibility of the Government. But, on the other hand, what the Bill proposed was already the law in London, Liverpool, and other towns, and it was supposed by the promoters that there was a need for the extension of that law. He did not approve of the drafting of the Bill; but the Home Secretary had promised to consider this subject to see if an alteration of the law were desirable; and certainly, by reading this Bill a Second time the Government would not be bound to assent to the principle of the Measure.
MR. W. E. M. TOMLINSONthought it startling to be told that in London and other towns, by means of private Acts, clauses had been inserted which really gave a scope to the criminal law wider than that of the general law of the land. The introduction of a Bill of this kind showed the need that existed for exercising a close watch over the Bills introduced by private Members which proposed to make changes in the law. Unless that strict scrutiny was observed it might happen that different towns would have different codes of law.
MR. LOUGHthought that hon. Gentlemen opposite ought to take care that their Bills were in a proper shape before they submitted them to the House. But the Attorney General had not only condemned the bad drafting of the Bill, but laid down two propositions—first, that the principle of the Bill was one that the House should not be asked to accept hastily; and secondly, that it was not right that a Bill proposing a change in the law should be introduced by a private Member. These were weighty pronouncements, and he wondered they

879
had not led to the immediate withdrawal of the Bill. They had had some experience in Ireland of persons being prosecuted on suspicion. It was now proposed to introduce that principle into England and Wales. It was very difficult for anyone to get through life without being suspected of something or another. [Laughter.] Even hon. Members were constantly suspected of having bad motives behind everything they did. [Laughter.] He therefore thought the Bill was one that should never have been introduced.
MR. REGINALD McKENNAsaid the only point that had been made on behalf of the Bill was that it would make the law uniform all over the country—that the main clause of the Bill already existed in many local Acts. But that was not quite correct. When the Committee on Police and Sanitary Regulations passed the clause in respect to London, they knew that any cases that might arise would come before the police magistrates. In this Bill the authority was not a police magistrate, or a stipendiary magistrate, but it applied to all cases which might come before an ordinary justice of the peace. By it a working man who was walking along a country road with a hare in his hand might be suspected by a policeman of poaching, and taken before a justice of the peace whose property had recently suffered from poaching depredations. In this way the workman, who might have bought the hare from a friend—[laughter]—might be unjustly and summarily convicted and sent to prison.
MR. PATRICK M'HUGHsaid it appeared to him this Bill introduced a rather extraordinary innovation in criminal law.
MR. DUNCOMBErose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but MR. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put the Question.
MR. PATRICK M'HUGHsaid the hon. Member for South Tyrone, in last October, told them that he would not like to see Ireland in the position of Lazarus, appealing for crumbs at the gate of Dives. Was this crumb to be refused to Ireland? If it were as good as its supporters said, why not extend it to Ireland? He held it was a bad Bill. They knew a great deal about reasonable suspicions in Ireland, and many people in that country had been unreasonably suspected and had served long terms of imprisonment under the Coercion Act. What was unjustly enforced in Ireland might be unjustly enforced in England. Many people would not be able to explain how they got possession of certain articles which were found upon them. It would be impossible for the people of this country to be sure that great injustice would not be done in many instances, as they would have to rely on the discretion of the policeman. The discretion of the police in Ireland was sometimes very small, but small as it was it was superior to that of the police in this country, as the Celtic race was admittedly superior to the Saxon in intelligence. [Laughter.] He ventured to think that some of the rural justices before whom these cases would come were rather stupid and they were a selfish class. He appealed to the hon. Gentleman opposite not to do away with the right of a citizen to be tried by twelve of his peers. [Ministerial laughter.] It was the right of every freeborn citizen to be deemed innocent until he was proved to be guilty. It was not a right they had always enjoyed in Ireland. But a discussion of affairs in Ireland would not be germane to the Motion. [Ministerial laughter.] It would be a fatal blow to the recognised rights of citizens of this Empire if, by a Bill of this kind, the liberty of the subject were left to the discretion of a policeman or a rural justice. He was surprised that a Member of the Party which were supposed

881
—wrongfully in his own opinion—[laughter]—to be the bulwark of law and order should get up and try to force through a Bill like this in opposition to the opinion of the English Attorney General. What was the good of having an Attorney General—[loud Ministerial laughter]—and paying him a large salary; also a Solicitor General? [Renewed laughter.] Why should the country be asked, and the Irish people especially, to contribute to the sustenance of these gentlemen, when they found, on a grave and vital question such as this, the opinions of those grave and learned seignors—[loud laughter]—were not accepted by their followers?
MR. FORTESCUE FLANNERYrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.—Debate resumed:—
MR. PATRICK M'HUGHsaid that, supposing he had in his possession a box of cigars or cigarettes he did not wish to account for—[laughter]—was he to be hauled before a magistrate because a policeman took it into his head to unreasonably suspect him? [Renewed laughter.] The policeman might not be able to understand the position in which he found himself, and he might be sent to the common gaol. If this Bill were passed many respectable men and ladies—[laughter]—might be sent to the common gaol, and—
MR. J. W. MACLURErose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.—Debate resumed.
MR. PATRICK M'HUGH: And compelled to associate with burglars and wife beaters. It would be a disgrace to the House and to the party of law and order if such a Bill were passed.
The hon. Member was speaking at Twelve o'clock, when the Debate was adjourned.
Debate to be resumed on Monday next.

SHOPS (EARLY CLOSING) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS (HOUSE OF COMMONS) COMMITTEE.
SIR WILLIAM WALRONDmoved:—
"That a Select Committee be appointed to control the arrangements for the Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms, in the Department of the Serjeant-at-Arms attending this House; that the Committee do consist of 17 Members; that Mr. James Bailey, Mr. Broadhurst, Mr. Richard Cavendish, Mr. Cochrane, Mr. Thomas Curran, Mr. Horatio Davies, General Goldsworthy, Mr. Jacoby, Mr. Kearley, Mr. Lafone, Mr. Llewellyn, Colonel Lockwood, Mr. Macdona, Mr. Lloyd Morgan, Mr. P. J. Power, Mr. William Redmond, and Lord Stanley, be Members of the Committee."
SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid that he wished to put a question to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General with regard to what the hon. and learned Gentleman himself had declared to be the illegal practice of selling intoxicating liquors at the liars in that building. He wanted to know what had been done with regard to the matter since the hon. and learned Gentleman had made his statement on the subject, when he informed the House that he had looked into the law relating to it, and had found that the sale of drink at the bars was thoroughly illegal. That was a week ago, and yet he had not heard of anybody having been arrested and taken before the Court. Neither had he heard that the Inland Revenue had taken any proceedings in the matter. It was not right for this sort of thing to be allowed to go on without there being any legal right to sell drink in the building. He wished to know what was going to be done in the matter.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,)said that the statement of the hon. Baronet was quite correct, and he could only

883
repeat what he had already said—namely, that as the sale of liquor in the House was now carried on it was not according to law, but he said it was obvious that no action could be taken in the matter until the Kitchen Committee was appointed. Several courses would be open to them. They might say it was desirable to confine the sale of liquor in the House solely to Members of the House, in which case a very large question would arise in point of law. They might, however, think it convenient that liquor should be sold to witnesses and others attending the House, and come to the conclusion that the existing practice, which had been working for upwards of 60 years, should be legalised. And again, they might decide to make a change with regard to the way in which the sale was carried on. The matter had not been overlooked, and he was in communication with the Home Secretary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and some of the proposed members of the Committee with regard to it.
Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to control the arrangements for the Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms in the department of the Sergeant-at-Arms attending this House.
Ordered, That the Committee do consist of seventeen Members.
The Committee was accordingly nominated of,—Mr. James Bailey, Mr. Broadhurst, Mr. Richard Cavendish, Mr. Cochrane, Mr. Thomas Curran, Mr. Horatio Davies, General Goldsworthy, Mr. Jacoby, Mr. Kearley, Mr. Lafone, Mr. Llewellyn, Colonel Lockwood, Mr. Macdona, Mr. Lloyd Morgan, Mr. P. J. Power, Mr. William Redmond, and Lord Stanley.
Ordered, That Three be the quorum.—(Sir William Walrond.)

INDUSTRIES (IRELAND).
Bill to afford facilities for the establishment and development of Industries in Ireland, Ordered to be brought in by Mr. T. M. Healy, Mr. Patrick Aloysius M'Hugh, Mr. Lough, and Mr. Knox; presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday, 10th March, and to be printed.—[Bill 102.]

BRITISH TRADE AND FOREIGN COMPETITION.
On the Motion for the Adjournment of the House,
SIR HOWARD VINCENTasked the President of the Board of Trade how it was that the Report on British Trade and Foreign Competition, prepared by Sir Courtenay Boyle, the Permanent Secretary to the Board of Trade, on "The Comparative Statistics of Population, Industry and Commerce in the United Kingdom and some leading foreign countries," which was laid yesterday upon the Table of the House, had appeared in The Times of that day, while hon. Members were unable to obtain a copy? He wished also to know when the Report would be in the hands of hon. Members.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,)said that he did not know how the Report came to be published in The Times. Had he sent out the Report he should have seen that it was sent to all the newspapers. He was unable to say when the Report, which was in the hands of the printers, could be furnished to hon. Members, but no time would be lost in the matter.
Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at Ten minutes after Twelve o'clock till Monday next.