Sitting of 7 March 1898

Preamble
MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER took the Chair at Three of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILLS.
MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 62 has been complied with, viz.:—
NORWICH ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS BILL.
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
DEVONPORT, PLYMOUTH, AND STOKE TRAMWAYS BILL.
Read a second time, and committed.
LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY BILL.
Read a second time, and committed.
LANCASHIRE, DERBYSHIRE, AND EAST COAST RAILWAY BILL.
Read a second time, and committed.
PLYMOUTH AND STONEHOUSE GAS BILL.
Read a second time, and committed.
SHEFFIELD DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL.
Read a second time, and committed.
TURNCHAPEL WHARVES AND WAREHOUSES BILL.
Read a second time, and committed.
PETITIONS.
  EAST INDIA (CONTAGIOUS DISEASES).
  From Apperley Bridge (3), against State regulation; to lie upon the Table.
  FOOD ADULTERATION.
  From Chaddesley, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  HABITUAL DRUNKARDS.
  For alteration of Law, from Salford and Great Yarmouth; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  In favour; from St. Leonards, Bradford, Dewsbury, Tyholland, and St. Anne's-on-Sea; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, ETC.
  BANKRUPTCY COURTS (IRELAND).
  Annual Returns presented, of the Official Assignees of the Court of Bankruptcy in Ireland and the Local Courts, Belfast and Cork, for the year 1897 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  MILITIA ACT, 1882 (DEPUTY LIEUTENANTS) (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Return of descriptions of qualifications of Deputy Lieutenants lodged during 1897, as furnished to the Chief Secretary for Ireland [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  SOANE'S MUSEUM.
  Copy of Statement of the Funds of the Museum of the late Sir John Soane on 5th January, 1898 [by Act]; laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House.
  NAVAL EXPENDITURE AND MERCANTILE MARINE (GREAT BRITAIN, ETC.).
  Return ordered, "showing Aggregate Naval Expenditure on Seagoing Force; Aggregate Revenue; Aggregate Tonnage of Mercantile Marine; Annual Clearances of Shipping in the Foreign Trade; Annual Clearances of Shipping in the Coasting Trade; Annual Value of Imports by Sea, including Bullion and Specie and Transhipment Trade; and Annual Value of Exports by Sea, including Bullion and Specie and Transhipment Trade, of various Countries, including British self-governing Colonies, for the year 1897 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 416, of Session 1897)."—(Sir John Colomb).
  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to amend the Law with respect to Bail." [Bail Bill.] [Lords.]
QUESTIONS.

  THE ORGANISATION OF THE VOLUNTEER FORCE.
  COLONEL SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the fact that, under the proposals of Her Majesty's Government, two Army Corps, which will include the bulk of the regular Cavalry regiments, Artillery batteries, and Infantry battalions at home, will be immediately available for foreign service, and that it is proposed to make a considerable part of the Militia also available for foreign service in time of war, and that, consequently, the defence of the United Kingdom will be left mainly to the Volunteers; if it is intended to make serious effort to organise this force for rapid mobilisation in more workable divisions and brigades than at present exist, with a proper complement of Artillery, Guns, Cavalry, and Auxiliary services, and at the same time provide for the efficient command of all units, the amalgamation of weak or under-officered regiments, and for the due training of all arms by the provision of adequate camp accommodation, drill grounds, and rifle ranges.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. W. ST. JOHN BRODRICK,): It would be impossible for me to answer my hon. and gallant Friend's queries within the limits of a reply to a Question. The organisation of the Volunteers for home defence has been steadily progressing, to enable it to fulfil all the duties that may devolve upon it in the case of an apprehended invasion of the country; and our efforts in this direction will not be relaxed.
  COLONEL SIR HOWARD VINCENT: What I want to know is, whether this matter, the organisation of the Volunteer forces, has been seriously taken in hand?
  MR. BRODRICK: It certainly has been seriously considered. The Volunteers have been brigaded with a view to their employment, and the position the Volunteers will hold in case of invasion has been constantly stated. When my hon.

  825
  Friend raises other important questions in his Question he is assuming a little unduly that no attention has been paid to the subject.
  COLONEL SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I shall call attention to the subject on the Estimates.

  CABLE OF H.M.S. VICTORIOUS.
  SIR EDWARD T. GOURLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can state how many anchors (and of what description), together with the length of cable, were lost from H.M.S. Victorious when on shore outside Port Said; also when and where the anchors and lengths of cable are to be replaced; has the hull outside been examined by divers below the water line; if not, how is the damage, if any, to be ascertained; and, can the vessel be docked at Singapore or Hong Kong; if not, is it intended to seek permission to dock at Port Arthur?
  The FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN,): It is presumed that the Victorious recovered both her anchors and cables before proceeding through the Canal, as no report to the contrary has been received. The captain reported the ship in every respect in an efficient condition before leaving Port Said, but it was not stated how the examination was carried out. The vessel can be docked at Hong Kong.
  SIR E. T. GOURLEYwas understood to ask if it were intended to bring home any portion of the broken cable in order to have it tested?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: I have no information on that subject.

  WITHDRAWAL OF THE POLITICAL OFFICER FROM THE KHYBER.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if an inquiry is to be held into the circumstances which
  826
  led to the withdrawal of the political officer from the Khyber in August last, and the refusal to support the Khyber Rifles by reinforcement from Peshawar?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): The circumstances which have been reported to me in connection with this transaction show that the withdrawal of Captain Barton was only ordered after the military authorities on the spot decided that troops from Peshawar could not be pushed up the Khyber Pass, and the withdrawal was subsequently approved both by the local and supreme Governments. I do not propose, therefore, to institute any inquiry into this particular transaction, but in considering the arrangements which will be sent home from India for the future safeguarding of the Khyber Pass I shall take the opportunity of laying down what should be the principles governing the relations between tribal levies and their officers, so as to make clearer for the future the action to be taken at times of emergency.

  CADET BATTALION, KING'S ROYAL RIFLES.
  COLONEL WYNDHAM MURRAY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that 200 of the establishment of the Cadet Battalion King's Royal Rifles are supplied with obsolete and unserviceable Martini-Henry carbines without swords; and that this number are, in consequence, unable to take part in parades or class firing; and whether sufficient serviceable Martini-Enfield weapons with swords can now be provided to complete the armament of the whole battalion?
  MR. BRODRICK: Under the regulations, Cadet Battalions are entitled to serviceable arms up to 50 per cent. of their strength for members who are old enough to carry out rifle practice, and to unserviceable arms suitable for drill purposes and for firing blank ammunition for the other half of their strength. Sufficient serviceable weapons are issued to Cadet Battalions to enable them to carry out ball practice. The remaining

  827
  weapons issued to the Corps are Martini-Henry carbines, for which a bayonet will shortly be provided. The action and general appearance of these weapons are similar to those of the Martini-Enfield carbines, and it is considered that they can be used together on parade.

  IRISH PARLIAMENTARY REGISTERS.
  MR. P. J. POWER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will have the register of voters entitled to vote in counties under the provisions of the Local Government Bill for Ireland arranged (instead of the present system now used in preparing the register for Parliamentary voters in counties) in the following order:—In counties and county divisions the townlands in each polling district of each Parliamentary division shall be placed in alphabetical order, and the names of the voters in each townland shall be placed in alphabetical order; in towns comprised in counties and county divisions the names of the streets in each town in each polling district shall be placed in alphabetical order, and the names of the voters in each street shall be placed in alphabetical order; and whether he will consult the clerks of the unions who now prepare the register of Parliamentary voters as to the advisability of the change?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): On the registers of counties, voters are arranged alphabetically for each polling district in order to facilitate voting at the election, and this plan serves its purpose effectually. The proposal of the hon. Member would lead to loss of time at elections, townlands being so numerous, and the areas and populations in many instances being so small, and, moreover, in the event of a rated occupier's qualifying premises extending into several town-lands, inconvenience would be caused if he were doubtful in which he was registered. The new Registration Bill will substitute electoral divisions for polling districts, and will go as far towards meet-
  828
  ing the hon. Member's suggestion as it is proper and reasonable to do without sacrificing the convenience of the general public.

  BRITISH LOSSES ON THE NORTH-WEST FRONTIER.
  MR. C. P. B. MCLAREN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is now able to state how many officers and men of the British forces engaged in the Indian Frontier operations have died of their wounds or of sickness, in addition to the 499 stated by him to have been killed in action; and whether he can say if any considerable proportion of the wounds were probably inflicted by Dum-Dum bullets or other projectiles of English manufacture?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: The total casualties from 10th June, 1897, to date are: Killed, including those who have died of wounds—British officers, 44; British non-commissioned officers and privates, 136; Native officers, 6; Native non-commissioned officers and privates, 320—total, 506. Wounded, not including those who have died of wounds—British officers, 93; British non-commissioned officers and privates, 404; Native officers, 36; Native non-commissioned officers and privates, 845;—total, 1,378. Died of disease: British officers, 10; British non-commissioned officers and privates, 250; Natives of all ranks, 220—total, 480. It is not possible to state how many of the casualties were caused by any particular kind of bullet.

  BONDS IN THE POSTAL SERVICE.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the recommendation of the Tweedmouth Committee that bond giving should be abolished in the case of pensionable Post Office servants has been considered, and with what result?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): The matter has been considered by the Postmaster General, who has recently made proposals to the Treasury on the subject. Speaking for the Treasury, I may add that the recommendation of the Committee is in general accordance with the policy pursued by the Treasury in recent years in dealing with the question of bonds as it has arisen in other than Revenue Departments. The latter Departments, however, stand to a great extent in an exceptional position, and the matter is receiving very careful consideration in connection with bonds, not only in the Post Office, but also in the Customs and Inland Revenue. The Treasury is averse to deciding upon the application from the Post Office before it is in possession of the views of the Customs and Inland Revenue on the subject as it affects their own officers.

  BRIDGET STEPHENS AND THE TIGHE ESTATE, COUNTY MAYO.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that a sum of £1,900 was, on the representations of Father Stephens, P.P., granted, through the Congested Districts Board, to Bridget Stephens, to enable her to purchase in the Land Judges Court portion of the estate of Mr. John Edward Tighe, at Coarsefield, in the congested district of Cloghermore, county Mayo; and that the tenants on this portion of the estate wished to become the purchasers of their holdings, and instructed Father Stephens, their parish priest, to take the necessary steps on their behalf; whether he is aware that the Mrs. Stephens, to whose credit this £1,900 was paid into Court on the 23rd of August, is a relative of the Reverend Father Stephens, and that there is much discontent amongst the tenants, who allege that they were deceived, and their homes purchased under false pretences over their heads and without their knowledge; whether he has received a memorial from the tenants; and whether, under the circumstances, he will
  830
  stay the issue of the £1,900 to Mrs. Stephens and investigate the case with the view of giving the tenants the option of purchasing their farms?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am informed by the Registrar of the Land Judge's Court that on the 16th July, 1897, Mrs. Stephens was declared the purchaser of the lands referred to, and that she paid the purchase money into Court the following month. No advance out of the public funds was made either by the Land Commission or by the Congested Districts Board in respect of this transaction.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Has the right hon. Gentleman received a memorial from the tenants?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes, Sir.
  MR. M. DAVITT: Has he made any representations to the rev. gentleman?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: As there has been no advance out of the public funds I could do nothing.

  H.M.S. POWERFUL.
  MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the total quantity of coal taken on board H.M.S. Powerful before leaving Spithead for China; the quantities taken on board at Las Palmas, the Cape, Mauritius, Colombo, and Singapore; and the total cost of the whole; and how long she took to cover the distance between Mauritius and Colombo?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: The total quantity of coal taken on board by the Powerful when leaving Portsmouth was 2,796 tons; she shipped at Las Palmas 800 tons, the Cape to Hong Kong was about 8,300 tons, at Colombo 2,115 tons. Her total estimated consumption of coal during the voyage to Hong Kong was about £8,300 tons, at a total estimated cost of about £11,000. The hon. Member will understand that the figures for the consumption of coal which I have given are for all purposes, but as to the appropriation of the consumption between propelling and

  831
  auxiliary machinery it is not possible to form any definite conclusion until the Engine Room Register has been received. As I stated in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for the city of York, the bearings became heated during the steam trial, after leaving Mauritius, and the brasses were injured; consequently, for five days one engine was under repair, and the other working at slow speed. She took 10 days in the passage to Colombo.
  MR. ALLAN. What was the total quantity of coal?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: 8,300 tons.

  MAJOR-GENERAL KINLOCH.
  MR. E. W. BECKETT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the sole reason for cancelling Major-General Kinloch's command of a first class district, subsequent to the Chitral Expedition, consisted in his having written a letter to Sir R. Low, in which he pointed out the difficulties in the way of the contemplated Forward movement towards Chitral, such communication having been made confidentially and by special permission of Sir R. Low?
  MR. BRODRICK: Perhaps my hon. Friend will permit me to answer this question. In 1895, the late Commander-in-Chief, after the fullest consideration of Major-General Kinloch's case, as reported by the Commander-in-Chief, India, decided that it was undesirable to retain that officer in command of a first-class district. The Secretary of State declines to re-open the question.
  SIR LEONARD LYELL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there is any precedent for a responsible officer making a confidential communication of this sort and being condemned for so doing?
  MR. BECKETT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in consequence of these representations made by Major-General Kinloch, considerable alterations and modifications were introduced into the plan of operations; and whether the
  832
  cancellation of Major-General Kinloch's command does not amount to casting a serious slur on that officer's reputation?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is commenting on the answer.
  MR. BECKETT: Will the right hon. Gentleman make further inquiry into the matter?
  MR. BRODRICK: This case was decided three years ago, and has now passed beyond the phase of inquiry. Full inquiry was certainly made at the time, through officers responsible on the spot, by the Commanders-in-Chief in India and at home, and the conclusion they arrived at was sanctioned by the then Secretary of State. The decision remains.
  MR. BECKETT: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my Question, which is whether any other reason is alleged for depriving Major-General Kinloch of his command than the fact that he wrote this letter to Sir R. Low, in which he took objection to certain details of the proposed operations. Are we to understand that there is no other reason?
  MR. BRODRICK: I said that all the circumstances of the case were considered, and Major-General Kinloch's services were considered at the same time.
  MR. BECKETT: Are we to understand that there was no other reason for the cancellation of his command than his writing this letter?
  MR. BRODRICK: I did not say that. What I stated was, without giving any reasons, that the whole of the circumstances of the case were fully considered by the officers mentioned, who arrived at the conclusion which has been indicated.

  PHYSICAL LABORATORY FOR INDIA.
  MR. C. E. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can say what is the result of the recommendation which he is understood to have made in the summer of 1897 to the Government of India, in support of the establishment of a physi-

  833
  cal laboratory in that country for advanced scientific teaching and research; and, if so, what sum is to be allocated to that object, and when will the work be commenced?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: The Government of India reported in a dispatch received last week that the initial outlay on a physical laboratory of the kind described would be 60,000 tens of rupees, and that they regretted, in the present state of the finances, to be unable to entertain so costly a scheme.

  "ABSTRACTORS" AT THE TREASURY.
  MR. T. SKEWES-COX: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in addition to those permanent clerks designated "abstractors" and "assistant clerks," the following are intended by the Treasury to come within the provisions of the Treasury Sick Leave Memorandum to Heads of Departments, dated 24th April, 1896, viz., posting clerks at the Stationery Office, index compilers and statistical abstractors at the General Register Office, and supplementary clerks at the Inland Revenue Office.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY): The rule as to sick leave embodied in the Treasury circular of the 24th April, 1896, applies to all persons serving in the established Civil Service, and, therefore, to the several classes named in the Question. It must be understood that the grant of sick leave within the limits specified is in the discretion of the responsible head of the officers' department, on his being satisfied of the merits of the application.

  TRAFFIC ON BLACKFRIARS BRIDGE.
  CAPTAIN A. J. C. DONELAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, having regard to the fact that the traffic over Blackfriars Bridge is under the control of the City police, he will suggest to the proper authorities the desirability of stationing a City constable at the southern end of the bridge (where the gradient is steep) with instructions to prevent
  834
  over-loading, and to see that gravel is applied when the roadway is slippery?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE-RIDLEY,): The Commissioner of City Police, with whom I have communicated, informs me that the bridge is constantly patrolled by a constable, whose chief duty is to pay attention to the traffic, and that it does not seem necessary to station him at the spot suggested in the Question. The gradient at the South end, in fact, begins some distance beyond the City boundary. The Commissioner has, however, again instructed the police on the subject, and has communicated with the authorities who are responsible for supplying the gravel.

  TWYFORD MILL LANDSLIP.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the finding and recommendation of a coroner's jury, who sat in the case of the death of a platelayer named Thomas Clarke, who died in the service of the London and North Western Railway Company whilst engaged in watching a landslip near Twyford Mill—viz., that the death was caused by exposure, and recommended the railway company should pay greater regard to the men employed on night duty, especially during severe weather; whether he has noticed the death of five workmen on the Mallaig and Inverary Railway recently from exposure; and if he will use his influence with the railway companies concerned and other railway companies to protect the lives of their employees when working in winter in exposed positions?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (for Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): My right hon. Friend is making inquiries, and will communicate with the hon. Gentleman.

  RABIES IN FOXHOUNDS.
  MR. R. MCKENNA: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture what number of cases have been recorded during the years 1895,

  835
  1896, and 1897 of foxhounds being captured when wandering about suffering from rabies?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. H. LONG,): We have no record of the occurrence of any case such as that to which the hon. Member refers during the years named.

  GOLD STANDARD FOR INDIA.
  SIR WILLIAM HOULDSWORTH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the original estimate of the Indian Minister was that a sum of £15,000,000 in gold would be sufficient to secure a gold standard for India, and to guarantee the inter-convertibility of the sovereign and the rupee; and whether, as £16,000,000 has already been borrowed since the mints were closed in 1893, the gold standard for India has now been secured, or will a further loan for this purpose be necessary?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: Sir David Barbour, when Financial Member of Council, in a minute dated June 21st, 1892, expressed an opinion that gold coin to the amount of Rx23,000,000—say, £15,000,000—would be a sufficient proportion to the active circulation in India to maintain a gold standard effectively. No sterling debt has been incurred since the closing of the mints to provide any such fund; whatever debt has been raised has been exclusively for other purposes. The latter part of the hon. Member's Question is, in effect, a question as to particular Measures which the Government of India might or might not consider necessary to secure the maintenance of the gold standard, and as to these I am not now prepared to give any information.

  INDIAN CURRENCY NOTES.
  SIR WILLIAM HOULDSWORTH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if any gold has been deposited at the Bank of England under the recent Act passed in India for the issue of currency notes in exchange for gold deposited in London?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: No gold has been deposited in the Bank of England under the recent Act, but I have reason to believe that the passing of the Act had the effect of improving the financial situation, and was by no means ineffective.

  THE POSTMEN'S PARK.
  MR. H. C. STEPHENS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether, with regard to the purchase for the completion of the Postmen's Park, it is proposed that the Post Office authorities should be relieved from their obligation to pay £200 a year and instead contribute £150 a year for the maintenance of the park; whether the Treasury contribution of £5,000 would be diminished by the capitalised value of the gain arising out of the reduced amount of the annual payment by the Post Office; and whether the total net balance of contribution made by the Treasury and the Post Office towards the purchase and maintenance of the Postmen's Park by direct payment and in the capitalised value of the annual payment taken altogether would be about, or less than, £3,000.
  MR. HANBURY: The Post Office authorities are not under an obligation to pay £200 a year as stated in the Question. They pay £100 a year to the City Parochial Trustees, in consideration of certain important easements of light, air, and passage over the land in Little Britain. The contribution from the public purse offered towards the acquisition of this land was £7,500, not £5,000. The original proposal was that in consideration of finding this amount the Post Office should cease to pay the £100 a year, and should receive from the City Parochial Trustees the sum of £100 a year. The garden was to be maintained by the parish of St. Botolph out of their own funds. Since this was agreed to an attempt has been made to make the Government responsible for the maintenance, at a cost of £150 a year; and to this new and onerous condition the Treasury, as I have already stated, are unable to assent.
  MR. STEPHENS: Will the right hon. Gentleman state how the Treasury claim the right to £200 a year, when they do not pay the £100 a year in respect of the light easements? And—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is now putting what is really an argument.

  RELIEF FOR IRISH AGRICULTURAL LAND.
  MR. G. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the average annual value per acre of agricultural land in Ireland, the average amount of rate in the pound on such land, and what is the proportion of the proposed new grant of £730,000 that will be distributed to holdings of over £15 per year annual rental.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Perhaps the hon. Member will repeat this Question to-morrow. I very much doubt, however, whether the last portion could be answered without an elaborate investigation, which would not be justified by the value of the results obtained.

  SATURDAY MAILS FOR BELFAST.
  MR. EDWARD M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he has seen a communication from the Secretary of the General Post Office, Dublin, stating that it is not practicable to have letters which are sent from London by the night mail on Saturday delivered in Belfast before the following Monday morning; and, if in future he will have the night mails for the North of Ireland on Saturday forwarded viâ Liverpool for Belfast, so as to reach there on Sunday morning.
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General has seen a communication from the Secretary of the General Post Office, Dublin, stating that it is not practicable to have letters which are sent from London by the night mail on Saturday
  838
  delivered in Belfast before the following Monday morning. It would not be possible to have the night mails for the North of Ireland forwarded on Saturday viâ Liverpool and Belfast, as the boat leaves Liverpool some hours before the arrival of the night mail at that port, and reaches Belfast on Sunday morning after the early delivery at that town. Inquiry shall, however, be made as to the practicability of giving a delivery to callers on Sunday evening, which is the remedy suggested in a Belfast newspaper.

  TREATMENT OF PRISONERS IN STRANGEWAYS GAOL.
  MR. E. H. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received a Report from the Commissioner appointed to inquire into the circumstances under which a prisoner in Strangeways Gaol, named Cox, was so injured that on his arrival at Prestwich Asylum, whither he was removed as insane, it was found that eight of his ribs had been broken; and will he lay this Report upon the Table?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: Yes, I have received the Commissioner's Report, and have consented to the Visiting Committee embodying it in their annual report to the Manchester Justices. I am not sure that the matter is of sufficient importance to justify my laying the Report on the table of the House, but I shall be happy to show it to the hon. Member if he wishes to see it.

  CRIMINAL PROCEDURE IN INDIA.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he is aware that doubts have arisen in this country whether Section 439 of the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure Bill, 1898, in so far as it restricts the revisory powers of the High Courts of Judicature at Fort William, Madras, and Bombay, is not in conflict with Article 28 of the

  839
  Letters Patent establishing the said Courts respectively, which were issued by Her Majesty under the authority of the Statute 24 and 25 Vic, c. 104; and will he say whether he has been advised that the said section is intra vires of the Legislative Council of the Viceroy?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: I was not aware that any such doubt had been suggested in this country, but some of the Indian, opinions which I have seen raise objections to the clause as drafted, to which the hon. Member refers. These objections will doubtless receive full consideration from the Government of India and the Select Committee to which the Bill has been referred; and if I find, after consultation with my legal adviser, that there is any inconsistency between the clause, as ultimately settled, and the Letters Patent, I shall know how to act.

  RUSSIA, DEER ISLAND, AND PORT ARTHUR.
  SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have information confirming the reports that the Russians proposed to occupy and annex Deer Island, opposite Fusan; that Russian forces are strengthening the forts at Port Arthur, and that Port Arthur has been practically ceded to Russia?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. G. N. CURZON,): We have received no confirmation of any of these reports.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be able to say, without notice, whether the reports as to the demands of Russia regarding Port Arthur which appear in the Times of this morning are confirmed?
  MR. CURZON: These reports are equally unconfirmed with the reports mentioned in the Question.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTER: Will any steps be taken to secure the mainland at Hong-Kong and the islands contiguous?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  SWAZILAND.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the House any information as to the condition of Swaziland, and especially as to the reports that the country has been practically annexed to the Transvaal; and what steps are being taken by Her Majesty's Government to preserve the rights of the Swazi people?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I have no special information to communicate to the House respecting Swaziland—there has been no change in the political condition of the country since the Convention of 1894. I have received from the hon. Member certain complaints on behalf of the Swazis, and have forwarded them to the High Commissioner, with a request that they should be inquired into, but I have not yet received the High Commissioner's report.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Has the right hon. Gentleman no reports from Her Majesty's representative in Swaziland that he can lay before the House?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: No, Sir; I have nothing of general interest, though I have continual reports from him.

  THE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES.
  MR. T. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in connection with the changes made in the reporting of the "Parliamentary Debates," instructions have been given not to send proofs of Questions asked in the House and Answers given by Ministers to Members; and, if so,

  841
  whether, seeing the difficulty in many instances of obtaining the answers, he will give instructions for the former practice to be renewed, so that two proofs of each Question may be sent to each Member?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY: Questions printed on the Notice Paper naturally need not be sent for correction. Supplementary questions are speeches, and proofs of them should be sent in the same way as those of ordinary speeches. Proofs of answers are, of course, only sent to those who make the answers—just as other speeches are only sent to those who make them. No contract has ever provided for the answers being sent to those who put the Questions, as it is not for the questioner to correct the answer. No instructions one way or the other have been given, as the contract in no way differs in this respect from those previously made.
  MR. LOUGH: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, arising out of that answer, whether a change has not been made in the custom of the House; and whether it does not arise from the fact that a much smaller amount is being paid for the contract?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! There is nothing about the custom of the House in the Question.
  MR. LOUGH: In the last line of the Question, with great respect to you, Sir, there is a distinct allusion to the practice of the House, and, as I have suffered great inconvenience, I should be very glad if the right hon. Gentleman can give me fuller information.
  MR. HANBURY: Two proofs of all supplementary Questions will, of course, be sent.
  MR. LOUGH: I disapprove of supplemental Questions. It is the answer to the Question itself I like to get proofs of.
  MR. HANBURY: The Question itself is actually printed on the Notice Paper, and I do not see how it is possible to correct it.
  MR. LOUGH: It is the answer I want to get hold of.
  MR. HANBURY: These proofs are only sent to the persons making the speeches or giving the answers.
  MR. LOUGH: Why do we not get them?
  MR. HANBURY: Because you do not give the answers.
  MR. LOUGH: I would ask whether it is not of vital importance to the person who asks the Question to get the answer.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now discussing the matter. The Question has been fully answered.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES. With regard to the remark as to a supplemental Question, would you, Sir, not stop it if you considered it a speech?
  MR. SPEAKER: I do not think that question arises out of the answer.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to give notice to call attention to the matters in the Estimates.
  MR. MACNEILL: As the answers are not given so fully as formerly, will the right hon. Gentleman impress upon his colleagues the necessity of speaking out?
  [No Reply.]

  THOMASON CIVIL ENGINEERING COLLEGES.
  MR. J. G. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been directed to a change in the rules for the admission of Natives of India to the engineer class of the Thomason Civil Engineering College at Rurki, which up till 1896 mark statutory Natives of India competent for admission, whereas by the rules of 1897 the privilege of admission is confined to statutory Natives of India, other than Natives of pure Asiatic descent, whose parents and guardians are domiciled in Bengal, Madras, or Bombay; and on what grounds are young men of pure Asiatic descent excluded from education as engineers in India, notwithstanding the provisions of many proclamations which

  843
  declare that the Queen's subjects in India, of whatever race or creed, shall be impartially admitted to all the advantages and privileges of their country?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: I am not aware of the change in the rules to which the hon. Member refers. According to the 1897 Calendar of the Thomason Civil Engineering; College at Rurki, candidates for admission to the Engineer and Telegraph class "must be statutory Natives of India." No limitations such as are described in the Question have been inserted in the rules.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: May I ask the noble Lord if the rule has not been changed by adding after "statutory Natives of India" the words "other than Natives of pure Asiatic descent, etc"?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: I have no information to that effect. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will furnish me with information, so that I may inquire.

  ELECTION PETITION COSTS.
  MR. H. V. DUNCOMBE: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether full consideration has yet been given to the question of adequate security for costs being given by the petitioner in all election petitions, as promised by him in this House on 19th March, 1896; and what action it is proposed to take to prevent any repetition in future of the waste of time and money incurred during the hearing of the St. George's-in-the-East petition?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. E. WEBSTER,): The Committee appointed last Session took a considerable amount of evidence, but was not able to present its Report. The Committee is to be re-appointed, and it is hoped that its Report will assist in determining what course should be taken.

  ROYAL VISITS TO IRELAND.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: I beg to ask the first Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the success-
  844
  ful visit of their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of York to Ireland last year, Her Majesty's Government can see their way to advising another Royal visit in 1898?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. G. BALFOUR,): In, answer to my hon. Friend, I have to say that, as I think he will himself see, this is a matter which concerns the domestic arrangements of the Queen and the Royal Family, and can hardly be said to come within the sphere of the Government.
  MR. D. H. COGHILL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, can the Government see their way to establishing a permanent Royal residence in Ireland?
  MR. DAVITT: NO, no!
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: We do not want it.

  THE ROYAL ARMS.
  MR. J. M. MACLEAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if Her Majesty's Government will take into favourable consideration the desire of the Welsh nation that the arms of Wales should be represented upon the Royal Shield and Standard of the United Kingdom, and also upon the Union Jack?
  MR. J. PARKER SMITH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will advise the inclusion in the Royal Arms, according to the practice of all Sovereigns from Edward the Third to William the Fourth, of quarterings representing the principal countries in the Empire?
  MR. F. FAITHFULL BEGG: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Her Majesty's Government can see their way to advise the propriety of a change in the Royal arms of Dominion, embodying a recognition and commemoration of the extension of Her Majesty's territories in the Colonies and the Empire of India during; Her Majesty's reign?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I may answer all these questions at the same time.

  845
  I have the utmost sympathy with the sentiments of Welshmen for their Principality. In my belief there is no antagonism whatever, quite on the contrary, between such sentiments of local patriotism and the wider national and Imperial loyalty. But I think my hon. Friends will feel with me that if we alter the Royal Arms many other parts of Her Majesty's dominions besides Wales will have to be considered. As regards the Union Jack, it will be no light matter to alter a flag under which we have fought since the days preceding Trafalgar.

  FOREIGN TRAWLERS IN THE MORAY FIRTH.
  CAPTAIN J. SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the special interest due to the presence recently of foreign trawlers in the Moray Firth, and of the general interest and importance of the subject, he will put down the Vote for the Scottish Fishery Board first for discussion on an early day voted to Supply?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I will consider that.
  AN HON. MEMBER: Did not the right hon. Gentleman on Friday night promise to put down the Supplementary Estimates as the second Order for to-day and make report of Supply practically the third Order?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Yes, but since that promise was made some new Supplementary Estimates have been issued, and I should not propose to take them to-night. The spirit of the management I made on Friday will be adhered to strictly.
  MR. LOUGH: Is the Grant for the West Indies provided for in the Supplementary Estimates?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That does not arise out of this Question. The hon. Member must ask it later on.
  MR. H. LABOUCHERE: When will the Supplementary Estimates be taken?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: If, as I imagine, and as indeed have no doubt we are able to take the Navy Estimate on Friday, the Supplementary Estimates will come on next week.
  MR. ALLAN: As to the Navy Estimates, can the right hon. Gentleman say—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The Question before the House is one as to trawling.

  INTERNATIONAL MARITIME SANITARY BOARD.
  MR. J. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the International Maritime Sanitary Board in Egypt only employ three Englishmen out of 50 Europeans in carrying out their work, and that 29 out of the 50 Europeans are Italians; and, whether he will point out to the Board that as almost 90 per cent. of the shipping passing through the Suez Canal is English, it is only fair that a large proportion of Englishmen should be employed?
  MR. CURZON: We have received the following information from Lord Cromer: The total number of employés is 75, of whom 18 are Italians; 17 British subjects, of whom 9 are English; 7 French, 4 Greek, 4 Austrians, 1 Swiss, 1 Belgian, and 23 Natives. An English veterinary surgeon has recently been appointed. The same number of English candidates do not apply as foreigners.

  TRANSIT OF SCOTCH CATTLE TO IRELAND.
  MR. J. E. GORDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland why expensive formalities are necessary when shipping sheep and cattle from Scotland to Ireland, whereas no similar difficulties are met with when transporting live stock from Ireland to Scotland?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: In order to guard against the introduction of disease into Ireland, the importation of cattle and sheep from Great Britain has, for many years past, been prohibited, except with the consent of the Lord Lieutenant. Such consent is given for the importation of cattle for breeding purposes on satisfactory evidence that the cattle are free from disease, and that they have not been in any district infected with pleuro-pneumonia, or in contact with diseased cattle. Pleuro-pneumonia has, at great expense, been eradicated from Ireland, no outbreak having occurred there since September, 1892. On the other hand, the disease has continued to exist in Great Britain. Several outbreaks occurred in England during last year, and a further outbreak occurred in January of the present year. Although Scotland appears to be free from pleuro-pneumonia, there is entirely free movement of cattle between England and Scotland, and in these circumstances it is not considered desirable to make any change in the existing conditions regarding the importation of cattle into Ireland. Sheep are allowed to be imported if accompanied by a veterinary certificate of health and a declaration that they have not been in contact with diseased or suspected animals. Sheep-scab is very prevalent in Great Britain. No cattle or sheep are allowed to be exported from Ireland to Great Britain until they have been examined by a Veterinary Inspector at the port of embarkation, and certified to be free from disease.

  AGRICULTURAL GRANT (IRELAND).
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state approximately the proportions of the proposed new grant of £730,000 a year to Ireland that will be used to relieve the rates of non-occupying owners, occupying owners, and tenants respectively?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: To give the information desired in this Question would necessitate the examination of the whole of the Valuation Lists, which comprise between one and two million
  848
  entries, and would occupy a period of several months. The results would not be commensurate with the expenditure of labour and money, and I see no sufficient reason for incurring the expenditure.
  MR. LAMBERT: I only ask for the proportion approximately.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am afraid that to get at the proportion, even approximately, would involve the expenditure of too large an amount of time.

  YORKSHIRE REGIMENT (1ST BATALLION).
  MR. DUNCOMBE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether he is aware of the fact that the 1st Battalion of the Yorkshire Regiment (Princess of Wales's Own) has only been stationed in its own county for nine months in 116 years, and the 2nd Battalion for eight months in 40 years; and whether the arrangements can be made for stationing the two battalions of the Yorkshire Regiment in the North Riding of Yorkshire on their return from foreign service?
  MR. BRODRICK: The number of stations for infantry in the North of England is very small compared with the number of regiments having their territorial districts there. It is, therefore, not easy to locate a Northern battalion in its own county; but every effort will be made to station battalions in or near their own district.

  PAY OF ROYAL MARINES.
  MR. H. E. KEARLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether similar concessions with regard to pay and deductions will be accorded to the Royal Marines as to the Army?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: The pay of the Marines will be considered, but the hon. Gentleman is aware that, in many respects, the emoluments of the Marine differ from those of the soldier.

  BRITISH SHIPS AND THE RUSSIAN COASTING TRADE.
  MR. G. DRAGE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, under the existing Russian law, British ships are excluded from the coasting trade between Russian ports in Europe on the same sea—e.g. the Baltic or the Black Sea; whether under a law recently enacted, which comes into force in 1900, British ships will be excluded from the ocean trade between Russian ports—e.g. between Russian ports on the Black Sea and in the Far East; and whether he will obtain from the British Embassy at St. Petersburg a report on the steps taken by the Russian Government in recent years for the benefit of the Russian mercantile marine?
  MR. CURZON: Her Majesty's Consul General at St. Petersburg reports as follows—
  "The privilege of the coasting trade, hitherto confined to Russian subjects and vessels plying between ports situated in the same sea, will, from 1–13 January, 1900, be extended to all Russian ports situated in different seas. In this manner foreign vessels, which had been allowed to carry goods, say, from a Russian port in the Baltic to one in the Black Sea, Sea of Azov, or White Sea, and vice versâ, or from any Russian port in the Far East, will from the above period be precluded from doing so. Exception, however, will be made in favour of salt shipped from Russian, Black, and Azov seaports to those of the Baltic, which may be carried in foreign bottoms until notice to the contrary shall be given."
  The report in question, which contains further particulars respecting steps taken by the Russian Government for the benefit of Russian shipping, will shortly be laid with a collection of similar reports from other countries.

  ENTRIES OF ENGINEER OFFICERS.
  MR. J. PENN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty how many engineer officers have entered during the current year; how many of these officers entered from Keyham and how many from outside; and, how many engine-room artificers have entered in the same period?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: Forty-eight engineer officers have been entered during the current year, 1897–8, of whom 26 were entered from the Training School at Keyham, and the remainder from outside; 321 engine-room artificers have been entered during the same period up to the 26th February.

  CASTLEBAR POST OFFICE.
  DR. R. AMBROSE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he would cause inquiry to be made as regards the present post office at Castle-bar; whether he is aware that the present office is only 12 feet by 14 feet in size, in which 14 officials are employed, without any sanitary arrangements whatsoever; and if he will have this state of things remedied?
  MR. HANBURY: The hon. Member has himself given two different measurements of this office—both of which very much understate the actual area. The post office at Castlebar is stated to measure about 20 feet by 14 feet, and the whole staff numbers 16 persons, including two town postmen, six rural postmen, and one telegraph messenger, who are only in the office at intervals. There is sanitary accommodation on the premises of the kind usual in houses of the same class. A proposal for providing a new Crown post office at Castlebar is now under consideration.

  NAVY ESTIMATES.
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty with reference to the announcement that the Navy Estimates will be taken on Thursday and Friday, when the Navy Estimates will be in the hands of Members; when, also, we shall have the First Lord's printed statement; and whether it is intended to take the discussion on the statement of the right hon. Gentleman and the Estimates this week?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: I hope that the Navy Estimates will be in the hands of Members on Wednesday, but I am not in a position to actually guarantee it; and I say certainly that my own statement will be ready on the same day. What I should propose to do is to move the Speaker out of the Chair on Thursday and to proceed with the discussion of the Estimates on Friday. I do not know whether that will be convenient to the right hon. Gentleman.
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: Will the right hon. Gentleman make his statement to the Speaker in the Chair, or after the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair has been agreed to? I would venture to suggest that if the Estimates are not in the hands of hon. Members on Wednesday, it would be scarcely possible to discuss them either on Thursday or Friday.
  [No Reply.]

  PILLAGE IN CRETE.
  SIR WILLIAM H. HOULDSWORTH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, what is the position of a British subject or a Native who has lost property by pillage or destruction during the recent disturbances in Crete, and to whom should he apply for redress?
  MR. CURZON: In the case of disorders and loss of property by pillage, where no complicity or negligence can be ascribed to the local authorities, foreigners domiciled in a country are not entitled to compensation other than such as is accorded to Natives. In the present provisional state of things in Crete it is difficult to state to whom a claim for redress should be addressed, except in the districts occupied by the international troops, in which case the matter should be brought before the admirals for such steps as they may deem proper.

  SWAZILAND.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I wish to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, arising out of his answer to
  852
  a former Question, are we to understand that he denies the accuracy of the report that Swaziland has been practically annexed to the Transvaal?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: I have already answered that Question by saying that no change has taken place in the condition of the country since the Convention of 1894.

  RELIEF FOR THE WEST INDIAN ISLANDS.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury a Question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether the grant to the West Indian Islands provided for in the Supplementary Estimates issued to-day covers the promise of assistance made to those Colonies in the Queen's Speech, and, if so, when he intends to take the discussion on the Vote; if not, when will we have the full proposals of the Government?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The Vote will be duly proposed; but the Supplementary Estimates do not in any sense cover the whole ground of the statement made in the Queen's Speech. It is, relatively speaking, but a small matter which is dealt with in the Supplementary Estimates. Of course, if the Navy Estimates are taken this week, as I still hope they will be, the Supplementary Estimates cannot come on until next week. But if the arrangement in regard to the Navy Estimates should break down, which, however, I am loath to believe, we may have to take the remainder of the Supplementary Estimates this week.
  MR. LOUGH: When shall we have the full proposal?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: It is quite impossible that the full proposal can be taken before Easter. There are conclusive reasons against giving at present the date when my right hon. friend the Colonial Secretary will make his statement.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Will the reasons be given on the discussion on the Supplementary Estimate?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: The reasons are that we are engaged in negotiations with the United States and Canada in regard to a possible reciprocity arrangement. Until these negotiations are concluded, and until any results at which we may arrive have been submitted to the Legislatures of the United States and Canada and accepted by them, it is quite impossible to give any idea as to what the condition of the West Indian islands will be, and under the circumstances it will be impossible to make a proposal.
  MR. LOUGH: Cannot the Supplementary Estimates be deferred until the time of which the right hon. Gentleman speaks has arrived?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: No, Sir. The hon. Member will see that the Supplementary Estimates merely carry out two among many of the recommendations of the Royal Commission, one being to clear off certain floating debts which are found to be a great impediment in the case of the smaller Colonies, and which they cannot possibly clear off themselves, and the other is a small grant for roads in two of the Colonies which are at the present moment practically without these means of communication.

  SWINE FEVER IN THE NORTH RIDING OF YORKSHIRE.
  MR. JOHN HUTTON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the great decrease of swine fever in the North Riding of Yorkshire, he can relax the restrictions with regard to the sale of pigs within some districts of the Riding; whether he can remove the Rabies Muzzling Order from the Western parts of the North Riding, which consists chiefly of moorlands and sheep farms; and will he undertake to publish diagrams showing the extent of rabies in England on 1st March, 1897, and 1st March, 1898?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE: Although there has been some decrease in swine fever in the North Riding, the re-appearance of the disease from time to time indicates that
  854
  it still lingers, and that there remain undiscovered centres of infection from which it may spread. I regret, therefore, that it is not possible for me to give effect to the wish expressed by my hon. Friend. With regard to rabies, the position of the western part of the North Riding has greatly improved, and if the improvement be maintained I trust that I may be able at no distant date to give relief in the direction suggested. We propose in connection with the Annual Report of proceedings under the Diseases of Animals Acts for the year 1897, which will shortly be issued, to publish a series of maps illustrating the progress made in the suppression of rabies.

  GREENWICH HOSPITAL BILL.
  To amend the Greenwich Hospital Acts, 1865 to 1892; Ordered to be I brought in by Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Solicitor General, and Mr. Austen Chamberlain; Presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 114.]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,), in introducing the Private Bill Procedure (Scotland) Bill, to provide for improving and extending the procedure for obtaining Parliamentary powers by way of Provisional Orders in matters relating to Scotland, said: I will not detain the House with many observations, except by stating its essential and general policy. As hon. Gentlemen are aware, the necessity for some alteration in the procedure, by which Parliamentary powers are obtained for Scotland, has long been recognised and most urgently called for in many quarters. The outcome of that was, as hon. Members are aware, that a Bill was introduced last year. As they will remember

  855
  that Bill contained many provisions which attempted a solution of the question. But it differed in this respect—it differed in regard to the Provisional Order system as against the Private Bill System. There are, I believe, three points that are best kept in view in any legislation in this direction. The first refers to the means of obtaining unopposed Orders; secondly, there is the provision of a local inquiry, instead of forcing people to come to Westminster; and, thirdly, there is the proper safeguarding of Parliamentary control. I believe that, in the Measure which I am asking leave to introduce, it will be found that adequate provision has been made for all these three points. I will take, first of all, the last point. Hon. Members will remember that Parliamentary control is of two characters. In the first place, there are certain subjects which are subject-matter, obviously of such a character that they are not capable of being disposed of by Provisional Order, and only fit for procedure by Private Bill. Accordingly, in this Measure there is provision for the matter being determined by the Chairmen of the Committees of both Houses. Then there is another sort of Parliamentary control. There might be the possibility, under the Provisional Orders, of getting things, so to speak, smuggled in, which would not be allowed to pass if they proceeded by way of Private Bill. Accordingly, there are provisions for submitting these Provisional Orders to Private Bill Committees. As to the local inquiry, the difficulty has always been the selection of the panel. The scheme of the Bill is that there should be a panel of 20, with a reserve of 20, to fill up vacancies which may occur during the period of five years in which the panel survives. They have to be elected by a body of five members—namely, the Secretary for Scotland, two members representing the burghs, and two members representing the counties. Fifteen thousand has been taken in burghs as representing more or less a unit of population which corresponds with counties, and accordingly the county
  856
  councils are to elect two representative members. The burghs of Scotland with a population of about 15,000 have two representative members, and those, along with the Secretary of Scotland, are to make that body and who are to form this panel of 20 and 10. To the persons selected from that panel, for each particular inquiry, is to be added a sheriff selected by the Lord President of the Court of Session. After the local inquiry an Order will be framed, and, if no representation is made against it, it will have the effect of an Act of Parliament.
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 115.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BENEFICES (No. 2) BILL.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,), formally moved the Second Reading of the Benefices Bill.
  *MR. D. BRYNMOR JONESmoved as an Amendment, That the Bill be read a second time that day six months. He said: I desire to repeat the complaint made by an hon. Member on Thursday that the Government has not allowed us enough time to consider the provisions of the Bill, which the First Lord has laid on the Table of the House; but I think I may go further than my hon. Friend, because I think we have grounds for complaining of the prominence which the Government is giving to this question. I have looked at the Queen's Speech, and I find that there are some very weighty matters referred to, and some important Bills promised. I can hardly understand

  857
  why it is that the right hon. Gentleman should give one of the most useful Mondays of the whole Session to a Measure of such a subordinate character. I look at the Queen's Speech, and I find mentioned a Bill for the creation of municipalities in the administrative county of London. What has become of that Bill? What about Camberwell? Camberwell, I say on unimpeachable authority, has a very interesting history; Camberwell has its own local pride; and Camberwell has its own celebrities. How long is the Government going to ignore the history of Camberwell, insult its local pride and disappoint the legitimate ambition of its celebrities? I justify my objection to the Bill on three grounds: first, that it abridges the power of patrons of livings without giving compensation or conferring any increased powers on parishioners or congregations; secondly, that it increases the power and jurisdiction of the bishops of the Church of England, a course which, in my opinion, is inexpedient; and, thirdly, that it creates a new appellate court, in which, with the obvious intention of aggrandising the power of the archbishops, the temporal judge is to be subordinate to the spiritual judge. The bishop's powers to refuse a presentee are increased by this Bill, and, therefore, the patron's rights abridged. The grounds on which a bishop may refuse to institute are set forth in Clause two, but the language used is not plain. What is the meaning of the words "unfit for the discharge of the duties of the benefice by reason of physical or mental infirmity or incapacity?" They are so vague as to give a complete discretion to the bishop. Again, take the words "evil life." In regard to many things the question whether a life is or is not evil is matter of opinion. Some of the bishops are total abstainers, and I wish to know whether a bishop is to have the right of refusing to institute a donee to a living who is in the habit of taking a glass of port wine and playing a game of whist? The ambiguous language of the Bill will permit that. By the third clause the right which a patron of a living has to appeal from the bishop to the High Court of Justice in order to force the bishop to make a clear declaration of his objection is done away with. I think that any change of the
  858
  law ought to have been in the direction of giving greater power, not to the bishop, but to the parishioners or congregations. The Bill is in fact designed to assimilate to a larger degree the organisation of the Church of England to that of the Church of Rome. The Bill manifestly increases the episcopal authority. Our experience in Wales shows that this course is inexpedient, and I am not relying on merely theoretic arguments. I should like to bring before the House the case of the Rev. Mr. Jenkins, Rector of Man-avon, who in 1891, when he was about 61 years of age, was, under circumstances of which he complains—and most justly complains—incarcerated in a lunatic asylum. After being two years there his case was heard before a Master in Lunacy, who declared he was a man of sound mind. He went back to his parish, but was afterwards accused of being drunk and assaulting the police. His case came on before a Court constituted in accordance with the provisions of the Clergy Discipline Act. He objected to the constitution of the Court, because he said that one of the assessors on the Court was appointed by the Bishop of St. Asaph, and two others owed their promotion to the bishop, who was patron of the living, and therefore an interested party. The objections taken by Mr. Jenkins to the constitution of the Court were overruled, and he asked for an adjournment to obtain the services of counsel, or of a solicitor. The adjournment was refused, and Mr. Jenkins left the Court. Upon the evidence of a constable and some one else he was deprived of his freehold at the age of 61 years. I do not say whether that decision was right or wrong, but speaking on behalf of the laity of the Church of England, and on behalf of the rights of property, I say it is not right or fair that a Court constituted in that way should dispose of a man's freehold, and deprive him of the means of livelihood at 61 years of age. Sir, let me now call attention to the exercise of his power by the Bishop of St. Asaph. I will not say what I think of it in my own words, because I find—and upon authority more worthy of attention on the other side of the House than my own—a very pronounced opinion. The

  859
  Record newspaper has the following observation—
  "The condition of affairs in the diocese of St. Asaph is probably without a parallel. A revolt of the clergy against the use of his patronage by the bishop is a spectacle which compels attention, and cannot be dismissed as a matter of merely local or party concern."
  A memorial was presented against the conduct of the bishop, signed by 76 out of the 200 beneficed clergymen in the diocese. They said:—
  "We observe with pain that there has been for some time wide and deep dissatisfaction among the clergy of the diocese, mainly on two grounds—namely, in the first place, that a large number of senior and capable men have been overlooked in the exercise of patronage since your Lordship has come to the diocese, while important and valuable preferments have been repeatedly conferred on a few young men of comparatively little experience in this work; in the second place, that clergymen have been promoted to high and important positions in the diocese who are incapable of discharging the duties of their office owing to total ignorance or insufficient knowledge of the Welsh language.
  This memorial was, as I have already stated, signed by 75 beneficed clergymen, including one archdeacon, the chancellor of the cathedral, four rural deans and one proctor, and the signatories belong to the most important parishes in the diocese. I refer to these matters in order to show why Welshmen distrust any increase of the powers of the bishops. But I will not labour that part of the case further. I come now to my third ground of objection, which is to the creation of this new Court. There can be no doubt that the right of the patron is further abridged by the proposed constitution of a spiritual Court, with a lay element which is to oust the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Judicature. Clause 5 of the sub-section 3 provides that—
  "If in any case to which this section applies, the bishop signifies his refusal in manner provided by this section, no proceeding shall be taken in any other Court in respect of the refusal."
  I could understand the framers of this Bill taking up the position they had done if the judges were of equal authority. But that is not the case. The judge of the High Court is placed in a subordi-
  860
  nate position. The intention of the framers of the Bill is to put the civil judge in the position of a jury, and to give the supreme direction to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York. That meant the subordination of a temporal Court to a spiritual Court. It was evidently the idea of the promoters of this Bill to aggrandise the power of the Church at the expense of the State. I do not know that I need delay the House longer, except to make one observation in respect to a remark made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House last Wednesday, which I thought was inaccurate. He said, in speaking of Benefices Bill No. 1, that, so far as he could gather, the only solid foundation for our hostility—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is not in order in referring to what was said on another Bill in the present Session.
  MR. C. W. RADCLIFFE COOKE: I rise to a point of order. Is it not the case that there is a ruling to the effect that a subject which has been previously discussed may be referred to in the same Session of Parliament in the discussion of a subject which is exactly identical?
  *MR. SPEAKER: There is nothing in the circumstances of this case to prevent the application of the general rule.
  *MR. BRYNMOR JONES: I will not ask you to rule further, Sir, but say that if any one alleges that our objection to this Bill is founded on hostility to the Church he is inaccurate. It is right we should take this opportunity of stating our attitude on this subject. We believe in the principle of religious equality, and we say that it is an obvious inference from that principle that it is unfair to confer upon the clergy of any particular denomination of the Christian religion great privileges, and the control of public funds, which have been dealt with over and over again by Parliament. We say that if you consent to Disestablishment and Disendowment you may reform and improve the Church in any way you like. If you do not accept this

  861
  boon of freedom, we pin you down to the position you have voluntarily taken. We regard the Church as a Church controlled by Acts of Parliament, and by the law of the land, whose highly-paid clergy are paid, for the most part, out of a fund created by Act of Parliament, and who are, except in name, civil servants of the Crown. It is in these circumstances, and not because we are actuated by hostility to the Church of England, that we oppose and criticise Measures like this. We will not play into the hands of a powerful section of the Church, which seeks persistently to set aside, sometimes the letter, and nearly always the spirit, of the Reformation settlement. It is in these circumstances, and for these reasons, that I now beg leave to move "That this Bill be read a second time this day six months."
  *MR. H. S. FOSTER: In seconding the Motion that the Bill be read a second time this day six months I do not wish to associate myself with all the arguments used by the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. After the Debates which have taken place in this House, and after the announcement that the Government intended to bring in a Bill, I had hoped that the effect of that Bill would have been to minimise the differences which separate some of us on this side of the House from the promoters of the former Bill, and that it would have thrown oil on the troubled waters. But the Bill falls so far short of the Bill that was before the House last week that I find myself compelled to associate myself with those who desire to vote against the Second Reading. I wish to point out, however, that Members of this House have very little time to study this Bill, and yet the fact that it is brought in at this time of the Session indicates that it must, in the view of the Government, be an important Measure. It is unusual that a Measure, about which no Minister of the Crown has addressed any remarks from a public platform, and concerning which no explanation has been given to the House, should be, at it were, pitchforked among Members on Friday last, and, by a process of rushing, should be submitted to the House for the Second
  862
  Reading to-day. This, I submit, is a little unusual, and puts those who are unfamiliar with the details of the Bill at an enormous disadvantage in discussing its merits on the Second Reading. Why am I disappointed with the contents of this Bill, as compared with the Bill submitted last Wednesday to the House? One of the complaints made against the Bill of 1896 was that it put undue power into the hands of the bishops, and made them judges of civil facts, with which, by their training and circumstances, they were in no way fitted to deal. In the Bill of last Wednesday there were strong provisions for securing a proper hearing by the bishop, in accordance with the ordinary rules of evidence. In this Bill the whole of these provisions have entirely disappeared. I find that the Bill creates offences as to which one bishop may have one standard and another Bishop another, and proposes to enlarge the existing powers of the bishop to decide upon a number of very vague and ill-defined offences. The Bill also proposes to enlarge the existing powers of the bishops with regard to rejecting presentees, and gives the presentee only right of appeal upon a matter on which he had not hitherto been heard at all. But there is no provision that there is to be a proper judicial inquiry in the first instance. I confess I was not a little amazed to hear observations coming from the other side of the House about infringements of the rights of property. It is true that, in the 1896 Bill, the proposed interference with the rights of patronage were more severe than those in this Bill, but when I raised my voice against what I thought was a serious infringement of the rights of patronage, I did not, if my recollection serves me right, get very much sympathy or support from the other side of the House in the communication of those views. The only argument was that patronage should be abolished without compensation. The law of England, which has, from the first, treated advowsons as private property, has never relied upon the character of the patron for the character of the presentee. There are cases at present, in which owners of racecourses hold advowsons; nevertheless, very excellent incumbents are again and again instituted. It might be said

  863
  that the stewards of a racecourse ought not to hold advowsons, but, as I ventured to point out, the character of the presentee is in no way concerned with the character of the patron. The bishop is the person who has the right to institute to a living; the patron has only the right of nominating a fit and proper person. I make no complaint at all about some of the restrictions imposed upon patrons under the Bill. It appears to me that they will not very much, if at all, reduce what I would call the marketable value of the property with which it is proposed to deal. I was, and still am, under the impression that the doctrine of lapse will come in, and in the event of that doctrine of lapse coming in, then the right of patronage will go to the bishop under the existing law. One of my objections is that it will largely increase the episcopal rights of patronage under the doctrine of lapse. I will read an extract from an authority well qualified to speak on the subject, Earl Fortescue, who said—
  "It seems unjust to interfere much with the rights of private patrons, and unreasonable to expect much further benefit from doing so, when the responsibility of refusing to institute unfit clergymen to benefices must rest with the bishop; but it ought to be exercised by him judicially and on publicly justifiable grounds. Episcopal and capitular patronage was, till of late years, largely used for the benefit of relations and personal friends. And if latterly this has been less conspicuously the case, still the largest portion of episcopal patronage has been naturally bestowed upon clergymen who have identified themselves with the same general Church party as the bishop has. I happen to know that one eminent deceased Primate always spoke of private patronage as of great advantage to the Church, and that opinion has been, and is, unquestionably held by many eminent, loyal, and zealous Churchmen, in holy orders, as well as laymen. The variety of authorities in which the patronage of livings has been vested is the great security for the maintenance of that comprehensiveness of the Established Church which has, many of us believe most happily, been one of its characteristics, though the exclusiveness has been threatened from different quarters at different times."
  I, for one, should greatly regret any Measure that had a tendency to increase episcopal patronage at the expense of private patronage. Well, then, passing from that to the next compartment of the Bill, which deals with unfit presentees, it goes without saying that there is no person in
  864
  this House who would desire to pass a law which would not prevent such a state of things; there is the possibility of unfit men being put into livings in the Church of England. We all agree upon that. When we come to consider the provisions of the Bill as regards the testing of the standard of unfitness, I find, to my disappointment, that much larger powers are being put into the hands of the bishops than ought to be; the bishop was to be the sole judge, subject to an appeal. He is the judge of the fact that the presentee is unfit. The standard of unfitness will, of necessity, vary in every diocese. In the abstract, no man would say that a man who is really unfit by reason of mental or physical infirmity, ought to be accepted by the parish. I should like to know who is to be the judge of unfitness under the test of "pecuniary embarrassment"—that vague ill-defined offence which is created under the Bill. That is to be a sufficient bar if the bishop so pleases. Assume a case in which a bishop is out of sympathy with a man; the bishop is a Low Churchman, and the presentee is a High Churchman, and it would not be difficult to prove pecuniary embarrassment, particularly in cases where men, serving in curacies for a number of years with large and increasing families, are presented with a good living. When they see some prospect of getting into easier circumstances, this pecuniary embarrassment will be brought up against them. I do not know whether they will be expected to produce a balance-sheet or a certificate that they are solvent, or how on earth the bishop is going to be a judge of pecuniary embarrassment. Then there is "misconduct." What is the definition of that? Who is to be the judge? In one diocese a bishop will call a certain thing misconduct which another bishop will pass over as a very trifling offence. Yet the bishop is to be constituted the judge. I am told that this may be amended in Committee, and, so far as my criticisms go, that will answer my purpose. So far as the Bill is concerned, there is no machinery for the hearing before the bishop. He has to come to his own conclusions, and, having come to a certain conclusion, he has only to notify to the presentee that he proposes to refuse. I do not think the Bill even

  865
  contains the grounds of refusal. The Bill even does not go so far as the previous Bills which were before the House. It does not require the bishop to state the grounds on which he has refused to institute; the presentee is left to conjecture as to what crime he has been guilty of, and as to what evidence there is to justify the refusal. He may appeal to a tribunal appointed under the Bill, and then it may be proved that he is not guilty of the offence—for which he has not been tried. That seems to me to be an unjust proposal—a proposal that is novel to English jurisprudence, utterly unknown to our ordinary procedure. I marvel that the Government should be responsible for this Bill. Going from that to the third clause of the Bill, which deals with incumbents, I am not sure whether I understand clearly what is intended by the fourth clause, which extends the powers of the bishops under the Pluralities Act Amendment Act. I do not know whether it is intended to create a new offence. [The FIRST LORD of the TREASURY: "No."] Perhaps it does not. As I understand the Pluralities Act Amendment Act, in the event of a Commission finding certain facts against a person the bishop has certain powers. In that case it is not intended to create a fresh offence. All that is done is, as I understand, to give power of inhibition. Before I sit down I should like to congratulate my noble Friend behind me (Lord Cranborne), on the fact that, after the work he has done for so many years in the direction of reform of this character, the Government has taken up the question, and brought in this Bill. It is much easier to criticise than to construct, and I desire to tender to him my congratulations for the immense amount of hard work and enthusiasm he has thrown into the subject. I have no doubt that the Bill will reach a Second Reading in this House to-night, and if it goes to a Second Reading I hope the Government will profit by the long discussion we had on this subject in 1896. I hope the Government will receive in a friendly spirit the suggestions and amendments from this side of the House, for the purpose of improving the Bill where it is defective, and making it a measure of justice to all.
  *MR. JOHN E. ELLIS: It has struck me in listening to the preceding speeches that the hon. Gentlemen who moved and seconded this Motion hardly agreed between themselves as to the opposition to this Bill. The reasons they gave were singularly diverse. We find ourselves discussing a Bill which, if I remember rightly, is put among the ten in the list promised in the Queen's Speech, in regard to which it is intimated to us that we might hardly have time to consider them. I hardly know whether or not to congratulate the Government on the rapidity with which their business has been transacted or the lack of business they have for the House, but I must express my surprise that we should have to deal with this small Bill on a Monday afternoon so early in the Session. It comes with the authority of the Government to rectify an abuse in one of the religious denominations into which the population of these islands is divided. That particular denomination is peculiarly associated with the State. I am one of those who, ever since I have considered these matters, now a good many years ago, have held that association with the State is wrong and hurtful, and ought to be put an end to. I have never receded from that position. All religious denominations should be placed on one level. But I have always tried to consider a number of these Bills, which have come from the Church of England, on their merits, and I have taken up this attitude—that if the promoters of these Bills assure us that they are to remove abuses which exist in the Church of England, I would not take upon myself the responsibility of opposing them. Therefore, when this present Bill comes before me in the way it does, I am not prepared to take the responsibility of opposing it. The only real opposition to the Bill comes from inside the Communion to which it refers. I have received a paper from the Church Association about a terrible attack upon the rights of property. I think that we cannot bear too much in mind the maxim of Thomas Drummond, that "Property has its duties as well as its rights." I do not think that property

  867
  has any vested rights in the abuses which are referred to. I am told that the power of bishops is going to be considerably increased. But that bugbear does not alarm me. I think there never was a time when the laity of this country were really less under the power of the clergy. Why, even when the Bishop of Rochester, a man of deservedly great influence, threw out last autumn some proposals as to what should take place in the schools, no sooner were the proposals fully explained, and it was seen by the laity what was intended, than they were opposed by his own people, and fell though. I have no fear of the power of the bishops. The people to-day are religiously minded, but they are not, if I may use the expression, denominationally minded. The laity of these islands are as strong now as ever they were against undue influence on the part of the clerics, whether they belong to the Church of England or a Free Church. I am one of those who stand outside the religious communion affected by the Bill, but I am not prepared to take the responsibility of opposing the Second Reading of this Bill.
  *MR. R. PURVIS: In 1896, I, as representing a cathedral constituency, opposed the then Bill, but as I am now resolved to vote in favour of this Bill, I wish the House to give me an opportunity of making some explanation. I was one of those who opposed the then Bill, because it seemed to me to want some one qualified by training and practice to sift the evidence and find the facts, but only upon appeal, because the introduction of the lawyer at any previous stage would be inconsistent with the parental relation between the bishop and his diocese. In the present Bill I am happy to find that this objection is entirely removed. Clause three, section one, as we have all heard, will enact that where a bishop refuses to institute a presentee, either the person presenting or the presentee may require that the matter may be heard by a court consisting of the archbishop and a judge of the Supreme Court; and section two will enact that the judge shall decide all questions of law and fact, and that the archbishop shall give judgment
  868
  accordingly. Though I do not consider bishops and archbishops are lawyers, yet I am not squeamish like the hon. Member for Swansea about giving them more power as bishops and archbishops, and I am not squeamish as to the effect of the second clause, which gives the archbishop the last word in the argument. Looking at the practical aspect of the question I cannot think that either the person who presents or the presentee will be the sport of ill-luck to such a degree that he first of all falls into the hands of a bishop, perversely wrong in his facts and the inferences drawn from them, and then, when he goes to appeal, seeking to avoid Scylla he falls into Charybdis, and finds the archbishop ignores the judge, defies the facts, and gives a judgment which turns truth and reason upside down. I am not for Establishment, and therefore I do not suppose that those who are, are likely to take any advice of mine. But I do believe I express the opinion of many hon. Members on both sides of the House when I say that we must remember we are dealing with at least a Christian Church, and might do better than to adopt methods worthy of Machiavelli or Mephistopheles to bring about Disestablishment, by indirectly favouring and fostering the scandal of the conduct of those who bear office in its service.
  *MR. ALBERT SPICER: In intervening in this Debate in favour of the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Swansea, let me say, at the outset, I do not represent nor do I know those to whom the hon. Member has last referred. At the same time I can fully realise some saying in connection with this Bill, "Why do we Free Churchmen not leave this matter entirely to the consideration of the Churchmen in the House, seeing the Bill before us deals entirely with some of the features of the government of that Church?" In reply I would say for myself that I should be only too glad to leave the Churchmen in the House to deal with this matter if the Church were left to manage her own affairs and had not to come to this House to ask to be allowed to make any alterations in its government. That day, however, has not

  869
  yet come, and, therefore, I feel, with other Members of the House, a responsibility from which I cannot free myself. I cannot forget that, after all, we Free Churchmen are working alongside the Church of England. By recent figures if has been clearly shown that we are doing a large half of the Christian work of the nation. Therefore, if that is the case, when you are doing good you are influencing us for good; but if you are making mistakes you are influencing us for ill. The fact is, if in any parish the work of the Church of England is real and progressive, it is a stimulus and incentive to us; and the reverse is equally true. I speak the feelings of many Free Churchmen when I say we are not jealous of the Church. In seeking its disestablishment we are not seeking to weaken its spiritual work, but we trustfully desire to assist it in doing higher and better service. I know that if the Church were free from State control we should have a great many difficulties to deal with which we have not to-day. Looking at it, therefore, as a Free Churchman, and also a Member of this House, I ask myself: What is the position I ought to take up with regard to this matter of dealing with the government of the Church of England? And the attitude to which my judgment has brought me is, that I ought to support changes which I believe to be in the best interests of the Church, and that I ought to oppose that which I believe will not be to its interest. In 1896, when there was another Benefices Bill before the House, I had the honour of serving on the Grand Committee for the consideration of that Bill, and I think my fellow committeemen will absolve me from any desire to obstruct the Bill in Committee, and I did what little I could to help the Committee to make the Bill as good as possible, but that Bill failed to pass, and the whole subject is now in a perfectly new position. The Government of the day have taken upon themselves the responsibility of introducing a Measure, and it is therefore no longer a Measure brought in by one section of the House, but has the sanction and authority of the Government. To justify this procedure there ought to be first a popular demand for such a measure, and if there are difficulties and evils to be overcome
  870
  they should be dealt with in such a way as is likely to lead to real improvement. Now, of the popular demand I have received no evidence whatever. I know, on the other hand, from documents which have come to me, that the Church of England is not united in itself as to the remedies it desires to see carried out. Now, it does seem to me that before the Government of the day take up a Measure of this kind, there should be some degree of unity, and there should be a demand made by the rank and file of the people adhering to the Church of England for such legislation; but I feel still more strongly as to my second proposition, that if there are difficulties and evils to be overcome they should be dealt with in a way that is likely to create real improvement. I do not intend to go into the details of the Bill, which seems to divide itself into two portions: first, there is the alteration of the methods of the sale of advowsons, and there is the giving of the bishops more power. I see in the second part no reason to object, but my opposition is aroused to the first part, the sale of advowsons. In the year 1874, when the present Archbishop of Canterbury was Bishop of Exeter, he gave evidence on the question of the sale of advowsons before the Church Patronage Committee of the House of Lords, and in the course of that evidence he put five points very clearly. He said in connection with—
  "these sales, the worst feature of all was the shock given to the religious feelings of a great number of people. In the second place, there was a very great feeling of demoralisation caused by these sales; in the third place, he thought there was a great public scandal in such sales; in the fourth place, they, to a very great degree, demoralised the patrons; and, lastly, there could be no question at all that it gave very great facilities for abusing these privileges, and he had known instances of very serious abuse."
  Now, I take it that I cannot, in a matter of this kind, go to higher evidence than the present Archbishop of Canterbury, and if we are confronted with a difficulty of the kind I have named, this Bill does not meet the difficulty, it is a weak and feeble Measure, and does not go to the root of the matter. But it may be said that we cannot do that without

  871
  going into the question of compensation. If that is the only difficulty, surely, with the great income paid to the Church, the richest of all corporations in this rich county, it ought not to be a difficulty that shall trouble the Government of the day. My contention is that if the Archbishop of Canterbury's evidence is true, and you know far more than I do of that matter, but I take his evidence, and I say if it is true you are not dealing with this matter in the way you should. You ought to get rid of the sale of advowsons for ever. It is because of my difficulty with regard to the sale of advowsons that I heartily support the Amendment.
  *MR. S. GEDGE: I will not trouble the House with many remarks, but I wish to explain my position, as my name appears upon the other Bill. At the time my name was put there I had no reason to suppose it had anything to do with patronage, and, once on, it could not be taken off. Neither Bill is exactly what I like, but my desire is that this Bill may be read a second time in order that both Bills may be considered in Committee, and I hope we shall then pass the Bill in such a state that it may prove to be beneficial and sound. It seems to me that the hon. Gentlemen who oppose this Measure have based their opposition on the old maxim that the best is the enemy of the good. When anybody is going as far as he can to do good by a Bill, they say something else is better, and, therefore, the Bill is no good. Now, I put to myself this question: Would I rather this Bill became law, with all its imperfections, or is the Bill to be thrown out, and are we to have that same agitation we had so long ago all over again? And I say I would rather that this Bill passed, because there are very great abuses which it is calculated to remove. I cannot have any sympathy with those hon. Members who say that, because they desire that the Church of England should be disestablished and disendowed, therefore, that so long as she is connected with the State they will do nothing to remove the disabilities which have been imposed on her, not by the Church herself, but by the State. [An HON.
  872
  MEMBER: Who said so?] That is the position taken up by the hon. and learned Member. The union of the Church and State was the action of the State. It was the only Church at the time, and the State has had the control of it ever since. But the Church of England is not the only body which has come to the State for assistance. If I am correctly informed, the Wesleyan Church are coming this very Session to Parliament in order to enable them to make certain alterations in their foundation deed, which they cannot make without an Act of Parliament; and I only hope that if they show proper cause that Bill will be passed. Then we are told that we ought not to pass this Bill because it deals ineffectually with the sale of advowsons. No doubt we all wish that the sale of advowsons could be put an end to. If we could put an end to the sale of advowsons, without at the same time putting an end to purchasers, I should be very glad. I think it would be better for everybody if, when a living is in the hands of a spendthrift, or bankrupt, who cares nothing about the trust he has, the trust could be passed into the hands of good trustees. But, notwithstanding the scandals, the purchase of advowsons has, on the whole, been of immense benefit to the Church; and I support the Measure, believing that it will do something to remove the scandals, as far as possible. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down spoke about the "rich" Church of England, and declared that, owning, as he represented, an "enormous" revenue, she might use the money to compensate patrons. Is the hon. Member aware that at the present moment the only funds which belong to the Church as a Corporation which could be used for such a purpose are in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and that the resources at their disposal are so small that unless a parish has 6,000 inhabitants they are not able to make any grant whatever to supply additional ministration? I know parish after parish with populations of 4,000 and 5,000 which have at present only one clergyman, who is worked almost to death, and who cannot

  873
  get aid from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners because there are more pressing claims. There are two Societies—the Church Pastoral Aid Society and the Additional Curates Society—which are at present rendering aid by providing additional curates in parishes with populations of 10,000, 15,000, or 20,000, by voluntary subscriptions. These Societies are continually refusing pressing applications through lack of funds; and yet we are told that the Church of England is so rich that the hon. Member opposite would be prepared to see some of its moneys taken away and handed over to compensate patrons. I think the scandal of doing that would be infinitely greater than any scandal which this Bill is designed to remove. There is one other point which I wish to touch upon in the Bill. An objection has been raised that the bishop has, in the first instance, to hold a court and conduct a legal inquiry, but no rules as to evidence, etc., are prescribed. Well, the intention and object of this Bill is that he should do nothing of the kind. If the bishop is informed that the presentee whom he is asked to institute is unfit, he will send for the man himself, or for the patron, and say, "I have heard this or that; you know whether it is true." In 99 cases out of 100 a guilty man will throw up the sponge. In one respect Bill No. 1 is better than Bill No. 2, According to Bill No. 1 the bishop is made a party to the appeal, and therefore he renders himself liable to costs if he has on insufficient grounds refused to institute a presentee. That seems to me a valuable provision, because a bishop ought not to recklessly refuse to institute. By this means you give him a sufficient stake in the matter to ensure his exercising the utmost care and consideration, and he will not refuse to institute a presentee unless he is satisfied, after hearing all that the man has to say, that grounds exist which justify his attitude in refusing to institute him. When we come to the Court of Appeal the judge is to find the facts and determine the law, and to say whether the presentee has committed an offence under this Act, and if is for the archbishop then to say whether there are any extenuating circumstances on which he can stretch a point and give the presentee a chance.
  874
  Subject to this the archbishop is bound to pronounce sentence in accordance with the judge's finding. Therefore, the ecclesiastical judge, being put under the civil judge, has very little more power given to him than to carry out the findings of the civil judge. I hope, Sir, that the House will, without a Division, pass the Second Reading of this Bill.
  MR. R. WALLACE: The hon. Member for Lowestoft has opposed this Bill. It gives me very great pleasure, as a Free Churchman, to cordially and heartily support it. My only regret is that the Government has not seen its way to go farther in the pathway of reforms than it has done. I, Sir, am perfectly unable to understand the position of hostility which so many of my Friends around me are taking over this Bill. The hon. Member for Swansea has complained that too short time had been given by the Government to thoroughly understand the Bill. Sir, I quite agree with him, for it was quite manifest, as far as he was concerned, that time had been largely wasted. I could not recognise the Bill in the description which he gave of the Bill. He spoke as if it were an attack upon Protestantism; as if it were a trampling under foot of the rights of the laity, and the erection of some system of sacerdotal supremacy throughout the land. But, Sir, where did he find it in the Bill? If I believed that Protestantism was in any way threatened, or that my rights as a layman were invaded, or that priestcraft was going to be triumphant throughout the land, because of the passing of the measure introduced by Her Majesty's Government, then, Sir, I should be entirely in opposition to the Bill. But what is the Bill? The Bill proposes, as I understand it, to do two things—to abolish two great evils, evils which are admitted by all. It proposes to do away with the sale of presentations, and if proposes to prevent improper persons from obtaining benefices from the Church of England. Is there anyone who can defend either one of these? Is there any one conscience which is not exercised by the present system? My hon. Friend says that the true remedy is to break the chain which

  875
  binds Church and State together, and to give the Free Church thus erected the opportunity of abolishing these methods and all the evils incident thereto. Sir, I do not conceal, myself, that I am in accordance with the view of the hon. Member for Swansea, but I should prefer to see the Church having full power to deal in those matters for herself. But we deal with facts as we find them. The Church is established. She is connected with the State, and under the State control. And are we to wait until those of us who believe that it would be a good thing for the Church to sever that connection—are we to wait until we have converted the majority of the people of this country to our view, and in the meantime are these evils and these scandals to continue in the Church of England? That is a question which I have asked myself. As a Free Churchman, I have asked myself the question whether we ought not to give the Church every opportunity to prosecute the great religious work it has undertaken. Now, Sir, I cannot for a moment believe that there is anyone either in this House, and I trust not out of it, who would desire to keep the evils and the scandals which arise from their existence continuing in the Church of England, in order that the anger and the indignation which called those evils into existence should be used, not against the abuses themselves, but against the Church which they have forced themselves into, and continue in. I feel that to use weapons like these in prosecution of what I believe to be a sacred work in itself, in endeavouring to bring about the result I have spoken of, would be absolutely unworthy of any man who desired the true prosperity of the religion of the land. Now, Sir, we all are agreed, as far as I can gather, that the sale of presentations ought to cease. No one has defended it either on that side of the House or on this side. I agree that I wish the Government had been able to go farther. I think the scandal which arises from allowing the right to present any man to a living in the Christian Church, by reason of his acquired wealth, and spending it in financial negotiations through an ecclesiastical broker, must shock everyone. My own feeling is, however, not confined to next presentations, but to the larger question of the sale of advowsons. But because
  876
  I cannot get that which I desire, because I cannot at present see that the sale of advowsons is all that could be desired, can I refuse my consent to the abolition of, at least, the other evils? As a practical man, and as a man of common sense, I think we ought to prevent the evil on which all are agreed, and then strive to complete the remainder of our work with regard to the second evil also. Well then, Sir, we have a description of the third clause of the Bill, which, I confess, I am amazed at. I was told that this Bill proposed to put a judge in a certain position, but that a bishop is created the judge of the offence, in respect of which the presentee is tried. Has my hon. Friend read the Bill? What does the clause say in regard to the position which the judge of the Supreme Court is to occupy? It says this: "The judge shall decide the question of law and fact." He is to be the supreme judge of the law; he is to be the supreme arbiter as to the facts submitted. All that the bishop has to do, is, after the judge has pronounced the law and found the facts, to be the mouthpiece of the Court to give expression to that which the judge has just decided. I do not know myself why the archbishop is introduced at all. I suppose it is in deference to religious susceptibility, in order that it may not be suggested that this is a pure court of laymen—a secular court and not a spiritual court; but if it satisfies religious susceptibilities that the bishop should only occupy the position of mouthpiece, I, for one, am not going to quarrel with those who insist that the archbishop should be a member of the court. The practical part, from that point of view of the layman, is that the judge is to be the court which decides the facts, and lays down the law. Now, Sir, I have only one other observation to make. I apologise to the House for detaining it so long, but I feel very strongly with many of my friends on the other side with regard to the importance of this Bill. I am most desirous to see this long controversy come to an end. I do not believe that it is helpful to religion, and I am sure it cannot be helpful to the Church, that such controversies should arise continually. I should like to see some more practical definition, if possible, of the offences with which the court will have to deal. It

  877
  may be that it is impossible to do so, and if it be impossible, why, then, I must accept it as it is. But I should like to see the clause so carefully safeguarded, that, for instance, independence of judgment and free expression of opinion should not, in any case, be ever regarded as an offence which should come before the court, or which might prevent the holder of a particular opinion being presented to a living. With that qualification, I support the Bill. I am quite sure that it will, to some extent, be remodelled in Committee, remodelled so as to meet the objections which have been taken in this House by the friends of the Bill. And then I am convinced of this, that when these scandals are done away with by the abolition of the evils which are dealt with, the Church will be better able to do the great work in which she is engaged in England, so as to bring about the greater good and the higher and more elevated opinion of the people of this country.
  MR. G. C. T. BARTLEY: I am sure the House on both sides has listened with much interest to the speech which has just been made by the hon. Member opposite. He has done what I think we should all do in these matters. We should not approach these matters in a partisan view, but deal with them as affecting the general advancement of religion throughout the whole country. I need hardly say that I support this Bill, although I agree with the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken that it can only be regarded as a step in the right direction. I had the honour to introduce a somewhat similar Bill a few years ago, but that was introduced as a private Measure. We did our best to abolish all sales of benefices in the Church. But, Sir, this Bill, of course, as has been pointed out, is brought in by a very powerful Government, and I am sorry that they do not go a step farther, and do away with what I think must be done away with before long, and that is the absolute sale altogether of advowsons. Now, Sir, I thoroughly agree with many of the advantages which private patronage has given. I think it has extended the life of the Church, and I think it has improved in many ways
  878
  the working of the Church, and made it more, so to speak, up-to-date, and in many cases benefited both the clergy and the laity. And, also, there is no doubt that it is impossible at present to think of any better plan by which the Church of England system of patronage may be given. But, Sir, when we come to think that at the end of the 19th century there should be any sort of traffic in the sale of advowsons, it does seem to me a most extraordinary position. The speech, which I remember very well, of the present archbishop on the subject, when he gave evidence before a Committee of the House of Lords, has been referred to over and over again in these Debates. Nobody can gainsay that the very mention of the sale of livings is more scandalous to the Church than any other offence of the present time. Even in affairs of life many of us are connected with institutions where small appointments are given away. Why, Sir, if anybody in these positions—even the Clerk at this Table has a certain amount of patronage in this House—had any notion of selling them, the whole system would practically break down at once; and yet, when we come to talk about the cure of souls, we recognise that it is still allowed that there should be some system of purchasing livings going on. Of course the difficulty is got over by arguing that the spiritual part of the appointment is not sold, but only the temporal part. But that is a fallacy altogether. Anyhow, it is so fine a point that the public do not understand it, and I do say that, as a Churchman myself, I am thoroughly ashamed that there is any possible way left now in a system by which advowsons are sold and that scandal continues throughout the country. I am perfectly well aware that to do away with the sale of advowsons altogether would be a very difficult thing, but there are now many difficult things done, and I say that in a Church in the full health of life advowsons must be treated as a trust, and the appointments must be filled up as a trust. I sincerely think that this Bill, good as it is as far as it goes, is but a step—I fully acknowledge it is an important step—which there is no doubt will undermine sales altogether, and I do trust that it will ultimately lead to their abolition. There is only one other point I should

  879
  like to refer to in connection with this subject, and that is the form of declaration. Now, Sir, I think we ought to be very careful in applying that form of declaration to the clergy, which touches their consciences, and I cannot see how anybody can sign that declaration under many circumstances. It is quite true that it is so worded that a man can get out of it without much difficulty. It talks about a man, to the best of his belief, that nothing has taken place which is simoniacal, and that has a long legal meaning, which can be got over. It says—
  "I have not received the presentation of the said rectory (or vicarage, etc.) from the patron thereof in consideration of any sum of money, reward, gift, profit, or benefit, directly or indirectly, given by me, or by any person, to my knowledge or with my consent, to any person whatsoever."
  Supposing a father possesses an advowson, and ultimately gives it to his son, I think that son will find it extremely difficult indeed to sign a certificate that that living had been given without any sort of consideration, directly or indirectly, by any person. I agree that I do not think any father ought to buy his son a living. I should be very sorry to do so for my own son, who is a curate, and I do say emphatically that if you allow the law to continue that advowsons are to be sold, you ought not to put in a declaration which will secure that a conscientious man cannot take, and which the man who is not particular what he signs will take. I hope some amendment will be made to that, for I do not think that anybody having a strict conscience should be deprived of any appointment which he might otherwise have. I support this Bill, and I am glad that the Government have introduced it. Perhaps it will do more good than many Bills of greater sounding name, because it has the elements of justice; and the various teachers of religion are working together for the removal of these abuses, which, after all, are for the greater benefit of the country than many other measures which are considered in this House.
  MR. R. W. PERKS: I have always spoken in this House in favour of the Measures, which from time to time have been introduced by the noble Lord the Member for Rochester, in support of the removal of clerical abuses in connection with the Established Church in this country, and, Mr. Speaker, I see no reason whatever why I should not heartily support on this occasion the Bill which has been produced by Her Majesty's Government. Possibly there may have been a time when Dissenters in this country—I think, if such were the case, they were very wrongly advised in the matter—used to hold the opinion that it was better that the scandals which unquestionably existed then, and exist now, in the Church of England should be encouraged, rather than retarded by legislation, in order that it might hasten the time when the Church would be disestablished and disendowed in this country. That was a foolish policy, and an un-Christian policy; and I do not believe at the present moment there is a single Nonconformist in the House of Commons who would advocate such a policy. Now, Mr. Speaker, if I were a member of the Church of England I should object to certain clauses of this Bill which, to some extent, seem to me to hand over the rural clergy body and soul to the tender mercies of the Episcopacy; but that is a matter mainly for the laity of the Church of England. If they like to accept the Bill in this form, by all means let them do so. But, Sir, it is impossible in some of the rural parishes in this country to see the grave scandals which really exist without feeling that one would be neglecting one's duty as a Member of this House if one did not at once endeavour to remove them. In the division of Lincolnshire which I represent there is a little village where you can see the rector of that village—or the vicar, I do not quite know which—being led round his own rectory garden by the person who is in charge of him, owing to the unfortunate mental affliction of this good man. That sort of thing is a disgrace to the Church of England, and there ought to be some

  881
  process by which that gentleman can be superseded. In another village there is, I believe, a very good man, who made the great blunder of buying for himself one of those next presentations, raising money on mortgage to do it. No sooner had he got in that living than he was saddled with a heavy charge for dilapidations in the place which he had just left. Owing to a drop in the rent of the glebe lands, the poor man was hopelessly embarrassed, and he has been sequestrated, and he is now making frantic efforts to get back to his old position. The Bill would prevent and also remedy some of these scandals, and it is because I think that it is our duty to place ourselves alongside of the earnest men of the Church of England who wish to reform the Church, and to make her a more effective instrument for spiritual progress, that I shall certainly support the Second Reading of this Bill.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I think the Government and the House, and all who are interested in the question of Church reform, may congratulate themselves on the whole with the reception which the Second Reading of this Bill has had to-night. The excellent speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Perth, and the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, show that even those who do not belong themselves to the communion of the Church of England—who, indeed, take very strong views upon Disestablishment and other questions in which Churchmen are deeply interested—are perfectly ready to join hands with Churchmen in dealing with the abuses of the Church, as far as the powers of Parliament—and the powers of Parliament alone, are fitted to cope with them. Sir, it augurs very well for the future of this Bill, and of any other Bill dealing with the Church of England, that such a spirit should be manifested amongst Gentlemen on the other side of the House. I do not really think that more than a very few words are required from me to-night. The general objections to this Bill, such as they are, seem to me, I confess, to be of a very fantastic description. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Swansea Division, who
  882
  moved the rejection of the Bill, objected to it as far as I can discover, because he though its objects—or if not its objects, at all events its effect—would be to destroy or imperil the Protestant religion, and to augment to a perilous point the power wielded by the bishops, and to carry the Church of England, and all those who are connected with it, some long distance in a Romeward direction. Sir, all these fears appear to me to belong not to the real world in which we live, but to some fantastic creation of the hon. Gentleman's own brain. He dragged in, I know not how or wherefore, apparently in connection with his attack upon the Episcopacy, a special attack upon the Bishop of St. Asaph, and read out a long protest of the clergy of that diocese against some action—I do not know exactly what it was—in which that bishop had been concerned. Sir, I believe that if the theory be—I am not acquainted exactly with the details—that this Bill is to diminish the legitimate power of the laity, and increase the illegitimate power of the Episcopacy, there could not be a worse example chosen than that which the right hon. Gentleman has selected, because I believe the laity, to a man, support that prelate. I mean Churchmen only, of course; they support the Bishop of St. Asaph and regard him as being what he is, a most able and devoted servant of the Church. Two hon. Members while supporting, and zealously supporting, this Bill complain that it is inadequate, and that they would like to see the whole system of the sale of advowsons absolutely prohibited by law. I am not going to occupy the time of the House in defending what everybody must admit to be a very peculiar and anomalous system, a system to which grave objections undoubtedly may be taken, and which it is impossible to defend in all its aspects; but I would remind those hon. Gentlemen and any others who may agree with them, that a Bill simply abolishing the sale of advowsons is not a Measure which it would be possible to recommend to the House. It could not be presented simpliciter to the House, because by abolishing the sale of presentations you would practically leave for ever the presentation of advowsons in the hands which now exercise it, and the careless, indifferent people who are now quite ready to part

  883
  with it would then have no motive at all to part with it unless some consideration can be obtained for the advowson for which they have no further interest in keeping themselves. You must accompany a Bill prohibiting the sale of advowsons with a Measure entirely altering the present system of distributing the patronage of the Church. What the new system would be, whether it would be similar to the system which works so successfully at present in Scotland, in which the whole responsibility is in the Church itself, or, whether some other alternative can be designed, it is not for me to suggest. But it is obviously a matter of enormous complexity and difficulty, and, even if public opinion were ripe, which I do not think it is at present, for such a sweeping provision as that of absolutely prohibiting the sale of advowsons, a very heavy task would lie before any Government, or any body of gentlemen who set themselves to carry out the work of reconstructing and determining what shall be the form in which the future patronage of livings shall be vested. Therefore, I think every practical man in this House—and I am sure my hon. Friend does not defend it from that view—everybody must admit that this Bill goes in that respect as far as it is wise for practical statesmen dealing with practical necessities to go, and I am glad to think that, though there are many Members in this House who would like to see a Measure brought forward of a more drastic character, and framed on larger lines, still, even those who take that view are ready to give us their hearty support in a Measure which is less complete, but which, I venture to think, under existing circumstances, is far more practical. I do not know that any more general criticisms were passed on the Bill; the remainder of them were addressed to particular clauses and to particular provisions in it. Some of those, I think, were purely Committee points—points which may be raised and dealt with, with advantage upstairs, but about which it is not necessary, I think, for me to say anything at present. My hon. Friend the Member for the Lowestoft Division was very much exercised, lest the indirect effect of this Bill should be to increase episcopal patronage. [Mr.
  884
  H. S. FOSTER: At the expense of lay patronage.] Well, of course, it must be in that way. If it is increased at all, it can only be increased at the expense of lay patronage. I am quite ready to examine with my hon. Friend, whether the indirect effect of the Bill will be as he supposes. I can assure him that that is not the object of the framers of the Bill, and, without balancing the respective merits of episcopal patronage on the one side or lay patronage on the other side, I can assure both the House and my hon. Friend that it was not intended by a side wind or by indirect methods to alter that balance either in one direction or in the other. My hon. Friend the Member for the Lowestoft Division also thought it very anomalous that there should be a period for the sale of the advowson as a whole during which the person who should deliver the advowson was the seller or the original owner. Sir, there may be an anomaly in that, but it is an anomaly for which there is precedent in the actual condition of the law. As my hon. Friend knows, if the advowson is sold while the living is vacant, the person who is to present it is not the person who sells it, and it is merely an existing condition of things which we have introduced into our Measure. The only remaining point, I think, which was a subject of any attack from any quarter of the House, had reference to Clause 3 of the Bill, in which the reasons are given why the bishop may refuse to present, and, with respect to which, it was complained, I think, by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft, and some others, that there were certain safeguards in the shape of a public hearing, which were omitted, and which ought to be introduced. As regards the first of these points, I am quite ready, if discussion should show it to be necessary and desirable, to make it as clear as possible on the face of the Bill what are the kind of offences, what are the kind of shortcomings, for which the bishop is to be justified in refusing presentation. But I must remind the House that I do not think Clause 2 really adds much to the reasons which already exist

  885
  under the common law. It makes the reasons much more precise; but let it be observed that under the common law such an objection as illiteracy is of necessity met. My hon. Friend complains that it is not so precise, so obvious, so well defined, that judgments regarding it must be the same by every bishop in every diocese. I do not think that absolute precision and uniformity can be obtained, and certainly is not obtained by the law as it stands. The bishops are to refuse a man because he is illiterate. Undoubtedly it is possible that there are certain marginal cases with respect to which one bishop would say: "This is a degree of illiteracy which mates the clergyman quite unfit to exercise his duties;" another bishop might say "This is a doubtful case, but, on the whole, I do not feel justified in refusing presentation." That condition of things must always exist; but I am firmly convinced that those who are afraid that the bishops will use their power harshly, and that in a doubtful case they will give a hostile rather than a favourable judgment, entirely mistake the conduct which usually commends itself to the bishops, and certainly are erecting those gentlemen into a species of imaginary tyrants, for which there is no warrant, so far as I know, in historical fact. Then there comes the more vexed question as to whether we should, or should not, have imitated and followed the Bill of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington, which provided either directly in form, or indirectly by rule, that the hearing before the bishop should be in the nature of a judicial operation, publicly held, and in which the gentleman whoso case is in question and those who think him unfit should have, as it were, a locus standi before an open court, when the whole question may be threshed out. I quite admit that our Bill does not aim at that object. I quite admit that we do not desire to assimilate the administrative responsibility of the bishop to the action of a court of law, my hon. Friend says, "How novel!" My hon. Friend is wrong. Our process is a process which has been in operation in the Church of England from time immemorial, and it is not we who have introduced a novelty, but my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington, who, in his Bill, did pro-
  886
  pose, rightly or wrongly an entirely new departure. Now, let me say at once, in regard to that matter, that I am conscious there is a considerable weight of authority against the view which the Government have taken. I am quite aware that two Commissions at least have rather suggested that a different course should be adopted, but I believe that, in the interests of the presentee himself, the plan which we have selected is the one which is most likely to do most justice, to work most smoothly, most effectually, and most successfully to avoid unnecessary scandals. If you try to turn the bishop into a judge, sitting in a public court, observe what anomalies necessarily follow. In the first place, the bishop would to expected to make some preliminary inquiry into the case himself—not, I think, a very desirable preliminary on the part of a judge sitting as the judge upon a case. You expect the bishop, in other words, to both prepare the case and sit in judgment upon it. Further, it is contemplated, as I understand, that a public sitting should not absolutely exclude a private conference with the presentee—a conference which the bishop and the presentee might hope would smooth away all difficulties, and lead to a settlement of the question without any further public proceeding. But surely there will arise great inconvenience in asking the bishop not only to make inquiries into the truth or untruth of rumours which may have come to his ears, but also to expect him to ask the accused, if that is the word which may be employed, to come and talk the matter over with him; and then, after all these steps have been gone through, to deliver judgment with regard to the case. And as if those were not a sufficient number of anomalies, I think there is this further anomaly in the alternative plan—the plan we have not adopted—that the man who has first made private inquiry into the case, who has then seen the accused, and who has then sat in judgment upon the accused, has an appeal against him, the result of which appeal might be that he, the judge of the Court of first instance, might be cast in damages. That is an accumulation of anomalies which I should see with reluctance introduced into this Measure. I think our plan of taking

  887
  the practice as we find it, leaving the bishop to exercise what I may call an administrative responsibility like that which a great official has to exercise when he endorses or rejects some appointment made by a person lower in authority, is the right course. Put every safeguard in your Bill which may prevent the harsh exercise of the responsibility; give a cheap and effective appeal from his decision, as we have done in this Bill, but do not attempt to turn the bishop into a judge in the court of first instance, especially as you throw upon him all these other and inconsistent duties which I have ventured to enumerate to the House. These are very shortly, but not completely, the reasons which have made the Government prefer the form of Bill which we have brought forward, to that Bill which was read without a Division a second time on Wednesday. But let me say that, in our view, this is not an essential part of the Bill. It will be threshed out upstairs, and, if the decision of the Grand Committee is clearly against us, we should be quite ready to adopt the alternative proposal, and, in any case, we should not regard it as vital to the Bill. We have brought the Measure forward in the form which recommends itself to us, but we are perfectly ready to adopt suggestions both in the important matter on which I have addressed the House and also in regard to subordinate questions that may arise. Under these circumstances, I do not only venture to hope that we may now shorten our Debate, and, without a Division, read the Bill a second time, but that its path through the Grand Committee and through its subsequent stages in this House may be as smooth as the Debate this evening gives us every reason to hope and expect it will be.
  *LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I hope I may be pardoned for saying a few words upon this Measure, because it is one which is of very great interest, I think I may say, in almost every parish in England, and especially in the country districts, one of which I have the honour to represent. It has been said on the other side in the course of this Debate that much
  888
  interest is not felt in this Bill, and that it has been for that reason unduly hurried on, and without adequate notice. I am inclined to think it would be rather difficult to find adequate grounds for any such contention, because, after all, this subject is a part of Church reform; it has been inquired into, if I am not much mistaken, by more than one Commission and by Committees of this House; and Bills partly founded upon the reports of those Commissions have been from time to time debated in this House and sent to Committees upstairs. That being so, the argument that not sufficient interest is taken in the Bill to justify its introduction is one which I am inclined to think falls to the ground. I go further, and venture to say that the uncertainty that prevails upon the future of the law is one which ought to be terminated as soon as possible, both in the interests of the clergy of the Church of England, of the patrons of livings, and of any possible future presentees. The evils of the unreformed condition of the Church in these matters are patent and notorious to those who live in country districts. My only regret is that this Bill does not go further, but I am unable to see that that can be deemed an adequate ground for refusing to support a Bill which may not go far enough, but which, in any case, is a Measure of Reform. The only question which I think we on this side of the House ought to consider is this: Is this Bill a reform, or is it not? We may be of opinion that the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church of England would be a good thing. I myself in former days have recorded a vote in favour of that Measure, but it does not occur to me that my individual opinion, or that of any Member of this House, upon that question in the least affects the arguments which relate to this Bill. It is, after all, looking into a very dim future to say that we are not to support a moderate Measure of reform of Church Government, because we hope and believe that at some day religious equality will prevail. Then there is the more forcible and practical argument, that this Bill is a weak Bill, because it only deals with next presentations and does not touch the question of advowsons. I entirely agree with that argument. It is a weak Bill;

  889
  but why should we, because we think, or at any rate some of us may think, that advowsons ought not to be sold, resist a great step in that direction; because, after all, when you once admit the arguments against the sale of next presentations, you have gone, not only halfway, but three-quarters of the way, towards admitting the arguments against the sale of advowsons themselves. I am ready to admit that that is an argument with which the right hon. Gentleman opposite does not entirely agree, but, if you examine the matter, after all that is the true and logical basis of the argument against the sale of next presentations? You will find it to be this—that any dealing in this matter, by sale, with a matter which is the subject of a trust rather than a property, in the ordinary sense of the word, is objectionable, and if it is objectionable in the case of next presentations, it is equally so—still more so—in the case of advowsons. But whether that argument is admitted or not, I entirely agree with those on the opposite side of the House who claim that, so far as this Measure goes, it is a good and useful Measure of reform, and for that reason I venture to plead for it with those upon this side of the House. Again, I must acknowledge that I listened with silent astonishment to the arguments that were based upon some supposed danger to the Protestant religion. I have yet to learn that it is an integral portion of the Protestant religion that lay patronage should exist. I am quite aware that lay patronage is mixed up with the history of the Protestant religion in a certain way, but is it a page of the history of the Protestant religion, is it a page of the history of the Reformation which we can all read with admiration? I always imagine myself that the essential notion of Protestantism, in regard to Church government, was the notion of democratic Church government by the parishioners, or members of the congregation. As a matter of fact, at the time of the Reformation, in a period, I might almost say, of reform and rapine combined, we know that the opinions of the extreme Protestants were pushed aside. They desired to reorganise the Church upon a democratic basis, just as, by others, it was attempted to reorganise it upon an episcopalian basis. After-
  890
  wards a third party came in, neither the bishop nor the congregation—namely, the patron of the living, who, at the present day, has practically ousted both the congregation and the bishop. There are two essential notions of Church government. You may have an episcopal Church, or a real democratic Church; but the Church of England is an episcopal Church, and we, must take that Church as we find it. It is not for us, who hold, perhaps, rather extreme Protestant and democratic views upon these questions, by a side-wind to try to push our opinions into an organisation which has been based, for a long time, and will continue to be based for a long time, upon episcopacy. It may be possible, and I hope it is so, that we may do something to recognise the rights of the oppressed parishioner. The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington had a most useful clause in his Bill, which took only a moderate step in the direction of recognising the rights of the parishioner. We are not debarred, in voting for this Bill, from taking advantage of that clause, because, if I understand the right hon. Gentleman correctly, both these Bills will go to the Standing Committee on Law, and it will be possible to take clauses from one Bill and insert them in the other; or, rather, to take the two Bills together, and out of those two Bills to make a combined Measure. I hope that something of that kind may be done. There was one matter which was dealt with in the Bill of the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, which, I think, is not dealt with in this Bill. It is a matter which, I believe, the great majority of this House would desire to see dealt with—namely, that there should be some means of expropriating an unsatisfactory clergyman after he has been inducted into a living. I had these questions very forcibly brought before my mind some time ago by circumstances in my own county. A gentleman was put into a living, who proved to be a very unsatisfactory person, and finally he was indicted at the quarter sessions for organising a prizefight. Fortunately for him, the ways of grand juries being mysterious, the charge was thrown out, probably on the ground that a clergyman who organised a prizefight must be a good fellow. Afterwards the same clergyman was found to have

  891
  turned the lower-room of his vicarage into something which might be described as a butcher's shop. A short time afterwards he was induced to resign the living, But can hon. Members imagine, in a great Church organisation, a more absurd state of things than this, in which a gentleman of this kind, who acknowledged his own unfitness to perform the duties of his living, should have been able to defy his parishioners and the bishop until he was removed only by a certain amount of friendly good nature on his own part? I look upon this Bill as a useful Measure of Church reform as far as it goes, and must protest against the arguments used against hon. Members on this side of the House, that they desire to keep up the abuses of the Church in order to strengthen the case against it. Sir, I do not think anything was said by any hon. Member on this side of the House to justify that charge being made.
  *MR. A. C. HUMPHREYS - OWEN: I am quite alive to the scandals caused by the system of preferment in the Church of England, but these are comparatively not numerous; they are sporadic, and they do not influence the whole system of the Church of England in the way in which this Bill is likely to do. The Bill is framed upon the idea that greater powers should be given to the bishops, that they should be in the position of the officers of an army, from whom the clergy should take their marching orders. Sir, we know that a wave of sacerdotalism is sweeping over the Church at the present moment. Sacerdotalism is a fashionable doctrine, and there is scarcely a bishop on the bench who does not represent that point of view. That being so, any addition to the powers of the bishops must give rise to a suspicion that that form of doctrine will be unduly favoured at the expense of what is generally called Evangelicalism. That, I think, is a serious and a real fear, and does not deserve the gibes levelled at it by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury. It is of the greatest importance that persons subject to any jurisdiction should have confidence in the impartiality of that tribunal. There are bishops and bishops.
  892
  There are many bishops on the Bench in whose judgment and impartiality and Christian feeling both clergy and laity have the greatest confidence; but, unfortunately, you cannot always guarantee that you will have your beneficent despot. It is said that despotism is the best form of government if you can always ensure the beneficent despot. But it is conceivable that there may be men of hasty temper and keen partisans who would be anything but beneficent despots to any clergyman who was unfortunate enough to come under their displeasure. Reference has been made to the case of the diocese of St. Asaph, and I venture to contradict the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury when he said that the whole of the laity unanimously supported the bishop. There are two conspicuous Churchmen, his own supporters, who did not—the hon. Member for Denbigh and the hon. Member for the Montgomery Boroughs. Sir, I disclaim the charge that we on this side of the House wish to continue the present scandals of the Church with a view to bringing about Disestablishment and Disendowment. I believe Disestablishment and Disendowment would be the best thing for the Church, but I wish to bring it about only by fair arguments. If any suggestion is made that in opposing this Bill I desire to continue clerical scandals with a view to providing myself with arguments against the Establishment, I must utter my protest.
  *COLONEL T. M. SANDYS: There are two Bills before the House on the subject of Benefices, and it seems to me that the Government Measure does not altogether embody the views of the Church of England as a whole. There is a section of the Church of England in whose view the present Bill is objectionable; first, because it is a Measure for giving increased power to the bishops—and the bishops, in certain directions, have too much power already—and secondly, because there is no provision in the Bill for the ecclesiastical supremacy of the Crown as the head of the Church in this country. I shall endeavour to point out the reason why these two points appear to be objectionable. Clergymen who have been condemned by

  893
  a bishop are given the right of appeal to the archbishop, instead of to the Crown, as would be done under the Clergy Discipline Act of 1892. That Act has already been most beneficial in getting rid of objectionable men, whom it was advisable to eliminate from the Church; but why should not the machinery of that Act have been placed in the Measure now before the House, instead of creating an entirely new Court, consisting practically of the archbishop? Another matter, which seems to me to be of very great importance in this Bill, I would venture to point out for the consideration of the House. One of the reasons why a bishop may object to institute a clergyman is for his misconduct. What is misconduct? Is it anything the bishop chooses to define as misconduct? And is the bishop's definition of misconduct in 1898 to be the same in 1900? Sir, this Bill places powers almost of life and death in the hands of the bishop. He is to be the judge, and is to define the offence under
  which his unfortunate subordinate clergy are to suffer. Parliament is asked to create penalties for offences which the bishop is to define from time to time, and to confer upon him the powers of enforcing them. This is a serious objection to the present Bill. I do not know how far the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury is prepared to proceed in this matter, but I think the two points I have mentioned should receive attention in any comprehensive Measure laid before the House intended to protect the clergy of the Church of England from the power of the bishops being exercised too harshly against them, and from which they have not power to protect themselves.
  Question put—
  "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  The House divided:—Ayes 243; Noes 57.

  AYES.

  Allen, Wm. (Newc.-under-L.)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

  Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Mncr.)

  Allison, Robert Andrew

  Cawley, Frederick

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Ascroft, Robert

  Cayzer, Sir Chas. William

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Asher, Alexander

  Cecil, Lord Hugh

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Fison, Frederick William

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)

  FitzGerald, Sir R. U. Penrose

  Baden-Powell, Sir Geo. Smyth

  Chamberlain, J. Austin (Worc'r)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

  Charrington, Spencer

  Flannery, Fortescue

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Baillie, Jas. E. B. (Inverness)

  Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.

  Forster, Henry William

  Baird, John Geo. Alexander

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Galloway, Wm. Johnson

  Balcarres, Lord

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Garfit, William

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Colomb, Sir Jno. Chas. Ready

  Gedge, Sydney

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r.)

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (C. of Lond.)

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. Grld W. (Leeds)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Cook, Fred Lucas (Lambeth)

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd.)

  Gold, Charles

  Barry, Francis Tress (Windsor)

  Cox, Robert

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Cozens-Hardy, Herbt. Hardy

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj.

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristl.)

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Begg, Ferdinand Faithful

  Curzon, Rt. Hn. G. N. (Lanc. S. W.)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks.)

  Green, Walford D. (Wednesbry.)

  Bigwood, James

  Dalbiac, Col. Philip Hugh

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

  Bill, Charles

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Greville, Captain

  Billson, Alfred

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Gunter, Colonel

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Hall, Sir Charles

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Midsx.)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon A. Akers-

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Drage, Geoffrey

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord George

  Brookfield, A. Montagu

  Duckworth, James

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Rbt. Wm.

  Brown, Alexander H.

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Edwards, Gen. Sir Jas. Bevan

  Hardy, Laurence

  Bucknill, Thos. Townsend

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson-

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Harwood, George

  Hermon-Hodge, Rbt. Trotter

  M'Ewan, William

  Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)

  Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord Arth. (Down)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampstd.)

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.)

  Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

  Mappin, Sir Fredk. Thorpe

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Houston, R. P.

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Smith, Abel (Herts)

  Howard, Joseph

  Mellor, Col. (Lancashire)

  Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

  Howell, William Tudor

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth)

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacey

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  More, Robert Jasper

  Strauss, Arthur

  Jessel, Capt. Herbt. Merton

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptf'd.)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Johnstone, John H. (Sussex)

  Mount, William George

  Talbot, Rt. Hn J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.)

  Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt. Hn. Sir U.

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Grhm (Bute

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Kenyon, James

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Kimber, Henry

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Valentia, Viscount

  Kitson, Sir James

  Northcote, Hon. Sir H. Stafford

  Verney, Hon. Richard Greville

  Knowles, Lees

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  Lafone, Alfred

  Perks, Robert William

  Wallace, Robt. (Edinburgh)

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Wallace, Robert (Perth)

  Lawrence, Sir Edw. (Cornwall)

  Pollock, Harry Frederick

  Walton, Jno. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Priestley, Sir W. Over'nd (Edin.)

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Pryce-Jones, Edward

  Wayman, Thomas

  Leighton, Stanley

  Purvis, Robert

  Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Swnsea)

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Reid, Sir Robert T.

  Wharton, Rt. Hn. Jno. Lloyd

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Whiteley, George (Stockport)

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.)

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Lpl.)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Lopes, Hy. Yarde Buller

  Robson, Wm. Snowdon

  Williams, Jos. Powell- (Birm.)

  Lowe, Francis William

  Roche, Hon. Jas. (East Kerry)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Lowles, John

  Rothschild, Baron F. Jas. de

  Wills, Sir William Henry

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Round, James

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Wodehouse, Edmd. R. (Bath)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham)

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hudrsfld)

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Savory, Sir Joseph

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Younger, William

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Maclean, James Mackenzie

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Sir William Walrond and

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Mr. Anstruther.

  NOES.

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Gourley, Sir Edw. Temperley

  Priestley, Brigg (Yorks.)

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Holburn, J. G.

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Bainbridge, Emerson

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Baker, Sir John

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Leuty, Thomas Richmond

  Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford)

  Bayley, Thos. (Derbyshire)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Lough, Thomas

  Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

  Brigg, John

  Lyell, Sir Leonard

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  MacAleese, Daniel

  Thomas, Alf. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Burt, Thomas

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

  Caldwell, James

  M'Laren, Chas. Benjamin

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-shre)

  M'Leod, John

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Clough, Walter Owen

  Maddison, Fred.

  Wilson, Jos. H. (Middl'sbrough)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Dunn, Sir William

  Morton, Edw. J. C. (Dvnpt.)

  Woodall, William

  Ellis, Thos. Ed. (Merionethsh.)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Woods, Samuel

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorg'n)

  Oldroyd, Mark

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Fenwick, Charles

  Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Pinkerton, John

  Mr. Brynmor Jones and Mr. Spicer.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Price, Robert John

  Bill read a Second time, and, on the motion of the First Lord of the Treasury,
  896
  referred to the Grand Committee of Law.

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, in the Chair.]

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT (SYPPLEMENTARY), ESTIMATES, 1897–8.
  Motion made and Question proposed—
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2810, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1898, for Expenditure in connection with certain Public Works, and for improved Communications, and other purposes, within the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, including a Grant in Aid."
  Dr. G. B. CLARK: Before we can adopt this Vote I think we should be supplied with some information. I understand a new policy is to be begun, and that Parliament has had no information, as to this Vote. Before we vote this money we must know something about the body that is going to have the control over the money. There are two items—(a) Steamer Communication, £1,325; (e) Congested Districts (Scotland) Board, Grant-in-aid, £1,485. With reference to (a) I want to know for what special service you want this money; whether it will end in March. With reference to (e), I want to know, first, whether it will end in March, or whether you have reconsidered the question since the change was made last year, when the Vote was about £36,000. It was reduced last year £25,500, and this was one of the reductions. I suppose the new Body which is going to control this money has reconsidered the matter, and that they are carrying on for the rest of the financial year. I may say, Sir, I know what the service is, because, to a large extent, this money is used for supporting a monopoly, which is very bad for the Highlands. With regard to the second portion of the Vote—Congested Districts (Scotland) Board, Grant-in-aid—I take it, Mr. Lowther, that this is a sum devoted now to the Congested Districts of Scotland Board, because the Highlands and Islands Vote is not again
  898
  to appear upon the Estimate. The body that has had the control of this and the other improvements is to cease to exist, and the new Congested Districts of Scotland Board are to take over the liability of the old Board. Now, I object to that. I will tell you why. Parliament has given sanction to the Grant, and for several years this Board—the old Highland Board—has been carrying out these improvements, and I am not at all sure that this £1,485 will complete this matter. Therefore I object to this Congested Districts Board taking over the liabilities of the old Board, and the reason why I object to it is this, because this Congested Districts Board is a Board for a special purpose, and when you vote this money, £15,000 of the money, at any rate, has to come from Scotland's own money, Scotland's share of the equivalent Grant. Now, I object to your transferring any further liability from the Imperial Exchequer to Scotland's share of the equivalent Grant, especially when you are now proposing to give £730,000 to Ireland. I object to any portion of the Scotch Estimates paid by the Imperial Exchequer being transferred, or any liability being transferred to this Congested Districts Board, because it has to get the larger portion of its money out of Scotland's own share. I want to know from the Lord Advocate—before anything further is done—I want to get some information with reference to the new policy, and, secondly, what has to be done—whether the new Congested Districts Board are going to take over all the old liabilities of the West Highlands Committee, and whether, out of this £35,000 (£20,000 voted by Parliament, £15,000 taken from our share of the Grant), that is to be paid for out of the Imperial source, is now to be paid for out of the middle source. Last year it was £25,500 plus this Supplementary Estimate, but last year it is £36,000, so that while you are giving us on the one hand and claiming to be very generous to the West Highlands of Scotland, you are writing off what was £26,700 this year and £37,000 last year. That is the way you treat Scotland generally; while you pretend to give her something on the one hand you are taking it back with the other hand. Now this Vote means that the liability of the

  899
  old Highlands and Islands Commission is now to be turned over to the Congested Districts (Scotland) Board. I want to know from the Lord Advocate, before we vote this money, whether all the old liabilities and all the debts performed by the Highlands and Islands Commission are now to be transferred to this Congested Districts Board?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY,): I certainly shall be glad to answer any question put to me upon this Vote, but it must be recollected that there is no question of general policy raised on this Supplementary Estimate. As far as the steamer communication is concerned, what happened was this: There was a steamer expenditure. There had been a reduction made of £10,800. In consequence of that reduction a promise was obtained from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Accordingly, there was another Departmental Committee appointed. In the meantime, in order that there should be no lack of the steamer service, it was considered better to go on with the old service. The whole question will be taken up upon the Report of the Committee. Then, as regards the other item, this again, so far as I can discover, has nothing to do with general policy. As to the Carloway Road, a sum of £15,000 was, as the hon. Gentleman knows, fixed by Act of Parliament to be spent out of moneys provided by Parliament, that was to say, year by year, sums were voted to be expended on this road. But, as the hon. Member also knows, there was an unfortunate miscalculation, and there were troubles with the contractor. I am glad to say that these troubles have now been, to a very large extent, met, and that the contractor has been settled with. This sum of £1,485 represents the unexpended portion of the amount voted for the Carloway Road; and, accordingly, as road-making has very much to do with the work of the Congested Districts Board, it has been thought convenient that the item should be transferred to that body. The note in the Estimates really explains the whole matter. The money is to be paid over as a grant-in-aid to the Congested Districts Board, who will undertake to spend the whole amount on the construction of
  900
  the road. As to the question of policy—whether the Board will do more than spend that particular money—I will say nothing, but, at all events, this particular money will not be diverted from the special purpose to which Parliament intended that it should be applied.
  MR. J. CALDWELL: With regard to the money that is to be handed over to the Congested Districts Board, I agree that there is a question of policy involved, because the money is derived actually from a sum voted for a specific purpose by this House. We were told that the £20,000 which was given last year to the Congested Districts Board was given for the special purpose of endeavouring to meet cases of distress, but now it turns out that we are to give £20,000 with one hand, and that, on the other hand, there is to be deducted a sum to close the account for the Highlands and Islands, which this year amounted to £28,000.
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: I never said that.
  MR. CALDWELL: But there is a certain amount which Parliament undertook to pay on the Carloway Road, and this is the balance of unexpended money which the Act of Parliament allocated for the purpose of finishing that road. There can be no question as to that.
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: The hon. Gentleman will pardon me for again interrupting him. He will see in the Act that Parliament promised to give £15,000 towards the Carloway Road, but he will look in vain in the Act for any obligation on the part of the Government to finish that road.
  MR. CALDWELL: We know that that is all the money the expenditure of which was actually authorised, but surely the experience of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to public money is that the first sum named for a work like this is never sufficient, and that we always have to come back for more money to finish it. The right hon. Gentleman himself even gave us his reasons why the road would cost more than the original

  901
  Estimate, for he told us that troubles had been met with after the starting of the road—troubles with the contractors, for instance—which rendered the undertaking a much more laborious one than had at the outset been contemplated. The right hon Gentleman has provided us with the very reason why the £15,000 first provided was not sufficient, and would not be nearly sufficient to complete the road; and, that being so, what is proposed? You propose to hand over to the Congested Districts Board the unexpended sum of some £1,500—and for what? In order that that Board may finish the road. But what is the use of laying out £1,500 to complete the road if it is not in a proper state to work? It is obvious that if the road is to be of use it must be finished, and finished in a proper manner. Now, what do you propose to do? The Secretary to the Treasury knows very well that this Highlands and Islands account is to be closed, and you propose to hand over your obligations, with the little balance you have in hand, to the Congested Districts Board. I venture to say that the people of Scotland would be very foolish if they were to accept money on these terms, yet these are the terms stated in that Estimate, which says we are going to close the Highlands and Islands account, and are going to hand over this remaining obligation. I should like to know from the Lord Advocate—and he ought to be able to tell us—what is the estimated cost of finishing the road; because if the road is to cost, as I believe it will cost, several thousands to make it of any use whatever, then what earthly good is if for you to hand over this small balance to the Congested Districts Board, and to lay upon that body the obligation of finishing the road? I say that the Government, having undertaken by Act of Parliament the laying out and finishing of the road, ought to lay it out and finish it; and I object altogether to their action in shifting the obligation to another body which was established for a different purpose altogether. We say, "Keep the balance in the hands of the Imperial Treasury, and go on and finish the road;" and I confess I do not think it any answer whatever for the Lord Advocate to say that by Act of Parliament the Government only agreed to give £15,000. I repeat that, as every per-
  902
  son of experience in this House knows, works of this sort are never finished for the sum first fixed. Did you finish Peterhead Harbour, for instance—or any of your other works, for that matter—for the amount originally estimated? This money was meant for the special purpose of relieving distress in the Highlands and Islands, and yet you are attempting here to hand it over to the Congested Districts Board to do what it was never meant to do. It was meant for a different purpose altogether, and I say that out of Imperial funds you ought to go on and finish the road as you began it, and leave the Congested Districts Board alone to carry on their own work. I shall certainly vote against the transfer of this money to the Congested Districts Board.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I do not feel competent to enter into the merits of the road, or to say whether it ought to be finished, but I have a very much more serious objection to bring against item E in the Vote, which in effect raises the question whether this House has complete control over the public expenditure of the United Kingdom. If the members of the Committee will read the vote they will see that the £15,000 voted, year by year, under this head, will have been expended before the 31st March, 1898, with the exception of £1,485. It is proposed to re-vote this unexpended balance as a grant to the Congested Districts (Scotland) Board. The paragraph is frank, though, indeed, it is almost brutal in its frankness. It really means, of course, that expenditure for next year may be put upon this year, the reason being, as we may surmise, that this year there is a very large surplus, while next year there may be none at all. That, anyway, is the naked statement, that this £1,485 which we are now asked to vote will not be expended in the same financial year, that it will not, in fact, be surrendered—which is entirely contrary to the law—but that it will be handed over to next year for the diminution of the Estimates of next year. I have no objection whatever to this Vote if it had been brought forward, as it should have been, in the Estimate for next year; but I again protest against the Vote as it stands at present, and I trust I shall

  903
  get a better answer from the Lord Advocate than I had the other night, upon a similar but less serious instance of this kind, from the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Let me lay down to the House—I am sure it will not be disputed—what is the financial practice of the House and the law of the land: That sums voted in one year must be either expended in that one year, or must, at the end of the year, be surrendered and applied in reduction of the National Debt. It is perfectly true that a grant-in-aid may be made in such general terms, that the purpose for which it is granted may be satisfied by the largest possible Vote to the Comptroller and Auditor General, when he asks whether the money has been directed to its special object, for it is an essential condition of every grant in this House that it shall be made for a particular purpose; and it is an essential point of the duty of the Comptroller and Auditor General to pursue the grant, and see that it has been expended for the purpose specified, and no other purpose whatever. The purpose specified is, of course, only to be gathered from the Estimates, and the terms used by them; and those are the terms which the Comptroller and Auditor General usually follows when he pursues an item. It may be that a grant-in-aid may be voted in terms of an Estimate in very general terms, but, on the other hand, a grant-in-aid may be so specific—so limited to particular purposes—that it is impossible that it should be applied to any other purpose than that for which it was intended, and in that case it is provided that if any balance remains over at the end of the financial year, that balance should be—and must be, under the Act—surrendered, and applied to the reduction of the National Debt. The Vote under discussion is for a specific purpose—it is for the making of a particular road—and I repeat that it is the duty of the Comptroller and Auditor General, when he comes to deal with this £1,485, to ask whether it has been expended upon that particular road in this particular year—that is to say, in the year ending 31st March next—and if not, it is his duty to see that any unexpended balance is surrendered to go towards the reduction of the National Debt. I am aware that the Treasury affect to take—for I cannot suppose that they really
  904
  hold it—the view that there is some magic in the words "grant-in-aid," which differentiates such a Vote from any other. There is no more magic in the words, "grant-in-aid" than in the word "Consolidation." [Mr. HANBURY: "Hear, hear!"] I am glad to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury signify his agreement with that statement by his cheer, and therefore I need not deal with that point further. A grant-in-aid, therefore, is subject to the ordinary rules, which are that a grant for a specific object must be followed by the Comptroller and Auditor General, and must be spent on a specific object in a specific year. Otherwise it is not appropriated by the Appropriation Act, and no one has any authority to spend money which is so unappropriated. It is, indeed, provided by Act of Parliament, that by the end of the year the Comptroller and Auditor General shall make out an account of the unexpended balances which have then to be surrendered, and must go in alleviation of the National Debt. The question, then, is whether you can carry over to one year an unexpended balance from the previous year. If there is any authority to do that under any Act of Parliament, I should like to know of that authority, but I believe that there is no such authority to carry over to next year a grant which Parliament has sanctioned for this year only for a specific object; and I go further. I say that if this practice is to obtain of asking for grants-in-aid, and of claiming the right not to expend them during the year for the purposes for which Parliament has allotted them, but to carry them over, and thus relieve next year of its proper expenditure at a cost of the present year, the control of Parliament over the expenditure of the country will be directly interfered with, and the full opportunity of control over the expenditure will be tremendously affected. I have stated the case, as I said at the outset, not on the merits of the Vote, but on the merits of the manner in which the money is asked for. I hold that if this £1,485 is not expended on 31st March, 1898,

  905
  there is no legal power to keep it in hand beyond that date, but that it must be surrendered and go in diminution of the National Debt. If the right hon. Gentleman, having taken, as I hope he has taken, the advice of the Treasury on this matter, will give us the Treasury views, I shall be very glad.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: I do not agree that the expenditure upon the Carloway Road is not a new departure in policy. It represents, at any rate, a partial resurrection of policy, because I understand that the Carloway Road was to be regarded as an abandoned undertaking. This sum of money will, after all, only add a very small portion to the existing road without carrying the whole work to a conclusion. But the road is, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, a matter of very great interest in the part of the world where it is situated, and we should very much like to know whether this grant to the Congested Districts Board is to be taken as an indication that the work will be continued.
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid he could not answer the question as to whether the Carloway Road was or was not to be completed. The matter would have to be dealt with by the Congested Districts Board. What they were doing now was to hand over the last portion of the £15,000 which was promised by the Treasury. As to the point raised by the Member for King's Lynn, he had to say that the practice to which he referred was, as he understood from those who had been much longer in the House than he had been, entirely in accordance with the ordinary practice of the Treasury.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he believed that the Lord Advocate was mistaken in that view. The item, instead of coming into this year's Estimates, really belonged to next year's expenditure. It was an improper proceeding, and it was not consistent with the financial control the House should exercise to take the expenditure of one year out of another. He felt so strongly on the point that he should move the reduction of the Vote by the amount of the item, £1,485.
  MR. T. R. BUCHANANsaid that what he understood had taken place was this: that under ordinary circumstances the sum would have appeared as a re-vote in the Estimate of next year, under the Western Highlands Vote; it was proposed to do away with that Vote altogether; the Scottish Office had converted this Vote into a grant-in-aid. This was not in conformity with the decision of the Public Accounts Committee, and was a new departure in financial policy. He would like to have an expression of opinion from the Secretary to the Treasury as to that policy. Had it the approval of the Treasury?
  MR. R. MCKENNAsaid he thought the proceeding was indefensible. The analogy of the National Gallery grants did not, in his opinion, apply; the money paid to the National Gallery used to be expended year by year, and any that was unexpended was repaid into the Treasury.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,)said that in regard to the National Gallery grants, the Treasury admitted responsibility for what was a comparatively recent introduction. Formerly, a grant being made to the Trustees of the Gallery, the money had to be expended in the current year or returned, and in the result it was found that sometimes pictures were bought that never should have been bought for the Gallery. Then it was thought that if the money were allowed to accumulate there would be funds for the purchase of really good pictures when they came into the market.
  MR. MCKENNA: Under what Act was this authorised?
  MR. HANBURYreplied that it was under the authority of Parliament in passing Votes for grants-in-aid. As to this particular grant-in-aid, it arose from the fact that there would be no further Highlands and Islands Vote, and it was the proper thing to hand over the balance to the Congested Districts Board, the successor to the present authority. The requirements of the Act

  907
  would be carried out, and the expenditure would still be under the supervision of the Comptroller and Auditor General.
  DR. CLARK: I do not think it is desirable to have two Divisions in this matter; we can support the hon. Member on other grounds than those he has raised, and also upon the merits of the case. I do not myself desire to move a reduction of the Vote, and, therefore, I shall support the Motion of my hon. Friend. I wish to do so partly on two grounds, but principally on the merits, of the question. It is perfectly clear now, from the answer made by the Secretary to the Treasury, that the reason why this is put in is for the purpose of preventing Parliament from discussing and considering the new departure taken by the Government. All through this Parliament you have the Class 7, Vote 3; all last Parliament you had Class 7, Vote 3; and in the Parliament before that you had another Class 7, Vote 3. Only two of the works performed, I see, are here mentioned. One is steamboat communication. I do not know who is going to take charge of the steamer; it will not appear in future in Class 7, but it may appear in the Post Office Vote, or it may appear somewhere else.
  MR. HANBURY: It will appear in the Post Office Vote.
  DR. CLARK: Well, now, we have got here the only opportunity we shall have of considering the proposals of the Government, because the Government in this fashion are now proposing to get rid of the liability and to hand it over to another body. Now, how do matters stand? I say you have in this Parliament, the last Parliament, and in the Parliament before carried out for various reasons a series of improvements in certain districts of Scotland. You have voted during the present year, if this Vote is carried, £28,000. Last year there was about £37,500, and there have been various sums in various years, and there have been various Departments and various grants. Why, Sir, there was one
  908
  very notorious grant of £4,000 from my own constituency, in respect of which I proposed an Amendment to throw it out; and it was thrown out, and I think it was the only grant that was ever proposed to my constituency. That was some seven or eight years ago. I thought it was a job, and as it was going to my constituency I opposed it, and it was thrown out. I may say that for political purposes my opponent who fought me in 1892 went to the Treasury, and though Parliament had refused the Vote, the Treasury gave the Vote afterwards. Well, what is the position of affairs now? This has been for several years a burden on the Imperial Treasury. During the present Parliament a Bill has been passed for the purpose of relieving the land—the Agricultural Rates Bill—and Scotland required half as an equivalent for educational purposes, and also when you passed your Bill financing County Councils from the Imperial Exchequer. But in each of those cases, beginning from 10 years ago, when the County Councils were assisted, the equivalent of the grant given to Scotland was used by Scotland for entirely different purposes. It seems to me that this last grant from the present Parliament of £15,000 is not to be used for the purpose of reducing rates, but of creating a Congested Board in Scotland, for the purpose of buying land and placing property on it, and doing various works of that kind. There was this proposal of £100,000 which is to run for five years, and the result will be that the Imperial Exchequer will gain by it, and Scotland will lose by it. You help us to do our work in Scotland, but you help us to do it at our own expense. There is actually a proposal to give £750,000 to Ireland for another purpose. Well, of course, it will be passed, because it will be used for the benefit of the landlords.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: The hon. Member is departing a very long way from the Carloway road.
  DR. CLARK: Yes, Sir, I am taking a wide view; but to return to the Carloway Road. Apart from all this, it is an unknown and unexpected change which no Scotch Member, as far as I am aware, knew anything about until he got the Estimates yesterday. Now we know

  909
  what the Government proposals are, and now we have heard stated in the usual blunt English fashion by the Secretary to the Treasury what is the position in which we are placed. You have got this Estimate without a word from the Lord Advocate. This road was brought up by Parliament seven years ago, and it has been ever since more or less a subject of discussion in the House. This Carloway Road is one of the many Measures proposed, not by this Government or by the late Government, but the Government before that, seven years ago. The original Estimate was to be £15,000. I do not know what the experience of the right hon. Gentleman is in reference to original Estimates, but if he looks at all of the original Estimates that we have had from the Treasury during that period, he will
  find that in many cases they have been largely exceeded. The Estimate for Dover Harbour, for instance, was £1,900,000, but it jumped up to £3,600,000 in a year. I do not mean to go into details, but it seems to me to be very unfair to place a burden of this kind upon a new Board. It is perfectly clear £15,000 will not meet the case; £25,000 ought to have been voted. For these reasons I support the Amendment.
  Question put—
  "That Item E (Congested Districts (Scotland) Board, Grants in Aid) be omitted from the proposed Votes."
  The Committee divided.—Ayes, 62; Noes, 135.

  AYES.

  Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)

  Duckworth, James

  Price, Robert John

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Ellis, Thos. Ed. (Merionethsh.)

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorg'n)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Baker, Sir John

  Fenwick, Charles

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Roche, Hon. Jas. (Kerry, E.)

  Bowles, Capt H. F. (Middlesex)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Brigg, John

  Holburn, J. G.

  Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swnsea)

  Shaw, Thomas, (Hawick B.)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon James

  Kilbride, Denis

  Sinclair, Capt. Jno. (Forfarsh.)

  Burns, John

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Caldwell, James

  MacAleese, Daniel

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

  MacNeill, Jno. Gordon Swift

  Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Tanner, Charles Kearns

  Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh.)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  M'Laren, Chas. Benjamin

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Crilly, Daniel

  M'Leod, John

  Williams, Jno. Carvell (Notts.)

  Curran, Thos (Sligo, S.)

  Morton, Edw. J. C. (Dvnpt)

  Wilson, Fredk. W. (Norfolk)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

  Woodall, William

  Davitt, Michael

  Oldroyd, Mark

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  O'Malley, William

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Perks, Robert William

  Mr. Gibson Bowles and Mr. Hedderwick.

  Doogan, P. C.

  Pinkerton, John

  NOES.

  Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden

  Bond, Edward

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Baden-Powell, Sir Geo. Smyth

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Cook, Fred Lucas (Lambeth)

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Brookfield, A. Montagu

  Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd)

  Baillie, Jas. E. B. (Inverness)

  Carlile, William Walter

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cecil, Lord Hugh

  Cotton-Jodrell, Col Edw. T. D.

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r.)

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. Grld W. (Leeds)

  Chamberlain Rt. Hn. J. (Birm)

  Curzon, Rt. Hn. G. N. (Lanc. S. W.)

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r)

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Charrington, Spencer

  Dalbiac, Col. Philip Hugh

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj

  Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristl.)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Douglas, Rt. Hon A. Akers-

  Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Colomb, Sir Jno. Chas. Ready

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Kenyon, James

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Knowles, Lees

  Pryce-Jones, Edward

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Lafone, Alfred

  Purvis, Robert

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Fison, Frederick William

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Rutherford, John

  Flannery, Fortescue

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (Swnsea)

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Forster, Henry William

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Galloway, Wm. Johnson

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Liverpl.)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (C. of Lond.)

  Lopes, Hy. Yarde Buller

  Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Lowe, Francis William

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Lowles, John

  Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Maclean, James Mackenzie

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.)

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  M'Calmont, H. L. B. (Cambs.)

  Verney, Hon. Richard Greville

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord George

  Malcolm, Ian

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Rbt. Wm.

  Marks, Henry H.

  Warkworth, Lord

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Hardy, Laurence

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

  Hermon-Hodge, Rbt. Trotter

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Wharton, Rt. Hn. Jno. Lloyd

  Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord Arth. (Down)

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Whiteley, George (Stockport)

  Hill, Sir Edw. Stock (Brist'l)

  Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampstd.)

  More, Robert Jasper

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.)

  Howard, Joseph

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Williams, Jos. Powell- (Birm.)

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptf'd.)

  Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R.)

  Muntz, Philip A.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Grhm. (Bute)

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Kemp, George

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Question put, and agreed to.

  On the Vote of £44,789, repayment to the Local Loans Fund,
  MR. CALDWELL: With regard to this Vote, I should like to have some information with regard to Item 6. I see only £237 refers to Scotland. It is some time since these loans were made, and year after year we are writing off so much. The point I want to know is, what is the full extent at the present moment of the outstanding loans, and what assets have to come in in respect of them? Taking this Vote as a whole, we have an extraordinary state of affairs. We have a great many loans granted by the State which are now to be written off to the extent of £44,789. If it were merely a matter of writing off this year or in a series of years, one might pass the matter over without saying very much. But year after year we find we have to write off enormous sums. So far as Scotland is concerned, we find the amount is only £237; then there is an item of £3,600 for Aberbrothwick Harbour, which brings it to this, that upwards of £40,000 of what is to be
  912
  written off relates to Ireland. Now, I think that is a very serious matter, because we find that local loans are granted by the State, and then the people who receive them are led to believe that if they do not pay, the whole amount will be written off by the State. Here we have to write off a sum of £40,000 for certain loans granted for the extension of public works in Ireland and improvements under the Land Acts. Now you can hardly expect people to pay up their loans when they find their neighbours, who are probably just as well able to pay as they are, do not do so. It is not the loss of the money. That is not very much to a nation which has £100,000,000 a year, and I do not think that any one would have a word to say on the matter if the money had been used to relieve people who were earnestly endeavouring to improve their position on their holdings, because no better application of money could be made; but unfortunately we find that is not so. We find that these sums are given to people who neglect their holdings and get into debt, and who could not in any possible way hope to benefit from the loans. I should like to know how it happens,

  913
  that in the case of those persons who have holdings, these sums are written off in this manner, because these people have holdings which could be sold. In the case of the fishermen, I do not object to your writing off the loans but in these cases—
  THE CHAIRMAN: I would remind the hon. Member that last Session an Act of Parliament was passed giving power to write off these debts. The only question which arises now is whether the debts are accurately stated.
  MR. CALDWELL: To an extent that is so. But I submit that when you come to the voting of the money it is quite competent to us, even now, at the last stage, to interpose our verdict. I submit that no Act of Parliament could compel this Committee this Session to vote the money if they were not disposed to do so, and I would ask that explanation from the Secretary to the Treasury.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): I did not expect that I should be called upon to go into the particulars of this Vote, because as has been pointed out this is a matter which has been decided by Parliament itself. My hon. Friend is under some misapprehension when he assumes that the mere fact that those loans are written off, the Local Loan Fund causes them to be remitted so far as the persons from whom they are due are concerned. The liability of the persons who ought to re-pay these moneys is in no way affected by this Vote. We do not forego our rights against them in any way, and all steps that can be taken to recover this money we shall take, whether this money is written off or not.
  MR. CALDWELL: We are quite accustomed to that explanation. We get it every time the matter comes up. But will the right hon. Gentleman tell me how much of the former loans have been actually recovered, because we never hear of any? I rather suspect that once an amount is written off it is writen off for ever. I would like to know if the debt is still kept open again the debtor, exactly how much has been received on
  914
  former loans. I think that is hardly the explanation to give us when we are resisting a Vote of this character.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: There is an item here with regard to the extension and promotion of the Birr and Portrunna Railway. I find it covers an item of £20,000 in respect of the railway which runs through a very poor district of King's County. I wish to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that if Parliament is willing to forego the repayment in respect of that railway the Treasury also should forego a claim of some £281,000 in connection with the same work for which they hold the guarantee of Baragbreer, which is not in a position to pay, owing entirely to the poverty of the district. Over the head of Baragbreer you are holding a charge which you could not possibly realise, which I think you might forego.
  Vote agreed to.
  On the Vote of £45,000, Highland Railway Company,
  MR. CALDWELL: This is a very important Vote which is moved for the first time in the Estimates, and it arises in consequence of the policy which the Government is pursuing in connection with the Highlands. So far as the policy of providing extra communications with the Highlands is concerned, I have always been a supporter of it. I believe it is a good policy for the Highlands that they should be opened up by extra railway communication, and I always find there is distress in the Highlands where there is no railway communication, and, therefore, this policy is one I actively support and approve, the more particularly because the movement in connection with these railway communications with the Highlands practically originated with myself. I was just remarking when the Chancellor of the Exchequer entered the House that there were two islands of Scotland said to be congested, the island of Lewis and the island of Skye; and any money spent in opening up a line of railway in a district not approached or served by a railway is a policy of which I cordially approve. But the Mallaig line had for its objective point the island of Skye, and it is a most

  915
  important line serving the Island in a very important manner, that has been promoted under subsidies from the Imperial Government, and Lewis is better approached by a new line altogether. Those two lines open up new territories altogether. What is the position of this line. It is a branch of the Highland Railway line and is under the control of the Highland Railway Company, and I think there never was a greater waste of money than to give this £45,000 to the Highland Railway Company, because they would, in their own interest, have promoted and paid for it. I know perfectly well they were prepared to do so, owing to the competition they saw going on. They were prepared in self-defence to make a line from Strome Ferry, down to Kyle of Lochalsh, and for the Government to give them £45,000 to do that which they would have done themselves is an extravagant waste of money. The Government gives a subsidy of £50,000 to the Mallaig line, which is going through a new and very poor territory, and what is this £45,000 to do; to enable the Highland Railway Company to compete with a line which you subsidise. It is for that that you give them £45,000 to continue the line 10 miles further to the coast. At the place where Strome Ferry comes up, there is a very dangerous piece of coast where steamers and other vessels incur great risks, and it is to improve the line of service and extend it to Kyle of Lochalsh that you give this money. Why do you give £45,000 to a company which is paying a 6 per cent. dividend to carry its own line 10 miles further, and for the purpose of building a pier? I cannot conceive a greater waste of public money. So far as the Mallaig line is concerned, that opened up a new district altogether, and could not be made without assistance; nobody else could have made it, and that was a legitimate expenditure of public money; but this company were prepared, in their own interests and self-defence, to make this line, and I would never have given them a copper to extend their own line. What I would have done would have been to have said that, as compensation as regards the Mallaig Railway, I have no objection to your entering to a new line with an entirely new objective point,
  916
  and if you do that we will give you a subsidy, as we did in the case of the Mallaig line. I think to grant money to enable them to carry their main line down to the coast, and build a harbour in order that they may compete with a new line that you are subsidising, is absurd. I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have done such a thing, and possibly it will be said that it was done by this side of the House. It might be. I do not recognise that all the virtues are on this side of the House, and all the vices are on that. I can vote with any Government if I think they are right; and if I think they are wrong I can oppose them. I do not like this bandying backwards and forwards. I do not care which Government did it, and if the Liberal Government had been in power when this money was granted I would have protested as strongly then as I do now. This is the only opportunity we have of expressing our opinion in these matters, and I do not think it is right for the Government to say they must follow their predecessors in this matter. They did not follow them in the case of Chitral. Another point I should like to be informed upon is with regard to this subsidy to build a pier at Kyleakin. Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell us whether, in his arrangements with the railway company, he has made any provision with regard to that pier; whether, in the case of the harbour, the fishermen can use it for a nominal charge, or whether the railway company, having got this enormous subsidy, can practically charge anything they like? Has any arrangement been made for the use of the pier for such of the general public as may wish to use it? I think it should suggest itself to us that if we are to give such an enormous subsidy as this, we ought to have some little recompense.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): The hon. Member has told us rather a long story, but about five years too late. This scheme for the branch of the Highland Railway from Strome Ferry was sanctioned by my predecessor in 1892. At that time several schemes for railway extension in the Highlands had been under the consideration of a Committee and a Commission appointed for

  917
  that purpose, and subsequently of two Governments, and this was one of the schemes which most commended itself to everybody. Anyone who has been to Strome Ferry will know that it is a very awkward place for the terminus of a railway, and extremely dangerous for fishing vessels and steamers coming in. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire made a definite promise to the Highland Railway Company in 1892, on the recommendation of those who had enquired into the matter, that if they would extend their line he would ask Parliament to grant them £45,000 out of a total estimated expense of £180,000. That promise was publicly known to be made, and if the hon. Gentleman opposite desired to take exception to the line he ought to have called attention to the matter long ago. What has happened since? The railway company have constructed that line, and now the hon. Member, in spite of that promise, desires to refuse the £45,000. I confess if I did believe, which I do not, that my predecessor was not justified in making this promise, I do not now think we ought to refuse to grant the money. I quite agree that it is no use grieving over spilt milk. Of course, the money might have been better employed. I think the First Lord of the Treasury, who appointed the Commission, had practically given a pledge in this regard to the Government. This has been before the House three or four times. It had all been previously arranged, and the right hon. Gentleman had to carry out what had been settled. Really the person, I think, who is responsible is the right hon. Gentleman the First herd of the Admiralty, who made all the arrangements and who appointed the Commission to carry out the matter. It is a very difficult question, indeed, to discuss, and I therefore think that this Vote is going to end, and that we may permit it to pass without a Division. The money has been spent, and it seems that though the present Government are ready to do things for the Highlands, yet I think they do not spend the money wisely and well. It was not £100,000, but nearly a quarter of a million, the interest of which we guaranteed for a certain number of years, and looking at the matter from a commercial stand
  918
  point we have been foolish enough to spend a quarter of a million, and then put our hands in our pockets and give £41,000 to our opponents. Of course, it is undoubtedly a great boon to the Highland Railway. Undoubtedly a certain district got the benefit of that railway, because by it the distance to Glasgow was reduced by nearly 120 miles; instead of having to go by way of Inverness. I quite admit that the money has been spent, but I say that the Commissioners who were sent down heard only one side of the case; they made a report, and the Government then in power put down the items without knowing anything about the real facts. I may point out that before these rash promises were made we, who know the circumstances, might have shown the Government a better method of spending their money. We are told that this Vote shall disappear, and that there shall be no more grants under it, that is that Vote 3 of Class 7 shall not appear again. A Vote was proposed of £5,000 to provide the Company's piers, while two miles from it there was a Public Trust wanting money to finish its work of public improvement. But the Commission fell into the hands of certain parties, and £5,000 was given to the Company to add to their dividend, and so the Public Trust has lost the benefit of the money. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is to blame, but his predecessor, the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the late Liberal Government, who carried it out. The work is done, and now we have to pay the piper. The money has not, perhaps, been wisely spent, but, as it will do some good, I for one think we ought not to divide against the Vote, because the present Government are not to blame in the matter.
  MR. CALDWELL: I do not say we ought not to divide against the Vote. Of course, I recognise that, the railway having been finished, the money ought to be paid. At the same time I do think that too much is made with regard to one Government coming in and taking up the work of their predecessors. We are told that this matter was agreed to in 1892. While it is evident that the matter was arranged in 1892, there can be no doubt that on the change of

  919
  Government the new Government would have been influenced by the officials who would have communicated the position of the matter to them. So that they were in that matter influenced a grea deal by the report of those who were appointed by their predecessors. I think it is hardly fair that we should not pass the Vote. I have no objection to giving money to benefit Scotland, but I hope it will open up an entirely new district. At the same time I say that, if we give money for a purpose which is not required, it stands in the way of our getting money for a more profitable purpose.
  Vote agreed to.
  On the question of a Vote of £23,938 for the Relief of Distress (Ireland) Estimate of the amount required in the year ending 31st March, 1898, for certain expenditure, including sundry grants-in-aid in connection with the Relief of Distress in Ireland,
  *MR. M. DAVITT: Before the Committee votes this money I should like to have some information with reference to the plan by which it was expected to meet this distress on the west coast of Ireland, by means of such a paltry sum of money. I contend, Sir, that the smallness of the relief offered to the unions by the Chief Secretary was more a mockery of distress than an earnest desire to grapple with the seriousness of the evil which prevailed during last winter. I would also like to have from the right hon. Gentleman some explanation as to why such a large percentage of this sum of £23,000 was expended in salaries of inspectors, etc. I venture, respectfully, to suggest to the Committee that £5,000 by way of expenses is altogether disproportionate to the £15,000 extended to the unions by the Government of Ireland as a means of arresting destitution in these districts. I trust that English Members will not listen with impatience during the next half-hour if we bring this matter of distress under the attention of the Committee. I feel sure they will agree with me that Irish Members have some cause of complaint when they find, in the face of the emergency in this district, public money—which is Irish money as well as British
  920
  money—doled out with miserly reluctance; while on the other hand, with regard to British interests, we find both British and Irish money shovelled in millions for the reorganisation of the Army, the completing of new battleships, and expeditions, dispatches, no one knows where. Our contention is that if the right hon. Gentleman had in the early months of the winter, when he knew from the reports of the inspectors, that severe distress was anticipated, if from the information in his possession he had expended a larger sum of public money, I think distress would have been arrested in its intensity, and it would not now occupy the alarming amount of public attention which has to be given to it in Ireland. Sir, I contend that that is not the view of the Irish Members alone. Englishmen and Englishwomen, to their credit be it said, are trying to do by appeals to the public in this country on behalf of the starving people in Ireland, what the right hon. Gentleman and his Administration have failed to do during the past few months with reference to this distress. There are, I believe, at this time about ten committees in various cities and towns in England, as well as several committees in Ireland, endeavouring to perform for these poor people the duty which I respectfully contend the Chief Secretary, as responsible for the Irish Government, has failed to perform during the winter months. Now, Sir, I do not intend upon this occasion to raise the general question of distress in Ireland, and were it not that we on these benches feel that the distress is growing in intensity and spreading in area every day, we would not occupy much of the time of the Committee on this matter. But, Sir, the reports that are appearing from day to day from various districts on the western coasts of Ireland, will bear out what I say that in consequence of the neglect of the Administration in Ireland to take proper steps to apply an adequate sum of money, we are face to face with a crisis which we would not otherwise have had to confront. I believe I am right in my belief that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to say, when he replies, that successful efforts have been made by his officials in Ireland to take relief to Tory Island. With reference to Belmullet, the Chief

  921
  Secretary will, I hope, attempt in the course of this short Debate to give some information to the Committee with reference to a letter which was addressed to Canon Doran in the name of the Chief Secretary. I do not myself put the interpretation upon that letter that others have placed upon it; I allude to it only to support my argument. If a larger sum of money had been devoted to this purpose, and the right hon. Gentleman had had a free hand given him in the matter, we should not now be troubling the Committee. Again I call his attention to the great increase of distress in the poorest of all these congested districts in the west of Ireland, and the great increase of outdoor relief that has taken place there. You should apply the proper remedies at the proper time. The Clerk has stated that, whereas there were only 519 cases of outdoor relief last year, there are now no less than 1,200 persons compelled to seek assistance in that way from the Government. Well, Sir, I am glad to know, from reports in the public Press, that the Guardians of that Union have accepted the terms of the right hon. Gentleman, and that to carry out those terms for that locality the Guardians are now applying the labour test, and giving employment to those people, who, I respectfully contend, should have been put to similar work earlier in the winter mouths. Well, Sir, on this subject I would call the Chief Secretary's attention, if he has not already seen the letter, to a letter which was addressed to the Swinford Union by the Mother General of the Foxford Convent, in which she stated that, by means of £300 or £400 sent to her by the Manchester Relief Committee, she was enabled to give employment to two or three hundred poor people in that district. Without desiring to say anything harsh about the Chief Secretary, I think he ought to feel a little self-reproach, as being responsible for the government of Ireland, when reading that letter, for here we have the charitable people of Manchester sending money out to the west of Ireland to the poor people who do not want to be pauperised, but who are suffering from distress. We find these cottiers and others getting employment and relief, not from what is extended to them by the Government of
  922
  Ireland, but on account of the donations of his fellow-countrymen here in England. With reference to the distress in the portion of the constituency which I have the honour to represent, I believe I am right in saying, that none of that £15,000 has gone to the Ballinrobe Union. Of course, I do not say that that is altogether the fault of the Chief Secretary. I believe he would have extended a dole towards the relief of distress there, if the Guardians at Ballinrobe had only taken similar action to the Guardians elsewhere, and applied for the labour test; but I believe the Guardians of the Ballinrobe Union have followed the example set them by the Chief Secretary, and have been exceedingly reluctant to increase the rates, even to the extent of twopence or threepence in the pound for relieving these poor people. Well, what I would like to know from the Chief Secretary—when he comes to reply to this—is whether he intends, in consequence of the inaction of the Ballinrobe Guardians, to continue to refuse to send any assistance to the poor people whom I represent? I hope he will bring pressure to bear on the Guardians to apply the labour test, and thus follow the example of the Swinford Guardians in that respect. Now, Sir, I do not intend to delay the Committee beyond a few more minutes with what I have got to say, but the Chief Secretary will, perhaps, allow me to mention the fact that I received a letter this morning from another district in South Mayo, warning me that unless some local relief works which were necessary in the locality were started at once one-third or one-half of the total population of 4,000 in the Kilvine district will be compelled to seek outdoor relief before the 1st of May. I believe, in years gone by, upon occasions similar to this, public works were started, and have been left incomplete, and I would be satisfied if the Chief Secretary would direct one of his inspectors to go to this district of Kilvine, on the borders of Roscommon and South Mayo, and I am sure that if he will do so what is said by my correspondent will be fully borne out by investigation. There are one or two other places along the west coast of Ireland, where, I am informed, intense distress prevails in connection with which distress nothing

  923
  has yet been said in this House. For instance, there is Loop Head, a district running out from South West Clare, into the Atlantic, an exceedingly poor locality in the best of times, which has a population of about 5,000. I am informed that the village valuation in that locality is under £2. The condition of the people there now, is, I believe, as bad as in any part of Mayo, and I hope, if the Chief Secretary has not already directed an investigation into the condition of the people there, he will take steps to do so before the winter. I am informed that the potato crop was a greater failure there last season than even in any part of Mayo, and I have read a statement made by the Rev. Father Maze, which I will not trouble the Committee with, but which certainly reveals a deplorable condition of things amongst the poor people. Now, I would also ask his attention to statements that have appeared in the public Press, with regard to certain places in the county of Kerry. These places were overlooked in the Debate which took place upon the Address, not through any desire on the part of those who were present to overlook the claims of those poor people, but simply because we were anxious not to prolong the Debate on that occasion. Now, I have nothing further to say, Mr. Lowther, but to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman the necessity of at once investigating these public statements with reference to the districts to which I have referred. And, again, I must be permitted to protest against the inadequacy of the provision which the Chief Secretary has made during the winter to meet this condition of things along the Western seaboard of Ireland, and I trust he will not continue his niggardly policy in this matter; that he will bear in mind that he is using Irish money as well as British money; and that the necessities of the case need extended relief.
  *MR. T. D. SULLIVAN: I do not in any way wish to oppose the proposition before the House, or to delay the proceedings, but I desire to suggest to the Chief Secretary that, in dealing with matters of this kind he might make a more liberal estimate of the requirements of the people than he has done in the present Vote. I consider that the sum he proposes to allocate for
  924
  the relief of distress in Ireland is very inadequate to the purpose in view. It seems to me that the Government, when any report of distress in certain parts of Ireland comes before them, look upon these statements with a certain amount of suspicion. They are inclined to think that they are exaggerated, and, after some delay, they send some of their officials to inquire into the truth of the reports that have been made to them. I am inclined to think, Mr. Chairman, that the tendency of these officials is, and perhaps not unnaturally, to minimise the facts, and in no way or in no degree to exaggerate them. So far as my knowledge extends—I can speak positively for one constituency, and I believe it is the case with regard to the others that are from time to time afflicted in this way—there is no desire amongst the people, local and Parliamentary, to exaggerate the state of distress prevailing in these parts, or to cry out for relief before the occasion and the necessity arise for so doing. Now, Sir, there can be no doubt that at the present time there is a state of grievous distress and destitution in a great many of the extensive districts along the western seaboard of Ireland. I went, before the opening of the present Session of Parliament, amongst my own constituents in one of the poorest districts on the western coast of Ireland—I refer to Western Donegal—I went amongst the people, and inquired of the priests how matters stood in this respect, in order that I might be able to make a full and true statement of the facts, if occasion should require it, in the House of Commons. I inquired, as I have said, of men who know the facts of the case, and I found amongst them, one and all, priests and people, no desire whatever to put a bad aspect, or a worse aspect than was absolutely necessary, upon the facts of the case. There was distress amongst these poor people, there was poverty amongst them, but they did not see occasion to make any public outcry for the present, at all events, in reference to these matters. Of course, as time goes on, if matters should grow worse, it would be their bounden duty to make the facts known, and claim such relief and assistance as this Government and

  925
  this Parliament is in duty as well as in honour bound to afford them. But in one part of that constituency I was informed that dire destitution and possible starvation did exist. That part is the Island of Tory, on the coast of Donegal. I asked a question in this House, founded upon information that I received as to the perilous condition of the poor people in that island. I make no complaint of the action that the Chief Secretary took, subsequent to my asking him that question. On the contrary, I think the Chief Secretary acted promptly in the matter, and did the best he could. He directed that an inspector should go to this island and look into the facts of the case. The inspector did go to the island as promptly as he could get there—for it is not easy to get into Tory Island, and when people do get there they often find it difficult to get back again—and he looked into the facts, and found them quite as bad as they had been represented to be. He, I believe, had to remain there for a very much longer time than he had intended, for tempestuous and stormy weather prevented him from getting back again for some time. But the peril was even then growing, the destitution was increasing, and he telegraphed to the mainland asking that a supply of provisions should be sent to the relief of the poor people in the island. However, it was one thing to telegraph for this relief and another thing to get it, for the weather was so stormy that the vessel conveying it was weather-bound for several days and could not get near the island; and, meanwhile, the destitution was becoming still more severe. The vessel did ultimately arrive, and relief was afforded—some meal and flour, I suppose, and other food of that kind was distributed. Yes, but that will not last long, and what I wish to know now is whether the Chief Secretary has directed that any steps shall be taken for the opening of relief works for giving employment to these poor people upon this remote island, so difficult to reach and so difficult to get away from. These provisions, as I have said, will be used up in a few days. What is to carry the people on for the weeks and weeks to come? Money they have none; food there is none in the island except the small quantity brought by this steamer; and the local traders can be but very
  926
  few, for it is a small place, the whole population numbering only about 320 souls. I again ask the Chief Secretary what is to be done for these people. Will he not open up some sort of relief work?—for work and wages are what they want, not doles, gifts, or charity, either from at home or abroad. We are not, I think, making a very extravagant demand on the Chief Secretary, or upon the British Parliament is asking that when perils of this sort arise in our country they should be met promptly, and in a generous spirit by this Imperial Parliament. I used the word "generous," but after all, it is only returning to us—if we get it—a little share of our own money, and therefore I ought not to call it British generosity. We only want a liberal administration of our own funds to save our own people from the misery, suffering's, and starvation to which they have been brought by the long course of maladministration imposed upon them by this country and this Parliament. Every three months £500,000 is taken from our country in excess of our proper proportion of taxation. The amount that is taken from us in six months would very largely, and amply indeed, meet the requirements even of exceptional seasons and exceptional distress such as the present. I have in my hand, though I shall not detain the Committee by reading it, as probably the Chief Secretary has seen it, a letter which appeared in this morning's Dublin newspapers from the Catholic priest who resides in Tory Island. I shall say but very little upon it, because I think what I have already stated brings the general facts sufficiently before the mind of the right hon. Gentleman, but I wish to impress upon him these few points taken from the letter of the Rev. Mr. McGroarty, the curate residing in Tory Island. He says that he believes about £400 would carry the people through the period of distress that they are under-going, and that is still before them. Their industries have failed them. They are not an idle people; they are hardworking, brave, and industrious fishermen, all their lives toiling and moiling in order to make as much money as will enable them to pay their way, and to live on a very moderate scale of comfort indeed. Their fishing-boats, however, are small,

  927
  and in stormy weather they are unable to face the perils of the deep. Why, one of Her Majesty's gunboats—the Wasp, I think—was wrecked on this same island not many years ago; and in bad weather what chance have little frail fishing boats, such as are used upon that coast, of braving the stormy deep and procuring for their owners the means of subsistence? The kelp industry, which they also carry on, has proved a failure, the market, for reasons which I do not understand, having fallen away enormously, causing a tremendous loss to these poor though hardy and industrious people. Under all those circumstances, I think the Chief Secretary might have dealt more liberally with this Vote; but, at all events, I want to know what share of it he means to go to the relief of these poor people. I tell him once again, and I tell the Committee, that they do not want gifts or doles. They want work and wages. Money can be beneficially expended in the island; and it is a hard thing, if in this House, where we Irish Members sit and listen night after night to the voting of millions and millions, a few hundred pounds cannot be devoted to the relief of these poor subjects of Her Majesty on the coast of Ireland. It strikes us that a country which can with so lavish a hand spend money in the remotest corners of the earth, might well deal a little more fairly, conscientiously, and liberally with these poor people in the distressed districts of Ireland.
  MR. D. CRILLY: I only wish to add a very few words to what has been said by my colleague in the representation of Mayo and my Friend the Member for West Donegal. I do not desire to import any temper into this discussion, because I know, as the right hon. Gentleman himself knows, that this is only a vote of indemnity. I know that last year several of the Irish Members pressed the right hon. Gentleman very strongly as to the situation in Belmullet, and he took upon himself, as he will remember, the duty of expanding the sum asked for to bring relief to the people of North Mayo, especially in the Belmullet Union. As a consequence of the promise he made last year, we now find in the Supplementary Estimates a grant in aid of the rates
  928
  of the Belmullet Union—a grant of £3,038. Now, I do not want to attack the right hon. Gentleman, for I do not think he deserves to be attacked, and in anything which I say, I say to him not as Chief Secretary for Ireland but as President of the Irish Local Government Board. What I have to say is this—that this coming to the House to ask for this £3,038 is only another proof of the utter breakdown of the officialdom of Dublin Castle. The right hon. Gentleman sits here as Chief Secretary for Ireland, but he also sits here as Chairman of the Local Government Board of Ireland. Now, as Chairman of the Local Government Board, he promised me last year that in relieving the distress in North Mayo he would do certain things. What were the two things he promised to do towards relieving the distress in North Mayo? One was to establish a line of steamers between Belmullet and Achill Island. The pressure was so great at that time that he himself—and I admit that no one feels more sympathetically in matters of this kind than the right hon. Gentleman—realised that these poor people must be relieved from the suffering they were experiencing; but what has been the consequence? A month after he had given the promise, and a little time after this House had risen, that line of steamers between Belmullet and Achill Island ceased to run. Are those steamers running now? They are not. I only put this forward as an illustration of the fact that when once this House of Commons ceases to sit, and once the Departments at Dublin Castle get control over Ireland, then the poor people in the west and north-west of Ireland may suffer as they like. The right hon. Gentleman himself, as he knows, fills many offices in Ireland. He is the Chairman of the Local Government Board, he is the Chairman of the Congested Districts Board, and he is the Chief Secretary. I do not say that he is not able to fill these offices, but I do say that he is not able to administer affairs in Ireland as we desire that they should be administered. The hon. Member for Donegal has instanced the case of Tory Island. I can instance the case of the Island of Inniskea, if I may be allowed. I have known

  929
  times when the Island of Inniskea could not be approached. I am a very good sailor myself, but I have known times when it has been utterly impossible to get a boat into Inniskea. I remember that, on the occasion of the recent outbreak of fever there I wished to see what had been happening, and I found that it was utterly impossible to go there. The right hon. Gentleman, as Chairman of the Irish Local Government Board, is responsible, in a large extent, for that, simply because in details of that kind they have not developed the country as they might have done. I have no desire to go through the details. I do not want to give any pathetic, isolated case. I arraign the right hon. Gentleman on the whole broad question. I say it is impossible for him to be, not in Ireland, but in this country, to administer the large amount of the social and personal life of Ireland that is covered by the operations of the Irish Local Government Board. Let me point out to the right hon. Gentleman that it is now nearly nine months since I asked him some questions about the situation in North Mayo. What is the consequence of the right hon. Gentleman's administration? Although I here, as the Member for North Mayo, have been asking him questions time after time in this House, pointing out to him time after time by questions and otherwise that this distress has been existing in North Mayo, the people in North Mayo have got the same complaint to make to you here in this House to-day. The same state of things still exists in North Mayo to-day that existed 12 months ago. I am not going to give any long quotation, but, as Member for the division covering the Belmullet Union, I feel that I am entitled to call attention to this fact, that, although 12 months ago I called attention to the state of affairs existing in Belmullet, nothing has been done, if we can accept the testimony of the people of Belmullet themselves. Our people anywhere in Ireland are not bankrupts. We do not ask for your money for pure charity's sake. We attack your administration. In England Scotland, and Wales the people are able to develop their own resources, but although 12 months ago I put questions to the right hon. Gentleman, what do we find to-day? A
  930
  meeting was held last Friday, nearly 12 mouths to a day from the day on which I called the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the distress that existed. At this meeting Monsignor Hewson, the parish priest of Belmullet, said—
  "Recently he had to report that there was on meal or flour or bread in the locality, and received from the Chief Secretary the humane reply, 'Let the traders lay in greater stores in future.'"
  That is represented by the parish priest as being a quotation from a telegram received by him from the right hon. Gentleman. I can scarcely conceive that the right hon. Gentleman sent such a telegram. I can only say that if he did it is it pitiable exhibition of callousness and want of foresight. I blame the officials of the Irish Local Government Board for their neglect to cope with this distress. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, and not merely to him, but to every man of humanity in this House, not on the score of charity, but on the ground of manhood, to establish some system by which these people in the west of Ireland may be placed on an equality with the people of this country.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The hon. Gentleman has complained that since he called attention 12 months ago to the distress in North Mayo nothing has been done. I may say that, whereas 12 months ago the Union of Belmullet was deeply involved, its debt has now been cleared off by the kindness of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The hon. Member is labouring under one very curious misconception. He says that last year I promised a steamer service between Belmullet and Tory Island, but that the only effect of it was that the steamer service ceased a month, after Parliament was up.
  MR. CRILLY: I was in Belmullet in October; the House rose in August.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I think the hon. Member himself will see that he has made a mistake. What I said last year was that the Government hoped to establish a, steamer service between Belmullet and Tory Island, but that difficulties had arisen with the Midland Railway Company, and that if those

  931
  difficulties proved insuperable, the Government would endeavour to establish a service between Sligo and Belmullet. The steamer service is not subsidised by the Government, but by the Congested Districts Board. The difficulties which I foresaw actually did arise, and instead of establishing a service between Belmullet and Tory Island it is our intention to establish a service between Sligo and Belmullet. The Company who are running the occasional services asked at the beginning of this year whether the Congested Districts Board was prepared to give them a subsidy, and the Board did not feel that they could do so. The hon. Member will see that so far as regards any promise made by the Government last year, the Government are perfectly ready to carry out their promise, but this particular steamboat service between Tory Island and Belmullet could not be established. The hon. Member also referred to the difficulty of reaching the Island of Inniskea. Hon. Gentlemen opposite appear to hold the Irish Government responsible for everything that occurs on the west coast of Ireland, including the weather. The hon. Member has told the House that he is an excellent sailor, but, notwithstanding that, he found it absolutely impossible to reach the Island of Inniskea. Sir, others besides the hon. Member have found it impossible, but I do not know whether he suggests that we should provide a steamboat service between Belmullet and Inniskea, Island. I now come to the speech of the hon. Member for South Mayo. In the Debate on the Address. I explained very fully what the policy of the Government was in connection with the distress which unfortunately has visited the west of Ireland during the past year. The policy of the Government was on that occasion sanctioned and approved by the House, and I do not understand that the hon. Member for South Mayo disapproves of that policy. What he complains of is that the amount that we have given is too small. Now, I cannot help thinking that the hon. Member must have been under the impression that the amount in this Vote is the total amount voted for the relief of distress during the whole course of the present season. That is not so. The amount of £15,000 which
  932
  appears on this Vote is a grant-in-aid of the Relief Works executed by Boards of Guardians in distressed unions, and it is an amount intended to cover any expenditure up to the 31st of March. The sum of £5,000 for salaries and expenses of Inspectors and others employed under the Local Government Board appears a large sum in proportion to that, but the reason is that it includes practically the whole of the expenses in connection with the organisation necessary for meeting the distress. The hon. Member complains that charity is endeavouring to do the work which the Government has neglected. I entirely and absolutely traverse the position. I maintain that the Government had done, and is doing, its duty, but it may well be that there is also room for the exercise of private charity. At the present time at Belmullet the Board of Works is carrying out operations in connection with the establishment of this steamer service between Sligo and Belmullet, but would it be fair to say that on that ground the Board of Works is doing work which the Government ought to have done out of this money? If that cannot be maintained, how much more true is it to say that because private charity has stepped in for the relief of distress that proves that the Government has neglected its duty? Now I come to the case of the scarcity of provisions at Tory Island and Belmullet, and here again I cannot help thinking that there is some strange confusion in the observations of the hon. Member for South Mayo and the hon. Member for Donegal. The scarcity of provisions of Tory Island and the scarcity of provisions of Belmullet might have arisen in the most prosperous years. It has simply arisen from the fact that, in consequence of a long spell of bad weather, these places have been practically unapproachable from the sea, and therefore the provisions have run out. The hon. Member has referred to the letter written by me to Monsignor Hew-son, the parish priest of Belmullet, and that same letter has been referred to by the hon. Member for North Mayo.
  MR. CRILLY: I quoted from the Freeman's Journal of Saturday.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: As a matter of fact, the message which was sent by my direction to Father Hewson was sent by telegram. It was in reply to a telegram which was sent me by Father Hewson from Belmullet, which, was in these terms: "No meal or flour, no bread, no railway." The House will see that the style cultivated by Monsignor Hewson is of a somewhat rhetorical and emotional character, but, of course, I quite understand the practical point that Monsignor Hewson aimed at. What he desired to obtain was a railway to Belmullet, a work which would cost probably some £200,000 or more of public money. I did not like to leave Monsignor Hewson's telegram entirely unanswered, and I did think it desirable to suggest that the scarcity might be provided against by the shopkeepers laying in larger supplies of provisions. Father Hewson, writing to the Freeman's Journal, comments upon that as "a heartless, callous, cruel production." Well, Sir, those seem to me to be rather strong epithets to apply to what I confess appears to me to have been a very innocent production. I quite admit that, in comparison with the rhetorical effusion of Father Hewson, my letter is rather jejune and prosaic, but I do maintain that it is business-like, and I do maintain that that is the proper cure for such inconveniences as have been suffered. I have only, in conclusion, to say one or two words in reference to the speech of the hon. Member for South Mayo. He complained of the fact that the Ballinrobe Union had had none of this grant of £15,000. I understand that the Board have done what they could to persuade the Guardians to adopt the labour test, and that the Board are prepared to pay a considerable proportion of heavy expenditure incurred by that union. I repudiate altogether the insinuation that the Board are niggardly in their policy, and I can only assure the House that every effort is being made by the Board to grapple with the position.
  MR. J. G. SWIFT MACNEILL: The right hon. Gentleman has made very merry over the comments
  934
  of Father Hewson upon his telegram. I do not think it is possible that the right hon. Gentleman realises the position. If he had been only two days in one of the distressed districts of Ireland, the telegram he sent, and the speech that we have just listened to would have been entirely impossible. The right hon. Gentleman says, "Can you blame the English Government for the failure of the potato crop?" No; but we say you have reduced these people to their present unhappy condition by your deliberate misgovernment. You English people are accustomed to praise yourselves, and to say that all you think of is doing good to mankind, without any regard to money at all; but look how you behave towards Ireland. If you would allow us to manage our own affairs, we should be able to rectify the consequences of your mismanagement. Under an Irish Parliament you would not find the poorest districts of Ireland the most densely populated, and the most flourishing districts given up to the few and favoured. That is the result of your government. You say—and you say with justice—how can you improve the position of the people on these miserable patches of ground, where no profitable crops can be got? Again I say it is you who have put them there. You have taken the government into your own hands, and you are responsible for these people. When you destroyed these people's trade as you did, when you deprived them of education as you did, you were sowing the seed which has; brought this crop of destitution and misery in Ireland. You talk of your kindness and generosity; why, your own experts have told you that you have been robbing the Irish people. I can prove that from documents of your own. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the charitable contributions which have come from America to the assistance of the Irish people. I charge the Irish Government with deliberately trying last, September to paralyse the kindly hands who were giving those subscriptions. Yes, I say that they endeavoured to keep back these contributions. A gentleman who has described himself

  935
  as the very head of the Irish Government, sent this telegram in reply to a telegram from the correspondent of an American newspaper, the New York Journal, asking him whether there was any distress. This is the telegram—
  "In reply to your telegram, the Lord Lieutenant desires me to say that the reports which you characterise as most alarming, and predictions of famine in Ireland which yon mention, are, in his Excellency's opinion, unjustifiable."
  The whole object of that telegram was to destroy charitable contributions from America.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Nothing of the kind. The hon. Member knows it was simply in order to check exaggerations, and rightly so.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: The telegram was dated the 7th September. When that telegram was sent the Government had reports from their own Local Government Board inspectors as to the imminent distress in Ireland, and I say again that that telegram was sent in order to paralyse the arm of generosity in America, in order to leave the people in distress, and to leave them at the mercy of the English Government. I know it is a shocking and a horrible imputation to make, but, Sir, it is true. It is only part of your system. I could find, if I went into the library, ample proof that in Sir Robert Peel's time you deliberately destroyed the crops of the Irish people, in order to bring about a famine. However, Sir, I will keep to this Vote, and I want to show what has been the course of conduct of the present Government in connection with the distress in Ireland, with which I am specially interested. I do not wish to say anything personally unkind of the right hon. Gentleman. If he would come and spend three or four days among these people, and go into their hovels, look at their little children, with their poor little faces pale and flabby for want of animal food—if he would see for himself the absolute misery and
  936
  despair in which these unhappy people live, he would, I am sure, not be slow in dealing with the distress. However, Sir, I think I have said sufficient upon this matter. I hope that we shall hear some explanation from the right hon. Gentleman as to this telegram sent out from Dublin Castle, in order to check the contributions of benevolence.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman has asked for a reply. I must respectfully decline to make any reply whatever to his speech. Sir, that speech answers itself. The speech of any hon. Member who deliberately gets up in this House and says that it is the object of the English Government to bring about distress in the west of Ireland, in order to bring the people under our power, requires no further notice to be taken of it.
  MR. D. KILBRIDE: I desire to point out to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House that it is not alone on the West Coast that distress prevails. In portions of Eastern and North-Eastern Galway, and in the county of Roscommon, the people are reduced to a very distressed condition indeed. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, when he is considering the general question of distress in Ireland, to pay particular attention to the condition of the occupiers in the Barony of Iveagh, in county Kerry. In this connection I would press upon the right hon. Gentleman the importance of extending the Great Southern and Western Railway to Waterville; that would be a work which would give a great deal of much-needed employment, and I feel sure that, if the Government intimated to the railway company their willingness to assist in the work, the company would be quite prepared to undertake it.
  MR. J. PINKERTON: I would take the liberty of suggesting to the right hon. Gentleman, that he

  937
  himself should go to this district of Ireland that we are referring to, and see for himself the condition of the people there.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have been there.
  MR. PINKERTON: The right hon. Gentleman may have been there, but if he would only go at this time, and see the condition of things that actually prevails, I am sure he would take a different view of the responsibility of his Government in dealing with this distress. Of course, we do not blame the Government for the failure of crops, or for troubles caused by exceptionally bad weather on the coasts, but we say it is a disgrace that along the west coast of Ireland the original inhabitants should be driven into reservations like the aborigines of America. The right hon. Gentleman, in the telegram that the has been referred to, suggested that the distress in Belmullet might be met by the shopkeepers taking in a larger supply of provisions. He should not forget that these shopkeepers have to give credit and probably get their own supplies largely on credit. Sir, I do not wish to prolong the discussion, but I cannot refrain from saying that, much as the right hon. Gentleman thinks of the generous policy of the Government as exhibited by these grants, it is not by temporary doles that the distress now prevailing can be relieved; it is only by extending the powers of the Congested Districts Board, so that the people may be removed out of these congested districts and restored to the fertile lands from which they have been driven.
  MR. P. C. DOOGAN: While I do not impute to the right hon. Gentleman that he would knowingly take any steps which would tend to stop the flow of charity in relief of the distress in the west of Ireland, I must protest against his ignoring all responsibility in the present position of things. So far the
  938
  people of Ireland have had no power over their own affairs; you are about to introduce a Bill in the present Session to give them local self-government, but up to now the responsibility has remained in the right hon. Gentleman and his Department. I want to state, once and for all, my very distinct opinion that all these grants in aid, that have been repeated over and over again, will be fruitless and ineffective until the Government adopt measures which will enable the people to support themselves, instead of being pauperised by periodical doles. The people of Ireland and the people of this country will hold the Government responsible until the Irish people are placed in a position to maintain themselves without the intervention of charity at all. Without the aid of the Government the people living in the west of Ireland will never lift themselves out of the condition of chronic distress that they are in. One bad season suffices to leave them absolutely helpless, except for private charity or Parliamentary grants. I should be sorry indeed to believe that the Chief Secretary, or any other Government official, wilfully ignored the duty that is imposed upon him to endeavour by every means in his power to improve the condition of these people. The poverty, the misery existing in Ireland is a disgrace to any State, and it is a positive danger to society. Oppression and starvation led the people of France to a revolution which had a terrible effect not only upon society in France, but among all the peoples of Europe; and I warn the Government to consider what must be the outcome of a continuation of the present state of things in Ireland, where the standard of living is the lowest in Europe. Yes; that was stated in 1817, and it is as true to-day as it was then, from my own knowledge. I hope the Chief Secretary and the Irish Government will see that, however beneficial and generous these grants may be, it is not temporary doles that the Irish people require; they want to be placed, and it is the duty of the Irish Govern-

  939
  ment to place them, in such a position that they can maintain themselves independently of any charity whatsoever.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I rise to ask a question of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary with regard to two of these items. Two of them are called "Grants-in-Aid"; the third is not specifically called a grant in aid; it is "Salaries and Expenses of Inspectors and others specially employed under the Local Government Board." At the bottom of page 18 there is this note—
  "The expenditure out of the above Grants in Aid will not be accounted for in detail to the Comptroller and Auditor General, nor will any unexpended balances be surrendered."
  Now, I want to ask whether my right hon. Friend has considered what a vicious system of finance is this. It is exactly analogous to the case cited by the Comptroller and Auditor General of the Grant-in-Aid for Bechuanaland. He says—
  "In my report upon the Giant in Aid under this sub-head for last year (paragraph 9), I drew attention to a payment of £30,000 which had been made to the Crown Agents for the Colonies on the last day of the financial year 1895–96, which payment was admittedly made with the object of avoiding its surrender, and of enabling it to be applied in reduction of the amount to be submitted for vote by Parliament for the ensuing year."
  This case, I submit, is exactly on all fours with that. I wish to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary to the Treasury to the grave responsibility the Government are taking, as against their own officer, the Comptroller and Auditor General, in adopting this vicious system, by which a Grant-in-Aid is to be handed over, and, if not expended, is not to be returned. The Comptroller and Auditor General, in the case I have referred to, points out that—
  "the payment to the Protectorate in the year 1886–97 of the full amount of the Grant in Aid (£30,000) was clearly not necessary, and, in my opinion, was not justified. I am accordingly unable to report, under the provisions of sections 27 and 32 of the Exchequer and Audit
  940
  Departments Act, 1866, that the amount so charged against the Grant 'has been applied to the purpose for which such Grant was intended to provide.'"
  This, as I say, is an exactly similar case, and I think it right to call the attention of the Treasury to the matter now. When the Estimates are before us, I shall not fail to take the opinion of the House as to the desirability of sanctioning a system which, as I have shown, is condemned by the Comptroller and Auditor General, and which I regard as an altogether pernicious system.
  MR. MCKENNA: When I read the note that has been referred to by the hon. Member for Lynn Regis, I naturally asked myself whether there was any duty on the part of the Treasury to account for these Votes in detail, and I found, or at all events. I gathered, that there is a statutory duty imposed on the Treasury. I understand the Treasury to take the view that in the case of Grants-in-Aid there is no such duty; but, if that be so, why is this note put on the Estimate? There is no mystery about a "Grant-in-Aid," and I think if the Committee will refer to the Statute they will find that every item has to be accounted for in detail, and that any balance unexpended must be surrendered at the end of the financial year. If the right hon. Gentleman does not take that view, I would ask him why he wastes stationery, printing ink, time, and labour, by putting this useless note at the foot of the Estimate?
  *MR. T. LOUGH: I am rather afraid the Committee will think that this discussion has gone on long enough, but I should like to ask the indulgence of the Committee to make one or two observations on the speech we have listened to from the Chief Secretary for Ireland. I exceedingly regret the absence of sympathy, and the general hardness of tone which characterised that speech. I will take one instance to show how the right hon. Gentleman utterly fails to grapple with the real facts of the situation. He is asked about the scarcity of provisions in Belmullet, and his reply

  941
  is—"Let the shopkeepers lay in a larger supply of provisions." Well, shopkeepers, of course, do not lay in stock at the bidding of a Cabinet Minister; they only lay in provisions as they are able to buy them. In a famine-stricken district the shopkeepers are poor, and it is preposterous that the right hon. Gentleman should shirk out of his responsibility by saying that they should keep larger stores. Then, the right hon. Gentleman said that the idea of hon. Members on this side (he included all of us) seemed to be that the Government should be held responsible for anything and everything on the west coast of Ireland, "even the weather." Sir, I contend that the Government are undoubtedly responsible for the vital conditions which govern the lives of these unhappy people. A great deal has been said to-night about generosity, but I regard this Vote of a miserable £15,000 as a mere condonation of the fault of this House and this country in establishing a condition of things under which these people cannot live. Last year the largest amount ever collected in taxes was raised from these people. An endeavour has been made to trace this distress to the failure of the potato-crop. I do not think it can be traced to that at all. The cause of the famine is this: that the people are reduced to such a low state of subsistence by the heavy burden which this House lays on them that they cannot bear that temporary lapse from the normal produce of a crop which an ordinary agricultural community can bear. Now, Sir, this subject is a very grave one. This is the first Vote that has been before the House this Session dealing with the famine in the west of Ireland, and I say that the fact that this state of distress in that portion of the kingdom should exist reflects infinite shame on the Government, and on this House. A book was published in the year 1896 by Mr. O'Brien, one of the Inspectors of the Irish Local Government Board, in the third chapter of
  942
  which there is a list of the famines which have occurred in Ireland throughout the century. During the eighteenth century there was only one outbreak of famine—in the year 1789—and this was tided over without the Irish Parliament making any grant or taking any special measures. But during the nineteenth century we have had altogether 13 famines. The first serious visitation occurred in 1821, and it was succeeded by five others before the great famine of 1846–7. Then there was an interval of 30 years, but in 1879–80 we had an outbreak worse than any previous except the Great Famine, and the abnormal distress which we are considering to-night makes the sixth famine Government has had to relieve since that period. Every three years a grave situation of this kind arises. All the conditions tend to show that we are drifting again towards a terrible calamity such as occurred about 50 years ago. The situation is much more serious than it was at that period. During the early famine, there was no Poor Law, but now we have a Poor Law system in the country established to deal with eight and a-half millions of people, and we find it incapable of meeting the demands of four and a-half millions. We have established a Congested Districts Board, built labourers' houses and light railways, but all these resources do not enable us to grapple with the distress, and I believe that no cure for it will be found except by abolishing those heavy taxes which we now extract from every one of these famine-stricken homes. I am so out of harmony with the spirit in which this Vote has been submitted that I am almost disposed to move a reduction, in order that we might take the feeling of the Committee; but I am unwilling to take that extreme course. But, Sir, I say that this state of affairs in Ireland is a disgrace to our Government—I do not say to our present Government in particular, for I believe that this Government is, in some respects, better than the Government which preceded it; but this state of affairs is,

  943
  irrespective of Party, a disgrace and a slur upon the people of this country.
  Resolutions to be reported.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum not exceeding £20,000 be granted to Her Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1898, for a Grant in Aid of the Expenses of the Royal Commission for the British Section at the Paris International Exhibition, 1900."
  Whereupon Motion made, and Question,
  "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Strachey.)
  Resolutions to be reported upon Wednesday; Committee also report progress; to sit again upon Wednesday.

REGISTRATION (IRELAND) BILL.

  CLAUSE 1.
  Amendment proposed.
  "In page 1, line 21, to leave out the words after the word 'Act,' to the end of sub-section (3), and insert the words, 'and may include the division of a townland which is situate partly within and partly without an urban sanitary district or town.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Instead thereof, Question proposed,
  "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  And, it being after Midnight, and objection being taken to further proceeding, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed upon Wednesday.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  PHARMACY ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. D. CRILLY: I object.
  MR. H. E. KEARLEY: I would ask my hon. Friend, as a personal favour, not, to object to this Bill, which, I assure him, is one of those small Measures which cover a much-needed reform.
  DR. C. K. D. TANNER: I also would appeal to my hon. Friend not to stand in the way of this Bill. Although it does not affect Irish pharmacists, I believe the Bill will do justice all round, and I may say that I remained in the House till this hour tonight merely to help, to the best of my ability, the progress of this Measure.
  MR. CRILLY: After that appeal I feel that I cannot persist in my objection.
  Read a second time, and committed for Thursday, 17th March.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. DAVITT: For the convenience of hon. Members from Ireland, who want to make their arrangements, I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can tell us when he proposes to take the Second Reading of the Irish Local Government Bill?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: We should like to consult the convenience of hon and right hon. Gentlemen on those Benches. Perhaps the hon. Member would allow me to give a definite answer to-morrow afternoon.
  House adjourned at 12.10.

Preamble
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack at a quarter past Four of the clock.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  THE NORTH-WEST FRONTIER OF INDIA.
  *LORD ROBERTS OF KANDAHAR: My Lords, I rise to call attention to the papers recently presented to Parliament relating to British relations with the neighbouring tribes on the North-West Frontier of India, and the military operations undertaken against them during the year 1897–98. The question of what is the best and wisest policy to adopt in regard to our relations with the tribes on the North-West Frontier of India is one so bound up with our national interests, and of such supreme importance to our Empire in the East, and the well-being of our Indian fellow subjects, that it ought not to be dealt with from the point of view of any one party in the State. I hope, therefore, it will not be thought improper of me, as a soldier, to call attention to the papers on this subject recently presented to Parliament, or to take part in a discussion which must be of equal importance to all who have the honour and welfare of their country at heart, whatever may be their political views. So great has been the divergence of opinion expressed on this question by men whose connection with India gives them a claim to be listened to, it is no wonder that the public are puzzled with regard to it, and that statesmen should hesitate to commit themselves to any line of action until
  750
  the subject has been thoroughly thrashed out, and the right course to pursue has been made clear to them and to the nation generally. This divergence of opinion, my Lords, amongst so-called experts, and which is apparently so unaccountable, is easily explained by the fact that those who oppose what has come to be known as the "Forward policy," entirely ignore, or treat as chimerical, the reason which makes the carrying out of that policy essential, if we are to retain our hold over India. The "Forward policy"—in other words, the policy of endeavouring to extend our influence over, and establish law and order on, that part of the border where anarchy, murder, and robbery, up to the present have reigned supreme—a policy which has been attended with the happiest results in Beluchistan and on the Gilgit Frontier, is necessitated by the incontrovertible fact that a great European Power is now within striking distance of our Indian possessions, and in immediate contact with a State for the integrity of which we have made ourselves responsible. Some 40 years ago the policy of non-interference with the tribes, so long as they did not trouble us, may have been wise and prudent, although selfish, and not altogether worthy of a great civilising Power. But, during that period, circumstances have completely changed, and what was wise and prudent then is most unwise and imprudent now. At that time Russia's nearest outpost was 1,000 miles away. Her presence in Asia was unheeded by, if not unknown to, the people of India, and we had no powerful reason for anxiety as to whether the 200,000 warriors on our border would fight for us or against us. To-day Russia is our near neighbour; her every movement is watched with the keenest interest from Peshawar to Cape Comorin; she is in a position to enter Afghanistan whenever it may seem to her convenient or desirable so to do; and the chance of her being able to attack us is discussed in every bazaar in India. We are bound in honour, by a solemn promise, made 17 years ago, to protect Afghanistan, and between us and that nation are these 200,000 fighting men, who may either make the fulfilment of that promise easy, or else most difficult if not impossible;

  751
  for if we should have to subdue these 200,000 tried warriors before going to the assistance of Afghanistan, any army we could put into the field would be used up before we could reach that country. Throughout the last Afghan War so persistently were we harassed by the tribesmen, that the greater number of the troops employed were occupied in keeping open the line of communication. On the Peshawar-Kabul line alone, between 11,000 and 12,000 men were required, and, as I told the Viceroy at the time, had there been anything like combination or organisation amongst the tribes that number would have had to be doubled. The all-important question, therefore, that we have to consider is, by what means can we ensure that this enormous military strength may be used for us, and not against us. The opponents of the "Forward" policy, tell us that this can only be done by continuing the system, tried for nearly half a century, of letting the tribesmen alone, no matter what atrocities they commit, so long as they do not interfere with us, and, when their conduct necessitates punishment, recurring to the punitive expeditions which have already cost us such a heavy expenditure in blood and money, and inflicted such cruel misery on the innocent families of the delinquents. Burning houses and destroying crops, necessary and justifiable as such measures may be, unless followed up by some form of authority or jurisdiction, mean starvation for many of the women and children of the enemy, and, for us, a rich harvest of hatred and revenge, in more daring acts of outrage, so soon as the tribesmen recover from their temporary check. The advocates of the "Forward" policy, on the other hand, contend that the system they recommend, and which has also been tried—but with far different results—on our southern and northern frontiers, is the only one which will enable us to gain the confidence and secure the allegiance of the wild and lawless, but brave and manly, inhabitants of the central section of the border, who have so clearly proved, by the part they have taken in the late disturbances, the absolute failure of the policy of non-interference. For, my Lords, so perfectly was the policy of non-interference tried with the border-men, especially with the Afridis, that
  752
  their country was, until the other day, a terra incognita to us, and so anxious were we to avoid giving them the slightest cause for suspicion that we wished to interfere with their independence, that the political officer in the Khyber, who commanded the Khyber Rifles, and was responsible for the Pass being kept open, was strictly prohibited from going to the right or left of the narrow road which leads through the Pass; and the only British officer who ever ventured to enter Afridiland, before Sir William Lockhart's force went there, was punished by being removed from his appointment. We gave the Afridis large sums for permitting Kafilas to go backwards and forwards once a week through the Khyber Pass for trading purposes, and we paid them an annual subsidy for allowing us to make use of the shortest route between Peshawar and Kohat, which runs through a corner of their land, and which they closed against us whenever it pleased them to do so, greatly to our inconvenience and annoyance. Is it possible, my Lords, for non-interference to be carried further? My Lords, the recent very serious rising which is still not altogether suppressed, as well as most of the Frontier troubles with which we have had to contend of late years, have not been caused, as is frequently stated, by the "Forward" policy, but by that policy not having been pushed far enough, by our refusing to recognise the responsibilities of our position with regard to India and Afghanistan, and by the half-hearted manner in which we have carried on our dealings with the tribesmen; not, in fact, by what we have done, but by what we have left undone. The "Forward" policy must, my Lords, in my opinion, be gradually and judiciously, but steadily, pursued until we obtain political control over the robber-haunted no-man's land which lies on our immediate Frontier, where every man's dwelling is a miniature fortress fortified against his neighbour, and must be continued until our influence is felt up to the boundary of our ally, the ruler of Afghanistan. When the responsibility for the defence of the North-West Frontier devolved upon me, as Commander-in-Chief in India, I never contemplated any defence being possible along the Frontier, as marked on our

  753
  maps by a thin red line—the haphazard Frontier inherited by us from the Sikhs—which did well enough so long as we had only to guard against tribal depredations. A Frontier more than 1,000 miles in length, with a belt of huge mountains in its front, inhabited by thousands of warlike men, over whom neither we nor any other Power had control, and with a wide, impassable river in its rear, seemed to me then, as it does now, an impossible Frontier, and one upon which no scheme for the defence of India could be safely based. For that defence, it is evident that we must have the command of the most important of the roads which run through those mountains; and, to use a favourite expression of the great Duke of Wellington's, "We must be able to see the other side of the hill"; for, unless we know for certain what is going on there, and are in a position to block the passes, it will be impossible to prevent an enemy from making use of them, and debouching on the plains of India when and where he pleases. So satisfied was I, my Lords, as to the weakness and unfitness of our present Frontier, that I pointed out to the Government, of which I had the honour to be a Member, that money would be thrown away on fortifications and entrenched positions along such a line, and that, after securing the safety of the two most advanced arsenals (Quetta and Rawal Pindi), we should devote ourselves to improving and extending our Frontier roads; and, so far as financial considerations would permit, our railway communications, to enable the Field Army to advance whenever a further movement might be necessary. I never ceased, at the same time, to reiterate that roads and railways could not be made through a hostile country, and that we should do all in our power to enter into closer and more friendly relations with those tribes through whose lands the roads and railways would have to run. This course, my Lords, will assuredly be forced upon us whether we like it or not, in the interests of civilisation and by circumstances over which we have very little control. It is a great satisfaction, therefore, to know that wherever it has been thoroughly carried out it has proved eminently successful. In support of this statement I would
  754
  invite your Lordships' attention to the fact that, throughout the present unusual Frontier excitement not a shot has been fired in that part of Beluchistan which is under our control, or in Chitral, where British officers have been in direct communication with the tribes, and where our boundary is practically conterminous with Afghanistan. And, as your Lordships will doubtless remember, when disturbances broke out in Chitral in the beginning of 1895, the very men who had most strenuously opposed us in Hunza-Nagar, three years before, actually volunteered to serve under our officers, whom they had learned to know and to trust, and a body of levies drawn from those robber hordes did excellent service on that occasion. I trust, my Lords, you will not be persuaded to believe that the tribesmen would fight for us if left to themselves. Why should they? They would have nothing to fear from us, and nothing to gain by siding with us, for we should have nothing to offer them in return, whilst they would be induced to fight against us by the prestige which an advancing force always carries with it, and by promises, which would be freely given, that they should be sharers in the plunder of the riches of India. My Lords, the question we are discussing is, believe me, of vital importance to our future in India, for the attitude, not only of the border tribes, but of the whole Afghan nation, will depend upon the character of our Frontier policy. If we are able to convince them that we have the will and the power to protect them, and are determined to let no other nation interfere with them, we may confidently reckon upon their throwing in their lot with us. But this desirable result can only be brought about, by extending our influence over the tribes in the centre of our Frontier, as it has been extended over the people of Chitral and Beluchistan, and by letting the Afghans see that we are prepared to go to their assistance should occasion arise. I would point out that the "Forward" policy has not been simply a military subjugation; for, although at times force has had to be resorted to to bring the tribesmen to order, the conquest on the north and south has been largely a peaceful conquest. If anyone doubts this statement, I would ask him to read the life of Sir Robert Sandeman, one of the greatest

  755
  Frontier administrators—the very embodiment of the "Forward" policy. With very little fighting, Beluchistan, an immense tract of mountain and desert country, and inhabited by clans as wild and unruly as any on our Frontier, was rescued by that practical border officer from a condition of absolute chaos, and turned into what is now a peaceful and prosperous province, where our officers move about freely escorted by the tribesmen themselves, and are everywhere met by signs of confidence and respect. Sir Robert Sandeman used to describe his policy as one of "peace and goodwill," and that it certainly was. In 1885 Sir Charles Aitchison, Lieutenant-Governor of the Punjaub, one of the great Lord Lawrence's most devoted followers, and who, as Foreign Secretary in India, had been a steady adherent of the policy of "masterly inactivity," wrote to the then Viceroy, the Earl of Dufferin, in the following words—
  "Sandeman is doing noble work at Quetta. He knows personally all the heads of the tribes and all the leading men, and has great influence over them. The people are rapidly settling down and learning respect for law and order. I believe the change between Quetta now and Quetta five years ago is greater than between the India of to-day and the India as I knew it before the Mutiny, and that is saying a good deal. For this we have mainly to thank Robert Sandeman, whose personal influence is something marvellous. Cultivation is rapidly spreading on the Quetta plateau, and villages with foliage are springing up all around the cantonment. I cannot speak too highly of the work he is doing. It is noble pioneer work."
  My Lords, it is this same system of tribal management which has been so satisfactorily introduced on the Gilgit frontier, where law and order have taken the place of raids, brigandage, and the horrors of the slave trade. The occupation of Gilgit and Chitral and the successful Hunza-Nagar expedition brought about this desirable change, by which numbers of unhappy people who had passed long years in slavery have been restored to their homes. When the expense and loss of life involved in the Chitral expedition are dwelt upon, and we are urged to withdraw our troops, these facts should not be forgotten. Moreover, my Lords, the evacuation of a country which has been the scene of warlike operations is not, as some people imagine, always an advantage to
  756
  the inhabitants. When Dost Mahomed Khan was allowed to return to Kabul as Ameer he made short work of everyone who had helped us during the first Afghan War. Yakoob Khan, in the few months he was ruler after the Treaty of Gandamak, showed that he had every intention of following his grandfather's example, and all who assisted us in Afghanistan in 1879–80 have either been made away with or are obliged to live as exiles in our territory. In considering the question of what advantage we are to gain from the series of extremely difficult questions which have been so successfully carried out by the distinguished officer in charge—General Sir William Lockhart—an officer in whom the country may have every confidence, and by the loyal and brave soldiers (native as well as British) serving under his command, we must bear in mind that our present Frontier position is not due to any desire on the part of the rulers of India to acquire territory or subjugate races for our own aggrandisement. We have been constrained to press on, partly by the action of the tribesmen themselves, who have made it impossible for our fellow-subjects to live at peace with them as neighbours, partly by the advance of Russia, and partly at the special request of the Ameer of Afghanistan, who, when we objected to his interfering with recalcitrant tribesmen, justly remarked that it would be impossible to maintain peace on his side of the border unless these men were brought either under his or our control. So anxious was the Government of India not to be drawn on, that, in some instances, positions taken up were abandoned, only to be of necessity re-occupied later on; and each successive Viceroy, Liberal and Conservative alike, has been compelled to move forward whether he wished it or not. When we left Kandahar in the early days of the Marquess of Ripon's Vice-royalty, it was intended to fall back to Jacobabad, if not to the Indus. But, with all the will in the world to follow this course, it was found impossible to do so, and we were obliged to remain at Quetta, because a further retrograde movement would have endangered the safety of Sind and the Lower Derajat. So nearly, however, was the retirement to Jacobabad carried into effect that the

  757
  railway which had been laid through the Bolan Pass was taken up and the materials sent to Bombay, only to be brought back again and re-laid at considerable additional expense before the noble Marquess left India. This measure had only just been determined upon when the aggressive action of Russia on the northern boundary of Afghanistan necessitated the railway being extended to Chaman, and sufficient materials stored there to carry it on to Kandahar if occasion should require. It was much the same with Kuram. There was such anxiety to give up what we had gained that, after I had, under instructions from the Government of India, and in accordance with the earnest solicitations of the people, promised that in return for the help they had afforded us, we would never desert them, but would continue to preserve them from the hated Afghan rule, we abandoned them to their fate—only to be obliged to return a few years later. We have heard, my Lords, a good deal of righteous indignation expressed lately at a supposed breach of faith on the part of the Government of India, in making a road, with the consent of the people, to Chitral, but was there ever such a breach of faith as that abandonment of Kuram, and the desertion of a people who had done us good service, after our solemn promise to stand by them? And is it not strange that that breach of faith has never aroused the least indignation, or been denounced by anyone except by the unfortunate people of Kuram themselves? At first they refused to believe that we really meant to act towards them in such a faithless manner, and implored us to return and befriend them. But when the time for our departure arrived, and the general officer commanding had to read the proclamation intimating to them that our troops were to be withdrawn, the greybeards stood up in the durbar and upbraided the Government in no measured terms. Their words were—
  "We welcomed you as friends when you first arrived amongst us, and relieved us from the tyrannical Afghan Government. We freely met your demands for supplies, raised levies for the escort of your convoys, and assisted you in your operations. We identified ourselves with you, and we have made enemies outside our territories thereby. Now, on your leaving us, all peace and security will be gone; internal feuds will again be revived. We cannot
  758
  govern ourselves, as there are two parties amongst us, one of whom is certain to call in the Afghans. We believed that we were to remain under your Government."
  After we left anarchy again reigned supreme, and the people of Kuram entreated us to return and take them under our rule. At length, in 1892–93, we were forced to send troops into the valley to restore order, and we re-assumed political control. Peace and security once more prevail, and the Turi Militia, under British officers, are now doing us loyal service. Our relations with the Gilgit Frontier exemplify in even a more remarkable manner the impossibility of our being able to keep aloof from the strategical points on the natural boundary of our great Indian Empire. As far back as 1873 Lord Northbrook, the then Viceroy, considered it necessary to establish a British officer at Gilgit for the purpose of watching British interests on a Frontier to which the Russians had advanced. Lord Lytton continued his predecessor's policy, and shortly before the Afghan War he deemed it advisable to depute the Resident at Gilgit to proceed as far as Chitral; but at the close of the war this officer was withdrawn and the whole of that Frontier was left in the charge of the Kashmir authorities. It was, however, found impossible to continue this course, and in 1885, when there seemed every probability of a war between Russia and Afghanistan, the Earl of Dufferin, finding it necessary to have more complete information regarding the Gilgit Frontier, dispatched a mission under Colonel, now General Sir William Lockhart to examine and report on the several Passes, and to enter into definite relations with the ruler of Chitral, over which state, in consequence of its proximity to the Hindu Kush Range, the Viceroy considered it essential to exert our influence. The same policy was followed by Lord Dufferin's successor, the Marquis of Lansdowne, and by the present Viceroy, the Earl of Elgin, warmly supported by the Members of their respective Councils. Thus, my Lords, we see that during the last 25 years five out of six Viceroys, beginning with Lord Northbrook, whatever their political opinions, were unanimous as to the wisdom of our having control over the

  759
  Gilgit Frontier, and that four of them found it necessary to extend that control to Chitral. It is difficult, therefore, to understand how, in the face of such a consensus of opinion on the part of those who have the best means of judging, people comparatively ignorant of the subject should think themselves entitled to raise such an outcry as we have recently heard against our remaining on the Chitral Frontier. For myself, I will only say that, in my opinion, it is imperative for us to occupy that northernmost corner of the great natural Frontier of India; for, although I consider the chance of a successful attack upon India from that direction as infinitesimal, the danger of allowing even 2,000 or 3,000 Cossacks to cross either the Kilik, Dorah, or Baroghil Pass would be great, for the report of their presence in Chitral would cause a vast amount of excitement and alarm in Kashmir and the Punjaub, and would have a most disturbing effect on the restless and warlike races along the border. It is sometimes urged, my Lords, as a reason against our endeavouring to get control over the inhabitants in the central part of the Frontier, that they are more difficult to deal with than the people of Beluchistan. Beluchis, no doubt, are less fanatical than Pathans, but they are just as warlike and were just as much given to pillaging and murdering as their more northern neighbours. Moreover, a great number of the inhabitants of Beluchistan are Pathans, while in Gilgit and Chitral the characteristics of the people are infinitely more Pathan than Beluch. The truth is, my Lords, that Pathans—robbers and murderers though they may be, because they know no better—are fine, gallant fellows, and, like Orientals everywhere, are responsive to vigorous and sympathetic treatment, as we know from our experience of those of them who have served in our ranks. If our present operations are followed up by an administrator of the Sandeman stamp being placed in political charge of the frontier tribes, by the occupation of some commanding position in Afridiland which will ensure our having the control of the Khyber Pass, and will form a much-needed sanitarium for the fever-stricken garrisons in the Peshawar Valley, by giving the tribesmen employment on
  760
  such roads and railways as may be needed for our requirements, and by making our influence felt in establishing law and order, without interfering with their habits, customs, or religion, the Afridis, and, in time, the rest of the border tribes, will settle down, and become, not only peaceful neighbours, but as brave and loyal soldiers in our service as the Sikhs, Goorkhas, and other warlike races who have fought against us have proved themselves to be. It is impossible to doubt this, my Lords, when we call to mind the recent splendid behaviour of the Khyber Rifles, who, even after having been deprived in a most incomprehensible manner of the support of their British officer at the time when that support was most needed, defended Lundi Kotal against their own kith and kin until overcome by numbers, when they retired to Jamrud, and have since been fighting alongside our Regular troops. If, my Lords, you will bear with me a little longer, while I refer in a few words to the position which Russia now occupies in Asia, I trust I shall be able to explain to your satisfaction why I differ from those who think that we can afford to disregard Russia's advance, and believe that physical difficulties and want of supplies and transport would prevent her from again bringing about complications in Afghanistan which would necessitate our once more entering that country. My Lords, when we recollect the enormous physical difficulties that the energy, perseverance, and intrepidity of her soldiers have enabled Russia to successfully overcome in gaining her present position, it is ridiculous to suppose that any obstacles that are now before her, in the comparatively short distance that separates her from Afghanistan, could deter her from making a further onward move if she wishes to do so. Twice during the last 60 years Russia has compelled us to go to war with Afghanistan, by sending her emissaries to Kabul. On the first occasion she could not possibly have backed up any diplomatic arrangement by force of arms, on account of the distance which separated her from Afghanistan; and on the second occasion, although she had approached considerably nearer, and had actually a column in readiness for the purpose of assisting the Ameer, it would have been difficult

  761
  for her to have collected an army of sufficient strength to oppose us, for the Caspian Sea route was not then open, there were no railways in Turkestan, and troops would have had to march all the way round by Orenburg. Six years later (1885), when war between Russia and Afghanistan seemed probable, and we began to mobilise in India, in pursuant of our agreement with the present Ameer, a Russian Army could have reached Herat almost as quickly as we could have reached Kandahar. Thirteen years have elapsed since then, during which time Russia's position in Asia has so immeasurably improved that she is at least as favourably situated as we are for a further move. My Lords, there is no blame attaching to Russia for having gained the position she now occupies. I, for one, recognise the immense good effected by her having made herself mistress of the slave-dealing Khanates of Turkestan, and I see clearly that the same power which impelled us to move northwards from the Bay of Bengal to the Indus has impelled her to move southwards from Orenburg to the Oxus. Up to these points, neither of us interfere directly with the other, but Russia is near enough now to make the people of India anxious as to her future movements, and to unsettle their minds, unless we show ourselves determined to stop any further advance. It seems to me, therefore, absolutely necessary for us to set our frontier in order, and to prepare for contingencies which any reasonable person must admit to be possible, if not probable. My Lords, I have been derided as a Russophobe, and taunted with being disturbed by a phantom Forward movement of Russia. Well, my Lords. I do not object to the appellation of Russophobe, if Russophobe means one who is convinced that the forces of civilisation will compel Great Britain and Russia to eventually meet in Asia, and who is equally convinced that, if Russia is ever allowed to cross the great Hindu Kush barrier, and possess herself of Afghanistan and the Borderland, an attack on India will be merely a matter of time. This barrier, my Lords, Russia must never be allowed to cross. I am no Russophobe, in the sense of being fearful as to the result of a meeting of the
  762
  forces of Great Britain and Russia, but, my Lords, I love India, and in her interests, and in the interests of the trade and commerce of our own country, I desire to make every effort to delay the meeting as long as possible, and to ensure that, when it does take place, it shall be as far from our possessions, and under circumstances as favourable to India, as possible. I lay the greatest stress, my Lords, on our never permitting an enemy to set foot on Indian soil, for, although I thoroughly believe in the loyalty of the Native chiefs, and of the varied and various races who inhabit the vast continent of Hindustan, it would be foolish to forget that they are not our own flesh and blood, and that their loyalty is the outcome of their belief in our invincibility, and of their reliance on our power to defend them, and it would be unreasonable to expect them to keep their faith in us if ever we were to allow an invader to pass the great mountain range that separates India from Central Asia. If we are true to ourselves the people of India will be true to us. There is one point of view from which I have not discussed this question, and that is the financial point of view; not because I do not recognise its immense importance, but because it has not seemed to me to be my business. I conceive it to be my duty, as one who has had peculiar opportunities of making himself acquainted with our position on the North-West Frontier of India, to lay before you as clearly as I am able to do the reasons for the policy I advocate, and which I believe to be the only policy that can insure the safety of India; and it is for you, my Lords, and the nation, to decide on the course to be followed. I can only venture to express my firm conviction that, whatever may be the cost of the measures I propose, the cost, to say nothing of the danger to the Empire, will be infinitely greater if we allow matters to drift until we are obliged, in order to resist aggression in Afghanistan, to hurriedly mobilise a sufficient force to subdue the hostile tribes through whose country we should have to pass before we could reach those strategical positions which it is essential we should be able to occupy, without delay, if we do not intend to allow India—that brightest jewel in Great Britain's Crown—to pass out of our safe keeping.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of ONSLOW): My Lords, I rise with some diffidence to make some remarks on behalf of Her Majesty's Government upon the speech of the noble and gallant Lord who has just sat down, because he has an acquaintance which is unrivalled with the theatre of operations on the North-Western Frontier of India, and because he is admitted to be the first military authority, either in England or in India, on the strategy which we may have to adopt in the event of an invasion of India from the North-West Frontier. Three times expeditions have gone through those Passes into Afghanistan—expeditions which have been marked by gallant deeds of arms, and sufferings heroically borne. Those campaigns have brought but little glory, and but little advantage, to the Empire, save only in the case of the one brought to a successful conclusion by Lord Roberts of Kandahar. If I understand the proposal of the noble Lord aright, it is that, we ought to assume political control over what he calls the "robber-haunted no-man's-land" between India and Afghanistan; that we should take up our boundary so as to be co-terminous with that of the Ameer of Afghanistan; that we should take control of all the roads that lie between the two countries, and construct railways up to the frontier of the Ameer's territory. Now, I do not for a moment wish to differ from the noble Lord, that it would be most desirable that we should have roadways and railways up to the frontier of Afghanistan; but, I think the noble Lord will agree with me that that can be accomplished upon one condition, and one condition only—that we should, first of all, place the tribes, through whose territories these roads and railways will run, under subjection to the Government of India. My Lords, there was one feature of the noble Lord's speech which I welcomed. There was in it no attempt, I think, to suggest that the military operations which have been carried on recently upon the Frontier of India were due to the action either of one party in the State or the other party in the state. There has been, I think, a good deal too much in the controversies which have arisen on this subject of trying to attach blame to one set of Her Majesty's Ministers or
  764
  another. I welcome the speech which the noble and gallant Lord has delivered as a contribution towards an attempt to solve a most difficult question, and one which has been of perennial embarrassment to successive Governments of India. The noble Lord did not suggest to us, I think, by what means he would proceed to the subjection of these independent tribes upon the Frontier. No doubt it is a fascinating picture to draw that we should occupy the great and, I believe, healthy plateau of the Tirah, which stands at a considerable elevation above the level of the sea, and compares most favourably with the unhealthy situation of Peshawar and our cantonments lower down the Valley. But though the Tirah commands some of the Passes, such as the Khyber and the Bolan and the Kohat, it does not command the whole of our North-West Frontier. That Frontier is 1,000 miles in length, and the occupation of a part of it would not bring under subjection all those tribes which lie to the North-East of the Kabul River—the Mohmands, the Swatis, and the Bonerwals—nor would it give us control of the territory of the Waziris, or the Valley of the Gomal, or the Zhob. Therefore, it is obvious that even if we were to adopt the suggestion of the noble Lord and establish a sanatorium in the Tirah, we should still have a large extent of the Frontier, with which we should have to deal otherwise. The noble Lord said it was no part of his duty to call your Lordships' attention to what might be the financial considerations involved in his proposal. My Lords, I very much regret that the noble and gallant Lord did not give us some opinion on that subject, because I think that this is a consideration of the utmost importance, more particularly in the present and very special condition of the finances of India. We have something like 50,000 men along the Frontier at this moment engaged in the present operations at a cost which has not been estimated at less than four crores of rupees. I should like very much to know what, in the opinion of the noble Lord, would be likely to be the cost of permanently maintaining in the Tirah a force sufficient to keep under control the warlike races that inhabit that district. I should like to know whether, in the noble Lord's

  765
  opinion, it would not be necessary permanently to increase the Army stationed in India; I should like to know whether all this could be accomplished at once, and in a short time, or whether the force stationed there would not be exposed for a very long time to come to very much the same sort of guerilla warfare, which is known along the Frontier as "sniping," from which our officers and men have suffered in the present expedition. My Lords, I think that your Lordships will agree with me that a very large sum of money would have to be expended for this object, and I want to know how that sum is to be obtained. Is it to be obtained by additional taxation of the people of India, who, although their condition is, I am grateful to think, improving year by year, are still, when compared with the more fortunate condition of their fellow-subjects in this country, in a state which we should consider as one of absolute squalor and poverty. I should like to know whether it would be necessary to divert some of the funds which are set apart annually to redeem the debt against the possibility of an outbreak such as we had last year of famine, and whether we might not have to curtail the railway projects which the Government of India have before them, and which have added so much in the past to the stability and prosperity of India. The noble and gallant Lord compared the nature of the Beluchis and the Pathans, and he advised your Lordships that if you were to seek to establish relations with the Pathans similar to those which Sir Robert Sandeman succeeded in establishing and maintaining in Beluchistan, you would be likely to have no more trouble than Sir Robert Sandeman had with them. But, I venture to think, from what I have read, that the character of the Beluchis and the character of the Pathan are essentially different. In the first place their system is totally different. When you have to deal with the Beluchis, you have a headman at the head of the tribe; and once you have got the consent of that man to any proposal, you may rely upon it that you have also got the consent of the whole tribe. That
  766
  is not so with the Pathans. Their leaders have not by any means full control over the tribe, and I am told that among them there is a system of government with which we are not wholly unacquainted in this country. I believe that they enjoy what is known here as Party Government, and that in no country in the world, not even in France, are such rapid changes made amongst those who administer the affairs of the country. But when the noble Lord says that, in his opinion, we should endeavour to cultivate more friendly relations with the tribes upon our frontier, I venture to say that that is a very different thing altogether from the first proposal of the noble Lord, that we should occupy that territory and take political control. My Lords, these tribesmen are not wild animals, that you have to seek out in their lairs, or that you have to stalk like deer in the Highlands of Scotland. They come down, and they mix with our own fellow subjects in their thousands, and they spend many months with our fellow-subjects on the other side of the Indus, but their relations with them have in no way changed their republican and their fanatical character. They have relations with us which may be described as entirely friendly, and even now, when we have been engaged in what many of us think—but what I venture to say they do not—a very bitter warfare, they send down their women to Peshawar to be looked after by the ladies there; they are satisfied that they will be well treated and well cared for, and even, I am told, when they have sought to send their letters to post, they have not hesitated to hand them to our outposts, satisfied that they will be safely delivered. To what may we attribute a report such as this? Is it not to a feeling of confidence that we are sincere in our declarations that we will leave them in the entire occupation of their country, and that we have no desire to interfere with their tribal customs? I heard the other day, in another place, a speech of the Leader of the Opposition, in which he took great exception to a statement of my noble Friend the Secretary of State for India, in which he described these tribesmen as hereditary robbers, and it

  767
  was said, in portentous tones, that these words would resound throughout the length and breadth of the frontier of India. Well, my Lords, I have yet to learn that Hansard has any very great circulation among the Pathan tribesmen. I had the advantage in 1894 of being present at a solemn Durbar, held by the present Viceroy, Lord Elgin, at which he made a speech, addressed not only to our fellow-subjects of the Punjaub, but also to representatives of the tribes from the confines of India, from Afghanistan, and from other districts, and these were the words that he made use of—
  "It is our aim and ambition so to regulate our relations with the brave, undisciplined inhabitants of the hills on our Western Border as at the same time to ensure the peace and security for life and property upon which our Treaty obligations and the dictates of humanity compel us to insist, and to leave to them the entire occupation of their country, the fullest measure of autonomy and the most complete liberty in their internal affairs to follow their tribal customs."
  My Lords, when these words were translated into the language which they understood, I thought that even upon the unimpassioned faces of the Oriental listeners there was an exchange of glances, which seemed to me to say that the words fell at least upon no unwilling ears. That declaration is the policy of Her Majesty's Government now. The despatch, which your Lordships will find at the end of the Blue Book, to which the noble Lord has called attention, distinctly lays down that this policy of Her Majesty's Government is to avoid any extension of administrative control over tribal territory. But, at the same time, the Government recognises the necessity of the fulfilment of its responsibility, which we have already incurred. Now, my Lords, what are these responsibilities? They are, in the first place, that we must protect our own border, and those who dwell within our border in British India; in the second place, that we must fulfil the solemn engagements that we have entered into towards the Ameer of Afghanistan; and in the third place, that we are bound to see that the stipulated undertaking of that tribal service, and those engagements which the tribes have entered into are duly and punctually performed, and with a view to carrying out that policy the Secretary of
  768
  State for India has laid down that the roads and communications necessary for the purpose must be preserved, and that posts can be established. But in the establishment of these posts, a very careful limitation is placed in the dispatch. All those who have followed the operations on the North-West Frontier will have observed that in many cases the posts that have been attacked, some of which have unfortunately fallen, were not sufficiently defensible, and the Viceroy has been enjoined to limit the establishment of any posts upon our Frontier outside our own border to those that are sufficiently defensible, and only those those that can promptly and immediately repel an attack; and in addition to that the Viceroy has been enjoined to take into consideration the financial considerations. Not only must any of these posts or lines of communication be desirable, and no doubt, in the opinion of the noble Lord, there are many that are desirable, but in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government they must not only be desirable, as I said before, but the gain of their establishment must be commensurate to their expense. There is one road, and one road especially, to which we should allude, and which has been taken a little further than those which I have just described to your Lordships, and that is the Pass through the Khyber. The Khyber Pass is one of great antiquity, and of great importance, and its preservation is undoubtedly of the very greatest importance to what is known as the prestige of the Government of India, and as far as that Pass is concerned, very clear injunctions have been given to the Government of India that they may take all such steps as they think necessary to keep the Khyber Pass open for the passage of caravans, and in order that it may be available for us to send troops through, should we ever be called upon to discharge the obligations which we have entered into with the Ameer of Afghanistan. The noble Lord referred to the policy which was adopted by the Government of the Punjaub, and the Commissioner of Peshawar in withdrawing the officer commanding the Khyber Rifles, and in not sending troops up to their relief when they were threatened. I will not delay your Lordships by going into the question of the Proclamation, because

  769
  the noble Lord has not done so. The matter was very carefully considered by Aslam Khan, the political officer in the Khyber Pass, by General Elles commanding at Peshawar, and by the Commissioner and Superintendent at Peshawar, Sir Richard Udny, and all three unanimously agreed that it would be most unwise to withdraw the Khyber Rifles from the Pass. General Elles was also of opinion that the military position did not justify him in sending Imperial troops to the relief of the Khyber Rifles. I would like to read to your Lordships a few words from the Blue Book, page 90, in which the Commissioner at Peshawar gives his reasons for that decision—
  "We are all three absolutely and unanimously opposed to calling in the Khyber Rifles from posts in the Pass to headquarters at Jamrud, even if matters were as bad as represented in my telegram of 17th; such a measure would have worst possible effect, as it would at once be supposed that we had abandoned the Pass, and the posts at Landi Kotal and Ali Masjid would probably be looted by tribesmen. We are all of opinion that we must trust the Khyber Rifles under their own native officers to the end, and that even if they eventually failed us, and bolted with their arms and ammunition, this would not be so bad as showing distrust of them by calling them into Jamrud before they had been fairly tested."
  That decision was arrived at after very careful consideration, and with the approval of the Government of India, and in connection with it I should like to draw your Lordship's attention to what are the conditions under which the Khyberis hold the place for us. It has been insisted from the beginning that the Government of India are in no way called upon to support the tribesmem in maintaining the Pass. The agreement which was entered into with the Afridis contains clauses, of which these words are the most important—
  "Our responsibility for the security of the road is independent of aid from Government in the form of troops; it lies within the discretion of the Government to maintain its troops in the Pass, or withdraw them, and reoccupy at pleasure; we will provide such number of men as the Government may direct to carry out the duties, and to enable us to render the road secure."
  Now, my Lords, with that agreement before them, the Government felt that they ought to leave the defence
  770
  of these posts entirely in the hands of those who had undertaken to defend it, believing that they would suffer no great loss, and their belief was justified by the result, because out of the whole of the men who were employed in the Pass, only 10 or 11 were killed in the attack made upon it by their fellow tribesmen. My Lords, the Government of India believe that the system which has obtained in the past is one which it will be in the main safe to follow in the future, and that when once these disturbances have come to an end, and when punishment has been meted out to those who opposed this arrangement, arrangement will be possible, and this is also the opinion of the Government of the Punjaub, by which the Afridis will be willing to keep open the Pass again upon terms somewhat similar to those which were imposed in the past, and they have every confidence that they will be able to keep it open with native tribal levies, without employing any number of Imperial troops for that purpose. I do not think that the noble Lord went with any great detail into the question of the appointment of a Frontier Commissioner. We know that some years ago, during the Administration of Lord Lytton, there was a proposal to separate all the districts on the other side of the Indus from the Government of the Punjaub and Scinde, and I think that the noble Lord himself was designated as Frontier Commissioner for that purpose. The noble Lord has referred to Sir Robert Sandeman, and, no doubt, no officer ever served the Crown with greater distinction and success than Sir Robert Sandeman—but I would venture to ask the noble Lord whether he can point to any man who fulfils the condition of Sir Robert Sandeman, and whom he would point out as the one upon whom all eyes would concentrate as the man who ought to be appointed as the Frontier Commissioner or Warden of the Marshes, and I think that until there is some one man to whom all eyes would point, this is a question that must remain slumbering. At all events it has done so since the days of Lord Lytton. I do not say that this is a question which ought not to be considered, but for the moment much has been accomplished in the direction of better relations with Afghanistan, and I do not think that the question of the separation of the Trans-

  771
  Indus, and Scinde, and Punjaub is of that importance which it was at the time to which the noble Lord has alluded. Well, my Lords, I think that in the history of every country—in the history of England and of Europe—there have been many cases where proud hereditary hillmen have retained their independence facilitated by the propinquity of mountain fastnesses where they have for a long time resisted the advancement of civilisation and of their absorption in the great states suffered by their neighbours in the plains. But in almost every one of those instances these populations and these mountaineers have ultimately had to accept the civilisation brought to their doors, and have had to accept absorption in the great states around them. I do not think that any of us would predict any other ultimate destiny for these proud but barbarous tribes upon our North-West Frontier, and I am quite sure that we can wish for nothing different, but the time when that shall be accomplished seems to me to be in the hands of destiny. But whether it shall be accelerated or not lies in the hands of the Government of India and of this country. I understand from the speech of the noble Lord that he would hasten its accomplishment at once. I would submit to your Lordships that the moment is not opportune for the hurrying on of this question, and I would venture to doubt whether the undoubted sacrifice of treasure, and perhaps also of men, involved, would be commensurate with the objects which the noble Lord seeks to attain. He spoke of the rapid advance of Russia, and I am not going to follow him into that part of his speech. All I would like to say to your Lordships is that in the past gigantic strides have been made by Russia towards our Frontier in India, but at the present moment, at any rate, whatever may happen in the future, Russia seems to be intent upon other parts of her Empire rather than upon this part which borders upon Afghanistan and India. Trans-Continental railways and her ports in the Far East are apparently occupying her principal attention now, and therefore I think that, whatever may have been the case in the past, the present moment is not one which shows any special reason for our making an advance in the Forward policy as rapidly as has been desired by the noble Lord. I would
  772
  rather wish that the matter might be allowed to remain in the position in which it now is; that we should go on endeavouring to cultivate those friendly relations, which, I believe, are so easily cultivated with these tribes, but that we should not do anything to attempt to administer their territory or to obtain greater control over their tribal customs. My Lords, the position which I think we now stand in may be summed up in a very few words. What we have done is to dispel the illusion which seems to be entertained by the tribes that there is any part of their territory which is inaccessible to us, should we choose to go there. We have proved our sincerity and the sincerity of our declarations, that we do not desire to occupy any part of their territory, nor to interfere with their tribal system of government. The terms which we have imposed upon them are leniency itself compared to the terms which they would expect from men such as they are themselves, and just as a Bank of England note has currency all over the world, because it never enters into the mind of man to imagine that the obligation written on the face of it will not be discharged, so it is known that the declaration that we will avenge any attempt at a raid upon own territories is equally certain to be accomplished, but that when once it is accomplished we shall return to the solemn undertaking we have given to the tribes which I have read to your Lordships, and which was made in open durbar by the representative of the Queen-Empress, and that, without any desire or ambition of conquest, or to extend our boundaries, we have no other wish than to cultivate the friendship and goodwill of our neighbours who live in the North-West Frontier of our Indian territory.
  *THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: I am sure that your Lordships must have been glad to hear the noble and gallant Lord who introduced this discussion, and who has brought this Question of the recent serious outbreaks on the North-West Frontier of India to your Lordships' notice. In your Lordships' House, where so many of us have had important connection with India, where there are no less than four who have had the honour of filling the high office of Viceroy, and I believe five who have filled the office of Secretary of State for India, putting aside

  773
  other noble Lords, like the noble and gallant Lord who addressed your Lordships, it seems to me to be highly desirable that some discussion should take place upon this very important matter. My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble and gallant Lord that such a discussion ought to be carried on without any recrimination between one side and the other of the House, and I shall certainly avoid raising any topic which could excite any Party feelings in any of your Lordships' minds. It seems to me to be a matter of very little consequence who happened to be Viceroy or Secretary of State for India when such or such a Measure was adopted. What I think is necessary is to consider as calmly as we can what are the probable causes of this outbreak, and what should be the future policy in dealing with the Frontier tribes, so as to avoid so serious a position of affairs as we have had to meet on the present occasion. For, my Lords, at no time in the history of India has so large a force been under one command as has been collected in this miserable war. The financial results of the war must be most serious to India, and what is quite as important is, that while this war has been carried on it has been almost impossible for those responsible for the administration of India to pay that attention to home affairs which is so necessary in the present condition of that country. My Lords, I will say at once that I am not quite in accord with the views expressed by the noble and gallant Lord, more particularly with reference to our dealings with the tribes during the past eight or nine years. The noble and gallant Lord correctly observed that our first connection with these tribes was in consequence of the annexation of the Punjaub when we succeeded the Sikh Government in possession of the country, on the other side of the river Indus, which is bounded by the mountainous territory occupied by these tribes. At that time the other side of the Indus was only held by the Sikhs by force of arms. They sent a military force into the country from time to time to collect revenue, but there was no real holding of the country at all. Fortunately, some of the very finest administrators and soldiers that ever graced the British Army and the British rule in India were employed in the Punjaub at that time.
  774
  Men like Nicholson and Edwardes, and others, were placed in this difficult country, and the result of their administration was most successful. We organised a force, which was a good deal composed of men belonging to the tribes themselves, for the purpose of restraining and repressing any inroads upon our territory. We got rid of the capitation taxes and of the Customs duties which the Sikhs had collected. We invited the cordial relations of these gallant tribesmen with our officers. We introduced a system of irrigation, which enabled the land to be cultivated, and so successful was our administration that after only 10 years' at the time of the Indian Mutiny, this country, instead of being a source of danger to us, was a source of safety; Nicholson and others brought down from the Punjaub the forces which materially assisted in the capture of Delhi, consisting, curiously enough, of gallant soldiers who were hereditary enemies of one another—namely, Afridis and Sikhs, but who combined to support the British Government on the ridge of Delhi. My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord has said that the Punjaub system of dealing with these tribes has failed, and that he wishes to substitute some other system. I thought that this assertion had been completely disposed of by some very able articles which have recently been published in the Times newspaper, giving an account of the system which was carried on by the Punjaub Government. It has been said that there were 28 punitive expeditions in the first 30 years of our occupation of the Punjaub. The Punjaub system, by men who are masters of what are called "vituperative epithets," has been described as a policy of "alternate violence and inaction," and some who are not quite so delicate in their language have called it a policy of "butchery and scuttle." Nothing can be more inaccurate than such a description of the Punjaub policy. An examination of the history of these punitive expeditions shows that in the first 10 years of our occupation there were 19 punitive expeditions, in the second 10 years of our occupation there were five punitive expeditions, and in the third 10 years of our occupation there were only four punitive expeditions. During the time that I had the honour of filling the position of Viceroy, and in

  775
  the time of Lord Mayo, eight years in all, there was only one punitive expedition. Since the war with Afghanistan there have been only two such expeditions, and therefore I may say, without the slightest fear of contradiction, that the Punjaub system of dealing with the tribes has been successful in this, namely, that on the whole these raids by the tribes ceased to exist in any serious quantity. So far, my Lords, for the noble and gallant Lord's criticism of the Punjaub system. Now, my Lords, the noble and gallant Lord desires to substitute for the Punjaub system of dealing with these tribes the system pursued by Sir Robert Sandeman, in Beluchistan. There is no member of your Lordship's house who has a greater right to express an opinion on the merits of Sir Robert Sandeman than I have, because it so happens that when I was Viceroy I had the satisfaction of placing Sir Robert Sandeman in the position in Beluchistan which enabled him to render those very great services to India which have been correctly described by the noble and gallant Lord who has just addressed your Lordships. No man can have a higher opinion of the merits of Sir Robert Sandeman than I have. He had an extraordinary power of dealing with the tribes which he had to deal with, and he exercised it with very great advantage to the State. But, my Lords, when the noble and gallant Lord said that the fact that Sir Robert Sandeman had been successful in Beluchistan proves that his system can rightly be applied to the Pathan tribes, I venture to differ from him, and I do not think it is fair to quote Sir Robert Sandeman as an officer who, if he had had his own way, with only administrative matters to consider, would have been in favour of applying his system to the Pathan tribes in the manner in which it has been recently applied. The reason I say this is because it is Sir Robert Sandeman's own recorded opinion. A very interesting book has recently been published, entitled "The Life of Sir Robert Sandeman," by Mr. Thornton, and at the end of this book, the memoranda which Sir Robert Sandeman wrote upon these subjects have been published, and in one of these memoranda—namely, one written in December, 1890—he used these words in explaining his
  776
  views as to the relations with the Waziri and the other Frontier Tribes. Sir Robert said—
  "Were it not for military considerations affecting the defence of India against Russia, I would be an advocate of masterly inactivity instead of conciliatory intervention, and I should consider it a mistake to make any attempt to include within our control the fringe of independent tribes which lie between ourselves and Afghanistan proper."
  So much for Sir Robert Sandeman's views upon this matter. Now, my Lords, I will briefly explain to your Lordships what happened when the Sandeman system was applied to the Pathan tribes in 1889. In 1889, Sir Robert Sandeman took a force into a district which is called Zhob, lying between Beluchistan and the Afridi country. He found some of the head men ready to say that they would like us to occupy that country. He made arrangements with them for the protection of certain roads going through the Zhob country into Afghanistan, and he went back again to his own administration in Beluchistan. Well, my Lords, in the very next year, 1890, it was found to be necessary to send a very large force into that country in order to carry out the arrangements made by Sir Robert Sandeman. Two or three bodies of troops marched all through the country to show our strength, and one section of the tribes with whom Sir Robert Sandeman desired to deal having refused to be dealt with, were coerced, their country was invaded, and they were obliged to submit. The officer commanding that expedition thought it would be a very "useful thing" if a very high mountain in that country, which is called "King Solomon's Throne," could be ascended, "in order that any mystery that was connected with that mountain should be entirely done away with," and the consequence was that some troops were sent up to the top of that mountain. I can conceive nothing more likely to create suspicion among these tribes than for them to see our officers at the top of their hills, surveying and making maps of the country which they have always considered to be independent, and a country that was held up to that time to be independent of us. These Pathan tribes guard their independence with the same jealousy as the natives of Switzerland and other mountainous

  777
  countries. I must say that the officer, who went up to the top of the Throne of Solomon was not governed by the wisdom of Solomon in that operation. My Lords, that was the result of the first of the attempts to extend the Sandeman system to the Pathan tribes, but I am afraid I must explain how it proceeded. The effect of that expedition, which, in the view of the noble and gallant Lord, was for the purpose of enabling us to protect Afghanistan against Russian invasion was far from agreeable to the Ameer of Kabul. It created great suspicion in his mind, so much so that he sent some of his officers into that country, over which he considered he had some rights, and this was one of the reasons why it was necessary to send in 1893 Sir Mortimer Durand to meet the Ameer, and arrange the different spheres of influence of Afghanistan and British India on that Frontier. Moreover, in the winter of the same year, a survey was made for a railway through that country, and shortly afterwards it was annexed to Beluchistan—in point of fact, annexed to British India. The noble and gallant Lord, in that most interesting and able book that he wrote, giving us so graphically and so charmingly the account of his experiences in India, called the inhabitants of that country "our new subjects." Some of these tribesmen have a very picturesque way of expressing things, and one of the headmen of that country of Zhob expressed himself in this way to one of our gallant officers after the occupation. He said—
  "What can we do? We have got the Zhob force on one side of us, and the Punjaub frontier force on the other."
  He then put his little finger in his mouth, closed his teeth, and said, "What can I do with my little finger now?" Your Lordships may accept this account of the real feeling that we have created in these people. They are a little finger between our teeth, and is it not likely that if our teeth are ever opened they will not extricate themselves from our control, and assert, if they can, their original independence? The noble and gallant Lord (the Earl of Kimberley) did not allude to the Durand Convention of 1893, and therefore I will only say that I heard with great satisfaction the views expressed by
  778
  my noble Friend on this side of the House upon the subject of the Durand Agreement between the Ameer of Afghanistan and the British Government, because the noble Earl can speak upon that matter with greater authority than any other man, having at the time filled the office of Secretary of State for India, and being, in point of fact, responsible for the Agreement; and, therefore, it is most important that the noble Earl's view of the Durand Agreement should be emphasised. The noble Earl said it is—
  "not an agreement for extending our frontier, nor did it necessitate our moving forward; its object was to mark the line between us and the Ameer, beyond which the Ameer on his side, and we on ours, should not interfere with the tribes. It was a negative agreement as to what we were not to do, but it did not bind us to a Forward policy. The tribes may have regarded it as handing them over to us, and they may have concluded that the consequence would be an interference with their independence The Government of India ought to have acted with the greatest possible caution, and to have had the tribes clearly to understand that the Durand Agreement did not affect their independence."
  These were the words of the noble Earl, and I was glad to hear them, because there was great uncertainty upon the interpretation of this Agreement, and it has been used by those who share the views of the noble and gallant Lord to advocate further advance and greater interference with the tribes. My Lords, I wish that I could say that the views that my noble Friend expressed had been carried out in India, but that is not so. The Durand Agreement laid down a line of frontier between the Ameer and ourselves, and in order to mark out that line a brigade of troops was marched into the independent territory of the Waziri tribes to support those who were to mark out the boundary, and I do not see from the papers that the consent of the tribes was asked to the march of our troops through their territory for that purpose; but the result of it was disastrous, because the tribes fired into our camp at night, and then an expedition, consisting of 9,000 men, had to be sent all through their country, and posts were established throughout Waziristan. My Lords, I will not dwell on this much longer. The result was again disastrous. When we began to establish these posts, which, it appears, we were in the habit of putting where they are not always

  779
  defensible, the tribes began to break out again. Murder was committed—a fine was imposed. An English officer—Mr. Gee—with a force, was sent up to collect those fines, and to settle the position of the posts. He was treacherously attacked by the tribes—almost all the English officers were killed or wounded, and there was only one matter of satisfaction connected with that unfortunate affair—viz., the extraordinary courage of the Native officers who had to lead the troops back to the nearest support. That was the result of the second attempt to introduce the Sandeman policy among the Pathan tribes. The noble and gallant Lord has complained with respect to our troops having evacuated the Kuram. I was surprised to hear that from the noble and gallant Lord, because I well recollect that the withdrawal of the troops from the Kuram was done under the noble and gallant Lord's own deliberate advice given to the Government of India of the day. Here are the words used by the noble and gallant Lord in 1881, when that evacuation was ordered. They are in a formal and most important document written by the noble and gallant Lord at the conclusion of the campaign in which he so greatly distinguished himself, when the future operations of the Government of India with respect to the Frontier were being discussed. The noble and gallant Lord said—
  "I strongly advocate the complete withdrawal of the troops from the Kuram."
  These are the words of the noble and gallant Lord, but he added that he strongly protested against the tribes of the Kuram being put back under the Ameer of Afghanistan. That was provided for by my noble Friend the Marquess of Ripon, who had to carry out those arrangements. Therefore I am surprised to hear such an attack as that now made. I think the noble Lord called it a breach of faith. I consider that the reoccupation of the Kuram in 1893 was a very doubtful proceeding. It is not necessary to dwell upon it, and I should not have mentioned it if it had not been for the observations made by the noble and gallant Lord. Besides this, there have been other movements of the same description in other parts of the tribal territory. The crest of the
  780
  Samara hills was occupied—and I think that must have been when the noble and gallant Lord held the position of Commander-in-Chief—forts were placed there which had to be abandoned when the attack on the troops took place lately, and where, unfortunately, many gallant Sikh soldiers lost their lives. That is one of the results of the new policy—to construct forts in tribal territory in order to protect lines of communication, and for other purposes. My Lords, I should have said, in respect to the introduction of the Sandeman system into Waziristan, that the Lieutenant-Governor of the Punjaub, Sir Dennis Fitzpatrick, entered his protest against the manner in which that advance took place. He explained the difference between the Beluchi and the Pathan—that whereas in Beluchistan you can deal with the headman of the tribe with perfect confidence, the Pathans form a kind of republic, and the fact that you have two or three of the headmen on your side does not at all prove that the whole tribe will go with you, or will accept the decision of the headmen. There are always to be found among these Pathans men who are very fond of the English rupee, and would be only too glad if the British Government should occupy part of their country, but it is soon found that they do not carry their tribesmen with them, and this has been proved by the example I have given, and also other events on the Frontier. My Lords, so far as to the operations which have taken place in the last eight or nine years to the west of the Peshawar. To the east a similar course has been taken, and there is one expedition at which, when I read about it, I was, I may say, almost shocked, because it appeared as if we had sent a force up into the Black Mountain to pick a quarrel with the tribes in order to enable us to send an expedition into their country. We sent a force up into the Black Mountain, and the tribes were asked to come and help to make a road through their country. The instruction given to the officer in command was that he should go back into the plains if the tribes opposed him. They did oppose. He went back. In the next year a large force was sent into the country—to coerce them. That was another of these expeditions that have taken place in these last eight or ten years

  781
  —not a punitive expedition, of which the noble and gallant Lord complained, but an expedition intended to carry out the "Forward policy." My Lords, last of all there was the establishment of the force at Malakand, which I will not discuss, because I think the House has heard quite enough of the Chitral Question. Now, I should like your Lordships to consider what the feelings of the Afridi tribe must have been in consequence of all these operations. What did they see? They saw the country of Zhob annexed to the British territory. They saw Waziristan undergoing the same process. They saw forts on the Samana Range close to them. They saw Kuram re-occupied. So much for one side of Peshawar. On the other side they saw the expedition to the Black Mountain, and forts put up on the Malakand. When I examined the causes of these outbreaks I was irresistibly forced to the conclusion that although, doubtless, there was a great wave of fanaticism amongst all these tribes—they are subject to great waves of fanaticism, and very much under the control of their mullahs—unless there had been these constant encroachments in their neighbourhood, and unless they had entertained a reasonable suspicion that we were going to encroach upon their independence, there would not have been that combination among the tribes which we have lately seen, and which has caused this serious war on the Indian Frontier. That is the conclusion, my Lords, to which I am forced after reading these papers to which the noble and gallant Lord has called our attention, after giving the most careful attention to the subject. I beg, in making these remarks, to say that I make no accusations against anyone. I am perfectly satisfied that all the officers concerned endeavoured to do their duty to the best of their ability, and thought at the beginning that these measures could be carried out without doing any injury. They were mistaken, and there cannot be a greater proof of their mistake than the history of their attempt to extend the Sandeman policy to these tribes. My Lords, I was very much pleased to see in the dispatch of the Secretary of State for India of the 28th January last, which has been laid
  782
  before Parliament, that he has arrived at the same conclusion, for he distinctly lays it down that the system which has been successful in Beluchistan ought not to be considered as applicable to the Pathans. He says in the 15th paragraph—
  "The character and internal government of the Beluchi tribes, controlled from Quetta, so differ from those of the Northern Pathans that the arrangements working satisfactorily there need not now be reviewed or criticised as necessarily forming a foundation upon which to base our actions elsewhere."
  And in his speech the other day, in another place, he emphasised that paragraph. He said—
  "Keep the Sandeman system and the Punjaub system to their respective and legitimate spheres of influence, and not harshly seek to introduce the Southern system under the more difficult conditions."
  My Lords, I beg to express my entire concurrence with the view which has been expressed by the Secretary of State, in his dispatch and in Parliament, and I shall pursue that part of the subject no further. My Lords, the other subject upon which I wish to say a few words is the future policy which is to be pursued in respect to these tribes. I am happy to say that I am able to tender my cordial support to the policy of Her Majesty's Government, as shown in the dispatch to which I have referred, and explained in the speeches of the Secretary of State elsewhere, and of the Prime Minister in this House. My Lords, I think that as to the misconduct of these tribes there can be no dispute, because they attacked our forts and attacked their own fellow tribesmen in the Khyber. We had the right to treat them as a defeated enemy after a war, and I think the moderation of the terms imposed upon them is highly to be commended. There is to be no interference with their independence; no annexation of territory—we are not to have what the noble and gallant Lord recommended, the occupation of the centre of the Afridi country; no tribute is to be imposed upon them; no general disarmament; no condition about roads passing through their country, or surveys to be made on their hills. Again, with respect to the posts to which the noble and gallant Lord has alluded, and which the noble Lord the Under

  783
  Secretary of State for India dealt with in his excellent speech in reply to the noble and gallant Lord—these posts are to be reconsidered. I think there can be no doubt as to the necessity of reconsidering these posts, so that we shall not be subjected to the calamities which have resulted from establishing posts without sufficient support. With reference to the Khyber Pass, I was very glad to hear from the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for India that it is not intended to occupy the Khyber Pass with British troops. That question was considered in 1881, and it was the opinion of everyone that the occupation of the Khyber Pass by British troops could not be recommended, for reasons with which I need not trouble your Lordships; and I observe that the Lieutenant Governor of the Punjaub, Sir Mackworth Young, has recently expressed, in the strongest terms, the same opinion. The noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for India did not allude to the force that has been placed in the Malakand Pass. I did not expect that the Government could be in a position to express an opinion now, but I am bound to say that I consider that the disposition of that force ought to be reconsidered. It seems an extraordinary thing that we should have had 4,000 troops, or more than a brigade, on the Malakand and at Chakdara, and that a force which ought to have been able to hold its own against any attack from the tribesmen, would have been exposed to disaster if it had not been for immediate reinforcements from the Punjaub. I trust that Her Majesty's Government will not be afraid, if they think that they were wrong in respect of the protection of the road between Chitral and the Punjaub, to change their mind upon the matter, and to make some other arrangement. I was much struck with the opinion given by Major Deane, the political officer in charge of the road, which will be found in the Blue Book, at page 46 in the second volume—that the present arrangements for the protection of the road are not sufficient. This opinion was given before the outbreak of the tribes. Now, it would be a most serious matter if there should be any further disturb
  784
  ance along that road. Major Deane says—
  "Experience of the working during the last eight months has convinced me that the Malakand is too far from Dir for certainty of control over Dir. This could only be remedied by moving the troops now forming the flying column near Dir to the open country."
  And then he goes on to suggest certain other arrangements for making this road secure. I call the attention of Her Majesty's Government to these plain facts of this matter because it is of very serious importance. In respect to the general principles of the management of these tribes, as explained in the dispatch, and as repeated by the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for India, I have nothing to do but to express my entire concurrence. I think, however, especially after the speech of the noble and gallant Lord, that something more remains to be done. None of your Lordships can have listened to his speech without feeling that it is our duty to carry out our engagements with the Ameer of Afghanistan if necessary, and to protect his country against any attack from Russia. The assurance given the Ameer by my noble Friend the Marquess of Ripon in 1880 was, I think, couched in nearly the same words as the assurance I myself had given to the former Ameer in the year 1873. It was not a new engagement at all. The only question which is to be discussed is, what is the best way of enabling us to carry out that assurance? That is a matter of the gravest importance, and there is no man who can speak upon it with greater authority than the noble and gallant Lord who has addressed your Lordships. At the same time, there are other gallant officers, whose opinions may be considered to be equal in value to that of the noble and gallant Lord, who entertain different views. There is the opinion of the gallant predecessor of the noble and gallant Lord, in the position of Commander-in-Chief in India, Sir Donald Stewart. There is the opinion of Sir Neville Chamberlain, of Sir Henry Norman, of Sir John Adye, and many others, and this will be sufficient to prove to your Lordships that it is not the general opinion of all military experts that the

  785
  precise manner in which the noble and gallant Lord proposes to carry out these engagements is the best for the purpose. My Lords, the view expressed by the noble and gallant Lord is that the only way in which we can properly carry out our engagements to the Ameer is by holding the Kabul, Ghuznee, and Kandahar line, and by having control and making roads over all the passes between Afghanistan and British India. Now, my Lords, the view expressed by a most distinguished authority in the year 1881 was not the same as that expressed now by the noble and gallant Lord. The opinion then expressed was that the position at Kandahar, on the flank of any advance upon India, was the essential position to hold, and that it would not be wise to distribute our forces and to advance either by the Khyber or by any other of these passes into Afghanistan. My Lords, circumstances may have somewhat changed since that time, but I doubt whether they have changed to the extent of making it necessary to abandon that most important principle of strategy laid down in the opinions then held. These were the views then held by this very high military authority—
  "Military operations undertaken in the direction of Kandahar, will be from the base of Kurrachee, and this line will henceforth be the theatre of any war carried on by us, the Afghans, or Russia, in Central Asia."
  He went on to say that—
  "Under any circumstances, it is by this road that all offensive operations on our part could most advantageously be carried on";
  and, again—
  "That it would be best to decide to remain strictly on the defensive on our North-West Frontier."
  And further, this high military authority thought that—
  "We should advocate all our energies to striking vigorously on the Kandahar side."
  And then he mentioned a very important consideration, namely, that—
  "We have neither sufficient money nor men to warrant our operating on more than one line."
  Of course, these questions are not to be settled by a map and a pair of com-
  786
  passes—we must look to the nature of the people to whom the territory through which we have to pass belongs. And further, this high military authority whom I am quoting, said—
  "It may not be very flattering to our amour propre, but I feel sure that I am right when I say that the less the Afghans see of us the less they will dislike us; and should Russia in a few years attempt to conquer Afghanistan, or invade India, we should have a better chance of attaching the Afghans to our interests if we avoid all interference with them in the meantime."
  Now, the very gallant officer who gave these opinions was Sir Frederick Roberts, just after his return from Afghanistan, and when he had to consider the defence of India immediately after the last war with Afghanistan. My Lords, I think I have shown, at any rate, that there are military opinions adverse to those which are now given by the noble and gallant Lord. What I have to impress upon Her Majesty's Government is this: that after the speech of the noble and gallant Lord, in which reference has been made to certain strategical considerations which are to govern all our dealings with the Frontier tribes, the matter ought not to be allowed to stand as it does now. This question, in my opinion, should be thoroughly threshed out with regard to the number of troops we have available in India; and to the effect of any measures such as those recommended upon the tribes, and upon some of out most gallant soldiers in the Indian Army. All these things might be considered, and, likewise, the financial power of India to defray the enormous expenditure which would be involved if the policy advocated by the noble and gallant Lord were undertaken. I do not know how many miles of railway he does not recommend. All the strategical points must be connected by railway. One matter must also be considered which was omitted by the noble and gallant Lord in his able speech, and that is—What is the opinion of the Ameer of Afghanistan upon the policy of the noble and gallant Lord? The noble and gallant Lord wants to defend the territory of the Ameer of Afghanistan against the Russians. What will the Ameer say to his plans? Does the Ameer wish us to make roads and railways into his country?
  LORD ROBERTS OF KANDAHAR: I never proposed to make railroads in his country. I said we were to make roads and railroads up to our frontier.
  *LORD NORTHBROOK: My impression is that I have seen a map in which the future strategical railways for the defence of India are laid down, and that that map came out of the office of the noble and gallant Lord in India. It shows railroads to Jellahabad, Kabul, and Kandahar. I believe that the plans of the noble and gallant Lord involve strategical railways through Afghanistan, and perhaps railroads across the passes between India and Afghanistan. Does he suppose that the Ameer of Afghanistan, whom he wishes to defend, would like that kind of defence? All we know is that the Ameer of Afghanistan is at present opposed to such advances into his country, and I do not wonder at it. The Ameer of Afghanistan has behaved loyally to us in respect to these frontier outbreaks. He has done his best to discourage the tribes from continuing their resistance to us, and he has sent them back over and over again from his capital when they begged for his help, and I think his opinions are not to be ignored in dealing with this important question. My Lords, I must apologise for having detained you so long, but the military defence of India must be of the highest interest to anyone who has had the honour of filling the position that I have filled in India—I cannot admit for a moment that I have not the same interest in the defence of India as the noble and gallant Lord. We both have the same interest at heart, we both feel that this jewel of the British Empire must be defended at all cost. The question is how? My Lords, if it is necessary for the public interests that this question should be discussed and decided, it should be discussed and decided not by military men alone, but by the military men and statesmen, that Her Majesty's Government should make up their minds, and that the arguments on both sides should be laid before Parliament. It is very unfortunate that the opinion of so distinguished an officer, who has filled so important a position in India, should come to the knowledge of the country only through a speech in the
  788
  House of Lords. Surely, the noble and gallant Lord must have put his opinion on record whilst he was in India—the matter must have been discussed by the Government of India and by the Indian Council at home—where distinguished Members sit who are thoroughly acquainted with all these subjects. Surely Her Majesty's Government might put the country in possession of all the information which is in their hands, besides that contained in the two Blue Books here, in which there is not one single word touching the strategical views of the noble and gallant Lord, and the public should know what arguments can be used on both sides. There appears to me to be no valid reason why this should not be done. Papers were given to the public freely enough in 1881. There can be nothing new to be disclosed to the Government of Russia. The gallant Lord said that he did not complain of the advance of Russia, and we have no fear whatever of the result, supposing Russia should make an attack upon India. They probably know in Russia quite as much about the views of the different military authorities in India as will be told them by any Papers that may be presented to Parliament, and the whole subject has been discussed quite lately, and with great ability, in letters written to the Times newspaper, giving the arguments fully on both sides. My Lords, there is only one other observation which I have to make, and that is that I cannot look with satisfaction at the position of Parliament in respect to recent events in India. Under the Act of 1858, when troops in the pay of the Government of India leave the confines of British India, an Address from both Houses of Parliament is required. It has never been considered that Frontier expeditions come under that provision of the Act; and I suppose it was rightly so considered. At the same time, 70,000 men have been engaged in hostile operations on the confines of India without any communication to Parliament. I do not think this is right, but it is difficult to say what remedy can be applied. I think also that some check should be put upon annexations of territory taking place without the knowledge of Parliament. I do not think that there is any legal provision on the subject at the present time, but I should like to see something

  789
  of the kind introduced, because, in my opinion, full consideration ought to be given to annexations of territory. There was a Proclamation issued in 1858, after the Indian Mutiny, the Queen's Proclamation to the Princes and Peoples of India. In that Proclamation solemn assurances were given that Her Majesty, acting, of course, under the advice of her Ministers, did not desire any extension of her territorial possessions. What is the proposal of the noble and gallant Lord for occupying the whole of this Frontier territory, which is as large as Switzerland and the Tyrol combined, but a policy of annexing territory to the British Empire? Of course, I do not say that there may not be reasons which justify the annexation of territory—we were, for example, obliged to annex Upper Burmah, which has been done, of course, since the Proclamation was issued. But I think, where it is necessary to annex territory, there should be some solemn Act—some Resolution of the Secretary of State for India in Council, confirming the proposals of the Government of India, and that full information defining the limits of the annexed territory should be laid before Parliament; and, if Parliament should not be sitting, then at a certain time after the meeting of Parliament. My Lords, I believe that the policy which has been explained by the Secretary of State for India in his dispatch of the 28th January is a right policy. If steadily carried out, I trust that the evil effects—there must be some evil effects—of this unfortunate Frontier war will be removed, and that the Government of India will soon be able to divert their attention from the Blue Mountains beyond the Indus, and direct it to the larger and, in my opinion, far more important questions which affect the interests of Her Majesty's subjects in our great Dependency.
  *LORD REAY: My Lords, on the speech of the noble and gallant Lord I wish only to make two observations. The noble and gallant Lord said that the circumstances on the Frontier had changed very much; but one of the most important changes he left unnoticed. He did not allude to the Treaties concluded with Russia, by which the Fron-
  790
  tiers between Russia and Afghanistan are delimitated. Now that seems to me to have made a considerable alteration in the old situation; at all events it has deprived Russia of that facility which the noble and gallant Lord ascribed to her—of being able to come over the Frontier whenever she desired. It would constitute a distinct breach of Treaty, and I ask whether it is politic to attribute to a great Power such a desire in a Debate which cannot fail to be noticed abroad. If the wider question has to be considered with regard to our defences in case of war with Russia, that is not a question which concerns India only, but which should be decided as an Imperial interest by the Home Authorities. The problem is too complex to be left to the decision of the Government of India, and the decision must rest with those who deal with the defences of the Empire as a whole, with due regard to our military and naval resources. The noble and gallant Lord also mentioned that "comparatively ignorant people" had influenced the late Government in their decision with regard to Chitral. Now, I beg to give the noble and gallant Lord the assurance that we were not guided by "comparatively ignorant people," but that we consulted the most eminent experts, military and civil, who were at our disposal, and that it was on their advice that the decision was taken; that we do not regret that decision, but that everything which has happened since that decision was taken has confirmed us in the opinion that it was a wise step to take, for which we are fully responsible, and for which we accept the full responsibility. My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord does not allude to the financial position. Now, I am one of those who believe that our position in India mainly depends upon the financial situation. If the Imperial and local Governments have not got the necessary funds to spend on roads or on original works, the Administration is disheartened, and the people compare the condition of our Exchequer with that of a Native State. The noble Earl opposite, I was very pleased to see, laid stress upon our financial obligations towards India. I cannot adduce better evidence for my opinion than a statement made in July, 1894, by Sir Charles Pritchard, Sir James

  791
  Westland, and Sir Anthony MacDonnell—
  "In conclusion, we would urge abstention from aggressive activity on our North-West Frontier. We have at last arrived at a satisfactory understanding with the Ameer; we have thus and otherwise attained to a strong Frontier position. This we should endeavour by all means to consolidate peacefully, and with it we should rest content as long as circumstances may permit. Many important questions of domestic politics now press on the attention of the Government of India, and we believe that conflicts and warfare with the Border tribes would add greatly to the difficulties of the present situation. The need for a policy of un-aggressive watchfulness on the Frontier is indicated as much by the feeling of unrest which is perceptible in India as by the overwhelming need for economy in all branches of expenditure. No expenditure would be more distasteful to the public in this country, or in our opinion more unjustifiable, than expenditure incurred in attempts to subjugate those independent Frontier tribes."
  The authority of these three eminent members of the Viceroy's Council cannot be gainsaid. If there was an "overwhelming need for economy" in 1897, the need is certainly not less urgent at the present time. I was, therefore, very pleased to hear that the noble Earl did not contemplate the appointment of a Warden of the Marches. I am afraid that the appointment of such a Commissioner would lead to fresh attempts at expansion, and I hope that the control as now exercised by the Punjaub Government will in no way be removed. With regard to what the noble Earl has said about the concentration of the various scattered posts, as stated in the dispatch to the Government of India of the 28th January, I need hardly say that I cordially agree. Then I understand that the noble Earl also endorsed the policy that no tribute is to be levied, and that the policy of disarmament is not to be carried through. The Commander-in-Chief in India, I see, was the only dissentient in the Council of the Viceroy in regard to the permanent occupation of Tirah, but I was very glad to notice that the military member of the Council of the Viceroy did not join in that dissent. I shall say nothing about the Sandeman policy, excepting that I fully endorse what the noble Earl has said, as to the merits of Sir Robert Sandeman with regard to the Beluchi tribes; and after all that has
  792
  fallen from the noble Earl with regard to the extension of the policy of Sir Robert Sandeman to the Pathan tribes, and the assurances given by the noble Earl opposite, I need not dwell further on that point. My Lords, if the Government are carrying out the policy which the noble Earl opposite has this evening announced to the House, they will have our cordial support. That policy is identical with that which was so well described by the noble Duke opposite in the year 1881, when he decided to evacuate Kandahar, and with those words I shall conclude—
  "The moral effect of a scrupulous adherence to declarations which have been made, and a striking and convincing proof given to the people and princes of India, that the British Government have no desire for further annexation of territory, could not fail to produce a most salutary effect in removing the apprehension and strengthening the attachment of our Native allies throughout India and on our Frontiers."
  My Lords, what India wants is rest and peace, and the restoration of confidence.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR War (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): I I cannot help thinking that those of us who listened to the remarkable speech of my noble and gallant Friend on the Cross Benches must have felt that, whether they agreed with him or not, he at least laid before this House an account of the so-called Forward policy, differing very widely indeed from some of the very grotesque caricatures of that policy which have been presented to the public in the Press and on the platform during the past few months. We have been constantly told that the Government of India had been captured by a little clique of military gentlemen, inspired with a desire for wild schemes of annexation, and animated, above all things, by a thirst for medals and decorations; and it has been confidently stated that the councils of these gentlemen have resulted in a series of military operations thoughtlessly undertaken, and calculated to impose on the finances of India a strain which they were quite unable to bear. Now, my Lords, at any rate, my noble and gallant Friend did not recommend to the House anything which might

  793
  be described as a scheme of wholesale and reckless subjugation of the Frontier tribes, and I cannot help thinking that the Under Secretary of State for India scarcely apprehended the meaning which my noble and gallant Friend intended to convey to the House, because I certainly did not understand my noble and gallant Friend to suggest that what is described as the "Forward policy" should be applied in any but the most gradual and cautious manner. There was no suggestion of an immediate occupation of tribal territory or of an advance to the boundaries of Afghanistan. In point of fact, I gather that what my noble and gallant Friend advocated was very much what was advocated by the Under Secretary of State himself, who told the House—I took the words down when they were spoken—that the result of the recent operations had, in the first place, been to dispel the illusion of the inaccessibility of these tribes, and that, the result having been achieved, he was in favour of the establishment of more friendly relations with the tribesmen. That is the policy of the dispatch, and that, I venture to say, must be the policy of every reasonable person who has ever considered these matters. Then I wish to notice for a moment what was said by the noble Earl, who, I think, is no longer in the House. Lord Northbrook imputed to the noble and gallant Lord on the Cross Benches a desire to apply the Sandeman policy indiscriminately throughout the whole Frontier. Now, as Lord Northbrook himself said, Sir Robert Sandeman himself admitted very frankly that no one policy was applicable to conditions so varied as those which are to be found at different points along the line of the Indian Frontier. The noble Earl cited, as an example of what he described as an unwise application of the Sandeman policy, several military operations, which he described to the House. Now, he cited in the first place, the conduct of the Government with regard to the great Orakzai tribe in 1891.
  *LORD NORTHBROOK: I did not allude to those operations.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR: You referred to the operations.
  *LORD NORTHBROOK: I made no criticisms upon the operations, or the cause of them. I said that there had been operations, and that the Samana forts were likely to make the Afridis afraid of something similar in their country.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR: I should be sorry to misunderstand the noble Earl, but I thought he quoted that as a case of the bad results of the application of the Sandeman policy.
  *LORD NORTHBROOK: Certainly not, in no way, because I knew that that expedition was in consequence of the raids upon our territory.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR: That is what I was going to say. That is true almost without exception of the greater part of the Frontier operations which have taken place during the last 10 years. The noble Lord referred to the Black Mountain operations. I do not know whether that was intended also as an example of the inapplicability of the Sandeman policy.
  *LORD NORTHBROOK: As a consequence.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR: Let me tell the noble Earl how that came about. The tribes near the Black Mountain had for years rendered the condition of the neighbourhood intolerable. They raided into British territory, and at last it became necessary to send an expedition to keep them in order. Certain conditions were imposed upon the tribes, among them being the condition that they were to get rid of a very notorious ringleader, who was at the bottom of half these troubles. They failed to fulfil the conditions, and reverted to their old lawless habits, and two other expeditions had to be sent within the next three or four years. But, my Lords, that is not an example of the application of Sir R. Sandeman's method. On the contrary, it was rather an illustration of the old-fashioned procedure of going up into tribal territory, punishing the tribes as severely as you could, and then coming away again. Now, my Lords, I have protested against the exaggerated descriptions of the Forward policy which have been placed before

  795
  the public of late, and I think public opinion has been even more bewildered, because people were told that they had to choose between this Forward policy and the policy of Lord Lawrence. We all know that the policy of Lord Lawrence, excellent as it may have been in his time, is a policy that we have left very far behind indeed. I am not going to say which political Party had the greater share in the abandonment of that policy. I do not, however, think it would be very difficult to show that the more numerous and the longer strides have been taken by the Party opposite. What is perfectly obvious is that the advance of Russia to the very gates of Persia and Afghanistan, our own advance to points very far beyond the line of the Indus, and, above all, the engagement which we have entered into with the Ameer of Afghanistan, render it absolutely impossible that the old policy of Lord Lawrence could be resorted to in the present day. And, my Lords, another thing which has, I think, further accentuated the difference between the present order of things and the old order is the conclusion of the Durand Agreement, to which several allusions have been made. I know that it has been held that one result of the Durand Agreement has been to create a feeling of unrest among the tribes, and there may be some truth in that assertion. On the other hand, I am convinced that the Durand Agreement was the greatest step that has been taken for a long time in the direction of placing our relations with the tribes, on the one hand, and with the Ameer on the other, in a more satisfactory condition. ["Hear, hear!"] I am glad to hear that cheer from the noble Earl opposite, who approved of the Agreement, which was negotiated under my instructions. My Lords, during the years preceding the conclusion of the Durand Agreement we were engaged in one continuous series of recriminations and differences with the Ameer. The burden of his complaint was—"Tell me where my Frontier is, and I will observe it." As a result of the absence of any ascertained boundary between his sphere of influence and ours, the tribes were continually playing off the Ameer against us, and the Government of India against the Ameer; and the Ameer, who, no doubt, cherished
  796
  some dreamy vision of gradually recovering the great Afghan kingdom ruled over by his predecessors, was perpetually intriguing with the tribes and encroaching upon our borders. My noble and gallant Friend, I am sure, remembers that when he and I were in India together the Ameer was encroaching among the tribes of the Kuram Valley, was occupying positions in the heart of the Waziri country, and had even sent a post to occupy a place which was well within the Beluchistan borders. Now, my Lords, all that friction has disappeared, and I have no doubt whatever that it is mainly owing to the Durand Agreement that the Ameer's attitude has been as correct as it has been during the troubles through which we have lately been passing. But, as has been said by one or two of your Lordships, the real question which we have to consider is the future management of these important tribes. We are concerned with them as our neighbours—neighbours who, I am afraid we must confess, do not always conduct themselves with the strictest propriety; and we are also concerned with them, as the noble and gallant Lord told the House, as the occupants of a great belt of tribal territory which, unless our system of military defence is to be altered, may possibly lie behind us should we be engaged in hostilities beyond the Frontier. This tribal belt includes, I believe, something like 200,000 fighting men—men of very great bravery, and men who, we know to our cost, are armed with weapons of precision. My Lords, it does seem to me that we should spare no effort in order to render our relations with these tribesmen of a kind which shall give us some hope that their behaviour will be of the character that we should desire, in the event of our being engaged in serious hostilities on the Frontier of India. And, my Lords, we are also concerned with these tribes because in their territory we have a recruiting ground which supplies us with many excellent soldiers—a recruiting ground the fertility of which may, perhaps, to some extent compensate us for the exhaustion of other sources of supply. Now, my Lords, as to the manner in which these tribes should be handled. There is, I am glad to say, on several points, a very near approach, at

  797
  all events, to agreement. I think it is not denied that if the tribes commit outrages they must be punished for those outrages. I have heard nobody dispute that, nor, again, is it contended that their external relations are not to be controlled by us. I think I heard a suggestion from the noble Lord opposite that, because we have concluded a boundary treaty with Russia it was less necessary for us than it was before to consider that point. But I do not think that our experience in other parts of the world at all suggests to us the idea that because we have laid down a line on the map we can afford to sit still behind that line and take no thought for further developments in its neighbourhood. Then, my Lords, there is the question of the Passes. With regard to some of them there is not, I believe, any difference of opinion. That we must keep the Khyber open has been admitted by all the noble Lords who have noticed this question. Nor, I suppose, will it be disputed that the Passes leading to Kandahar, through which our railways run, must be kept open and protected. Then there is the Kuram Pass. I do not gather that even the noble and gallant Lord desires to keep the Kuram Pass open as a military road. We are there for the purpose of fulfilling our engagements to the Turi tribe, and so long as these are scrupulously observed I take it that our obligation will be fulfilled. I should like to say a word as to the Gomal Pass. It was opened when I was in India without firing a shot, and it is, as the House knows, not only the shortest, but the easiest trade route between India and Afghanistan. Caravans pass through it in large numbers, carrying with them the merchandise of Afghanistan to India, and returning to Afghanistan with piece goods, metals, and other commodities procured in India. I must say that to allow a great trade route of that kind to be closed against us because of the bad practices of a mere handful of these tribesmen, who have hitherto terrorised the neighbourhood of Gomal, seems to me to be a confession of impotence utterly unworthy of a great Power. We are at this moment all over the world endeavouring to obtain facilities for trade, and why we should allow a few of these hillmen, against the will of their fellow-
  798
  tribesmen, to close that Pass in our faces I cannot conceive, and I am glad to think that that is the view which has found favour with noble Lords opposite. They will remember that the late Secretary of State, Sir Henry Fowler, acceded to the request of Lord Elgin's Government to place a military post at a point in the neighbourhood of the Gomal. He did so in the teeth of a strong and energetic dissent from three Members of Lord Elgin's Council, an ably-written and carefully reasoned document, which, greatly to my surprise, a noble Lord opposite (Lord Reay) quoted just now as an explanation of the policy which he desired to follow. It was the policy which his own Secretary of State had declined to accept when placed before him on a memorable occasion, described by the dissentients as the "parting of the ways." The way which the Secretary of State chose was not the way indicated by the noble Lord, but the way indicated by Lord Elgin and the other members of the Council, who insisted, and rightly insisted, on the necessity of placing a post for the protection of the Gomal Pass. My Lords, during these discussions we constantly hear that it is desirable to exercise an influence or a control of some kind over these tribesmen. I doubt whether a single speech has been made, or a single dispatch written, in which that expression "influence" does not occur. I want to know what it is we mean when we talk of influencing these tribesmen. The word is, perhaps, a little wanting in precision, and we are more likely to arrive at its true meaning if we consider first what it does not mean. In the first place, when we talk of "influence" we do not mean the subjugation of the tribes or the annexation or administration of their territory. I am rather inclined to think that we have extended our system of provincial administration too far, even within the limits of our own tribal territory. These tribesmen are rough and lawless people, who do not at all understand technicalities or formalities, and who value the substance of justice more than the form of it. I do not think they are at all grateful to us for giving them elaborate codes of law, or for conferring on them the right of appeal from one court to another, ending possibly in a suit before

  799
  a high court, sitting many hundred miles away from their homes. And, if such procedure is distasteful to the tribes, I believe its effects on our own officers are not altogether advantageous. It has the effect of overwhelming them with work—dry technical work—leaving them little or no leisure for work of another kind; and I think it has the effect of creating in them a tendency to depend rather too much upon mere technicalities and matters of form, instead of looking to the substantial justice and effectiveness of their administration. I am, therefore, by no means in favour of bringing these tribesmen outside our limits within the scope of our administration. Now, my Lords, another thing that "influence" does not mean is, in my belief, a policy of mere abstention. I do not think in private life you will influence your neighbours by pretending to be unaware of their presence; and if occasionally you vary the procedure by violently assaulting them, you may, perhaps, arrive at some kind of influence, but it certainly would not mean what the noble Lord opposite (Lord Kimberley) called in a speech of his the other day "friendly influence," which is what I understand he desires to obtain over the tribes. There is also this to be remembered. Much as you may desire to maintain an attitude of pure abstention, the facts will not allow you to do so. We sometimes see fancy pictures drawn of the Frontier with the tribes on one side and ourselves on the other, as if we need have no concern with what passes on the other side of the border. But we know that that is not the case. Those tribes are, as it were, astride on the Frontier. They frequent our territory; they move backwards and forwards between the plains of India and the hills; and it so comes to pass that neither their proximity nor their habits and character enable us, even if we desired to do so, to ignore their existence. The result is that there is forced upon us, not a policy of abstention, but a policy of abstention qualified by very severe police measures. My Lords, those who have watched the events on the Frontier of India are familiar with the kind of vicious circle round which these events travel. You have months, perhaps years of lawlessness and misconduct on the
  800
  part of the tribes, the authorities keeping their blind eye to the telescope as long as they can. At last the outrages, or the raids, become too numerous. Then comes the fine, which is usually paid by the most respectable section of the tribe. If it remains unpaid, you have a blockade, which means that the hard-working, laborious members of the community who have some lawful business to follow are prevented from following that business. Then comes the expedition. The troops go in, the villages of these wretched people are destroyed, and their crops are burned, their wives and children driven out on the hillside, perhaps their fruit trees are cut down—a punishment which seems to me to be a singularly ruthless one—and then the troops go away. As often as not a submission of some kind is patched up with scarcely decent delay, and we are fortunate if we go away without a few shots being fired as the troops retire through the narrow valleys. My Lords, we come away leaving behind us a legacy of hatred and contempt; hatred for the wrong and injury we have done, contempt because, having gained an advantage, we are apparently unable to maintain it. My Lords, I ask your Lordships whether that policy is one altogether dignified and worthy of a great Power, whether it is a humane policy, worthy of a nation which is very fond of lecturing other countries for any acts of undue severity, whether it is an economical policy, judged by the large sums which have been spent upon it during the last few years? I ask your Lordships whether you can be surprised that there should have grown up in India a school of public men who have, without harbouring any sinister designs on the independence of the tribes, desired to see something better, something more worthy of a great Power like ourselves, adopted in the management of their country? Now, I noticed the other day that the Leader of the Opposition recommended his hearers to read an extremely interesting book which has lately been written by Mr. Thorburn. I should like to read to your Lordships Mr. Thorburn's account of the way in which these things are done—
  "As a rule such counter-raids—officially designated expeditions—cost us tens of thousands or lakhs of rupees, whilst inflicting compara-

  801
  tively insignificant loss on the offending tribe, and ending in our accepting a nominal fine, declaring bygones bygones, and taking hostages for good conduct; in other words, paying a few score starving Highlanders several hundred rupees a month for idling in British territory for an indefinite time, under surveillance, in a comfortable serai or barrack. Thus our enemy, though officially beaten, in reality blackmailed us."
  And he continues—
  "Such a way of making war produced no finality, and entirely failed in its object. Every soldier in the force has known that the expedition had not been a success because prosecuted on lines which insured failure."
  And then he goes on further; and this, remember, is the book recommended by the Leader of the Opposition as a volume in which sound doctrines of tribal management are to be discovered—
  "To teach a hill tribe a lasting lesson, a lasting loss must be inflicted—a big bag must be made, as in 1891–92 on the Samana, or a wholesale destruction of valuable property, such as towers, houses, crops, stored grain, must be relentlessly effected. Failing either of those desiderata, a slice of territory should be annexed, or leading men, or a famous family or section of a clan, blotted out by deportation. De, lenda est Carthago, the principle followed by Romans and Russians, is the cheapest and the least bloody in the end if the work is to be thorough and enduring."
  I am not prepared to go nearly as far as Mr. Thorburn, but I say distinctly that there are in India many men who are weary of a Frontier policy of this kind, and who desire to substitute a different policy for it; and I can assure your Lordships that if that feeling is entertained it is a feeling which has originated not with ambitious soldiers, but with a great many of our best and most intelligent Frontier officers and civilian officials, who are convinced that it is within our power to manage the tribes upon a different principle. The policy which I understand to be advocated by Lord George Hamilton's dispatch with which the Blue Hook concludes, is a policy of control over the tribes within our sphere of influence coupled with the minimum of interference with their domestic affairs. To talk of tribal independence is, I cannot help thinking, a little misleading. There can be no complete independence in the case of a people that has not the power of transferring its allegiance in any direction it pleases. We know that that power is not given to
  802
  these Frontier tribes, and I think, therefore, it is better, perhaps, not to speak of them as independent. That condition of qualified independence is a very common one all through the borders of India, not only on the western, but also on the eastern side, on the borders of Burmah and Siam. The small States and Frontier tribes are not strong enough to stand alone. They know they must lean upon some stronger power, and, in the case of the tribes whom we are speaking of this evening, I take it it is our intention that they should lean upon us, and not upon any other Power. But, my Lords, if that policy is to have any success, I hold strongly, and I find nothing in the dispatch inconsistent with that view, that we must show the tribes that they have something to hope as well as something to fear from us. That, I take it, is the essence of the policy which is advocated by the noble and gallant Lord on the Cross Benches, and that is the policy which is certainly indicated in the dispatch, in which I find that even in the case of these Afridi tribes, who have most defied our authority, the Government of India is instructed that it is, if possible, to enlist their goodwill and to secure their assistance in maintaining the road through the Khyber Pass. My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord mentioned the question of roads and railways. Now, I think he will scarcely deny that in the matter of railways he was always a little bit ahead of the government of India. And very naturally. He desired to see certain strategic lines made. We, on the contrary, knew that a strategic line of railway is a very expensive line to make, and that it brings little or no return, and we were consequently not always able to meet the views of the noble and gallant Lord in the matter of railways. In the case of roads, I think the matter stands on a very different footing. That the main arterial roads are to be kept open is not denied. When we come to the secondary or subsidiary roads the case is less clear, but I do not think any money can be better applied on the Frontier than that spent in encouraging the tribes themselves, of their own free will, to make and improve roads. A road is a great civiliser; it civilises the man who makes it and the man who travels along it. I believe that, cautiously

  803
  and judiciously pursued, the policy of promoting the construction of roads is a perfectly sound one. Then, my Lords, some reference was made to the question of posts, and there, I think, the policy laid down in the dispatch is perfectly clear. We desire to see as few military posts as possible, and these placed in the strongest and most carefully selected positions. I believe I am right in saying that the tendency in India of late has been to concentrate these posts. I know there was a considerable amount of concentration in the Gilgit Agency, and that posts occupied by regular troops have been replaced by what is known as levy posts. But that there must be some posts to guard these roads is inevitable, and it is idle to imagine that you can secure the safety of these roads without keeping a certain number of troops in their neighbourhood. My Lords, there is one other point on which I am in entire agreement with the noble and gallant Lord. I attach, as he does, the utmost importance to the selection of the Frontier officers by whom these tribal affairs are to be managed. An officer may be a most excellent and able administrator in an Indian province, but he may be altogether deficient in the special qualities which are required to manage these wild mountain tribes. If you select the right men for employment of this kind, they will not entangle you in military expeditions; they will, on the contrary, avoid the necessity of anything of the kind. In spite of the severe things which were said by the noble Earl below the Gangway as to the results of Sir Robert Sandeman's policy, I am convinced that the effect of his administration in Beluchistan—
  *LORD NORTHBROOK: I beg pardon; so far from saying anything severe of Sir Robert Sandeman, I praised him as much as I possibly could.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR: I understood the noble Lord to find very serious fault with Sir Robert Sandeman's dealings with the tribes in certain cases.
  *LORD NORTHBROOK: I should be very sorry to blame Sir Robert Sandeman, because it would be contrary to my convictions. I gave him every praise I could. I cannot use words too strong in praise of Sir Robert Sandeman's management of Beluchistan. The subsequent operations in the Zhob country were not embarked on by him on his own authority, but were in consequence of orders, and were from military considerations alone.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR: I believe that to be quite a misapprehension.
  *LORD NORTHBROOK: I read his own words to that effect.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR: I am very glad to find that the noble Earl admits that in the Beluchistan Agency the policy of Sir R. Sandeman was signally successful. It is, of course, a truism to say that the Beluchi and Pathan tribes differ very widely. The organisation of the tribes is different, the character of the men is different, but I have always believed that there were some qualities which you would find in any tribesmen, and that there were some principles which, if judiciously applied, would operate successfully whether you were dealing with the northern or the southern portions of the Frontier. My Lords, I do not think that is a mere theory, because, if your Lordships will consider what has been the condition of the Indian Frontier while these operations have been in progress, I think you will be struck by the extreme difference between the conduct and demeanour of the tribesmen in those regions where the old stand-aloof policy has no longer been applied and the conduct of those tribes, on the other hand, where we have still abstained from having any relations at all with the tribesmen or exercising any influence over them. Those who believe, not indeed in a reckless policy of subjugation and aggression, but in a policy based partly upon the exhibition of overwhelming force when it is required, and partly upon wise measures of conciliation and control, may point to the success of that policy wherever it has been tried. Following the Frontier from north to south, your Lordships will find that in Hunza,

  805
  where a very few years ago a severe struggle took place—in Chitral itself, in Dir, and in a great part of the Swat Valley, in the Kuram, and even among the Waziris of the Gomal, true Pathans, who, a few years ago, were the greatest raiders on that part of the border, there has been scarcely any trouble, while the whole of the Beluchistan Agency, managed according to the principles of Sir R. Sandeman, has been quiet, in spite of the fact that throughout these regions intrigue had been rife and no effort spared to organise revolt. If, on the other hand, you turn to the Mohmands, whose country was unknown to us, to the Afridis, whom we treated with distant respectfulness, and to the Orakzais, on whose borders we had, indeed, established posts, but with whom we had never entered into any relations—in their case the struggle was bitter and prolonged, and the temper of the tribesmen most irreconcilable. My Lords, I sum up by venturing to ask your Lordships to dismiss from your minds the idea of a Forward policy such as that described in some of the travesties which have sometimes done duty for descriptions of that policy; to dismiss also from your minds the idea that we have to choose between such a policy and a return to the policy of Lord Lawrence; I ask you to believe, equally, that it is possible to administer the Frontier in a better manner than by reverting to the old system of inflicting severe punishment on the tribes and then withdrawing altogether from intercourse with them. We cannot move back; events will not allow us to stand still; to a Forward policy we are bound to come. But it need not be a policy either of subjugation, or of raids and counter-raids, and if it is pursued with patience, with consideration for the feelings and prejudices of the tribesmen, if its execution is entrusted to properly selected Agents, it will succeed. Those of us who are sanguine of its success found ourselves on the assumption that, whether a tribesman be a Beluchi or a Pathan, there is a good deal of human nature in his composition. We also found ourselves upon the belief that amongst the qualities which distinguish the race to which we belong stand out conspicuously those qualities of self-reliance, of impartiality, of fearlessness,
  806
  and, above all, of broad sympathy, which have enabled us all over the world to win over to ourselves, and to lead, men belonging to races less civilised than our own.
  *THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, I have listened, I must say, with great regret to the speech of my noble Friend who has just sat down. When the noble Earl opposite, the Under Secretary of State, resumed his seat, I had hoped that I and my Friends would have been able to say that we had little criticism to make upon the views of Her Majesty's Government, and that we had listened with satisfaction to the noble Earl; but, my Lords, the situation is altogether changed by the speech of the noble Marquess. The noble Marquess ventured upon the rash assertion that there was no difference between the policy of my noble and gallant Friend who was just now on the Cross Benches and the noble Earl the Under Secretary of State for India. Yet those who listened to the noble Earl thought there was a very marked difference between the two policies, and that one of them was wrong and the other was right. My Lords, the noble Marquess assures us that, in the statement which he has made, and in the defence which he has gone into of the speech of my noble and gallant Friend—because, practically, the speech of the noble Marquess was a defence of the speech of Lord Roberts—he is only following the policy of the Secretary of State for India, as declared in his dispatch, and as explained to us by the Under Secretary of State. Now, my Lords, I venture to say that I cannot take that view. For instance, here is a paragraph out of the long dispatch of Lord George Hamilton, in the second volume of this Blue Book. What does Lord George Hamilton say?—
  "The two main objects to be borne in mind were indicated in my telegram of the 13th October, namely, the best possible concentration of your military force, so as to enable you to fulfil the several responsibilities to which I have adverted, and the limitation of your interference with the tribes so as to avoid the extension of administrative control over independent tribal territory."
  Now, my Lords, I heard with regret my noble Friend remark that the expression "independence" as applied to these tribes was a mistake. But that expression, "independence," is Lord

  807
  George Hamilton's expression, and I think it is an expression which ought to be applied to these tribes, because they do not occupy British territory, and, unless you intend to annex them and make them British subjects, you are bound to recognise them as independent tribes. Then Lord George Hamilton goes on to say—
  "The second principle upon which stress must be laid is the avoidance of any interference with the tribes which can be avoided, with due regard to the interests already set forth."
  I confess that the tone of that dispatch is far wiser than the speech which we have heard this evening. From the beginning of this discussion I greatly regretted the absence of the Prime Minister. I regret it because of its cause, but I confess I regret it still more because nothing could be clearer or more explicit than the declaration of Lord Salisbury on the first night of the Session upon this matter, and I am sorry that he is not here to mediate between the Secretary of State for War and the Under Secretary of State for India. The noble Marquess talked about the great exaggerations which had been indulged in upon some platforms and in some newspapers in regard to what is called the "Forward policy." My Lords, I think my noble Friend greatly overstated any exaggerations that may have been put forth. Some exaggerations there may have been in some cases, but the speech of the noble and gallant Lord to-night was an exposition, sufficiently startling, coming from him, of the whole of the Forward policy. The real difficulty of this question lies here—Secretaries of State for India and Viceroys of India may make wise declarations with respect to the policy they intend to pursue, but there are persons in India and there are persons at home who desire to pursue a different policy, who are always pressing forward to another ulterior end, who have that end constantly before them, and when the Government of India or the Government here take any step which is in their direction they receive that step with gratitude, but use it only to go forward. That is the real danger which is con-
  808
  nected with this question. I observe that the noble Marquess said—
  "My noble and gallant Friend does not propose to carry out all these things to which he alluded at once. He does not mean to make all these roads and railways immediately."
  No, my Lords, of course he does not. But these are the objects for which they are intended, and the ultimate aim is this: the attainment of the line which goes by the name of the Kandahar, Ghuznee, and Kabul line. Now, my Lords, my noble and gallant Friend talked as if what is called the Forward policy, or, at all events, the policy which he defended and laid before us, was a new policy. My Lords, it is not a new policy at all. It dates back to the first Afghan war. It is the policy which produced the first Afghan war. It is the policy which resulted in the failures and disasters of that war. It is the policy which produced the second Afghan war, and it is the policy which produced the expenditure and mischiefs of the second Afghan war; and I venture to think it is a policy which has had much to do with the recent outbreak, which has cost so many valuable lives, and will cost such a large sum of money, and which has not proved itself to be a success. My noble and gallant Friend made one or two observations connected with the Government of India at the time I was there, and before I pass to the consideration of other parts of his speech, I should like to be allowed to say a few words on them. With regard to one of them, my noble Friend now sitting on the Cross Benches has disposed of the remark in which the noble and gallant Lord said that our troops were withdrawn from Kuram, and that we broke the pledge which we had given to the people of that valley. I deny that in toto. Our troops were undoubtedly withdrawn on the recommendation of the noble and gallant Lord himself. But we firmly and consistently adhered to our obligations to the people of Kuram. These obligations were entered into by the noble and gallant Lord. I am bound to say that I regretted these obligations. I regretted the engagements which he had made with the authority of the then Government of India, but when I came to look into it, I saw that these obligations were of a strict nature. Our promises

  809
  were definite, and nothing was ever done, while I was in office or afterwards, which was inconsistent with those obligations. On the contrary, the language which we always held towards the Ameer, with regard to Kuram, was that he must not meddle with the tribes of Kuram, because we were under obligations to defend them, and we should have done so if he had attempted to interfere with them. Then there was the question of Quetta. We did not occupy from Quetta. My noble Friend sent Sir Robert Sandeman there first, and as I have mentioned Sir Robert Sandeman's name I should desire to say, having known him well, that he was a very able public servant, to whom the public of this country and India owe a great debt. But it does not follow from that that the policy which he pursued in one part of the country was necessarily applicable to another part of the country. He was sent to Quetta. He remained there. It is quite true—perfectly true, as the noble and gallant Lord said, that a certain railway which had been partially made towards Quetta was taken up and destroyed, and had to be put back again. I think I had better leave my noble Friend opposite—the Lord President—to defend that proceeding, because it was done under stringent orders sent out to us by him when he was Secretary of State for India. Now, my Lords, with regard to the question of the management of the tribes, I understood the Under Secretary for India to say he felt—and I suppose, therefore, the India Office feel—that there was a great difference between the Pathans and the Beluchis, and that the system which would be suitable to the one would not necessarily be suitable to the others. Now, I understand the noble Earl to say—
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I said it was much easier to deal with the Beluchis than the Pathans, because the Beluchis were represented by one man.
  *THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I should be sorry to misrepresent the noble Earl, but I think it comes to the same thing. That, my Lords, is really the state of the case, and I was very sorry to find the noble Marquess implying, as I thought, that the Government would like to apply the Beluchistan system to the Pathans.
  810
  I do not think that would be a wise proceeding, and I think it would not be likely to be successful.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR: I did not suggest that the Beluchistan system was applicable in its entirety to the Pathan tribes. I said there were certain characteristics that you would probably find in any tribesmen, but I believed that, by a friendly intercourse, it was possible, even in the case of the Pathans, to make some impression.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, there is another matter of detail with regard to which I should like to say something—the keeping open the Khyber. We all agree that the Khyber must be kept open, but I do sincerely hope that the Government here and in India will not hastily give up the hope of maintaining the system which has been in force for the last 18 years. It may be impossible—I will not say whether it is impossible or not—but I hope it will not be hastily abandoned. It is impossible, I believe, and most undesirable, I am sure, to occupy the Khyber Pass by British troops because of climatic circumstances, and therefore I hope that, in dealing with the case, Her Majesty's Government will give the fullest consideration to the possibility of reestablishing, with modifications it may be, the system previously in force. The arrangements which were in force for 18 years or more were under the management of Colonel Warburton. He left his position there only a short time before these outrages took place. Looking to his great influence and peculiar qualifications, he might, if he had remained, been able to restrain the Afridis. I do not know whether he would, but I understand he is now again on the spot, and I hope, therefore, that the Government will not, as I say, hastily adopt any system of occupying the Khyber Pass by British troops if it can be avoided. My noble and gallant Friend on the Cross Benches seemed to point to the creation of roads and railroads. He denied that he wished them to enter Afghanistan at present, but they were to go in that direction through the territory of these tribes. As I understand it, he proposed to make those roads and railroads in order to enable the British

  811
  Government to fulfil their obligations to the Ameer. Now, I should very much like to know whether the Ameer himself desires that these roads and railroads in his immediate neighbourhood should be made? My impression certainly is that if the Ameer remains now in the same mind in which he was when I was in India there are few things which he would dislike more than the construction of roads and railroads in the direction of his own territory; and when we are told we must do this in order to fulfil our obligations to the Ameer, surely it is only reasonable we should ask whether the Ameer himself wishes us to take that mode of fulfilling our obligations. My Lords, I am not, of course, thinking of entering into any strategical discussion with the hon. and gallant Lord, but I must make a few observations on that part of the question. In the first place, he will, I am sure, acknowledge that political and financial considerations must also enter into any question of this kind, and that any Government, however much they may desire to follow in military questions the opinion of their military experts, is bound not to put those considerations aside. But in this case, my Lords, the whole force and weight of these considerations may be fairly acknowledged, and ought to be acknowledged—and why? Because, great as is the authority of my noble and gallant Friend upon questions of this kind, there are, as he knows, military experts of the highest authority, and of the greatest and most intimate acquaintance with India and the Frontier, who differ in toto from him; so that we are not dealing here with a question in which you have the opinion of all military experts on the one side and the exponents of political and financial considerations on the other, and consequently to these latter considerations the Government may give full weight, and, indeed, are bound to do so. I was sorry to hear my noble and gallant Friend say he would not deal with the financial part of this question. The noble and gallant Lord has been not merely Commander-in-Chief, but in that capacity he was a member of the Government of India, and was responsible not only for military questions, but for all questions that come before the Government, and therefore he cannot
  812
  separate himself from financial considerations. Those considerations enter so entirely into all Indian questions that it is absolutely necessary to deal with them, and deal with them on a broad view. I believe there is nothing which would be so likely to affect injuriously our position in India as a dispute in regard to the matter of taxation. There are not, in my opinion, fresh sources of taxation available in India at present which could meet any large additional expenditure. The revenue of India grows, but it grows very slowly; and I had occasion when I was there, with the assistance of Lord Cromer, to look with great care into these financial questions. At that time we were fortunate enough to be able to make large financial reductions, but the financial reductions we then made have been swept away, owing to the increased fall in the exchangeable nature of the rupee; it has been unavoidable, but most unfortunate. I cannot think there could be a greater danger to the prosperity of our rule in India than to embark on a policy which would lead to a large additional expenditure of money. Of course, the cost of these recent operations may be paid out of borrowed money. But the credit of India is not unlimited, and I well remember when I had the honour of serving under the late Lord Halifax, he always used to consider carefully any question of a new loan in India; but it is not a question of loan alone, for if you pursue a policy which will entail upon you, as I firmly believe this policy will, a permanent addition to the Army, and, consequently, an addition to the annual expenditure of India, you will be involved in difficulties which will far transcend any of those which have been put before us by the noble Lord. In regard to dealing with these tribes, I am one of those who believe that the best way to deal with them is to inspire them with friendly feelings towards us. That is what the noble Earl opposite said was the policy of the Government, and the noble Marquess in that respect used the same language. He spoke of his desire to maintain friendly relations with these tribes. But these tribes value their independence—which is to the noble Marquess a shadow—they value their independence above everything. They are, like most mountaineers, extremely

  813
  attached to their freedom, and if you want to make them your friends and the enemies of your enemies, you must follow a policy which will confirm them in the belief that you do not mean to threaten their independence, or to take over what the noble Lord on the Cross Benches called the political control of their country. My Lords, I trust that that will be, in fact, the policy which will be pursued by the Government of India. I was full of hope at the commencement of this evening, but my hopes have been dashed by the speech of my noble Friend the Secretary of State for War. Of course, I recognise that my noble Friend desired, to the utmost of his power, to say something in defence of the policy of the noble and gallant Lord on the Cross Benches, whose views had received no support from anybody in the House up to that time. I hope he was thinking most of his noble Friend at the moment, and that I may take the noble Earl the Under Secretary of State, and the Prime Minister, as the real exponents of the policy of the Government on this subject.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duke of DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, like my noble Friend opposite, I very much regret the absence of the Prime Minister this evening, but I think I may assure him that there is not the slightest foundation for the conjecture which he makes. He would have confirmed the impression which he has formed, that there is any divergence whatever between the views of the India Office and those expressed by my noble Friend the Secretary of State for War. I do not know what the foundation is upon which my noble Friend has formed his inference, unless it is that my noble Friend the Secretary for War spoke with great respect for the very able speech which has been delivered by the noble and gallant Lord on the Cross Benches, and pointed out that if it was an exposition of what is called the "Forward policy," it was an exposition of that policy very different indeed from some which we have been accustomed to hear of that policy. I find it very difficult indeed to understand what is the divergence which my noble Friend opposite thinks he has found between the speech of the Secretary for War and the dispatch of Lord George Hamilton. My
  814
  noble Friend has explained that it is not possible at the present time, after all that has happened, to revert to the policy which is associated with the name of the late Lord Lawrence in respect to Frontier tribes. That principle is also fully admitted in the dispatch to the Government of India, to which reference has been made. That dispatch contains this passage—
  "As communications multiply, so the tribes will mix more freely with British subjects; and this intercourse, becoming closer in the course of years, cannot fail to increase our responsibilities on the Frontier by drawing the tribesmen out of their highlands into closer contact with their neighbours and with your officers. Whether the risks of collision will have been thereby augmented or diminished remains to be seen. By care and foresight it may be possible to avoid actual conflict, and the effect of frequent intercourse may be to mitigate the lawless and predatory instincts of the hill men without interfering with the tribal system of self-government."
  LORD KIMBERLEY: Is that a dispatch from the Government of India?
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL: No; it is a dispatch of Lord George Hamilton. That, my Lords, is very much to the effect of what my noble Friend has just said. It was impossible at the present time—at all events, it was extremely undesirable—to revert to what is called the aloof policy, and refuse to have anything to do with tribes upon the Frontier borders, unless upon those occasion when he thought it necessary to visit them with a punitive expedition and then to withdraw. My Lords, at the conclusion of his observations my noble Friend opposite said that the true way of dealing with those tribes was to cultivate friendly relations with them. But it is admitted by the late Government of India, and by the present Government, that our responsibilities with regard to these tribes have very greatly increased; and the system which may have been the best policy a few years ago is one which can now no longer be pursued. The noble Lord said that the policy which is advocated by Lord Roberts—the Forward policy—is the policy which led to two Afghan wars, and to all other complications, but I see no trace of any indication to revert to that same policy. What has been said by Lord Roberts himself

  815
  to-night and still less what has been said by my noble Friend the Secretary of State for War, could not be regarded by any human mind, that any reversion to that policy was intended. Which is the independent tribe with which it is proposed to make any aggression whatever now? The only question is, how a certain number of tribes, with which everyone admits we have been brought into closer relations, are to be dealt with. My noble Friend says that we cannot treat them exactly on the same plan as used to be adopted; and I fail to see that my noble Friend opposite, in his very vague allusions to the cultivation of friendly relations, has indicated any other policy. He is absolutely mistaken in supposing that if the Prime Minister were present to-night he would have given the slightest shadow of confirmation to the inference which my noble Friend has drawn. The words which the Prime Minister used during the Debate on the Address were these—
  "If you look into this country, wherever you see a barbarous mountain population by the side of a civilised population dwelling in the plains, those people have never been able to live long in peace with each other; and it has been the rule that ultimately the mountain population must accept the civilisation of its neighbour.… I trust that we shall be able to perform what is the inevitable conquest by the gentle means of example and gradual intercourse."
  I have not heard a word to-night which departed in the slightest degree from the principle thus laid down by the Prime Minister.
  *THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I have not the quotation before me, but I believe there was a further statement to the effect that the conquest was not to be made by military occupation. The statement of Lord Salisbury, of course, is perfectly in accordance with what my noble Friend advocates, namely, that no step should be taken, except by means of friendly intercourse, to bring the tribes into closer relation with us, and I do not suppose that any person would endeavour to bring "friendly tribes" into closer relations by force. But I am sorry to say that I am quite unable to agree with the noble Duke as to there being no aggressive policy advocated by those who take
  816
  the military view of this question. I hailed with great pleasure the opportunity of bearing from the noble and gallant Lord upon the Cross Benches a full statement of the policy which he would pursue, which he has most ably given; but I am obliged to say that that policy is, as I always understood it to be, an aggressive policy. It is distinctly based upon the object which the noble Lord has in view—to bring the whole of these tribes under our control, the whole of them, and all the passes up to the Frontier of Afghanistan. That is what we always understand to be the "Forward policy," and that is a policy which. I believe to be calamitous to India, and which I have always been disposed to hinder and impede by every means in my power. I distinguish that policy entirely from those police measures on our Frontier which we may have to take from time to time, and which may be caused by our relations with the tribes near our territory. As to the Lawrence policy, I entirely agree with the noble Duke that the time has passed when we can revert to it; but the question is, what have we in view? Do we merely wish to establish friendly relations with the tribes on our Frontier, or do we look forward to having control of these tribes, bringing the whole of them under the direct control of the Government of India? I do not assert that the noble Lord would advocate immediate measures for that purpose; but my objection to that policy is that it is a policy which is pursued steadily by a party which influences the Indian Government. It is constantly the cause of Forward movements, not for the purpose of protecting merely our own Frontier, or for purposes merely of police, but for the purpose of little by little creeping up until you shall bring the whole of this vast territory inhabited by these barbarous tribes under our direct control. I believe that the attempt to do that is fraught with danger to India, because, far from, in my opinion, it being likely to bring about better relations with the tribes, I believe it to be a certain mode of exasperating the tribes and preventing friendly relations with them. It has the directly opposite result to the civilising process alluded to by Lord Salisbury in his speech. You irritate the tribes, you expend large sums of money in attempts to subjugate them; and,

  817
  after all, when you have carried these operations into effect, far from finding your communications with Afghanistan safer, in my opinion, you will find them more dangerous than ever; for, unless this process of civilisation has gone on for a quarter of a century or so—when, perhaps, there may be a change—if you are in difficulty, the tribes which you had brought under your control would seize the opportunity of rising against you. And what would be your position if you were engaged in a great military occupation of Afghanistan and the tribes rose behind you? Although I speak with great diffidence about any military matter, I know that the noble Lord will not contradict me: the great difficulty in conducting military movements in Afghanistan against such a Power as Russia will consist in the maintenance of our communications with India. When I was Secretary of State we were alarmed at a prospect of such a possible collision with Russia; and I know that the anxieties of the Indian Government were largely directed to the difficulty of maintaining the long lines of communication. Now, if you have these tribes that you have brought under your control against their will, will they not attack your communications? Will not your position be more dangerous than it was before? But I have a much stronger reason for deprecating this policy. I believe it is certain to produce discontent and dissatisfaction throughout India. I believe now, from all I have heard, that it has already had a very considerable effect; and the strength of our position in India does not rest upon the command of certain passes, but it rests upon the contentment and prosperity of the people whom we govern—a consideration so important that, although, no doubt, for stringent, military reasons, you may from time to time be obliged to make Forward movements, deprecate, in the strongest manner, any policy which does not veto, as far as possible, any extension of our responsibilities to the north. India has been suffering from terrible calamities, of famine, and of plague, and, though I am glad to hear that she is recovering to some extent, yet the prosperity of the country must be seriously injured by such calamities. India has also to contend with what I am sure the noble Lord opposite must know is a most
  818
  difficult question—the question of currency, and of the scarcity of money, and when so many things tend at such a moment to produce a feeling of dissatisfaction, it is most unfortunate that we should find ourselves engaged in this Frontier war. I will not go back upon the causes of it, but I do say that it is most important that we should be able to agree in emphatically repudiating a military Frontier policy. Whilst we ought to take every possible step to increase our friendly relations with the tribes, we should avoid anything which could interfere with their independence, such as placing posts in their territory, or making roads for military purposes in passes, which it is not essential for us to hold. On every ground it is desirable that we should abstain from any such provocation as these measures are sure to produce. I heard—I will not say with alarm, but with a feeling of very modified satisfaction—some remarks made by my noble Friend the noble Marquess opposite; and, although I do not seek to establish a difference of opinion of a serious kind between noble Lords on the Bench opposite, I must say that there was a very different tone indeed running through the speech of the noble Marquess and that of the noble Earl the Under Secretary for India. No one who heard that speech could help feeling that it was not altogether in accordance with the spirit of the declarations made by the Secretary of State for India in Parliament, in the country, and in his dispatch now on the Table. It is evident that the noble Marquess sympathises with the Forward policy advocated by the noble Lord on the Cross Benches, and he let us see plainly that he would be in favour of extending our control over all these tribes. My Lords, that is exactly what we deprecate, and what I believe the country at the present time does not desire. I would fain believe, notwithstanding the fault I have found with the remarks of the noble Marquess, that the noble Duke who spoke last, is correct in telling us that in point of fact the Government stand upon the declarations and instructions of the Secretary of State, and that they are as desirous as we are of avoiding any further complications, and of taking every possible means of not countenancing

  819
  that Forward policy, which, I believe, if indulged in may bring about grave calamities. In regard to our relations with Russia, I think there has been a disposition to undervalue the agreement as to the Afghan frontier which has been arrived at with Russia. Of course, that arrangement is not a protection in case of war; but by having laid down by Treaty a distinct line of frontier between Afghanistan and Russia, we have, I believe, entirely put a stop to those expeditions and incursions in the parts of Afghanistan to which we were liable when there was no defined boundary, and which were of a nature to give rise to complications in time of peace, which might easily lead to disagreeable controversies with Russia, and possibly even to a quarrel. That has been done by Treaty, and I may remind the noble Lord on the Cross Benches that with regard to the north-western Frontier there was a very remarkable example of the way in which this Treaty arrangement works. There were disagreements between the Russians and the Afghans, on the north-west Frontier of Afghanistan, and, instead of any measures being taken of a forcible kind, the Russians represented to us that they had reason to complain of certain proceedings on the part of the Afghans, and, recognising us as responsible for their actions, they called upon us to take steps with the Ameer to put an end to the annoyance. What was the result? We made our representations to the Ameer, the result of which was that a Commissioner was sent by us to meet a Russian Commissioner on the Frontier, and all these differences were peaceably and satisfactorily arranged. These are the advantages gained by having a distinct line of Frontier. In a case of war, the Frontier, as laid down on a map, would be no protection, but in time of peace it is a protection against occurrences which may lead to controversies, and possibly to quarrels, and, therefore, so far I think we have reason to feel more secure than
  820
  we were before. I entirely agree with what was said by the noble Marquess on one point—namely, the good effect of the Durand Agreement—and I am the more disposed to take that view because I am jointly responsible with him for that commission. The noble Marquess most correctly described the effect of that Agreement, and I am certain that he did not exaggerate the difficulties in which we were placed with the Ameer before that Agreement was made. Those difficulties were of a very serious nature indeed, and extended throughout the whole of that vast Frontier. By the Durand Agreement a complete stop has been put to them, and I believe that our relations with the Ameer have been established on a more safe footing than they have ever been before. A sure and certain proof of that is the attitude of the Ameer during the recent Frontier trouble, when he behaved in a most friendly manner. I must apologise to your Lordships for detaining you at all, but the questions which are at issue concerning this Frontier policy are, perhaps, as important as any other questions that can affect our Indian Empire, and they well deserve the careful attention and consideration, not only of Her Majesty's Government, but of all who are interested in the welfare of our Indian Empire.
  LORD ROBERTS OF KANDAHAR: May I offer a few words in explanation to the noble Earl who quoted a statement which I made in 1881, in regard to the Kandahar line. The noble Earl quoted quite correctly, but matters have very much changed since that time, and any opinion I held then with regard to the Kandahar line must of necessity have been quite changed by the great change in the Russian position. That change in the Russian position made the whole change in the strategical position of India.
  House adjourned at 8.35, till to-morrow, 4.15.