Sitting of 14 March 1898

Preamble
MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER took the Chair at Three of the clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
  CLACTON-ON-SEA GAS AND WATER BILL.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
  LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  WRITERS TO THE SIGNET WIDOWS' FUND BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  CHARING CROSS, EUSTON, AND HAMPSTEAD RAILWAY BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  FOREIGN BONDHOLDERS CORPORATION BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  LATIMER ROAD AND ACTON RAILWAY BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  MUSWELL HILL AND PALACE RAILWAY BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  NORWICH ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
PETITIONS.
  EAST INDIA (CONTAGIOUS DISEASES).
  From London, against State regulation; to lie upon the Table.
  HABITUAL DRUNKARDS.
  From Oldham, for alteration of Law to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  In favour; from Liverpool, Romford, Mossley, Dawlish, Cheltenham, Kidderminster, Soulcoates, Englefield Green, Bolshill, Okehampton, Edge Hill, Black-heath, Upper Holloway, Westbury Leigh, Chelmsford, Talk-o'-th'-Hill, Bradford, Kendal, and Reigate; to lie upon the Table.
  TAKING OF SEAWARE.
  From Orkney, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, ETC.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Report, No. 2034 by Command; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Report, No. 451 by Command; to lie upon the Table.
  ASSIZE ACTS, 1876 AND 1879.
  Copies presented, of Two Orders in Council of 7th March 1898, relating to Spring Assize Counties, Nos. 2 and 3 by Act; to lie upon the Table.
  FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council of 7th March 1898, entitled The Siam Order in Council, 1898 by Act; to lie upon the Table.
  INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT ACTS, 1844 TO 1886.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council of 7th March 1898, giving effect to the additional Act of Paris modifying the International Copyright Convention of 9th September 1886 by Act; to lie upon the Table.
  QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY.
  Copy presented, of Annual Report and Accounts of the Governors for the year 1897 by Command; to lie upon the Table.

  BOARD OF TRADE (LABOUR DEPARTMENT) (EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN).
  Copy presented, of Report on changes in the employment of women and girls in industrial centres, Part I. flax and jute centres by Command; to lie upon the Table.
  Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House.

  CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS (LONDON).
  Further Return relative thereto, ordered 2nd August 1894.—(Mr. Francis Stevenson); to be printed. [No. 112.]

  STATUTE LAW REVISION BILLS, ETC.
  Lords' Message 10th March, communicating a Resolution relative to the appointment of a Joint Committee on Statute Law Revision Bills and Consolidation Bills of the present Session considered:—
  Resolved, That the House doth concur with the Lords in the said Resolution.
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.—(Lord Arthur Hill.)

  ELECTRICAL ENERGY (GENERATING STATIONS AND SUPPLY).
  Lords' Message 10th March, communicating a Resolution relative to the appointment of a Joint Committee on Electrical Energy (Generating Stations and Supply) considered:—
  Resolved, That the House doth concur with the Lords in the said Resolution.
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.—(Lord Arthur Hill.)

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill intituled:
  "An Act to empower the District Board of Lunacy for the landward portion of Midlothian and County of Peebles to construct waterworks for the supply of water to their Rosslynlee Asylum; to make provision for the cost of such works; and for other purposes."
  Midlothian and Peebles District Board of Lunacy (Water) Bill [H.L.]
  And, also, a Bill intituled "An Act to amend the Law of Evidence." Evidence in Criminal Cases Bill [H.L.]

  MIDLOTHIAN AND PEEBLES DISTRICT BOARD OF LUNACY (WATER) BILL [H.L.]
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE BILL [H.L.]
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 131.]
  EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES BILL [H.L.]
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 132.]
QUESTIONS.

  DEFICIENCY OF MILITIA OFFICERS.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War what was the deficiency of Militia Officers on 1st March of the present year, and what the deficiency on 1st March, 1896?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE: FOR WAR: On the 1st March of the present year there were 712 combatant officers deficient in the Militia, and on the same date two years ago 607. The increased deficiency is made up of two Lieutenants Colonels, 1 Major, and 115 Subalterns, against an increase of 13 Captains. The net increased deficiency of 105 is accounted for by the extra 102 Line commissions given to the Militia in 1897. An addition to the Line commissions granted necessarily produces an immediate loss to the Militia; but applications for appointments to that force are now coming in quickly.

  RESERVE OF OFFICERS.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, at present, the Officers who on retirement join the reserve of Officers have any opportunity to keep themselves in touch with the Military service; and whether, inasmuch as drill and tactics change from time to time in all branches of Her Majesty's Military service, and especially in the scientific branches, some system could be devised by which such Officers in the Reserve as desired it should have an opportunity for at least a fortnight a year of being attached to, and drilling with, one of the branches of the Service?
  MR. BRODRICK: This question has been carefully considered by the Military authorities, but it has not been thought desirable to take any steps.

  INCREASE OF LUNACY.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Wicklow (Mr. W. J. CORBET), I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been drawn to a special Report of the Commissioners in Lunacy to the Lord Chancellor, presented last Session, in which they state that, whereas in 1859 the number of lunatics, idiots, and persons of unsound mind in England and Wales was 36,762, the number had increased
  1506
  in 1896 to 96,446, showing a ratio to every 10,000 of the population of 31.18 as compared with 18.67 at the previous period, and also to the last (the 51st) Report issued by the Lunacy Commissioners, in which they regret the very large increase of 2,919 in the number of lunatics in England and Wales on 1st January, 1897; and whether he will consider what can be done, by promoting an International Commission or by some other means, to arrest the increase of insanity?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. W. RIDLEY, Lancashire, N., Blackpool): Yes, my attention has been called to these Reports—it was, in fact, at my request that the Lord Chancellor called for the Special Report from the Commissioners. The Commissioners, after a very careful investigation, consider that there is no important increase of fresh insanity; and I am not satisfied that an International Commission would throw any additional light on the matter. The question will, of course, continue to receive very careful attention.

  DEFICIENCY OF VOLUNTEER OFFICERS.
  COLONEL SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the under Secretary of State for War how many officers are now wanting to complete the establishment of the Volunteer Force?
  MR. BRODRICK: The number of combatant officers deficient on the establishment of the Volunteer Force is 1,304. Since the issue of the outfit allowance two years ago the deficiency in officers has been reduced by 350.

  FIELD GUNS FOR THE MILITIA AND VOLUNTEER ARTILLERY.
  COLONEL SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what is the present strength in modern field guns of the Militia Artillery and the Volunteer Artillery, and how

  1507
  many of these guns are attached to the 50,000 Infantry of the auxiliary forces in and around London?
  MR. BRODRICK: The Militia Artillery are all garrison Artillery, and are therefore without field guns. Of the Volunteer batteries, one battery has 12-pounder B.L. guns, and 47 batteries are armed with the 16-pounder guns with which the Royal Artillery were armed up to 1890. There are also 51 batteries of position Artillery of an older type.
  COLONEL SIR HOWARD VINCENT: What about the London Volunteers?
  MR. BRODRICK: The position of the London Volunteers is not different from that of other Volunteers.
  COLONEL SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Will the right hon. Gentleman look at the latter part of the Question?
  MR. BRODRICK: I have already told my hon. and gallant Friend that the London Volunteers will share equally with other Volunteers in the possession of the guns.

  WILLENHALL TECHNICAL SCHOOL.
  MR. ERNEST GRAY: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that two classes, the one at Wolverhampton Free Library and the other one at the Willenhall Technical School, were taught last session by the same teacher, who gave to the students similar lessons for practically the same number of hours; that the Science and Art Department awarded a grant on behalf of the students attending the class in elementary physiology at Wolverhampton at the rate of 6d. per attendance, and at Willenhall at the rate of 2d. per attendance, though the inspector did not visit either of the classes during the whole of the session; and that the Science and Art Department have stated, in response to a protest by the manager of the Willenhall School, that previous knowledge of the school enabled the inspector to report as to its general efficiency, although such knowledge must necessarily have been founded on a different
  1508
  set of students; and whether, having regard to the regulation in Paragraph 40 of the Science and Art Directory to the effect that the grant shall depend upon the efficiency, as determined by the Department upon the inspector's report, and upon the success of the class in that subject at the annual examinations, he will give instructions for the report and the grant to the Willenhall School to be revised, and will take steps to prevent the Science and Art Department assessing grants for the current year's work upon their knowledge of schools during some previous year, when totally different conditions may have prevailed?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. E. GORST, Cambridge University): As the inspector was not able to visit these classes last year the attendance grant was fixed on the general result of their examination in May, as well as on his knowledge of them from previous years. In consequence, however, of a representation made by the managers of the Willenhall class as to what they had done in the way of providing apparatus, etc., the grant had, before the hon. Member put down his Question, been already revised and raised from 2d. to 3d. per attendance. The class, which would at the former rate have obtained 10s. less, has now received £1 5s. more than it would have received under the old system of payments on results. The Wolverhampton class, though its grant was at the maximum rate of 6d. an attendance, received less than it would have received on results, which were three times as good as those at Willenhall. All schools will, as far as possible, be inspected every year; but I cannot, until the staff of inspectors is increased, undertake that there shall be no exceptions.

  PAY OF LABOURERS AT THE GENERAL POST OFFICE, DUBLIN.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division, Dublin (Mr. W. FIELD), I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether it is intended

  1509
  to carry out the recommendations of the Tweedmouth Commission respecting the labourers working in the General Post Office, Dublin, and the Parcels Depôt, Amiens Street; whether these men will receive the increment due to them between the rate of 18s. and 19s. a week and the present wage, 22s.; and whether he can state when this back money will be given and when the men's pay will be increased, as recommended by the Commission?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): The difficulty in giving effect to the Tweedmouth proposal is that it contemplates two sets of men, one unestablished at a fixed wage of 22s. a week to do the rougher kind of work, and another on a scale of 22s. by 1s. to 28s., to do superior work. As the existing men are all on a scale of 18s. by 1s. to 25s., it is not possible to put them in the former class. It is, therefore, not yet decided whether to put them on the Tweedmouth scale for established men of 22s., by 1s. to 28s., keeping them as a distinct class of porters, or to amalgamate them with the ordinary postmen, who have a lower minimum, but a, higher maximum, and a larger annual increment. In either case the scale will date from 1st April last.

  HOURS OF LABOUR IN THE DUBLIN POST OFFICE.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for St. Patrick's Division, Dublin (Mr. W. FIELD), I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can state the cause of the delay in carrying into effect in the postmen's branch, Dublin, the recommendations of the Committee on Post Office Establishments relative to nine hours' rest at home; and whether, in view of the severity of the present duties of postmen at that office, the order as to late attendance may be suspended from 1st April last, as also the recent order relative to sick leave, until such time as the revision may be carried into effect?
  MR. HANBURY: The recommendation of the Committee on Post Office Establishments, relative to nine hours' rest at home, can hardly be carried into effect until the question of the time of arrival of the day Mail from England has been definitely settled. If the hour of that Mail's arrival should be altered the men's duties will have to be almost entirely recast. As the hon. Member is aware, the hours of the day Mails are now under the consideration of a Committee, which I hope will report shortly. The regulations mentioned by the hon. Member are general, and not peculiar to Dublin.

  POLICE AND PUBLIC MEETINGS IN IRELAND.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick's Division, Dublin (Mr. W. FIELD), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether the Dublin Metropolitan Police and the Irish Constabulary have greater legal powers than are exercised in Great Britain to suppress public meetings; (2) whether police and constabulary in Ireland are authorised without notice to charge a crowd; and (3) whether he will prevent such occurrences in future?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. GERALD W. BALFOUR,): The powers of the police to interfere with public meetings, whether in Great Britain or Ireland, are common law powers applicable to both countries. If the question raised by the second paragraph is, whether it is necessary that the Riot Act should be read before the police disperse an unlawful assembly or quell a riot, the answer is in the negative. No instructions have been issued on the subject, nor are any necessary; but I may state it is the practice of the police, before taking action, to give notice of their intention to disperse an illegal assemblage, whenever it is possible to do so. By virtue of his position as a peace officer, a constable had full powers for restoring order and preserving the public peace, and it is his imperative duty to keep this object in view. The

  1511
  third paragraph hardly seems to require an answer.
  MR. M. DAVITT: In what way does the police inspector give notice to the people that he intends to bâton them?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I imagine that the question of the hon. Member has reference to what took place at West-port the other day. In that case warning was given by the police.
  MR. DAVITT: In what way?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The only possible way: by word of mouth.

  NATIONAL GALLERY, DUBLIN.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick's Division of Dublin (Mr. W. FIELD), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will arrange to have the National Gallery in Dublin open on certain week evenings for the benefit of the working classes?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have referred this Question to the Director of the National Gallery, who informs me that the Board of Governors do not consider it would be advisable to open the Gallery when lighted by artificial light, as the pictures could not be properly inspected by such light. Having regard, moreover, to the failure attending upon the opening by night of the British Museum and the Museum at South Kensington, in London, the Governors of the Gallery in Dublin have no reason to believe that the opening of the latter would be attended by better results.

  MAILS FOR FERMOY.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, in accordance with a resolution of the Town Commissioners of Fermoy adopted on 23rd February, he has made representations to the Great Southern and Western Railway
  1512
  Company as to the necessity for running a train from Mallow to Fermoy daily, in order that the English and Dublin mails should arrive at 11.15 a.m. instead of 2.20 p.m., and thus enable the merchants and traders to reply to correspondence on the day of receipt; and what has been the result of his representations?
  MR. HANBURY: Before the Post master General received a copy of the resolution of the Town Com missioners of Fermoy, referred to by the hon. Member, proposals had been put forward by the Great Southern and Western Railway Company for an improvement of the day Mail service in several districts served by their line, and these proposals included the running of a train from Mallow to Fermoy, in order to afford the earlier arrival of the English and Dublin Mails desired by the Town Commissioners. The whole matter is being inquired into, but as the negotiation with the Railway Company is only in its preliminary stage, and many places are affected, it may be some little time before a decision can be arrived at.

  SOMERSET REGIMENT (1ST BATTALION).
  MAJOR F. C. RASCH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the battalion of the Somerset Regiment now in India was found unfit for active service at the front owing to disease, and sent back; what was the nature of the disease, and the number of men found unfit for service from that cause; and what was the proportion remaining fit for duty?
  MR. BRODRICK: The 1st Battalion Somersetshire Light Infantry was employed throughout the operations of the Mohmand Field Force, and returned to Peshawar when that force was broken up. It suffered somewhat during the operations from fever and ague; but on 1st October last it had 895 men fit for duty. There is nothing to show that the battalion was unfit for active service.

  LIST OF VOTERS IN IRELAND.
  MR. B. C. MOLLOY: On behalf of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. VESEY KNOX), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is proposed to take from the clerks of unions, who are also registrars of deaths, the duty of preparing the list of Voters, and to confer it upon officials who have no experience of the work; and whether he will consider the possibility of appointing, especially in the boroughs, officials performing duties similar to those performed by the assessors in Scotland, and of thus lessening the work to be done by revising barristers.?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The duties hitherto devolving on the clerks of Unions in relation to the preparation of the Voters' lists are proposed to be transferred to the clerks of the different rate-collecting authorities. In Scotland, the Assessor is appointed to make out the valuation roll, a duty which is done in Ireland by the Commissioner of Valuation; the Assessor also makes up the Parliamentary Register and the Local Government Supplement in counties, but in Royal Burghs, sending Members to Parliament, the Town Clerk makes out the municipal list. I think it would be more convenient that any statement on matters such as are raised in this Question should be deferred until the Local Government Bill is under consideration by the House.

  TUNIS AND CANADA.
  MR. MOLLOY: On behalf of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. VESEY KNOX), I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, under the Treaty with Tunis, Canada and the other Colonies enjoyed until 1898 the advantage of most-favoured-nation treatment, their products being admitted at a duty of 8 per cent.; whether, under the new Treaty with France, that advantage is withdrawn, and the product of the Colonies subjected to the maximum tariff of France, although by special Treaty with France Canada is entitled to most-favoured-nation treatment in French
  1514
  ports; whether the Colonies were consulted before this change was made; and whether, having regard to the fact that Great Britain enforces upon the Colonies a construction of most-favoured-nation Treaties which has never been admitted by the United States, the Foreign Office will consult the Governments of the Colonies before consenting to fiscal changes adverse to their interests?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. G. N. CURZON,): The answer to the first Question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second Question, under the new Agreement, which virtually abrogates the former Treaty, the most-favoured-nation treatment in Tunis is not extended to the Colonies, and their products are subject to this general tariff. The rate of 5 per cent. for cotton goods applies, however, to cottons from the British Colonies as well as to those from the United Kingdom. The special Treaty between Canada and France has no bearing on Tunis. With reference to the third Question, the Premiers of the Constitutional Colonies were consulted, and it was by their wish that the Colonies were not included. In reply to the fourth Question, I may say that the Foreign Office always consults the Colonial Department, as representing the Colonial Governments, as to the inclusion of Colonies in Commercial Treaties.

  CRETE.
  MR. J. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to the destitute condition of the Christian refugees around Candia; whether daily skirmishes still take place on the Turkish lines, and whether two Christians were recently fired upon by Turkish soldiers at Arkhanes and killed; and what steps the Powers propose to take to stop these outrages and to relieve the starving population of the island?
  MR. CURZON: The refugees at Paleocastron, near Candia, have now all returned to their homes, and Sir Alfred Biliotti reports to us that the arrangements

  1515
  made by Sir Herbert Chermside for the distribution of relief to the suffering district of Pediala are excellent. Skirmishing, or rather desultory firing, in which both parties join, continues in the neighbourhood of the cordon, but we have not heard of the particular incident mentioned in the Question. The late Turkish Governor at Candia, having exercised insufficient control, has been replaced. Further measures for communication with the interior and relief to the people are under the consideration of the Council of Admirals.
  SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT (Sheffield, Ecclesall): Will the relief be given to the Mahomedans as well as the Christians?
  MR. CURZON: Of course, no distinction is drawn by Admirals in these matters between Mahomedans and Christians.

  RUSSIAN LANGUAGE FOR ARMY OFFICERS.
  MR. C. BILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether there is at present at the Staff College at Camberley any professor, or other person, qualified to teach the Russian language; and, if not, whether he will take steps to secure the appointment of a professor for the benefit of officers anxious to learn that language?
  MR. BRODRICK: There used to be a Professor of Russian at the Staff College; but the number of officers learning the language was insufficient to justify the expense. As a money reward is given for proficiency in Russian, it is not considered necessary to provide the means of studying the language.

  TRAINING SHIP IN GALWAY BAY.
  MR. J. PINKERTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will consider the advisability of placing a training ship in Galway Bay, in order to give the young men along the Western coast an opportunity of joining the Navy, and thereby relieve, to some extent, the congestion at present prevailing?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN, St. George's,): No, Sir. I am unable to give such a pledge.

  GLUSBURN SCHOOL BOARD.
  MR. ERNEST GRAY: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether scholars attending examinations for labour certificates within the area of the Glusburn School Board are charged a small fee; under whose authority such a charge is imposed; whether it is said to be a charge to cover the cost of stationery; and whether such a charge is a violation of the provisions of the Day School Code?
  SIR JOHN GORST: The only communication on the subject which has reached the Education Department is a letter which I received this morning from the Clerk to the School Board, denying that any such charge has been made for the last three examinations.
  MR. E. GRAY: Has the right hon. Gentleman any authoritative information from the Board itself?
  SIR JOHN GORST: The letter I received was from the Clerk to the School Board.

  KHYBER RIFLES AT LUNDI KOTAL.
  MR. MOLLOY: On behalf of the hon. Member for Londonderry, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, on 18th August, 1897, Sir Richard Udny, having ordered Captain Barton, the Commandant of the Khyber Rifles, to withdraw from Lundi Kotal, telegraphed to the Punjaub Government that, as there was no officer in the Khyber whom it would be necessary to succour if Lundi Kotal and the forts are attacked, it would not be necessary to do anything from that side to force the pass; whether the pass remained open for four days, during which nothing was done either to succour or withdraw the Khyber Rifles, who were thus left with their native officers to be cut to pieces; whether there were at the time 12,000 troops within 20 miles; and whether Sir Richard Udny is still the responsible adviser of the Government on the Frontier?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON, Middlesex, Ealing): It is the case that Sir Richard Udny, for what appeared to be sufficient reasons, recalled Captain Barton from Lundi Kotal, and, having done so, telegraphed to the Government of India on the 18th August his concurrence in General Ellis's opinion that, if that post were attacked, it was advisable not to attempt an advance up the Khyber, but to threaten Tirah. He also anticipated that the levies which remained in the Khyber, if attacked, would escape without any serious loss. Under the Agreement with the Afridis, it was specially provided that they were responsible for the protection of the Khyber, independently of any assistance from British troops. On the 21st it was reported that the Afridis were gathering for an attack, which was delivered on the 23rd, with the result that the Khyber Rifles, though attacked, escaped, as was anticipated, without serious loss, losing 11 men. The number of troops in the neighbourhood was approximately as stated in the third Question, but, as I have before stated, on Military grounds it was not considered advisable to lock up any portion of them in the Khyber Pass. The Government of India are of opinion that Sir R. Udny, under circumstances of great perplexity, acted throughout in a straightforward and loyal manner.

  THE POSTMEN'S PARK.
  MR. H. C. STEPHENS (Middlesex, Hornsey): I beg to ask the hon. Member for the Thirsk Division of the North Riding of Yorkshire, as representing the Charity Commissioners, whether the City Parochial Trustees have applied for an advance of £5,000 out of capital to enable them to build on the vacant land at Little Britain proposed to complete the Postmen's Park; whether he is aware that the land in question contains a large quantity of human remains, and that the work of excavation and removal came to a standstill because the workmen refused to dig out any more bones; whether the usual effort was made to ascertain the market value and to obtain a lessee for the site
  1518
  before the Trustees resolved themselves to build thereon; and whether, before agreeing to the advance of £5,000, the Commissioners will make full inquiry into the circumstances of the case?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY CHARITY COMMISSIONER (Mr. J. GRANT LAWSON,): The answer to the first and third paragraphs are in the affirmative, except that the amount of the advance applied for is £7,000. The Commissioners are aware that the land contains human remains. The work of excavation and removal came to a standstill, not for the reason alleged, but because the Trustees were restrained by interim injunction from proceeding with the work. This injunction was subsequently dissolved on the final hearing of the action, in which it was granted. The Commissioners are already fully in possession of the facts of the case, which has been under discussion for more than four years. The land in question was purchased as a building site out of the Trust Estate which the Trustees now represent, and was formerly occupied by buildings. It was determined, in the action I have mentioned, that the legal right of the Trustees to build upon it is unquestionable, and, if the contemplated sale of the property be not completed, the Commissioners are not prepared further to withhold their sanction to the proposals of the Trustees for the developmen of this valuable property, which has now been lying idle in their hands for the last seven years.

  RECORDS OF LANDOWNERS.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON (Shropshire, Oswestry): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the importance of keeping accurate records from time to time of the number of landowners and the extent of their estates, and having regard to the fact that such Returns have been hitherto presented at lengthened intervals, the first being about 800 years old, and the second about 770 years later, the Government will make provision for the regular taking of a census of the owners of land at certain specified periods?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this Question in his absence. On his behalf, I have to say as follows:—I have considerable sympathy with the suggestion made by my hon. Friend, and I should be glad if it were found possible to give effect to it. The difficulties in the way of obtaining the necessary information with accuracy are, however, very great, as was found when the Return of 1874–75 was prepared, and the attendant expense would, of course, be heavy. I shall be happy to look further into the matter, and if I can see my way to submit any practicable proposition to the Treasury on the subject I will do so. Possibly the difficulties which present themselves may diminish as the development of a system of land registration progresses.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. T. J. CONDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether, in a town such as Carrick-on-Suir, governed by town commissioners under the Towns Improvement Act, 1854, who are also the urban sanitary authority, under the Public Health Act, 1887, the fund or rate, out of which the cost of paving and cleansing the streets, as in Clause 32, sub-section (b) of the Local Government (Ireland) Bill, 1898, means the rates raised under the powers granted by the aforesaid Acts; and (2) will the differential rating in favour of lands, etc., as provided by Clause 226 of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, and the corresponding clause of the Towns Improvement Act, 1854, apply to the rating under Clause 32, sub-section (b) of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The reply to both paragraphs is in the affirmative.

  KITCHENER'S CASE.
  MAJOR H. F. BOWLES (Middlesex, Enfield): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what grounds Kitchener, after he had been tried at the Middlesex Sessions on 27th
  1520
  November, 1897, and acquitted of the charge of having stolen £15 from Shepherd, was, by an order of Sir John Bridge, only allowed £5 of the £20 found in his box, the other £15 going to the prosecutor Shepherd?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: A summons was taken out by Kitchener under the provisions of the Police (Property) Act, 1897, for the recovery of the money referred to, which was in the possession of the Police, and the Magistrate, after hearing evidence, decided that Kitchener established his claim only to the extent of £4 19s. 4d., and that £15 belonged to Shepherd.

  LIGHTS ON THE ENGLISH COAST.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state whether there is a Committee of the Brethren of the Trinity House specially charged with the control of the lighthouses and floating lights on the English coasts; how frequently they meet; and whether any reports of their proceedings with regard to new works and improvements are published, and where these may be obtained?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I am informed by the Elder Brethren of the Trinity House that they have one Committee for the management of existing lighthouses and other lights, and another Committee for new works and improvements. These Committees meet twice a week. No reports of the proceedings of the Committees or of the full Board are published, but all Estimates and proposals involving increased expenditure have to be submitted to the Board of Trade for their approval.

  CABLE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN CANADA AND AUSTRALIA.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any further steps have been taken in regard to establishing a direct

  1521
  cable communication betwixt the Dominion of Canada and Australia; and if any Papers will be laid upon the Table on that subject?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): The Question is still under consideration, and no Papers can at present be laid.

  BOMBAY PLAGUE REGULATIONS.
  MR. J. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether British soldiers have been employed in the enforcement of the plague regulations in the City of Bombay; and whether he can lay any Papers upon the Table of the House relating to the methods pursued in the Bombay Presidency dealing with the plague?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: A limited number of picked European soldiers have been employed on search parties at Bombay. This experiment had been tried with great success at Poona, and, so far as I am aware, had caused no friction whatever. I am, however, informed that in Bombay British soldiers had ceased to be thus employed a few days before the beginning of the recent disturbance. A large instalment of Papers concerning the plague has been in the Press for presentation to Parliament since the 3rd February last. I hope they may shortly be in the hands of hon. Members. When they are distributed I will consider what further Papers can be presented.

  BRITISH INDIANS IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA.
  MR. T. R. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been directed to The Immigration Restriction Act, 1897, recently passed by the Parliament of Western Australia,
  1522
  whereby British Indian and other British subjects who are neither paupers nor criminals will be prohibited from landing in that Colony; and whether he will consider the propriety of disallowing the statute?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: The Act to which the hon. Member refers does not exclude British Indians as such. But it excludes all emigrants who cannot write out a passage—and a good number of British Indians can do that—of 50 words, selected from an English author, as well as paupers, criminals, and lunatics. The feeling in Australia, on this subject is very strong, and as the Measure does not conflict with the principles laid down at the Conference with the Premiers, I am, not prepared to advise Her Majesty to disallow it.

  AUDITING SCOTCH PARISH COUNCIL ACCOUNTS.
  CAPTAIN JOHN SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether it is the intention of the Government to propose for the consideration of Parliament during the present Session any change in the system of auditing parish council accounts in Scotland?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): No definite answer can be given to the hon. Member's Question until the Government are in a position to estimate more accurately than they can at present what amount of time may be available for the purpose.

  ROYAL CANAL AT CAPPAGH.
  MR. C. J. ENGLEDEW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will bring before the directors of the Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland, who own the Royal Canal, the urgent necessity that exists for the erection of a bridge over the Royal Canal at Cappagh, between Enfield and Kilcock, in the county of Kildare, where there is a

  1523
  large and growing population who are put to a very great danger and hardship by having to cross the canal in all weathers to attend to their business relations, church, school, etc., their only means of doing so before being an old ferry boat; whether he is aware that the Company have on more than one occasion promised to build this bridge but have not done so, and, when recently petitioned to carry out this work by the inhabitants, declined to do so; and whether he will take such steps as may be necessary to get this work executed?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have caused a copy of this Question to be referred to the Midland Great Western Railway Company, who inform me—
  "that there is no obligation resting upon them to erect additional bridges over the Royal Canal, and the statement that they on more than one occasion promised to build a bridge over the Royal Canal at Cappagh has no foundation."

  PAY OF REGIMENTAL QUARTERMASTER-SERGEANTS.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, taking into consideration the educational qualification necessary for the appointment of regimental quartermaster-sergeant (in the Cavalry) and the important nature of his duties, he could consider the possibility of raising his pay to 4s. 6d. per diem on appointment, 5s. after three years, and warrant rank with pay after holding the appointment for ten years, the warrant rank to apply to regiments and not to departments?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): Although in the rank of quartermaster-sergeant (Cavalry), as in the other ranks of that arm, the pay is higher than that of the corresponding rank in the Infantry, the pay of both arms of the Service has been increased by 6d. a day since 1881. As regards an increase for length of service in the rank, there appears to be no sufficient reason for introducing it, or for giving warrant rank. The educational qualification for the rank is the same in all arms of the Service; and,
  1524
  beyond the usual higher rates of pay given to Cavalry, there is no reason for treating that arm more favourably than men of corresponding rank in other arms of the Service.

  RUSSIANS IN MANCHURIA.
  SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can confirm1 the statement made by the Times correspondent at Pekin that there are already considerable numbers of Russian troops in Manchuria; and whether the Russian Railway Company has received large grants of land, and is authorised to maintain on these lands, and along the line, a force of Russian armed police?
  MR. CURZON: I cannot confirm the statement in question. I will lay upon the Table the conditions under which the Russo-Chinese trans-Manchurian Railway is being constructed, which include certain provisions for the necessary lands, and for the policeing of the line.

  SOUDAN CAMPAIGN.
  SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any information as to the campaign in the Soudan, especially as to the report that there are European officers with the Dervish forces?
  MR. CURZON: I am not in a position to make any statement on the subject of the Soudan campaign, but I may say that we have had no confirmation of the rumour referred to.

  MILITIA AND THE INCREASED ARMY PAY.
  MR. J. L. CAREW: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, is the increase of pay, which it is proposed to give the soldier, to be granted also to Militia men?
  MR. BRODRICK: No, Sir.

  PAUPER REMOVALS FROM SCOTLAND TO IRELAND.
  MR. CAREW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that a woman named Margaret Robertson, aged 74 years, having become chargeable to the Parish Council of the parish of Dunfermline, in Scotland, was, on the petition of J. T. Meikle, Inspector of Poor, removed from that place and sent to the workhouse at Edenderry, King's County, where she was admitted on the 2nd instant; is he aware that the said Margaret Robertson spent over 50 years continuously in Scotland; that she is unknown to any person in the Union of Edenderry, where she has been imposed on the rates; and whether, having regard to the fact that this is a sample of a large class of cases whereby Irish ratepayers are aggrieved, he will take such action as will in future prevent their repetition?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is true that Margaret Robertson was recently removed from Scotland to the Edenderry Workhouse, but I have no information as to the other facts alleged. On the general question of legislation, my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate has stated that a Bill has been framed, containing provisions dealing with the grievance of Ireland in this matter, and that he hopes to have the opportunity of introducing it at no very distant date.

  LABOURERS' PAY AT WOOLWICH ARSENAL.
  CAPTAIN C. W. NORTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state the present minimum wage of the labourers employed in the Naval Ordnance Department in Woolwich Arsenal: and whether, seeing that these men have not the advantage of certain privileges, he will state if it is the intention of the Department to raise their minimum wage to that of those similarly employed under the War Department?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: The Government have decided to raise the minimum wage of the labourers employed in the Naval Ordnance
  1526
  Department in Woolwich Arsenal to that of those similarly employed in the War Department.

  UNITED STATES AND BRITISH SHIPS OF WAR.
  MR. DAVITT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether any British war vessels are to be loaned by Her Majesty's Government to the Government of the United States in the event of war between the Republic and any European (Continental) Power?
  MR. BRODRICK: No, Sir.

  UNITED STATES AND THE FAR EAST.
  MR. DAVITT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Ambassador at Washington has made proposals to the Republic of the? United States in favour of an alliance between the two Governments in the event of serious complications arising out of present difficulties in the Far East; whether any similar proposal has been tendered to Her Majesty's Government by or on behalf of President M'Kinley; and whether offers of mediation between the United States and Spain in relation to Cuban troubles have been made from exalted quarters in England to the President of the Republic?
  MR. CURZON: I hope the hon. Member will allow me to say that the whole of his Questions are of a character to which it would be inexpedient for me to reply.

  WAIMA QUESTION.
  MR. DAVITT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any representations have been made by the French Government to Her Majesty's Government respecting the alleged killing of any French subjects in disputed or other territories in West Africa by British forces or by subjects or servants of the Niger Company;

  1527
  whether any demand has been made for compensation; and whether, in the event of compensation having to be paid, the money will be provided by Her Majesty's Government or by the Niger Company?
  MR. CURZON: Both the French and the British aspect of the Waima Question have been under discussion, but I have not heard of any formal claim for compensation having been made by the French Government.

  STATE-GUARANTEED RAILWAY LOANS IN INDIA.
  MR. MACLEAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India what sums of money have been raised since the closing of the Indian Mints in June 1893, by railway companies on a guarantee by the Secretary of State; and what further sums have been raised, whether as share capital or on debentures, by railway companies which have agreements with the Secretary of State, but have not received an actual guarantee?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: The sums of money which have been raised since the closing of the Indian Mints in June, 1893, by railway companies on a guarantee by the Secretary of State, amount to £6,663,051; and further sums raised in England, whether as share capital or on debentures, by railway companies which have agreements with the Secretary of State but have not received an actual guarantee, amount to £3,684,282.

  REFUSAL OF CHARTER TO MERTHYR.
  MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that the Commissioner appointed by the Privy Council to inquire into the question of whether or not a charter of incorporation should be granted on the town and borough of Merthyr, made a recommendation that the charter be granted, he will explain why the Privy Council have now refused to grant such charter?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I am informed by the Privy Council Office that the Commissioner appointed by them was instructed only to investigate the allegations contained in the Petitions for and against incorporation, and to furnish a Report with a view to enable the Department to decide on the nature of the representation that should be addressed to the Crown. It was not part of the duty of the Commissioner to make any recommendation for or against the application for incorporation, his Report being confined to the statement of facts which he was instructed to furnish.

  BRITISH INTERESTS AT HONG KONG.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of our important interests in Hong Kong, commercial and otherwise, and the recent action of Foreign Powers in regard to China, steps will be taken to acquire the islands contiguous to that Colony, and any further portion of the mainland opposite if needful for the defence of that British Colony?
  MR. CURZON: The question of the steps to be taken for the proper securing of our possessions at Hong Kong have for some time past engaged the attention of Her Majesty's Government, and will not be lost sight of by them.

  DEATHS OF AGED INMATES OF WORKHOUSES.
  MR. W. HAZELL: On behalf of the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Billson), I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can give the number of deaths of inmates of workhouses in England and Wales over 60 years of age during the years 1895, 1896, and 1897, and the proportion such deaths bear to the general death-rate over the same age in England and Wales?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): I am unable to give the particulars referred to in the

  1529
  Question. The annual Reports of the Registrar General show for each year the total number of deaths in each workhouse, and the total number in the workhouses in the several counties in England and Wales. But these Returns do not show separately the deaths of persons over and under 60 years of age.

  BRITISH SEAMEN ON RUSSIAN VESSELS.
  MR. G. DRAGE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether, under the Russian Law which comes into force in 1900, Russian shipowners will be deprived of the right to employ British seamen: and, whether the restriction applies to the ocean trade as well as to the coasting trade?
  MR. CURZON: It is understood from a Report received from Her Majesty's Consul General at St. Petersburg on 10th August, 1897, and published as No. 1998 of the Annual Series, that by the law which comes into force in January, 1900—
  "The privilege enjoyed by Russian shipowners of employing an unlimited number of foreign seamen on board their vessels will be withdrawn, and Russian seamen must, when the ukase conies into operation, alone man high-sea coasters."

  RUSSIAN SHIPYARD IN THE BALTIC.
  MR. DRAGE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the duty levied by the Russian Government on British built ships amounts to 25 or 30 per cent.; whether Baron Stromberg has made arrangements with the Thames Ironworks and Shipbuilding Company for the establishment of a great shipyard at a Baltic port at which only Russian workmen are to be employed and only Russian materials used; whether that company has agreed to complete the work at a cheaper rate than on the Thames; and, whether the Russian Government has guaranteed to keep the yard always supplied with work?
  MR. CURZON: The rates of duty given in the Question are approximately correct. Information was received on the 28th ultimo from Her Majesty's Ambassador at St. Petersburg, to the effect that the Thames Ironworks were negotiating for a contract with the Russian Government for the construction of a naval dockyard in the Baltic, but we are informed that no result has yet been arrived at.

  GADDESBY SCHOOL BOARD.
  MR. HAZELL: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether his attention has been called to the action of the chairman of the school board of Gaddesby, Leicestershire, in March last, in requiring a proposed master to undertake to play the organ in church on Sundays and without extra remuneration, and whether he is aware that in consequence of this stipulation the candidate, who was a Nonconformist, withdrew his application; whether such an attempt to get church work done by masters of the school is legal; and, whether he will use his influence to prevent such pressure being put upon Nonconformists in future?
  SIR JOHN GORST: The Education Department received a communication on this subject in August last. It is to be regretted that they have no power to prevent, School Boards or managers of schools from making such conditions of employment of teachers as they think fit.

  SLAVE SALES AT SAFFI.
  MR. HAZELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the open sale of slaves takes place in Saffi, a coast town of Morocco, contrary to the undertaking given by the Moorish Government to the late Sir John Drummond Hay; whether such, sales have occurred more frequently in 1897 than in any previous year since this arrangement was entered into; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will use their influence with the Sultan of

  1531
  Morocco to the end that this undertaking may be adhered to?
  MR. CURZON: Her Majesty's Minister at Tangier has telegraphed, in reply to an inquiry addressed to him, that no public sales of slaves had been reported to him from Saffi or elsewhere in Morocco. Her Majesty's consular officers have standing instructions to report any case which may come to their knowledge; and if any sale had occurred at Saffi during 1897 it would have been reported to Tangier. An attempt at a public sale of slaves at Saffi in 1896 was stopped on the representation of the British Vice-Consul, and the auctioneer was imprisoned. The Governor of Saffi issued orders on that occasion prohibiting the sale of slaves. Her Majesty's Government lose no opportunity of pressing their views upon the Moorish Government. I may add that the hon. Member, having kindly sent to me an extract from the Press upon which his inquiries are based, I have called the attention of Her Majesty's Minister at Tangier to the statements in question, and have instructed him to inquire and report thereon.

  CHARTERED INSTITUTE OF PATENT AGENTS.
  MR. ALBAN GIBBS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade have the Board of Trade published any further accounts of the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents since the accounts from June, 1889, to 30th April, 1890, were published in No. 74, Vol. XIII., 1892, of the Board of Trade Journal; and, if not, will the President cause a detailed report to be published at an early period, bringing them up to the present date?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): The hon. Member will find a statement of account down to 1894 at page 197 of the Report of the Select Committee on the Patents Agents Bill (H.C. 235–1894). I will ask the Institute for a further account, and have it published in the Board of Trade Journal.

  INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SUGAR BOUNTIES.
  SIR THOMAS SUTHERLAND: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is in a position to give the names of the Powers which have accepted the invitation of Belgium to a Conference on the subject of Sugar Bounties; and whether such acceptances have been given unreservedly so as to allow complete freedom in dealing with the discussion of bounties under whatever system of legislation they may be known to exist?
  MR. CURZON: We have not yet been informed either of the number or the character of the replies that have been given to the invitation of the Belgian Government.

  TUNIS AGREEMENT.
  MR. C. E. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it has now been decided by the Government of Tunis that only the minimum tariff of five per cent. is to be applied for the future by the custom house officials at Tunis to English cotton goods, other than those classes understood commonly as "cotonnades" in France?
  MR. CURZON: The hon. Member is, I think, in some confusion. There is no minimum tariff of 5 per cent. nor is there a special tariff applied to English cotton goods other than "cotonnades." The contention of Her Majesty's Government is that all cotton goods are included in "cotonnades," and are entitled to the 5 per cent. fixed by the late Agreement, and they have made representations to the French Government in that sense. Upon goods other than cottons, the French cannot, until 1905, because of the Franco-Italian Agreement, charge more than the rates of the French minimum tariff, but, as a matter of fact, they are at present charging less—namely, the 8 per cent. leviable under the old Anglo-Tunisian Treaty.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. J. MORLEY: Will the First Lord of the Treasury tell us what business will be taken on Thursday? I understand, of course, that the answer partly depends on the progress made to-night.
  DR. R. FARQUHARSON: And what Supply will be taken on Friday?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I am afraid that all these Questions are problematical, as the answers depend on the progress we make to-night. I hope to get the Supplementary Estimates through on Thursday night; but in any case they must be got through by Friday night in order to comply with the law. What Bills will be taken on Thursday will depend on the progress we make with the Estimates to-night. The Bills which are on the Paper to-night, but which may not be dealt with, will have precedence; but I ought to make an exception in favour of a Resolution of my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works, who, as the House knows, has to bring in a Bill which must be passed at a near date to enable the new Government buildingtobe commenced at Whitehall.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I would ask whether, if Thursday is to be devoted to Bills, precedence will be given to those which remain over from to-night. I have particularly in view the Private Bill Procedure (Scotland) Bill. I do not express any hostility to the Bill, but it has not been long enough in the hands of Members to enable them to become duly informed of general Scottish opinion on the subject, and if it could be passed over it might be convenient?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman, at all events, speaks on this subject for an important Scottish section, and, in order to meet his views, I shall not, in any circumstances, take the Bill on Thursday next.
  MR. P. O. O'BRIEN: Is it intended to take the Budget before Easter?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No, Sir.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Do we understand that the Dogs Bill will not be taken to-night?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am sorry to say my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture is prevented by indisposition from being in his place this evening, and under this circumstance the Bill will not be proceeded with to-night.
  MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that the Merchant Shipping Bill shall not be taken before 11 to-night?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I should be sorry to give the hon. Member the pledge he asks for, as it might lead to the waste of an hour of valuable time.

  RUSSIA AND PORT ARTHUR.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: I desire to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question of which I have not been able to give him private notice, but to which he may, perhaps, be able to give a reply. It is, whether it is true that Her Majesty's Government have protested against the cession of Port Arthur to Russia?
  MR. CURZON: I am sure that I will have the agreement of the House with me in saying that this is not the sort of Question which ought to be put without any notice at all.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: I am sorry; but I will give notice for to-morrow.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  LODGERS' DECLARATION (IRELAND) BILL.
  *THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. JOHN ATKINSON,), in asking leave to introduce the Bill to extend to Ireland the provisions of Section 25 of the

  1535
  Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878, relating to lodgers, said: When the Act of 1884 came into force it extended the provisions of Section 23 of the Act of 1878 to Ireland, but it omitted to extend the provisions of Section 25, and the necessity for the Bill arose from the fact that there was really no legislative enactment dealing with the irregularities that were said to have taken place at the recent election in the St. Stephen's Green Division, Dublin. Those irregularities were by no means confined to one party; on the contrary, both parties appeared to have resorted to them with equal freedom. There was no express statutory power to deal with those irregularities, and it was extremely doubtful whether, under the common law, the guilty parties could be visited with punishment. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean had informed him that he was opposed to the Bill, and had been kind enough to state the grounds upon which he took that course, which were that he thought the law should be more stringent. It might be that it was desirable that the law should be strengthened, but if so, should be done by a general Measure. This Bill was introduced more or less on the understanding that if it merely extended the English law to Ireland, it would be treated as a non-contentious Measure.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE:said that the case of the Attorney General for Ireland was that there was fraud in the lodger registrations in Ireland for which the Government desired to introduce a remedy. His case was that the Bill would be no remedy, as it would be impossible in Committee to make it workable. The Act of 1878 was founded on three Bills of private Members, which were consolidated in Committee. Section 25 was put in by the Select Committee which considered the Bill, and it was passed through the House without amendment. The Section at first might have had a deterrent effect, but very soon fraud commenced to develop, and had developed to an enormous extent. Section 25 had been found to be inoperative, and he (Sir Charles) was in a position to assure the House that
  1536
  gross frauds were going on with regard to lodger claims, and the section had been a complete failure. After the passing of the Act, the practice still continued of directing the appearance of lodger claimants in court, and it was also considered that they ought to sign their own claims; but the Revising Barristers became aware that it was not in their power to compel their attendance. There was a recent case—the Tapp case—which arose in the Frome Division of Somersetshire. A lodger claim had been there investigated, which was that of one of four men who occupied two beds in one room. It was sent for trial to the Assizes, and taken up by the Treasury. The Judge laid it down that "ignorantly and carelessly" signing a claim was not "falsely and fraudulently" signing; and, for that reason, it was essential in trying to deal with a lodger claim to show it was false and fraudulent in order to substantiate a prosecution, and that could not be done. It could be shown that the claim was false, and all the facts were false, but it could not be proved that the claim was made with a fraudulent intent. In the Tapp case the witness to the claim had been severely scolded by the Judge, but the jury were directed to acquit. The Government, when they had given notice of this Bill, had been under the impression that the law in Scotland was the same as the law in England, but he was not aware that the section had been applied to Scotland; and in Scotland there had, curiously enough, been recent successful cases of prosecution for fraudulent lodger claims, in which it had been laid down that a "reckless claim" was a crime against the common law of Scotland. To make the Bill of any value, it would be necessary to leave out the false and fraudulent part of it, and unless they did so they would not succeed in preventing fraud, and it would be impossible to do that in Committee. Fraud to an enormous extent prevailed in England, and he would be happy to show proofs of the same which he had received. They arose not through individuals, but through the acts of the clerks of the various political agents, who were paid by results, with the natural consequences. In one case, three claims were made on behalf of one man, who turned out to be an imaginary personage altogether, by

  1537
  three different clerks, for three different political Parties, none having authority to make the claims. Five members of one family were claimed for by two clerks belonging to one party, two of the forms being written by A and signed by B, and three of the forms written by B and signed by A. All these had been allowed by benevolent revising barristers, in spite of the fact that on one of the claims was written the fact that the man did not reside in the district, for there was often no opposition in such cases. These frauds were not peculiar to any one party, but were common to all Things were not yet so bad in England as they had been in New Zealand before the adoption of universal suffrage, when the claims of six bullocks belonging to the father of a Member of the House of Commons had been allowed; but the horse which brought him to the House in the morning was itself named after an imaginary lodger that the enterprise of the political parties in Chelsea might have succeeded in placing on the register but for the fact that they had not noticed that the number chosen represented his own stable. He should not press his objection further, but it was for the Irish Members to consider whether it was worth while extending this section to Ireland.
  MR. W. H. K. REDMONDrose to speak, when—
  MR. SPEAKERpointed out that no other Member could speak under the Standing Orders.
  Bill subsequently brought up and read a first time.

  VAGRANCY ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. W. RIDLEY, Lancashire, N., Blackpool)moved for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Vagrancy Act of 1824.
  MR. E. H. PICKERSGILLsaid he would be glad if the right hon. Member would indicate the object of the Bill, and he also desired to call attention to the fact that under one of the sections of the Vagrancy Act of 1821 there was a power to order persons who
  1538
  were known to be incorrigible rogues to be flogged, and there were instances where the power had been recently exercised. He desired to know whether the right hon. Gentleman proposed to deal with that matter in this Bill he asked leave to bring in?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENTsaid that it was intended for the purpose of bringing under the operation of the Vagrancy Act, 1824, as rogues and vagabonds, those men who lived by the disgraceful earnings of the women whom they consorted with and controlled. Against these enemies of society, commonly called "bullies," a Bill had already been introduced by an hon. Member; but it was open to considerable objection, which this Bill avoided. The question had been much pressed upon him during the last few months, and, as the present Measure was very short and simple, he hoped that the House would give to it a favourable consideration.
  Bill brought up and read a first time.

SUPPLY.

  SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith), CHAIRMAN OF WATS AND MEANS, in the Chair.]
  (In the Committee.)

  WEST INDIA GRANT.
  On the Vote in the Civil Service Supplementary Estimates and Excess Votes for a further Supplementary Sum of £120,000 for Sundry Colonial Services, including Colonial Grants-in-Aid,
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I had hoped that in proposing this Vote to the House, and putting forward some resolutions on

  1539
  the subject, I might have had an opportunity of making a general statement as to the present condition and the future prospects of the West Indies, and also as to the proposals which the Government will have to make ultimately to the House, on what may be called the temporary crisis there; but I have already stated, in answer to a question put by the hon. Member for Northampton, that it will be impossible for me to give any answer upon this general question at the present time for this reason, that we are engaged in negotiations with the United States of America, and also with the Dominion of Canada, which we hope may result in the reciprocity arrangement between those countries and the West Indies for their produce. I am unable at present to say that the negotiations have made much progress. The United States of America ask very considerable concessions from them in return for reciprocity concessions, and I am not quite certain that it will be possible for the West Indies in then present condition to make the concessions which the United States of America call for from them. But, while that is uncertain, it is clearly impossible for Her Majesty's Government to form an opinion as to the necessities of these Colonies. It is evident that if the reciprocity concessions were made in the first instance they would be of great advantage to the sugar industry. It would give the islands something like a bounty on all that production which goes to the United States, and, as at least, something like three-quarters of their produce does go to the United States, it is very plain they would be in a very different position if such negotiations were successfully concluded. But, as I have already said, the West Indies will have to give something in return for the boon which they are to receive, and that will be in the nature of a very considerable reduction upon their import duties, which will affect in a most serious way the budgets of these Colonies and undoubtedly disorganise the finance. Until we know what the reciprocity concessions are going to be, or until we know what may be possible, we cannot form any opinion of the necessities of the West Indian Government on the position which will have to be accepted
  1540
  by the sugar industry; so that what I have to do this evening is to ask the House kindly to treat the proposals which we make entirely on their own merits, and I would venture, if I may, respectfully to deprecate any discussion on the general question. I am not quite certain whether any general discussion would be in order upon such a Motion as I have to make, but in any case I think it would be inconvenient and unsatisfactory to hon. Members, who desire to raise the general question both of the condition of the West Indies and the extent to which that condition is affected by bounties, and as to the measures which ought to be taken in order to meet—
  MR. H. LABOUCHERE: Are we to understand that there will be an opportunity for discussing the general question before anything is done?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: Yes, I was first going to say that undoubtedly I have already given a pledge to-night which I think covers the question of the hon. Gentleman, that not a penny shall be spent for the benefit of the West Indies until the pleasure of the House has been taken upon the proposals, and I wish the Committee to understand that the proposal which we are making to-day is a very small proposal on the fringe of the subject, and which does not at all touch the much larger question of what will have to be done, or may have to be done, if matters continue in their present state. The Committee may take it from me, a full opportunity will be given to consider whatever proposals Her Majesty's Government may ultimately bring forward. I ought to point out to the Committee that the present proposals are altogether independent of the larger proposals to which I referred just now. The present proposal will be necessary under any circumstances—that is to say, even if the bounties were abolished tomorrow we should still come to the House and ask for these particular grants. The grants are of two kinds. In the first place, there is a grant to wipe off certain deficits which have accumulated, in many cases, over a considerable period of

  1541
  years, in eight of the islands, or groups of islands, in the West Indian Colonies, and which the resources of the Colonies are entirely unable, to discharge. In the second place, a grant is asked for to assist in land settlement in the island of St. Vincent, and in the making of roads in the island of Dominica. As regards these deficits which we are asking the House to clear up, I want, in the first place, to meet an objection I have seen taken to proposals of this kind—namely, that they are in the nature of doles. I do not know really if they were to be considered as a free gift proceeding from the generosity of this country, whether that would be any objection, or whether, in fact, the House would not be perfectly well justified in conceding it. But, as the word "dole" is always used in order to create prejudice, I venture to say, in the present instance, that these grants are not to be considered as doles, but as the necessary expenses of empires. They are not, in any sense, unprecedented. We have always had to make grants in aid of those of our Crown Colonies or Protectorates which have been unable, by themselves, to secure the necessities of ordinary administration. We undertook a responsibility with regard to these Crown Colonies and Protectorates which are distinctly under our control. We have to see that the responsibility is fulfilled, and, of course, it includes the provision of all that is necessary for reasonable and proper administration. We recognise that in the case of Protectorates which have not been developed and which are in the early stages of our possession. For instance, we take a grant at the present time for Uganda, for British Bechuanaland, for Basutoland, and we are asking, in addition, for an increased grant for Cyprus, and, also, we are asking for the first time this year for a grant which has been rendered necessary by the developments of other Powers in connection with our West African Colonies. As I have said, it is part of the necessary consequences of empire. We cannot be an Imperial Power unless we undertake to fulfil these responsibilities, but it is, no doubt, rather an exception that we should come for any grant of this kind. We have been much more fortunate, or, at all events, our policy has been very different from that of other colonising Powers. The grant for the Colonies, in
  1542
  the case of France, amounts annually to something over three millions sterling. The grants for the German Colonies are also of a very largo amount indeed. In our case, in the vast majority of our Colonies, no claim whatever is made upon this country, and even where a claim has been made it has always hitherto been very small; but I will not say that, in all cases, our policy has any advantage ever that of our Continental competitors. They, perhaps, may spend too much, but I also am bound to say that I think, on many occasions they spend very wisely, and they recognise that in the long run it will pay them to develop their Colonies by means of assistance from the mother-country, and develop them much more speedily than is possible if they are left entirely to their own resources. Be that as it may, we are not asking now for investments in the Colonies; we are only asking for that assistance which, as I shall show, is absolutely necessary in the present instance in order that they may be decently administered. The principle, therefore, which I ask the House to accept, is that in all cases in which we are ourselves fully responsible for the administration of the Colonies we must, if necessary, provide for the unavoidable cost of that administration, and we cannot allow these Colonies to fall into anarchy, or the necessary Services, such as education or police, to be neglected, in consequence of want of funds. But I must go a step farther. What I have said applies generally to any Crown Colony which might find itself in the position of those to which I am referring; but I do not hesitate to go farther, and say that in the case of the West Indies there is a special obligation which rests upon this country. That special obligation is referred to in the Report of the Royal Commission, and let me express here the gratitude of Her Majesty's Government to the Royal Commissioners who undertook what was a very laborious inquiry, and have presented to us a most admirable and valuable Report. In the concluding paragraphs of that Report the Royal Commissioners say that, in the case of the West Indies, the population, which is chiefly a population of negroes, has been placed in the islands by force, either by compulsion employed by this country in the old days of the slave trade, or by compulsion employed by other

  1543
  countries, but of which we took upon ourselves the consequences when we took possession of the Colonies; and the Commissioners go on to say—
  "We have placed the labouring population where it is, and created the conditions, moral and material, under which it exists, and we cannot divert from ourselves responsibility for its future."
  I associate myself entirely with that observation, and I believe it constitutes an additional claim upon this country, in consequence of the distress which now overhang's the islands. One other remark must be made, and that is that the distress is due, as the Report of the Commissioners shows, to the failure of the sugar industry. The failure of the sugar industry is due in part to the failure of the bounty system.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: If the hon. Gentleman raises that point, he must remember that we shall go into it.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIKS: I will put it in this way: The failure of the sugar industry is stated by the Commissioners to be partly due to the bounty system which is imposed by foreign countries. I am only summarising the paragraphs of the Report on that point, and then at the same time it points out—I will use the exact words—
  "We, the British taxpayers, have been reaping great benefit from precisely that set of circumstances which have been a factor in bringing the West Indies to the verge of serious disaster."
  I think that is a fact which none will be disposed to contest, and that is a reason which is put forward by the Commissioners as a reason why we should treat them generously in the circumstances in which they find themselves. There remain, however, two questions to consider before we can ask the House to pass these grants. The first is, whether the expenditure of the islands can be further reduced; and the second is, whether the taxation of the islands can be further increased. Now, I think, it will be sufficient to take the case of two of the islands as illustrative of the condition of the rest. The island of St. Vincent has a deficit at the present time of £15,000, which is the result of successive deficits extending over a long period of years.
  1544
  The duties were largely increased in 1895, and a further increase of 10 per cent. was again added in 1896. The result is that the revenue has decreased. The revenue in 1894 was £28,000, and in 1897 it had fallen off to £24,000. I think that is a proof that the limit of profitable taxation has been reached. You cannot get blood out of a stone. These people are people who are excessively poor, and who consume very little, and the moment you put additional taxation upon them you reduce their power of consumption, and you do not bring anything more into the treasury. If I turn to the other side of the account, to the question of possible economies, I have to say that already everything has been done that could be done to save money. A change has been made, chiefly in the shape of the reduction of salaries of some of the less absolutely necessary Services, by which it is hoped something like £3,000 a year may be saved; but nothing more is possible, except at the expense either of public order or of public health. Then there is the case of Dominica, where the deficiency is still larger. In the case of Dominica, the story is the same. Taxation has very largely increased, but, nevertheless, the revenue has fallen off from £57,600 in 1894 to £46,800 in 1897. The Commissioners say—
  "It is not easy to see how further taxation can be imposed. The island is quite unable to provide for its own administrative needs."
  I need only add that we recognise that in the past there may have been, and there has been in some cases especially, unnecessary expenditure, or expenditure that has not been wisely made nor wisely watched; and, in order that this, may not happen in future, it is the intention of the Government, in every case in which a grant is made to> any of these islands, to see that we have full and absolute control over the taxation and the expenditure. I say that generally, although, perhaps, in order to be perfectly accurate, it may be necessary to make some sort of exception in the case of Barbados, which is exceptionally situated. It has a Constitution which goes back for 300 years; a Constitution which, in the case of that island, has on the whole worked well, and the economy on the whole has been fairly satisfactory. At the present time we are not asking

  1545
  anything for Barbados, but I mention the case of that island in order hereafter that it may not be supposed that I have misled anybody. I have now said all that is necessary in order, I hope, to justify the first part of the proposal which I ask the Committee to accept. I have pointed out that it is absolutely necessary, and, in our opinion, it is the duty of this country to provide what is deficient in such a case; but I do not wish the Committee to think that even then we shall be in a position of losers by the transaction. If we consider the possibility that the only alternative to such grants as these, is that we should bid these islands good-bye, and sever the connection which has so long existed between the mother-country and the West Indies, I think it would be easy to show the Committee that we should lose more then than we shall pay in the grants that we propose. Even now, in spite of the condition to which they are reduced, these islands still take from us every year from £2,750,000 sterling to £3,000,000 of British and Irish produce, and I think it will be evident to the Committee that, even to such a trade as ours, that amount must be of very considerable importance, while it finds subsistence for a large number of the working people. The remainder of the grant, £30,000, is asked for special expenditure in Dominica and in St. Vincent. Whatever else may be thought of the general recommendations of the Royal Commission on one point, I imagine there must be universal agreement and assent, and that is the proposition which they have laid down that, in view of the possible failure of sugar, it is absolutely necessary to find other industries, and other employment for the working people of these islands. The Royal Commission lay very great stress, in connection with all these islands, on the possibility of creating, where it is not yet created, an extended peasant cultivating class on the waste lands that are not yet appropriated in the Colonies; and, undoubtedly, they are right. So far as actual subsistence goes, the negroes can live on very little; and on a comparatively small area of land they would be able to keep their families from starvation. But in order that they may obtain such other necessaries as they require beyond mere sub-
  1546
  sistence —such as clothes and tools—it is necessary for them to provide something which can be exported, something which is valuable as a matter of export, and so it will be necessary to pay great attention to the possible subsidiary industries of fruit, coffee, and cocoa, according to the suitability of the different islands for the cultivation thereof. But in the case of the two islands—St. Vincent especially—it has become urgently necessary to provide some employment for the people, because a large proportion of the population are at the present time almost without occupation. Employment in St. Vincent is very scarce indeed, and the wages are reduced almost to starvation point. Under these circumstances the Government propose to accept, and to carry out, the recommendations of the Royal Commission and to endeavour to secure land in order to settle upon it some portion, at any rate, of this population. St. Vincent is rather peculiar at the present time in its condition. There is very little Crown land available in St. Vincent, and what there is is so situated as not to be useful for this purpose. There are no proper communications to it. Besides, much of it appears to be situated on the hills, and, therefore, quite unfitted for the purpose which is required. What the Commissioners recommend is to purchase a portion of the abandoned estates on the coast, in order to place upon them the population—in fad, to carry out on a very small scale, with Government funds, in St. Vincent what is already being carried out on a large scale with Government funds in Ireland.
  MR. M. DAVITT: Is the land to be purchased landlord property?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR the COLONIES: The land belongs to some one. If the land is to be purchased it has to be bought from some one, and I assume that the owner may be called the landlord, although I believe the person from whom we shall purchase has no tenants, and whether he can be called a landlord under those circumstances I do not know. There are certain estates on the coast in St. Vincent, which cannot be carried on as sugar estates. The owners of them have not the capital, and, even if they had, it

  1547
  is doubtful whether on this island the industry could profitably be worked. These estates either are, or will be, in the market. They may have to be sold in consequence of the foreclosing of the mortgage, but if they do not come into the market in ordinary circumstances we shall take compulsory powers to expropriate them. I may say I will pledge myself to the Committee, as far as I personally can, to see that nothing like an exorbitant price is given, because the land has ceased to be valuable for the purpose of sugar cultivation, and we shall only pay for it what may be really called a fair and reasonable market price. That is the case so far as St. Vincent is concerned. With regard to Dominica there is no necessity for purchasing land, because the Crown, fortunately, have a very large estate, amounting to 90,000 acres of land, which is extremely suit able for small cultivation. But in Dominica the difficulty is that there is no communication to this land. I must say, with reference to Dominica, the state of the island is not at all creditable to the British Government, that while we have been in possession of the island for more than a century we have done absolutely nothing for it. It is almost in the undeveloped condition in which we took it. Here is some of the best and richest land in the whole of the West Indies absolutely unworkable at the present time, in consequence of the Government having in the past neglected to give any assistance to make the necessary communications. What we now propose to do is to open up a portion of the Crown lands in that island by means of roads, and it is for the making of those roads we ask for this small grant. As soon as we have made these roads, there is no doubt we shall be able to dispose of a considerable portion of the Crown land to peasant proprietors, or to small cultivators, if they prefer it, at a nominal rental. This is only a small proposal, and must be treated entirely separately from the great question of the future condition of the West Indies. To that matter we shall return as soon as the negotiations with the United States of America and Canada have come to an end, but in the meantime we hope the Committee will accept the small proposal we bring before them, and will not refuse the grant for which we ask.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: In this question, with regard to item "D," I have an Amendment to propose, and upon item "S" I have a few observations to make. I was very much surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies, who has always been in favour of expansion of the Empire, speak as he did. I have always been under the impression that, even if we did put some small amounts into these new Colonies, such as Uganda, when we first occupied them, we did so as a matter of speculation, because not only would they pay for themselves but we might ultimately benefit from them. But he has now started new premisses. He says it is for Imperial power that we should always pay. We spent £20,000,000 there in the days of the slave trade, and we are now asked to spend a further amount because these people cannot pay their own taxes. We have had these Colonies for very-many years, and now we are told that we must advance money because they have deficits, and, in all probability, as far as I can see, we shall invariably have to advance these moneys. What possible advantages are these islands to us? Take the case of Dominica and St. Vincent. The right hon. Gentleman said that several millions of British manufactured goods are imported by these Colonies, but, as a matter of fact, the whole of the imports of manufactured goods to Dominica and St. Vincent is about £100,000, and of this a very considerable amount comes from the United States. Therefore, if we look at it as a mere business speculation, I really do not see where we can possibly hope to gain by making these advances. Sir, the right hon. Gentleman said that we ought not only to do our duty and be just to the Colonies in advancing this money, but that we ought to act in a generous spirit, because these Colonies have lost by the bounties and we have benefited. Sir, I shall be prepared to show when we come to consider the question of the bounties that the West Indies have lost absolutely nothing. But the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that it was impossible to reduce the expenditure of the islands of Dominica and St. Vincent. I hold that it is very easy to reduce the expenditure.

  1549
  Take the case of Dominica. In the case of Dominica the expenditure is £26,000 per annum. There are about 26,000 inhabitants in the whole of the island, of which one-third are white. Well, Sir, we know that Dominica, and many of those islands, have been the dumping ground for English civilians. I was told only a day or two ago that you have practically found civilians tumbling over one another, rive men doing the work of one, and that every man had three times the proper value. You could very well work the whole business of government for infinitely less than £26,000. I hold that until yon have looked thoroughly into the whole question of expenditure in these islands we ought not to advance one shilling of money. It is all very well for these islands to come to us after a succession of years, and say, "We have a, debit, and cannot pay it ourselves." It is the case of a young man who gets recklessly into debt and then goes and sponges on his father. We ought not to act in this foolish manner. We know perfectly will that as long as there is a paymaster in England ready to pay for all the expenditure that haw taken place in these islands, or any of the Colonies, money will be squandered. I want the cost of government to be reduced. bought to have a clear and definite understanding that the expenditure will be reduced—that the coat will be cut according to the cloth—and that these people will not come upon us every year to pay the debts of their government. It has been asked what would become of these islands if the help were not given. I will fell the right hon. Gentleman. I have been a great deal in the West Indies, and I have been a great deal in Central America, and there is no place where people live more comfortably upon nothing than they do there. Well, it is the case. They have the simple clothes which Nature requires in that part of the world—of course, exceedingly little—and they live happy and contented lives. Let us leave these people alone, and they will be infinitely better off than many people in Ireland, and infinitely better off than many people in this country. Well, the people of this country are called upon to give these grants to make them more comfortable. I protest against these per-
  1550
  sistent raids on the British taxpayer. The present Government, seems to have but one idea, and that is to buy up any number of people who come forward with a grievance, at the expense of that poor, wretched creature, the British taxpayer. It is all classes, classes, classes. The fact is that the real persons who are going to be benefited by these grants are the sugar-planters, or, in other words, the landlords. They have been at the bottom of all the trouble with the people of Dominica. The people of Dominica will not, and cannot, benefit in any sort of way by your advancing this money; nothing you can do will benefit the commercial condition of those black fellow-countrymen of ours. Leave them alone. Leave them happy and contented, as they really would be. If you do away with the sugar system, which has been the curse of the West Indies, do not start the theory that it is one of the duties of the Empire to stand money whenever we are called upon to stand it, taking it from the British taxpayer and giving it to the people who really do not want it.
  MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES: I do not propose to enter upon the policy involved in these grants-in-aid, although the impression I have gained from reading the Report of the Commission is that throughout the West Indies generally the expenses have been great, the deficits large, and economy totally disregarded. But I wish to particularly address myself to the financial aspect of this Vote, and I do very seriously lament the fact that the Government brought in such enormous Supplementary Estimates. The system of bringing in Supplementary Estimates can only be defended in an emergency. Then, of course, if is proper to come to this House for Supplementary Votes in respect of matters which are not foreseen. This is a modern practice. There were no Supplementary Votes in 1894, and very few in 1895, but more recently they have increased, and this year they are over £2,000,000. The tendency of the Government seems to be to take possession of the surplus, and to prevent any of it going for the diminution of the national expenditure. In, fact, it is like taking this year's income and putting

  1551
  upon this year charges which ought strictly to come in next year's changes, and to be provided for by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget for next year. I think, Sir, Supplementary Estimates require special attention on the part of this House to see that it really is an Estimate that can be justified on the ground that it is caused by an unexpected emergency. Well, now, I have looked at this Estimate, and I must say generally, with regard to it, that although my right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Colonies says that it is but the fringe of the larger question, it does seem to me that we cannot adequately discuss even this Estimate until we have the whole position before us. It might be that when we come to the fabric we shall find that the fringe has nothing to do with it. But we cannot judge at present. It may be, on the other hand, that when these proposals are brought forward they will be found to intimately concern the other Vote. I think, to say the least, it is inconvenient that Her Majesty's Government should have been forced to bring in Supplementary Estimates at all. But I am still more surprised, not at what the right hon. Gentleman said, which, as usual, is admirable, but at what he did not say. Of course, I expected with regard to this item of £90,000 asked for to clear off some floating deficiencies with regard to these islands, that my right hon. Friend would tell us what those deficiencies were in each case. He only gave the deficiency in the case of St. Vincent, which he said was £15,000.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: I have made a mistake. I should have said that the deficiency in the case of St. Vincent was £11,000. The difference between the Commissioners' Estimate and the present Estimate is probably accounted for by the fact that since then the deficit has been increased.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Quite so. Well, now, the Committee are entirely without information as to how this £90,000 is to be made up. I have endeavoured to make up the total deficit from the Report of the Commissioners, and I cannot make it more than £59,000
  1552
  altogether. I should, therefore, like the right hon. Gentleman to explain how he arrives at the total of £90,000 which we are asked to vote. Perhaps when be replies he will be able to give a list of the deficits.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: The deficit in the case of Tobago is £4,000; St, Vincent, £11,000; Antigua, £30,500; St. Kitts, £29,500; Montserrat, £8,250; Virgin Islands, £2,000; Dominica and St. Lucia together, £1,500; and in all these cases there is some question whether the amount will be required. The total is £86,750, but there will be required further sums for the excess of expenditure over the revenue during the first three months of 1896.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I am extremely obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for those figures, but I still cannot understand the statement as to the deficit in Dominica and St. Lucia. In February, 1896, the right hon. Gentleman proposed, and obtained, a Vote of £15,000 for Dominica. Of that sum, £5,000 was for roads and £10,000 was to clear off the deficit and start the island afresh. The only result of our policy seems to be to produce a succession of further deficiencies, and I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee that they are opening up an interminable avenue of grants. Although we have large surpluses and opportunities for appropriating money, the day may arrive when we shall find it difficult to meet our own expenditure. It is hard enough to do that without being called upon to find further, and perhaps increased, sums to increase the prosperity, if possible, of the West Indies. There is one other point I would like to put to the right hon. Gentleman. The total sum recommended by the Commissioners is £60,000, and the right hon. Gentleman asks for £90,000; consequently, he can please himself with regard to the £30,000 beyond the recommendation of the Commissioners. The right hon. Gentleman has told the Committee incidentally how that sum is made up, consequently we shall be able to get some further light upon it, and

  1553
  probably a Commissioner may tell us what he thinks of the fact that, whereas the Commission recommended £60,000, the Colonial Office now ask for half as much again. There is only one more point, and I have done. This item of £60,000, it will be observed, is a free grant, made in respect of certain specified islands, and it is to be spent during this year. Now, what I want to ask the right eon. Gentleman—or, I would rather ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whom I am glad to see in his place—is, whether this grant-in-aid is to be subject to what I consider is an extremely proper rule, that in case the whole of this £90,000 is not required will the balance be devoted to the reduction of the debt? I dare say the Colonial Secretary will say that there is no chance of getting any money back. I would remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this did occur in the case of Bechuanaland, for this House voted £30,000 in that instance, in consequence of events which took place there. Nevertheless, the amount was something like £20,000, and, instead of being surrendered, the balance was kept back. What I want the right hon. Gentleman to do, if he can—or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will—is to tell the House whether, if the whole of this £90,000 is not required for the purpose for which it has been voted, the balance will be surrendered to the reduction of the National Debt. I think it is a very important point—considering the number of those grants-in-aid—in principle as any financial point that will be raised with regard to these Supplementary Estimates, because they have become enormous, and they are calculated to relieve next year's income at the expense of this year's surplus. The surplus is only a blunder, and if there be two or three millions of a surplus, it only means that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken two or three millions more in taxation than he needed to have taken. I think it is false finance to do this, and thus relieve the following year of its proper burdens. I view with great apprehension this multiplication of these Supplementary Estimates and the system of grants-in-aid which are neither to be extended nor surrendered—I am speaking of specific grants-in-aid. This is the condition of things; it is applied to certain specified objects, and unless we have the
  1554
  balances surrendered, it is a secret matter. Sir, I would draw the Committee's attention to these matters from a financial point of view, and I hope they will receive that attention which they deserve.
  MR. SYDNEY C. BUXTON: I am glad that this matter has not been mixed up with the larger question, and, therefore, I am able to support this Vote with a clear conscience. I wish to support these Votes, because I believe they are absolutely necessary. I do not believe that these islands, and especially the two islands named, can continue as belonging to a civilised nation, without the proposals which the right hon. Gentleman, has made this afternoon. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, who opposed this Vote, said that the expenditure on these West Indian Islands ought to be reduced to the lowest point before we made any material grant. But one point I heard with satisfaction was that wherever these grants are made to these islands we should have a regular financial control over their taxation and expenditure. That, I am glad to think, is going to be done now, because, in my opinion, the sort of hybrid constitution which we have given to the West Indies has certainly not been to their advantage, and has done much to bring these islands into the financial straits in which they are now. I wish to support these Votes this afternoon, because I do not agree with the views expressed by the hon. Member who opposed it, because he thought it would be in the interests of the sugar-planters. On the contrary, these proposals seem to me to be aimed not at improving the position of the sugar-planters, which is a question we shall have to discuss upon some future occasion, but to improve the present condition of the native populations in these islands. Those are the grounds on which I give the right hon. Gentleman my support. It seems to me that—while it is a very serious thing that this country shall undertake great responsibilities for any of its Colonies; and while, no doubt, this is a new feature in our Colonial policy—we have done it before when we have found it necessary with Crown Colonies not able

  1555
  to carry themselves along from year to year. We did it with Bechuanaland, with Cyprus, and so on. We have also given grants in Mauritius and other cases. The proposals of the Government as regards these islands seem to be specifics which are not only a necessity, but will also be an advantage to the people and the Government as well. My hon. Friend below the Gangway said he should oppose it because it involved the expropriation, of some of the planters. From what fell from my hon. Friend opposite, it seems to me that the expropriation proposed will be a good thing, because the land will be bought, taking into account the fact that it has not been in cultivation, but that it has been kept out of cultivation. Therefore, we hope it will be obtained at a very low rate, and at a rate which will be profitable to the island in the future. But the proposals axe most likely to be successful in the island of Dominica, because the late Sir Robert Hamilton, in the report he made after we had sent him out there, specifically stated that, in his opinion, if Dominica had an opportunity of being developed, the land was so fertile, and wood in the forests so plentiful, that it was of such value as to repay any expenditure of money that might be spent in its development. From the mere fact that Dominica has practically lost all its trade in the sugar industry it has been sufficiently elastic, commercially, to recover the amount of its loss on sugar by the increased value of its other exports. We know that the dual proprietorship there is not in such a flourishing condition, and, with a little assistance, the present proprietors would be willing to devote themselves to other industries, in regard to fruit cultivation and so on, in which they might make a profitable living. It seems to me that as regards Dominica, at all events, we do owe the people there a duty. We have more than once altered their constitution, and I think nearly always for the worst, and we owe them a duty which Dominica has perpetually urged from the time when, a number of years ago, the funds were handed over to the Imperial Government. We have in the past endeavoured to assist them, but, unfortunately, the incompetence of those who made that endeavour has been such as to throw many burdens on Dominica
  1556
  without any corresponding benefits accruing. I am not now going into the very melancholy history of what occurred in the attempt made to open out Dominica, in which the expenditure of something like £40,000 was incurred, and was practically thrown away in regard to that island, which, I am sorry to say, was due to the mismanagement of that island. Now, I understand, in regard to the future, that when this proposed expenditure is undertaken it will be undertaken under the strict supervision of the Imperial Government, and all questions of taxation and revenue will be taken in hand by the Imperial Government, so that we may hope that any of the mistakes of the past will not occur again in the future. I am not myself very sanguine that this experiment will be of very great value to the West Indies, but I do believe that, with regard to Dominica, it is a proposal which, from a commercial point of view, will be profitable, and is worth trying. But, whether it is profitable or not, or whether it is successful or not, we, as the Imperial Government, are in such a position that it is essential and necessary that we should come to their assistance. I cannot believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton is really seriously in earnest when he says that you ought to allow these islands practically to revert to barbarism among the black population. It is quite essential, from our point of view, that we should keep up a proper administration in these islands, and though I wish to reserve my opinion in regard to any proposals which my right hon. Friend may make as to the sugar bounties, I support these Votes heartily, because I believe they are made in the interests of the native population, for whose welfare we are responsible, and not in the interests of any particular class. Therefore I shall certainly give them my support, and I trust that the hopes of the right hon. Gentleman will be fulfilled.
  MR. LEONARD H. COURTNEY: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies has stated that it is not in his power to make any permanent proposal with respect to the West Indian Islands,

  1557
  and that he did not wish to make any statement while negotiations between this country and the United States and Canada for reciprocity Treaties, which would confer great benefit on the West Indian Islands, were going on. But they would have to be balanced by something on the other side, and that might involve great sacrifices on the part of the islands, which I am not at present prepared to say they are able to meet. What is meant, I presume, is, that the United States desire that the tariffs of the West Indian Islands should be so formed that goods from the United States should be admitted at lower duties, or, perhaps, without any duties at all. With regard to the word "sacrifice," I will offer a single observation. The sacrifice, therefore, which is suggested, is the abandonment of certain import duties. But I beg to protest against the word "sacrifice" being used in this connection. It is not a sacrifice, and the use of that word may have an effect upon the minds of those who are negotiating the business, which may possibly lead them to reject an offer which might be advantageous to themselves. All that is involved is a readjustment of the revenue, which raises the same amount in another fashion.
  COLONEL SIR HOWARD VINCENT: What about British goods?
  MR. COURTNEY: Those responsible to the United States Government have raised their duties, but not necessarily against British goods. It is a question of reciprocity which is concerned, and a question whether it is a sacrifice in the real sense of the word for the West Indian Government to abandon some part of their duty. Some years ago I visited these islands, and anything more antiquated and inconsistent than the policy of the Imperial Government there I never saw. There was a cry for reforms throughout the islands, and the duties imposed pressed hard upon the poor, and were not likely to be more remunerative from the point of view of the exchequer. With regard to another observation of the right hon. Gentleman, I support the view which I am now emphasising, that, if the supposed sacrifice is carried out, it will be a benefit to the
  1558
  island rather than a loss, and the use of the word "sacrifice" ought to be abandoned. The right hon. Gentleman had said that nothing could be done in the matter of reform, but a certain sum would be raised, and 10 per cent. will be put on the final result, and the total revenue raised will be the same as under the lower tariffs. Well, Sir, that is very likely to be our own experience, for, we have a revenue there which is not adequate, and there is a deficiency year after year, and the result is that the revenue is diminishing instead of increasing. So far as regards the general question. As to the special question, I am not prepared to vote against the resolution put from the Chair. I confess I should have liked it very much more if it had been put before us under the good, intelligible, and truthful name of doles, than under the suggestion that it was part of the cost for keeping up the Empire. I demur altogether to the notion that the Empire was extended, or primarily extended, by such payments from home, especially in the case of the established parts of the Empire. Mr. Sydney Buxton really outdid the Colonial Secretary in keeping up what he called the Colonial Empire. Let us consider what he means. This is an entirely new departure. The suggestions of the right hon. Gentleman the late Under Secretary for the Colonies are not really in point. The Colonial Secretary founded his arguments upon the conduct of the German and French Governments. I have yet to learn that England has any secrets to learn, either from France or Germany in the way of the administration of Colonies. In our former days we did very little in the way in which we are now invited to undertake, in imitation of the Germans and French, and I protest against these methods being put before us as examples to be followed, for I rather look upon them as examples to be avoided. Just note the discrimination between special examples quoted by my right hon. Friend and supported by my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Sydney Buxton). These are examples of expenditure in support of the preliminary cost of the extension of Empire. In going into a new business you have to seek new capital; in extending your premises you have to undergo considerable outlay. That

  1559
  may or may not be defensible; it depends very much upon the particular circumstance of the case. But those expenditures, whether wise or imprudent, whether well or wisely made, were in the way of developing and increasing the Empire. In the present case you are taking in hand a considerable number of islands which have been in your possession for 100, 200, or even 300 years. It is not a case of extending the old Empire, but of meeting the deficiencies of the administration. I venture to say it is a good old and sound policy of the House of Commons that such property should pay its way, and that there has been a miscarriage of administration if it does not. It has been admitted by the right hon. Member for Poplar that there has been mismanagement in the past. He has also assented to a Vote to wipe out a similar debt some time ago, which he now sees followed up by a fresh debt. I have no confidence in such Votes, I am quite satisfied that the policy rather tends to reduce and weaken the administration of the Colonies. It will be followed by fresh demands, unless the Government is more resolved and energetic in their action. I am not going to oppose this Vote; but I entirely agree with Mr. Labouchere that these islands must somehow manage to pay their way, and I believe if you reduce your expenditure to what is necessary, having regard to the requirements of the islands, that it can be done. Does any hon. Member believe or think that most of the islands, if managed independently, would not pay their way? They would be obliged to pay their way, with a very frugal and reduced administration, you must insist upon that, and the necessary consequence will be that you will get an income in excess of your expenditure.
  *SIR JAMES JOICEY: Sir, whilst I agree with the arguments the right hon. Gentleman has just given utterance to, I regret to say that I do not altogether agree with his conclusions when he says that he did not intend to vote against this Resolution. I am bound to say that, personally, I have a very great objection to grants-in-aid to any country, and I certainly think it is incumbent upon a Minister, when he
  1560
  proposes a Vote of this kind, to give the very strongest argument possible to induce the House, or, I should say, the Committee, to agree to any State contributions of this kind. I thoroughly agree with my right hon. Friend the late Secretary for the Colonies when he states that these grants-in-aid made the Colony extravagant, and led to the money being misspent. I think anyone who looks to the different grants which have been given to different parts of our Empire will see that they have led to very great extravagance, and very often to useless expenditure. I was a very short time ago paying a visit to the Isle of Man, and there I saw, in one or two cases, places where enormous sums seem to have been spent in connection with harbours that have proved to be utterly useless, and, Sir, on that account the Secretary of the Colonies consequently in moving for this Vote ought to have given us very much stronger reasons for supporting it than he has given us. He stated in the first place that he objected to this new form of dole. I am afraid, notwithstanding his objection to that phrase, to my mind it is nothing more or less than a dole. When you consider that it is to make a deficit up which exists in these islands, to make the revenue meet the expenditure, I cannot see it in any other light than that of a dole. If you continue to pay these deficits, these deficits, instead of decreasing, will continually increase. We have a striking instance of that given by the Secretary for the Colonies himself, when he said that since the first mention of the paying of this deficit was made it has increased, and, therefore, the deficit of Dominica has gone up very much—from £6,500 to £11,000. After all, Colonies and communities are very much like individuals, and if an individual gets into debt, and he has a kind friend who comes forward to pay the debt without insisting upon him changing his character or his method of expenditure, well, I feel sure that the kind friend will be obliged to come forward again in support of his friend. It is exactly the same with Colonies and with communities as it is with individuals. One or two statements which have been made by the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, referred to the government of these islands being of an

  1561
  inadequate character. I think that that is so. I should have been better pleased if the right hon. Gentleman, before he asked us to give this large sum of money, had set himself to work and had shown us the remedy for this extravagance, and pointed out such changes that the Government were able to make in the control of the expenditure of these islands as would have prevented this deficit from growing year after year. Now, Sir, who is responsible for the great expenditure of these islands? As far as I have been able to learn, the expenditure is practically controlled by the officials who receive the salaries. It is scarcely likely that any of these gentlemen are going to coma forward and suggest that the expenditure should be reduced in the shape of salaries when they receive the salaries themselves. I think there should be some strong changes made with regard to the government of these islands. I confess that I would rather have seen the whole question of the West Indian Islands brought up for us to discuss than this partial statement of the question. I am not prepared to say that I should always vote against any grant-in-aid to our Colonies, but I think that we should have the whole question before the House of Commons, showing exactly what the Government propose to do, before we are asked to make State grants of this kind. This is why I consider it my duty to oppose this grant.
  *COLONEL VICTOR MILWARD: I rise for the purpose of supporting the proposal of the Government. I, in common with nearly every Member of this House, have a great objection to paying debts or deficits. On the other hand, I do not regard this as a dole to the West Indies. The Member for East Wolverhampton, in discussing the question of some contribution towards the war in the East Indies, said that he disliked very much the word "dole" in connection with that grant. I dislike it equally with a grant of this kind. It is an act of justice, or of even something much less than justice. I do not intend to go into the general question on this occasion. I would remind the House that 20 years ago, in
  1562
  1879–1880, there sat a very important Select Committee in order to inquire into the West Indies and as to the Sugar question. That Committee made a Report, and in that Report, amongst other things, there are to be found these words—
  "All witnesses agree in looking forward to the abandonment of the sugar cultivation, and estimate that in 10 years one-half of the West Indian production will be destroyed."
  Now, Sir, in the face of that warning raised by the Select Committee, we can scarcely wonder that the West Indies should now be in a state of great distress. The House was asked to do certain things, to make certain changes in legislation, with a view to improving the condition of the West Indies. It deliberately refused to do so, and from that day the West Indies have gone back. Sir, I regretted very much the speech of the Member for Northampton. I am sure that when his words are reported, as I have no doubt they will be, in the West Indies, it will be felt that they are wanting in that sympathy which ought to be given to that country. He said, amongst other things, what advantage do we derive from our connection with the West Indies? They have plunged recklessly into debt, and all we are asked to do is to pay the debts of the sugar grower. I myself do not see anything but what is fair and just in our helping them in what way we can. Remember that we retain full control of the policy of the islands. The Colonial Secretary said that we are in future to control the expenditure, and fully control the expenditure, of the money given to these islands. If that is so, we are fully and in every respect responsible for everything that goes on in the island. If we undertake in every way to direct their affairs, I maintain that we are responsible, and should treat them with generosity. There are only three courses of action open in reference to the West Indies. We must either do what the Royal Commission said, that is, restore the sugar industry, or we must leave them to govern themselves and make the best they can of their position, or permit them to become part of the United States of America. As a matter of self-preservation, I think, if for no other reason, we should retain control over the

  1563
  West Indies. We know that in a very short time there will be a canal made through the Isthmus of Panama, and that will be one of the strategical points of the world. In the West Indies we have harbours that dominate the canal, and, therefore, I cannot believe for a moment that any policy with respect to these islands would be undertaken but the policy of doing our very best for them. I only add that although, in common with every Member of this House, I dislike the idea of paying deficits, yet I am prepared to accept the proposal of the Government, and I hope that we shall soon have those large measures of policy before us which we can discuss in this House, and determine what is the best for the future of our West Indian Islands.
  *MR. T. LOUGH: There are many arguments which have been used in the course of this Debate which I am unable to accept. One point that the right hon. Gentleman made is that the population of these islands have been placed there by force; but that raises a large question. In some of these islands we still are bringing in population by force. We are still importing coolies.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: The arrangements for coolie labour are voluntary, and are carefully watched by the Government.
  *MR. LOUGH: We are still helping to increase by artificial means the population of these islands. We pay some of the expenses, and we help the coolies to get there. Would it not be better to discourage this immigration? In this way more employment would be available for the native inhabitants. Where there is too much labour now, those seeking employment might go to the other islands, where vacancies are filled by the coolie immigrant. The right hon. Gentleman said there was nothing else to be done, as I understood him, except to make the grant or sever connection with these islands. The Report presented by the Royal Commission is full of suggestions of what might be done quite apart from making this grant. I will take the case of the island of St. Vincent, and I will merely
  1564
  mention the suggestions which the Royal Commission made, and ask you to compare them with what the right hon. Gentleman said when he told us "there was nothing else to be done." The Report suggests that the poor population should be settled on the lands which are now vacant. It suggests that we should introduce a system of compulsory purchase. This is a point to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, and I am glad to say he makes provision in the Second Vote for a certain degree of compulsory purchase. But it could be carried a great deal further. We hear that in each one of the islands the state of education is most, backward, and it would be within the province of the Government to improve the condition of education. I hear that in the island of St. Vincent on the great estates there is a Truck system in existence. There are shops belonging practically to the landlord, and the labouring people are forced to buy the goods they require in these shops. That is an evil similar to our own Truck system. The Government should take the hints of the Commissioners instead of making this sort of pernicious grant. The evil of those grants was illustrated by the hon. Member for King's Lynn in pointing out that we made a grant two years ago in Dominica, and another is asked for now; and the right hon. Gentleman, in answer to him, made a most important contribution to the Debate. He said, "I don't know when it will stop." It will never stop. When you make such grants you destroy the stimulus to avoid debt. Without it they would not get into debt. They should be taught to cut their coat according to their cloth; and then there would be no necessity to make the grant, which only encourages them in their extravagance. There is one matter I would like the right hon. Gentleman in his reply to explain more fully. Perhaps I misunderstood him, but I gathered that the negotiations with the United States are not going so well as when he made the announcement this day week on the subject, and spoke rather cheerfully of the possibility of making some reciprocal arrangements with the United States. The objection I have to this proposal is, that it is only a half proposal. We have not got the full scheme of the Government before us, and

  1565
  I think the full scheme ought to be laid bare before we deal with any part of it. I think it is hasty and premature, and that it would be much better to wait for the full proposals. Those who have examined this Report will find one initial defect in it, which I believe will render all the recommendations worthless. I say this without in the least depreciating the excellent work that has been done by my right hon. Friend and the other Commissioners. The Report has this defect—the reference that was made was about the condition of an industry, and not about the general condition of the islands. There was not a single word in the reference that enabled the Commissioners to examine into the general state of the population. They were told to go and report into the condition of the sugar industry. It is quite outside the province of this House to inquire into the condition of an industry, however great the difficulties that may overtake it. The closest approach to a general expression in the reference is this: the Commissioners were told—
  "to inquire into the condition and prosperity of that industry, and of the said Colonies generally in connection therewith;"
  so that the Commissioners did not get a free hand. They had no opportunity of going to see if poverty was increasing, or if the population was increasing, or to inquire into the state of the islands broadly. They were told to go and report on a particular industry. It was a most dangerous and perilous inquiry for this House to embark upon. Every day, among modern industries, whose conditions are apparently far more hopeful, there are those which fall into decay. Take the instance of coffee cultivation in Ceylon. That was the chief crop, but after several disastrous seasons the coffee entirely disappeared. For a time there was the greatest distress, but this House did not come to the relief. Then instead of coffee they planted tea on the estates, and those estates were richer than they were before. When you have an inquiry into an industry it is almost impossible to get a single word of truth; for what do you find? Those who are not doing well come and make their complaints, and those who are doing well say nothing about it. Most try to make as bad a
  1566
  story as possible, because they hope to get the Government money, so that it is impossible in such an inquiry to get at any truth which might be useful to the House. We must read this Report with a great deal of care. There are many things in it which rather tend to heighten the evil than to exhibit it in its true colours. You will see that when the exports are alluded to, value in nine cases out of ten is mentioned, and not quantities, because the value has decreased much more rapidly than the quantity. The value of everything has gone down, as well as sugar, during the last eighteen years. But this does not necessarily mean that they are worse off. They get a great deal more in exchange for the sugar at the lower price than they got before. If you look into the broader question which the Commissioners should have inquired into, you will see that it does not encourage the gloomy view that has been presented to us this afternoon. The population is increasing in the islands almost as fast as in Great Britain itself. Therefore, measured by the test of population, you have no evidence of suffering. I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman hardly stated that there was suffering in the islands. If we proceed on the general principles accepted by this House, there is no particular cause for interference. The question concerns an inquiry into a particular industry, and whether this House can do anything to help it. I maintain that it can do nothing to help it. The House must let it alone. It it could assist the industry, it is doubtful if it would be wise to do so. Those who read the history of the islands will see that the sugar cultivation has not been altogether a blessing there. A hundred years ago there were a great many other products grown, but gradually these declined and sugar became the only crop. Sugar was an easy thing to grow, but it created such mental and physical torpor in the inhabitants as to prevent them making those efforts to support themselves which people in less-favoured climates had to make. New industries have sprung up in many of the islands, such as the cultivation of limes in Montserrat and cocoa in Trinidad. These industries must be extended, new crops introduced, and some efforts made to replace those that have

  1567
  declined. When you examine the sum that is asked, you find it is only £10,000 or £11,000 in some islands. It could be added to their debts, and gradually cleared off when circumstances improve. The best policy would be, not to constantly help these islands when they get into difficulties, but to tell them they must improve their system of government, improve the education of the people, and then, assisted by their beautiful climate and most fertile soil, endeavour to produce other things which will support them, instead of relying longer upon the one industry of sugar, which is failing them. I move that the Vote be reduced by £90,000.
  The House divided.—Ayes 78; Noes 236.
  On Civil Service Supplementary Estimates, Class V., Vote 3, to move to leave out Item "T" (West Indian Islands) (Grant-in-Aid of Roads and Land Settlement).
  MR. H. LABOUCHERE: We are not dismayed by the great majority in the last Division. All sound men, who look thoroughly into this matter, must be with us. The Government not only had with them hon. Gentlemen on their side of the House, but, as usual, hon. Gentlemen sitting on the front Opposition Bench. I am really beginning to ask myself when right hon. Gentlemen are going to spirit themselves up to vote against the Government. Let them remember what Lord Randolph Churchill said: that the duty of an Opposition is to oppose, and, if they want to lead the Opposition, let me tell them that they should head the Opposition themselves. I perfectly understand hon. Gentlemen opposite saying no, because it suits them well, but it does not suit hon. Members on this side of the House. There is an item in the Vote of £30,000, a portion of which is to be spent in buying land in St. Vincent and the other portion in making roads. I am inclined to think that there ore some hon. Gentlemen in this House who do not know much about either St. Vincent or Dominica. Probably, therefore, those gentlemen will allow me to tell them a little about those
  1568
  two islands. Both are somewhat rocky and mountainous, and on their seaboards are large forests. The whole of St. Vincent consists of 83,000 acres, of which 31,000 acres are swampy, and the remaining 52,000 acres—or, if you like to add the small island adjacent, it would be 62,000 acres—is cultivable. Of this total, 50,000 acres are in the hands of persons owning more than 100 acres, and there are only 1,360 acres which are held by peasant proprietors. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies has himself admitted that the Crown lands are practically valueless. With that I entirely agree. I find in the Report it is stated that 1,000 acres of fertile land are in the hands of private individuals, who are ready to sell it at a reasonable price, as they are unable to cultivate it. If we want to get hold of this land, what ought we to do? We ought to levy a tax upon all lands, whether cultivated or uncultivated. A considerable portion of this land is in the hands of sugar planters, and they admit themselves that the land is valueless, unless they can get the Government to come forward and aid them in the cultivation of sugar, which, I am glad to hear, the right hon. Gentleman is not going to do. In the case of the island of St. Vincent, you cannot cultivate sugar without what is practically slave labour, in order to compete, whether against cane sugar or against beet sugar, in the island of Barbadoes. I am going to show what the system has been in Barbadoes. There is no waste land. The sugar planter lets at £4 an acre to the negro, and besides that obliges him, as a condition of obtaining the land at this high price, to work for him for three days for 10d. I am taking this from the Report. There is, and always has been, in Jamaica a great deal of free land, upon which the negro has established himself, and we find that the result is that Jamaica gets on perfectly well without our coming forward to aid it; whereas islands like Barbadoes, or with systems like Barbadoes, are coming to us for help. The taxes at the present moment are mainly raised by import duties. They are not raised by taxes on land, and I would suggest, as I said before, that, instead of talking about buying this land, we put a tax upon all land that is cultivable, but which is at present uncultivated.

  1569
  We should soon find that the owner of the land would give it up, and we should get that land for nothing. Again and again, in the evidence given as to St. Vincent, it is shown that the land is absolutely worthless, and that we are to pay out absentee landowners in order to enable us to give negroes in St. Vincent two or three acres that they require in order to be comfortable. I want to show how things have been conducted there. The exports from this island are £57,000 per annum, the imports are £60,000; therefore, you find that the imports exceed the exports considerably. The public expenditure is £26,000. The right hon. Gentleman said that the public expenditure could not be cut down. The right hon. Member for Bodmin pointed out how absurd this was. I maintain that these European officials with large salaries are not required, and in all probability the government could be carried on for far less than £26,000. The population is 41,000, of which 2,445 are whites. There is something curious with regard to this white population. Some interesting evidence was given by a man named Parker (I think of the house of Porter and Company). He stated that he, or his house, were the principal proprietors of the sugar plantations in the island. He was asked whether it would not be possible to send young Scotchmen there as farmers. He said: No. What reason does he give? This will show the evil example set to the negroes by the whites there. He said that the practice of his firm had been to get young Scotchmen as overseers, but some of them turned out badly; the great curse with young Scotchmen was drink; if you could keep them steady they were all right, but they could get rum easily in the island, with the result that they gave way to drink. I ask this Committee to consider the state of things. Here, then, you have a number of estimable but drunken young Scotchmen, a number of absentee landlords, who take away all the money, the imports greater than the exports, and from generation to generation the black population not allowed to have an acre or two of land, while endeavours are being made to force them into these sugar factories. If you do away with the sugar industry, and levy a tax on cultivable land uncultivated, I do not believe you
  1570
  will want a farthing from us. We are told that cocoa and arrowroot can be profitably grown by the people. What is the evidence before us, which, in my opinion, the Committee should look carefully into before it decides? It is that at the present moment St. Vincent supplier more arrowroot than is needed in the market, and it is supposed to be the best. The consequence is that arrowroot has gone down in price by one-half. Can you suppose, then, that the position of the island will be in any way benefited by cultivating more arrowroot? The same remark applies to cocoa—there is more in the market than is required. Mr. Parker, who seems to be an intelligent gentleman, points out the absurdity of cultivating cocoa as a panacea for the West Indian Islands. There is already as much cocoa made as is required. Everyone knows that there will be a heavy fall in cocoa, and that people who go in for cultivating it will be ruined. The other suggestion is fruit. I do not know whether many hon. Gentlemen have been in the Colonies. If they have, they will bear me out when I say that you do not get good fruit from the tropics. The sun is too hot, or there is something else which prevents the growth of good fruit there. There are, however, certain fruits that you can export from the tropics, such as bananas, oranges, etc., but here again the market is limited. As a matter of fact, your sole market at present is the United States, where, practically, all the fruit that is grown in Jamaica is sent. We know that the United States wish to encourage their own industries. In the United States they can grow bananas, lemons, and oranges; and if you seriously were to compete with the fruit produce of the United States, you would find that the United States would stop that market by putting on a duty. It is a mistake to expect that we could export more than a very small amount of fruit from these islands. Jamaica is infinitely better situated for the export of these fruits, and at the present time they are in Jamaica taking steps to grow more fruit. If Jamaica still retains the market in the United States, it will be found that it will maintain it at the cost of the other small islands. So much for St. Vincent. Now I come to Dominica, an island of 186,240 acres, 60,000 of which are held

  1571
  by private individuals, about 30,000 acres being cultivated. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies, said that in the interior was the most fertile land, and he could not understand why it was not cultivated. I expect it is not cultivated because there is more fertile land elsewhere. The population of this island, although it is larger than that of St. Vincent, is 26,841, and of these some 1,286 emigrated during the year 1896. Here also the imports are greater than the exports. The former are valued at £57,000, and the latter at only £46,000. There is in this extraordinary island a tax upon exports. This has been put on lately; formerly the money which is now obtained by a tax on exports was obtained by a tax on horses. The revenue of the island was in the last year £24,879, and, although we are told that this island is going from bad to worse, I find that the revenue has gone up. In 1882 the revenue was only £20,284, and, as there is a deficit, it is obvious that not only has the revenue gone up, but that the expenditure has gone up also. We are told that cocoa and coffee might be cultivated here, and there is one point in connection with this to which I should like to call attention, because it shows the kind of stuff that was told to the Commissioners, and which they seem to have taken in. A Mr. Temple, who was Administrator of the island, said that if you take an estate of 300 acres in Dominica and spend £10,000 on it, you would, at the end of four years, have a coffee estate which would produce a net profit of £2,500 per annum. Now, I ask the Committee, is this anything but mere theory? Can we suppose that, when money is so cheap, some person would not have bought 300 acres in Dominica, spent £10,000 upon it, and have been in receipt of the handsome income, after four years, of £2,500 per annum? But, of course, we know perfectly well that we could do nothing of the kind. If we could, this would be one of the richest islands in the world. It could be very well expected to look after itself, and would become a perfect Garden of Eden, owing to the large amount of money that would be thrown into it. We have again heard, in regard to this island, the same ridiculous statements about cultivating fruit and cocoa. They have one industry in Dominica—the in-
  1572
  dustry of limes. They exported £14,851 worth of limes last year. It seems a very excellent industry; but it is also stated by witnesses that limes have a very limited market, and that it is very questionable whether, if they could grow more limes, they could find a market for them. We are asked to make roads towards the interior of this island. In. February, 1896, we voted not only £10,000 to pay off a little deficit, but we actually voted £5,000 for roods, and I see that in their Report on Dominica the Commissioners point out that the greater part of this money has been wasted and practically thrown away.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: No, that does not refer to the loan of 1896.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Worse and worse. Is it a still earlier loan, then?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: I would not correct the hon. Member in an ordinary mistake, but the one he is making now is an extraordinary mistake. The money which was wasted was the money of the Colony itself. They spent money badly, and it was wasted; but the £5,000 voted by this House has not been wasted.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Then they tried to make roads, and, finding that the money was wasted, gave up the attempt, saying, "We will not waste any more of our own money upon roads; we will apply to these foolish English people." In 1896 we gave them £5,000. That was a very handsome gift; but what has been the result of it? They now come and ask for more. I do not know how much they are to have; how much is to go into the pockets of absentee sugar planters in St. Vincent, or how much is to go to Dominica for roads. It may be half for one and half for the other. Because we have given £5,000 we are asked to give £15,000 more. I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for correcting me. The case is much worse. It is perfectly shocking after the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman. The truth is, as everybody knows who has been in these parts, or in Central America, roads are not wanted for the commerce of these

  1573
  countries. The people are not accustomed to roads as we understand them. It is all fancy work giving them roads. Mules and bridle paths meet the general need. The only people who can benefit by these roads are the wealthier classes, who will either try to bolster up their sugar plantations, or start coffee plantations, in which case roads are very beneficial. But it seems to me that if it is possible to make £2,500 per annum on a capital of £10,000 in Dominica, they ought not to want us to step in and make the roads. It must be understood that the mode of life in these countries is perfectly different to the mode of life here. What we call necessaries are not necessaries for the people who live there. The peasant proprietors in Dominica are perfectly happy, and are not, in my opinion, so badly off as thousands of the peasants in this country and in Ireland. I find that the island produces 28,000 gallons of rum a year, and does not export any of it. Only one per cent. of the population is white, and, therefore, we may take it that these 28,000 gallons of rum are drunk by these 26,000 black people. It is the old story—you must reduce expenditure. If it could be shown that by doing what is proposed you could set these two islands on their legs and make them more prosperous—make them pay their own expenses—I should be in clined to think that there might be some reason for doing it; but if you mike this grant you will be called upon not only to give more money for roads, but you will be asked every year to pay the deficit. So long as you pay off the deficits there will always be a deficit. Under those circumstances, I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £30,000.
  COLONEL SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I desire to say a few words. Mr. Lowrher, in support of this Vote. The hon. Member for Islington, in the course of his speech, said we ought to do something for our fellow-subjects in the West Indies, but he adopted an extraordinary way of showing his sympathy by moving a reduction in the Vote. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in a speech at Liverpool, said—
  "We do not intend, if we can prevent it, that our colonies shall be destroyed"
  1574
  And I think the House, irrespective of politics, ought to show their determination to support the Government. I congratulate the hon. Member for Northampton on having hurriedly read up Whitaker's Almanack—
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I have read and digested both the Report of the Commission and the evidence taken before it.
  COLONEL SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I thought the hon. Member's information was taken from Whitaker, as I happened to have read it there myself. I have an advantage over him in having been to St. Vincent, and of all the Colonies in the West Indies which have endeavoured to stay the disaster in the sugar industry, St. Vincent has shown itself to be one of the most enterprising. After the sugar industry failed, they went in for the cultivation of arrowroot, and did all that was possible to cultivate cocoa—both of which, as hon. Members have told the House, also failed. I heartily support this Vote; and I heard with pleasure the statement of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in which he pledged himself that the House should have full opportunity of discussing the whole question of the depression in the sugar production of the West Indies when the full proposals of the Government are laid before the House. My constituents feel very strongly on this matter; they feel that unless a real effort is made to put an end to the bounties, which are the source of the difficulty, it is absolutely useless, and money thrown away, to do anything considerable in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin approved the conclusion of reciprocity Treaties between the United States and the West Indies. But the revenue which must be raised by the West Indies can only be raised by indirect taxation; and if the duties on imports from America are decreased, those on imports from this country must be increased.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: That is not now before the House. You must not discuss the whole question.
  COLONEL SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I accept your ruling, Mr. Lowther. I will not pursue this subject further. If the hon. Members for Islington and Northampton had read the Report of the Royal Commission in reference to the island of St. Vincent, they would see at once how urgent are the needs of that island. In their Report the Commissioners say—
  "We desire to draw special attention to the very critical position of affairs in St. Vincent, where the population is threatened with the almost complete loss of the scanty amount of intermittent employment at very low wages which it at present manages with difficulty to secure. No time should be lost in introducing any measure which it may be deemed advisable to adopt."
  I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having brought forward this Vote so promptly, and I am very much astonished that any Member of this House should see fit to move a reduction on that Vote.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The report of the Royal Commission on the West Indies has been frequently referred to in the course of the evening. As the whole of the proposals that will be placed before the Committee are based upon the recommendations contained in that Report, I desire to take this opportunity of expressing my acknowledgments—and I am sure my colleagues, if they were present, would share my sentiments—to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Sheffield for the appreciation he kindly expressed for the work done by the Commissioners. As to the general questions raised in that Report, I am aware that some of them have given rise, and will give rise, to great controversy. But I gather, Sir, from your ruling that it would not be in order to discuss any question except the particular Amendment before the House; and I therefore wish to take notice of one or two points raised by the hon. Member for Northampton on that Amendment. In arguing upon his Amendment the hon. Member addressed one or two homilies of rather special application, one directed particularly against Scotsmen. [Mr. LABOUCHERE: I quoted from the Report of the Royal Commission.] I understood the hon. Member to quote from the Report, in order to make some application of his remarks, but I did not understand
  1576
  that that application was in any way directed towards me. I do not propose to examine all the advice given to the House upon its duty to vote against this Amendment. I quite admit that the hon. Member for Northampton is a great authority on the duties of opposition, because he has had considerable experience in voting against Governments from both sides of the House. As regards my own position on this Vote, I suppose the hon. Member would hardly carry his theory of opposition so far as to say that, when one has adopted certain recommendations and signed those recommendations, and when the Government, in turn, has adopted them, any other course was open except to support those proposals. Apart, however, from that consideration, even if I had not been responsible for the particular proposal now before the House to the extent of having signed the Report in which these recommendations are contained, I should have associated myself with the policy advocated, and the line taken up by the hon. Member for Poplar. The question really before the House was raised earlier in the evening by the remark of some speaker to the effect that the Report of this Royal Commission had been given precedence over other Reports of other Royal Commissions. But, Sir, why was it given precedence? Not because it is necessarily of greater value or greater intrinsic merit than the Reports of other Royal Commissions, but because of the necessities of the case. People may have theories as to what may be done in the future, or as to whether far larger proposals should be made for developing these Colonies; they may take what views they choose on large questions of that kind, but the question before the Committee is the necessity of these islands to be provided for. The case is one of absolute necessity; it is a case, as in the island of St. Vincent, of starvation, and some relief must be found somewhere. It has been argued that more money might be raised by taxation; but, especially in St. Vincent and Dominica, the resources of taxation have been exhausted. Increased import duties have been suggested; but the import duties have already been increased, with consequent suffering to the poorer classes, and no one would surely

  1577
  suggest a still further increase. There are no other means of revenue; no other form of taxation is possible. These people are practically on the verge of starvation, and, with people in that condition, you cannot impose direct taxation. The change from direct to indirect taxation is, no doubt, very desirable, but a certain basis of prosperity is necessary before it can be made. As to other sources of taxation, a tax upon land is impossible. Although taxation has been increased, the revenue it brings in has diminished. That seems to prove that the resources of the islands are exhausted, and that their necessities cannot be met in any other way than by a grant such as is now proposed. The hon. Member for Northampton has, I think, taken an unduly pessimistic view of the future of the islands of St. Vincent and Dominica. There is independent evidence as to the capacities of these islands, besides that contained in the Report of the Royal Commission. Dr Morris is an authority whose name stands very high, and his Report should be studied independently of the Report of the Royal Commission. In his Report on St. Vincent and Dominica Dr. Morris does not speak at all hopelessly of these two islands; indeed, he speaks more hopefully of them than of the other West Indian Colonies. In the case of Dominica, the land has not yet been cleared. It is virgin soil, and undoubtedly very rich soil; we have the best authority for that. The hon. Member for Northampton says that, as soon as you produce any tropical fruit, the price of that product falls. But the demand is growing for some forms of tropical produce, such as india-rubber, which has recovered from a very great fall; and the place which can produce these products most cheaply will continue to produce them permanently. It seems to us that Dominica, provided there is access to these lands, would be just one of those places which, if put into communication with good markets, would grow fruit and tropical produce as cheaply as any other part of the Colony. We have had some experience of what can be done with regard to fruit. The hon. Member for Northampton has spoken disparagingly of the fruits of the tropics, but there are some fruits which are more agreeable than those which are most associated
  1578
  with the Colonies. The demand for tropical fruit is increasing very greatly. Jamaica has been most remarkably successful within recent years in developing the trade in oranges and bananas, to such an extent, indeed, that the trade has gone a great way towards relieving Jamaica of the very serious and intense distress which has fallen upon every island without these resources. The evidence given to the Royal Commission, and confirmed by Dr. Morris, points to the conclusion that St. Vincent and Dominica could produce fruit quite as well as Jamaica, provided they had access to a market. This form of cultivation will be taken up by the small proprietors. But small proprietors cannot make roads and undertake the development of the land in the way that large proprietors could. These farms have been taken up most successfully by peasant cultivators, but to enable peasant cultivators to keep on the land and grow fruit you must provide them with roads to make the interior of the island accessible. I will go so far as to say that, unless we repudiate all obligations to these islands, the spending of a certain amount of money in the making of roads in Dominica is not merely justifiable but, on the whole, is likely to be the cheapest way of relieving the necessities of the island. If you do not do that, I do not see how the case is to be any better, and that is, I think, under present circumstances, the least that can be done. With regard to buying land in St. Vincent, it was said in the course of this Debate that the islands could not be so bad as represented, because the population had been increasing. That is not the case in St. Vincent. I think the direct contrary has been stated. On page 47 of the Royal Commission Report, the condition of St. Vincent is described as follows—
  "For several years able-bodied males have been emigrating, leaving the women and children to shift for themselves. The population is decreasing, and the labouring classes are discontented."
  At the end it is said—
  "The population in St. Vincent has no land on which it can labour, and is threatened with the almost complete loss of the scanty means, or intermittent employment at very low wages, which it at present manages with difficulty to secure."

  1579
  The hon. Member for Northampton advocated the possibility of a very low standard of life amongst the population of these islands. Left to themselves, he said, they might support themselves by cultivating food supplies, and they might be so left to themselves. But in St. Vincent the people must have land, and that land they have not got. It is a proposition, I gather from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies, to acquire this land by compulsory expropriation. If there has been any difference between the two sides of the House on that principle, it is on this side it has found its strongest support. [The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES: If necessary.] The principle of compulsory expropriation applies where land is really needed for public purposes, and it seems to me that, if the condition of these islands is as bad as it is supposed to be, it would justify compulsory purchase. With regard to the purchase of land from the landlords, I am afraid that in St. Vincent itself there are no tenants, because nobody has any money with which to pay rent, or, indeed, is in a position to lease land; but the land to be bought would, of course, be bought from those who have always been responsible for its cultivation. I have put before the Committee some of the arguments upon which the Royal Commission came to the conclusions on which its recommendations are based, and it seems to me the Committee has simply to ask whether or not we are to admit any obligations to these Colonies. If we are to admit obligations, the proposals before the Committee are the very least form which these obligations can take. They are based solely on the necessities of the case, and I do not think any speaker has hinted at a possible alternative. The people have no money; without money there can be no revenue, and without revenue there can be no government. Order cannot be preserved just when order most needs to be preserved. Education has made some progress in these islands, but it must be given up; hospitals must be given up; the system of dockyards must disappear. In the absence of any alternative, I have no choice but to support the Vote.
  *SIR GEORGE S. BADEN-POWELL: My knowledge of
  1580
  West Indian affairs is based upon many months of work as Commissioner to investigate their revenues and expenditure in 1882–4. I maintain there are others matters that can, and must, be brought forward before we can decide what to do to secure the prosperity of the West Indies. The West Indies are passing from sugar to other products, and, although we may grieve to see this in the case of such a great industry, yet I think consideration should be paid to other West Indian products. Now, in my opinion, this House and this Committee have nothing to do with the promotion of this, that, or the other industry. Our duty clearly is to preserve civilisation in that part of the world, and in doing that, preserve every opportunity for all industries. In St. Vincent and Dominica this opportunity of preserving civilisation cannot be taken advantage of unless we have aid and assistance from the mother country. It is no new matter, and no new departure; we have before now assisted these Colonies in some degree. Every year we contribute £4,000 towards the Government, and we have often before raised sums of money for them. I earnestly appeal to the Committee not to hamper the Government when they are, as now, pursuing a right path. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his endeavours to develop a system of administration in the West Indies which will be closely linked with a new system of Imperial control which will be well received by those who have knowledge of as well as sympathy with the West Indies.
  MR. G. C. T. BARTLEY: I desire to say one word on this subject. It seems to me, if what we have heard is the real state of these islands, it does not reflect very much credit on us for the manner in which we have managed them during the last 100 years. It seems to me that the present policy is only a continuation of the policy which has been carried on with regard to these islands—a policy of rippling doles—which cannot put them on a proper basis, and makes it very unfair for the mother country. If this were a Vote for, and we could discuss the general question of, the Colonial Office taking charge of these islands, and putting the Government on

  1581
  a proper basis, even at a large cost, I should be willing to support such a policy and vote what was necessary to carry it out. That seems to me to be the proper policy. Of course, the abandoning of these islands to another nation is a course I could never consent to; and, whatever cost they may be to us now, I hey should have become self-supporting Colonies in the same way that our other Colonies are. Here, if we have the desire to do anything to put these natives on a proper basis of living, and to elevate them, then I consider the dole for making roads, etc., is a miserable proposal. There are many other ways in which this matter might be met—I am not going to enter into the question of the sugar industry, but I think it is only fair to say that if this trouble has been brought about, which I somewhat doubt, by the alteration in the regulations of the sugar trade, the relief by Imperial grants for making roads can hardly be very effectual. There are many oilier industries in this country—there have been persons injured by changes of fashion and habit and other things, which have brought towns and districts into great poverty—I need not instance Ireland—they are all places which might on that ground require grants. Take the tin trade of South Wales, ruined by the tariff of America. If because the industry is changed we are, therefore, to make parliamentary grants to the Colonies, surely that practice would apply to districts of England for the same reason. The Colonial Secretary was, I thought, rather unhappy in the observation he made with regard to the Colonies of France and Germany—those are systems of colonisation of a totally different character from any that we have had. We do not wish to have Colonies managed as are those of Germany and France. We wish them to be spontaneous and to develop themselves, and be satisfied in themselves. I should like to enter a word of protest on behalf of England, Ireland, and Scotland. It seems to me that these various enormous additions to the taxation of the country are getting serious. If we are going to tax ourselves in blood and treasure in all these places—Egypt, Crete, Cyprus, Uganda, West Africa, and so forth—it will enormously swell the expenditure from our Exchequer. We are entering on a
  1582
  policy which should be very carefully overlooked before we enter into it. If this policy was going to strengthen our foreign policy, and give us more backbone all over the world, I should not object to the spirit of the policy; but I have not seen that it has that effect. In many parts of this country there are many people quite poor and distressed with the taxation now, and although I am one who wishes heartily to extend the Empire in every possible way, I say the enormous growth of expenditure is a matter for grave consideration; and if this country once gets the idea that our Colonies are to be maintained by means of the Imperial Exchequer it will be an evil day for this country, because many of the people will not tolerate a system of large Imperial grants for the maintenance of our Colonies. I do not wish to say a word unsympathetic to these Colonies, but I do say, in the interests of the Colonies themselves, we should be careful in limiting the grants.
  *MR. W. F. LAWRENCE: I must say I cordially agree with most of the remarks which have fallen from the hon. Member for Islington, although I always thought that the English taxpayer was one of the lightest taxed in Europe. I am intimately connected with the West Indies, and I must say that those who know the West Indies most like this Vote the least; and while we are not in the least prepared to oppose this Vote I should like to assure the House that it will only give very partial relief for a very short period. An hon. Member told the House that this Vote was a Vote for civilisation, but I think very little will civilisation be advanced by it. The only question we have to consider and make up our minds upon is whether the most civilising influence can be supported by these minor industries which, however important they may be in themselves, will not bring home to the people the comforts which they would derive from the capital, energy and skill of the sugar planter. I have some knowledge of the West Indies, and I say we are voting for one island what has not brought happiness and content to another. Thus we are to vote for roads in Dominica, while 120 miles of roads have done nothing for Tobago; we are asked

  1583
  to create small proprietors in St. Vincent, while Dominica, with land and to spare, has not induced them to settle. I say, by voting these doles we may soothe our consciences with this "philanthropy on the cheap," but it will not bring that self-supporting character which we all desire to see, and which is the desire and aim of the people of the West Indies. They are not here to ask our sympathy because they cannot support themselves, but they do feel the fiscal relations here which have rendered their only industry unprofitable. The hon. Baronet seems to think that it is a matter of perfect in difference, and if a man loses 40 per cent. of his industry he ought to accept the loss and be very cheerful, and turn his energies to another industry. I wonder what he would have thought if, say, under the Employers' Liability Act, the revenue from the coal mines he is interested in were to be reduced to the same extent—
  SIR JAMES JOICEY: I never said anything of the sort.
  *MR. W. F. LAWRENCE: I am sorry if I have misunderstood the hon. Baronet, but I think I am giving the purport of his remarks to the House. It seemed to me that he thought when a man lost half his industry he ought to close it up and start something else.
  SIR JAMES JOICEY: I must protest. I—
  *MR. W. F. LAWRENCE: Well, I leave that. What the hon. Baronet said is in the recollection of the House, and What I say is this: what is in jeopardy in the West Indies is the sugar industry; to-morrow we shall see what he did say, it is the only industry that has stood its ground for many years, and when the hon. Member says, go in for other minor industries, he must recollect that whether you cultivate bananas, pine-apples, or cocoa there is no manufactory in connection with them, and that is what the islands stand to lose when the sugar industry is in jeopardy. The House must not lose sight of that very important fact, and if they want to benefit the West Indies they must do what they can to
  1584
  maintain the only manfacture by which the islands can be benefited.
  The House then divided:—Ayes 46; Noes 222.
  *MR. R. MCKENNA: I should like to make one or two observations on the main subject. We have had two Divisions on the same Vote, and I cannot help regarding it as a difficult situation that I should have felt bound to vote with the Government on one Division, and against them on the other. The right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary in his opening observations said that grants-in-aid were essential for the well-being of the Empire, and he illustrated his proposition by the experience of Basutoland, Bechuanaland, and other African Colonies. Now, Sir, although in various parts of the Empire we have had to give grants-in-aid, in almost every case it has been in aid of a new Colony, and we have had a substantial element of hope that a larger local revenue in the future would relieve us of the necessity of continuing the grant. But in the case of the West Indies we have very old Colonies to deal with, and we ought to take care, if we start giving grants-in-aid to the West In dies, that they shall not be necessarily repeated in future. The Commissioners, in making their recommendations, accompany them in each case with certain proposals of reform, which, if carried out, would give us some hope that in future the condition of the West Indies would be improved, and that we should not be called upon year after year to continue these grants-in-aid. The Commissioners proposed a general settlement of the labouring population of the land, and the establishment of minor agricultural industries. For the first of these purposes it is proposed to spend £30,000 in the case of two islands only, and, inasmuch as this expenditure carries out the recommendations of the Commissioners, we may hope that this grant may be a final grant. But with regard to the other and larger amount—£90,000—we are not given any assurance that it will be accompanied by a policy which will ensure us against further demands in future.

  1585
  Now, Mr. Lowther, this Committee have always resisted giving general grants-in-aid on a mere policy of philanthropy. It has been felt, and rightly felt, that it is not the duty of any Member of this House to vote the taxes of the country for general purposes of philanthropic relief. We are only justified, I submit, in voting these grants if they are accompanied by a general outline of policy, which will demonstrate to us that the expenditure of the money would serve a useful Imperial purpose beyond the mere affording of relief. What we have a right to ask for when the right hon. Gentleman makes his proposition is that he should carry out in its entirety the recommendations of the Commissioners, and should give us a policy of a general establishment of minor agricultural industries throughout the West Indies and a general settlement of the labourers on the land. We know that that policy has been absolutely successful in Jamaica, although in Jamaica it has not been established by the Government, but by the mere process of "squatting" on the land by the negroes. There is another question. Ought this opportunity not to be taken in order to fundamentally alter the present system of Government in these islands? We ought to have some security that the Government would be in sympathy with the people, and not under the planters' influence. Upon this point, Mr. Lowther, I would like to repeat one paragraph of the Commissioners' Report. It is very valuable as indicating what are the present difficulties of the Government in the West Indies, and the direction in which the relief should be looked for—I refer to paragraph 118:—
  "It must be recollected by the Commissioners that the chief outside influence which the Governors of some of the Colonies have to bear in mind is that of the representatives of the sugar industries; that the establishment of any other industry is often detrimental to their interests; and that under such conditions, it is the special duty of Her Majesty's Government to see that the general condition of the public is not sacrificed to the interests, or supposed interests, of a small English minority, which has special means of enforcing its wishes, and bringing its claims to notice."
  It is true that the Commissioners do not embody in their final recommendations the suggestion contained in this particular paragraph, but when the right hon.
  1586
  Gentleman brings his proposals before this House, he might be expected to give us some assurance that the broad political views here expressed would be taken into account. We know as a matter of fact that the planters' influence in the West Indies is absolutely dominant. We have an opportunity now, as the price of the money which we are spending, of establishing a more sympathetic and popular Government in these islands. The right hon. Gentleman laughs, but I think that he, of all men in this country, might have been expected to establish our Government upon a more popular basis than he insists upon at the present moment. The negro, although a man and a brother, I admit, may not be the very finest specimen of a citizen, but the popular interests of the West Indies ought to be considered apart from the mere planters' interests. I go farther, and say that if you do not consider the popular interests apart from the planters' interests, the only way in which you could govern the West Indies satisfactorily would be by a strong despotic government connecting the whole of the islands. To continue the state of things which has existed up to the present time, under which the West Indian islands have undoubtedly been badly governed, and under which the interests of the negroes Lave not been considered—to continue this system, with the assistance of grants-in-aid, without any promise of amendment in the future, is, I regret to say, missing the opportunity which the right hon. Gentleman had, and which I hope he may yet find it in his power to take.
  Vote agreed to.

  PARIS EXHIBITION.
  On the Vote of £20,000 Grant-in-Aid of the expenses of the Royal Commission for the British Section of the Paris International Exhibition of 1900,
  *MR. E. STRACHEY: I understand, Sir, that the amount which the Government propose to Vote at the present moment is £20,000, and the amount of the Vote altogether is a sum of £75,000. But I cannot help thinking that this is inadequate, and not at

  1587
  at all in accordance with what other countries are doing. I am told that £68,000 will be immediately required by the French Government on account of floor space expenses, leaving only the ridiculously small sum of £7,000 to meet all other expenses. On the other hand it is stated—and I believe with truth—that the German Government have already set aside a sum of £245,000 for the purpose of their exhibits at Paris. Well, Mr. Lowther, if that is the case, it seems to me that the House ought to Vote a larger sum than £75,000, especially when we remember that the Germans are our greatest competitors in trade, and that they are spending this £245,000 in the interests of the traders and manufacturers of their own country. In 1877 the British Section cost £126,000, which is much more like the sum we ought to be prepared to spend on this occasion. I, for my part, feel bound to say that the Government might allow the Commissioners to a great extent a free hand, relying on them that they will not be extravagant, and see that the interests of this country are properly represented. At least we ought to be prepared, if really necessary, to give as much money as the Germans are giving. Of course, I am quite aware, Mr. Lowther, that there are many people who say that exhibitions are of very little good. I can only say that if that objection is sound the Government should spend no money at all. They ought to decline, as far as the Government is concerned, to take any part in the matter. On the other hand, if the Government believe that exhibitions are good for trade, they ought to be prepared to spend what is necessary. Therefore, to obtain an expression of the intentions of the Government, I beg to move that the sum be reduced by £100.
  MR. T. C. T. WARNER: I hope that the Government will be able to consider this question. It has been a very serious complaint among the traders of the country that we do not advertise our goods, and we are often being told that our trade is being driven away to foreign countries. But one of the great faults we make is that we do not advertise sufficiently. We live in an age when nearly every trade almost depends upon advertising. The moment a busi-
  1588
  ness leaves off advertising its sales begin to fall off. There is no way of advertising more successfully in foreign countries than by spending money on exhibitions. I, therefore, hope that this will be taken into consideration, especially when we come to consider that our rivals, who have driven us out of many markets all over the world, and are competing with us to a very large extent, are prepared to put down the enormous sum of just upon a quarter of a million. We are just voting £75,000 to compete with other nations, and the result will be that their goods will be ten times better known than ours. Most of our goods, for want of proper advertising, will not be accepted at all, or only the worst kind of exhibits. I hope the Government will reconsider the sum put before us, and that something will be done to satisfy my hon. Friend's suggestion of increasing it, because there is no better way of advertising in foreign countries than by displaying our best exhibits in exhibitions there. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give us a satisfactory answer.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. E. HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.): In reply to the hon. Member's complaint, I have only to say that I am not myself a very ardent admirer of these exhibitions, particularly when they are initiated by countries who do their best to keep out our goods from competition with their own. But, however that may be, I think everybody will agree that it is essential that we should be represented at Paris in 1900, and that having decided that we are to be represented, we should be generous in regard to our expenditure. I have looked back to ascertain what has been the cost of the representation of this country at previous exhibitions, and having made such comparisons as I could, it appears to me that, taking into consideration the fact that, of course, this contribution—whatever contribution we may decide to give—is only for the United Kingdom, and that, in addition to it, donations will doubtless be given by India, and by some other of our Colonies which will be represented, the sum of £75,000 will probably be

  1589
  a sufficient sum for this country to devote to that purpose. But I know the view is entertained—and, I believe, entertained by Members of the Royal Commission itself—that that sum is not likely to be sufficient, and I expect before long, that I shall receive a statement on this matter, giving, no doubt, reasons why this exhibition cannot fairly be compared with some that have been held in the past, and asking me, so far as I am concerned, to be as liberal as possible. I can assure the Committee that I am not inclined to be anything else but liberal, and I shall feel it my duty to ask Parliament for whatever sum that may appear necessary for a proper and adequate representation of this country at the forthcoming exhibition.
  DR. G. B. CLARK: I do not think so much space is required in this exhibition as in the past. Many of our manufacturers are not going to send their patterns over to be copied by the French and other countries, or to allow them to see our designs, so I do not think there will be very many spaces required, because it has now become a form of advertisement which is too costly, and does not bring in an adequate return.
  *MR. T. LOUGH: I want to make one suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman with the view of having a proper Report made of the exhibits. I think the right hon. Gentleman should insist in return for this money, upon someone sending in a Report of all the exhibits of this country, and such a Report ought to be a great deal better done than anything we have had in previous exhibitions. These things are frequently left to private enterprise, and we have to suffer accordingly. The Commissioners should arrange for a very careful, full, and elaborate Report of all new inventions and exhibits of every kind from every country, more especially from remote countries, which would be found specially valuable to some of our small traders who may not be able to pay the heavy expense of sending their own exhibits.
  *MR. STRACHEY: In view of the satisfactory answer, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment withdrawn.
  Vote agreed to.
  Supplementary Vote £96,200, salaries Post Office Telegraph Service.
  Agreed to.
  On Supplementary Vote, £100,000 Redemption Land Tax Government Property,
  MR. A. F. JEFFREYS: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will tell me how much of the Land Tax is still outstanding on the Government property? I should like to ask if he could also tell me how much Land Tax has been redeemed by the public during the last year? As the Committee will remember, the Act of 1896 gave that tax at 30 years' purchase, and if he will tell me how much has been redeemed, and at what cost, I shall be very much obliged. I should also like to know whether this sum includes the expense of relieving Land Tax as the capitalised sum existing before that redemption.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am afraid I cannot give my hon. Friend the particulars he asks for at the present moment.
  DR. CLARK: I wish to point out that it is determined by Article 9 of the Treaty of Union that when a certain sum is raised in England from Land Tax and taxes of this kind, a proportionate sum shall be raised in Scotland; that is, that there shall be a Scotch quota as well as an English quota. Consequently, under this legislation, and by this Vote, you are reducing the quota of Land Tax to be paid by England by this Supplementary Vote of £100,000. There will be that much less paid by England, and, in consequence of that, the sum raised in Scotland being the same Scotch quota, ought to be reduced proportionately.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The hon. Member misunderstands the reason of this Vote, for it has nothing whatever to do with the Treaty of Union. There are certain amounts of land in different parts of the country held for Imperial purposes and subject to Land Tax, and it is to the advantage of the taxpayer that this tax should be redeemed at the rate laid down in 1895, as if it were not redeemed it would be possible for the local Commissioners of Land Tax, from time to time, to raise the assessments as the value of the Government property increases. Therefore, it is our duty to ask the Committee to adopt this Vote, which has nothing whatever to do with the Act of Union, which lays down a certain sum to be paid by way of Land Tax in England and Scotland, of which sum a very considerable amount has been redeemed.
  DR. CLARK: The amount has constantly been decreased by purchases. The amounts are determined by the quota paid in England. It was raised in England in one way, and in Scotland in another. There was a change made by the Act of Union, and under that change there is £100,000 less paid in England, and the amount paid in Scotland is the same whatever this special grant may be. The only thing is that under the Act that change was made this £100,000 a year means £11,000 or £12,000 to Scotland. It is not easy to say that the Treaty of Union has been broken. It has been modified, but never broken. But this is a non-constitutional way of modifying that Bill, and it was done not for the purpose of modifying the article but to give relief. The quota so rose or fell in England or Scotland, but a certain proportion was to be paid by England and a certain portion to be paid by Scotland. It is clear there is to be £100,000 less paid in England than there was before. But to what extent this sum may come in I cannot say. All I have done is to bring the question before the right hon. Gentleman. There is a very important principle involved, and that principle has been broken, because by agreement there has been a modification of
  1592
  that Agreement. It has not been done for the purpose of modification, but of relieving certain places.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I rise to order. This has absolutely nothing to do with the Vote.
  MR. WARNER: Has the Land Tax been redeemed on all the Government property, or is it only a small portion of it? Does it free all Government property? There is another question which strikes me, and that is that this money ought to come out of the debt. This is an investment of £100,000, because the Land Tax is paid year by year out of the income of the Government. If you invest this £100,000 you will leave the Government to pay it year by year, and it really ought to be considered as an investment of £100,000, and ought to go into the capital account instead of the income account. We ought to know whether to charge it to the income of the year or to the capital account.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I think I have been extremely careful in the matter. I have redeemed the charge out of income, instead of by a number of instalments extending over a number of years. With regard to the other point, I think there will probably be over £50,000 worth of the tax to be redeemed, but I cannot tell you exactly at the present moment.
  MR. JAMES CALDWELL: Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer say how much is in Scotland and how much in England?
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am afraid I cannot.
  MR. CALDWELL: How much has been the loss to the Treasury in consequence of the redemption of the Land Tax under the Finance Bill? How much have you lost in consequence of it in England, and how much in Scotland?
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I have not got the figures with me.
  MR. CALDWELL: We do not often get the opportunity of asking you these questions.
  MR. WARNER: I want to know with regard to this £50,000 still to be redeemed, whether it is the intention of the Government to redeem it in the same way, or could the Chancellor of the Exchequer give any reason why the rest has not been redeemed?
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It will probably be done in the same way, and would have been done now if the redemption could have been completed within the financial year.
  Vote agreed to.
  On Supplementary Vote £45,000 for Salaries Post Office Savings Banks,
  DR. CLARK: I should like to know what is to be done with the present Post Office building. Has the Government considered the desirability of selling that site and having the whole of the Post Office buildings together, and not scattered in different parts of London?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): These buildings have already cost over £300,000, and the necessary additions would come to another large amount. The idea, therefore, is to have an entirely new Savings Bank in the West of London, where the site will cost £45,000, which we are now asking for, and the cost of the building will amount, I think, to £180,000. The result of that transaction will be that we shall get a new Savings Bank which will be sufficient for all purposes for the next 10 or 15 years. We shall keep the present building, which may be taken over by the Post Office for Post Office purposes, and this will avoid further sums being spent.
  MR. LOUGH: We have got this Savings Bank, but I do not understand whether any share of this is charged against the Savings Bank Revenue, or is it against the Post Office Revenue? If
  1594
  this is charged against the Savings Bank Revenue, I think it is a sufficient answer to the criticisms about the Savings Bank losing money, because if it is to provide items like this without taking it into account like other banks, it is not a fair comparison with other similar institutions. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has considered fully this interesting statement about putting the new Savings Bank at West Kensington, and I should like to ask him if it will be just as convenient where it is proposed? Perhaps he has fully considered the matter.
  MR. CALDWELL: I fully approve of the system of distributing these buildings all over the Metropolis.
  MR. HANBURY: I think the work will be done just as well on the new site as on the old, and it will cost a very great deal less in the West than it would in the City.
  DR. CLARK: I presume, then, that the Government will take a piece of land of about three acres. [Mr. HANBURY: About five acres.] It will be that land behind Olympia, so that it will be near Addison Road Station, and people coming in from the North may get to it there, either by the North Western or the South Western trains. I think that is probably a very wise policy. The Post Office Savings Bank Department is looked upon as an entirely different class of Post Office work. In most cases it would be very advisable that you should have all your Post Office buildings together. Still, it is a great saving if you look at the standpoint of pure air, because you have on the one side a large open space, and on the other this large park of Lord Holland's, which will be a good reason for keeping it.
  MR. CALDWELL: I am quite in accordance with the views expressed by the Secretary to the Treasury in having these buildings erected in different parts of London. I think it is a very unfortunate thing that so many admirable, valuable public buildings in London should be centred in certain districts. When you are dealing with a

  1595
  locality like Hammersmith, where there is a very large population, and, to a certain extent, a poor population, compared to other parts, I think the Government have exercised a very wise discretion in reference to this matter. If it is necessary to have certain buildings of Public Departments in London, I think it is necessary that they should be distributed as fairly and as equitably as possible, without interfering with the general work of the Department—not so much from the point of view of the London ratepayer as from the point of view of the general taxpayer of the country. We know perfectly well that the opinion on the part of London is that the Government ought to put up expensive buildings on expensive sites, and, so far as regards expensive buildings on expensive sites, I think it ought to be a matter of even and equitable distribution. What takes place after you have put up these buildings on the valuable site? Down comes the local taxpayer upon you, and in consequence of the very generosity which you have shown in giving a valuable site and in putting up an expensive building, he asks you for a large sum of local taxation in respect of that expenditure. That is exactly what we have met with year after year. The Government buildings are every year increasing, and the local taxation which the Government is paying to the local authorities in London, in respect of the very generosity in giving them a good site and expensive buildings, is greatly increasing also. I cordially recognise the wisdom of the Government on the present occasion. I think that what has been proposed in this matter should not escape public notice. I think the Government ought to be congratulated as having made a new departure in this matter, and made a very wise departure, and I hope it will be followed up, so that wherever in London we can get useful buildings cheaply for the public service, it should be done as much as possible, because I think it is most unfair that directly the Government has erected at the public expense buildings upon valuable sites, the local ratepayer comes down upon them and charges them an enormous amount of taxation.
  The CHAIRMAN returned after the usual interval.
  On the Vote for £1,290,000 Supplementary Army Estimate for Capitation Grant to Volunteer Corps, for Transport, Remounts, and Additional Expenditure on Army Service,
  MR. H. V. DUNCOMBEsaid: On this Vote for a certain amount of money, which is granted every year to Volunteers, I want to refer to a suggestion which was made by the hon. Member for Camberwell (Major Dalbiac) in the Session of 1895 regarding the distribution of the capitation grant. His suggestion met with the approval of those who had the interests of the Volunteers at heart, and it also met with a sympathetic answer from the Financial Secretary. He suggested that the capitation grant of 35s., given to every man who makes himself efficient to the extent of nine drills, should be divided into two classes, one of which might be called the "efficient grant," by which every man who attends his nine drills should receive £1, and the other the "proficient grant," consisting of 50s., to be given to every man who attends 25 drills. A good many men now earn that grant who are really not quite qualified to earn so large a sum, and if the suggestion my hon. and gallant Friend made on that occasion were carried out, the War Office would find very little difference. They would certainly get much better value for their money. I wish to urge that upon the attention of the Under Secretary of State for War. There was another point raised again in 1896 with regard to the difficulty of Volunteers spending their capitation grants to the best possible advantage. The Volunteers, as far as aid is concerned, have absolutely no funds at then disposal, except the capitation grant allowed them by the Government. Of course, occasionally a corps have officers who give a large amount of money, especially those in some of the large cities; they start subscriptions, and largo sums are received. That is a matter for themselves. But in the case of others there is no such fund, and they have nothing to fall back upon except the capitation grant. If the men do not make themselves efficient the corps is deprived of the capitation grant. There should be

  1597
  ranges upon which the men could at least do their class firing, and I maintain the corps should not be expected to provide these for themselves. But if one range is closed, we have to provide another, so that the men shall be able to become efficient, and to do this we have to touch the capitation grant. It appears to me that the discussion of this Vote affords the only opportunity for bringing this question before the House. Well, Sir, a case has arisen with reference to my Volunteer battalion in Yorkshire. Through no fault of our own our range was closed, and we had to provide another. If the matter had remained there, no more would have been said, but, instead of allowing us to make our own arrangements, the War Office entered into negotiations which have thrown a very much greater expense upon us than we should otherwise have incurred, and it is with regard to that expense that I wish to address a few words to the Committee. The Corporation of Scarborough, being desirous of improving the district, were compelled to close our old range. We took some land about a couple of miles from Scarborough to make a new range. It was then suggested to the War Office that, if they would allow us to remove the heavy guns and stores to the new range, the Volunteers might make it suitable for their purpose, and we approached them to know if they were willing to do that. This was agreed to, and the range was accordingly purchased and rendered suitable, and the money was practically expended for the benefit of the War Office. We were perfectly willing to incur this expense, on the faith of the undertaking of the War Office, but, having closed one range and opened another, we are told, on applying to the War Office for reimbursement, that it cannot carry out its undertaking. The reason given was that the use of the new range could not be sanctioned because there might be a difficulty in using it at all times. Why, Sir, at the present moment it is open to anybody to close the old range. If anyone chose to do that, it would render it useless from the beginning to the end of the year. Moreover, the old rifle range is only 400 yards in extent. The one we made at our own expense is 800 yards. The range now used for heavy gun firing is right in the track of the whole of the navigation
  1598
  coming from Scarborough Harbour to the North Sea. The range we purchased is not in the track of any vessel that comes anywhere near Scarborough. There was a difficulty about a footpath crossing the new range, but that has been arranged by the District Council. But in consequence of the action of the War Office, after all we have spent on this range, we find it thrown on our hands. That, Sir, is what the War Office calls encouraging the Volunteer force of this country. I hold that in that force we have one of the best reserves. The men are prepared to make financial sacrifices for the good of the force, but I say that this is one of those cases which tend to discourage them. By doing what we have we obtained more ground for the War Office than otherwise they would have got, but they declined to remove the heavy gun firing there. I have shown the Committee that the range we are now using can be closed by any private individual at any time. The range which we have made has been carried out on the War Office plans, as drawn by their own officers, and now, when we ask them—in order that the Corporation of Scarborough may make their improvements—to carry out their arrangements with us, they decline to do so. The men are doing their best, and are making personal sacrifices—I am not now speaking of the officers—to provide the War Office with a competent Reserve, and I say it is not encouraging to have this range thrown on their hands. I, therefore, move to reduce this Vote by the sum of £1,100.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSthen read the Question and Amendment.
  MR. J. BRIGG: I would support the hon. Member. If the Volunteer force is to excel, we must encourage it in every way. We can make the force of the very highest service as a fighting machine. Every opportunity and every encouragement to practise should be given to them. We know that in largo towns where there are large bodies of Volunteers very great difficulty is experienced in finding proper ranges for practice in the immediate neighbourhood, and it is very inconvenient for corps to travel long distances, especially

  1599
  when we consider the habits and occupations of the men. They are for the most part skilled artisans, and they make great sacrifices to make themselves efficient in order to be able to take their places in the field. For that reason I support the hon. Member, especially with reference to this particular range, of which I know a great deal. The present range is a possible danger to the whole of the surrounding district, and ships passing to and fro could hardly escape the range of the shell fire. I hold, Mr. Lowther, that the Secretary for War should give this matter his attention, and thereby encourage those who have been sacrificing a good deal of their own time in order to make up what I may call a deficiency in the Army. I beg, therefore, to support the Motion. I am not acquainted with the particular facts of the case stated by my hon. and gallant Friend, but I do hope the Under Secretary of State for War will be able to afford him and the hon. Gentlemen opposite satisfactory assurances on the subject which they have brought forward. Well, Mr. Lowther, I am anxious to call the attention of the Committee to an important matter, affecting the whole of the Volunteer force in England, but it would not be proper for me to do so in connection with this Amendment, and perhaps I may have an opportunity of doing so after the proposed reduction relating to this matter has been disposed of. I will only now press upon the right hon. Gentleman the extreme importance of doing everything he possibly can to provide ranges for the Volunteer corps, because upon that depend chiefly their utility and efficiency, and their power of earning the capitation grant.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. W. ST. JOHN BRODEICK,): Perhaps I may here be allowed to reply to my hon. and gallant Friend, as this discussion appears to be confined to the particular point he has raised. Now, my hon. and gallant Friend had adopted a rather peculiar course in this matter. He was good enough to bring this question of the range at Scarborough under my notice in the latter part of last week, when he introduced a deputation, which went into
  1600
  the question as between the War Office and the Volunteers. That was, I think, on Thursday night, and now, on Monday evening, my hon. and gallant Friend comes forward and hurls accusations broadcast against the War Office of treating men who sacrifice themselves and their money for the country with procrastination and insult. He says that when the question arose of removing the heavy gun firing, the Volunteers were ready to do all they could in the matter, but only met with a repulse, as we refused to have anything to do with them. Now, I must submit to the Committee that that is an unreasonably short time in which to expect that intricate and important questions can be settled, as between the War Office and any corps, between Thursday and Monday evening.
  MR. DUNCOMBE: It has been going on for a very long time.
  MR. BRODRICK: Oh, quite so; but, I think, not in regard to the War Office at all. It is a very simple question in reality, and it is one which yet causes the War Office a great deal of difficulty all over the country. We have at Scarborough, as my hon. and gallant Friend has said, a range provided, and we have also got, rather in the centre of Scarborough, a site where the rights of firing have been exercised for a long period of time. Well, the War Office are perfectly content with their present range for heavy firing, but the Corporation, having regard to the fact that Scarborough is a residential centre, to which every class of visitors go from year to year, suggested that it would be desirable to remove the heavy gun firing from the centre of the town. The War Office are most anxious to meet the Corporation in the matter. The present site is extremely valuable, and, as I understand, the Corporation were willing to provide another site in order to relieve themselves from the firing in the centre of the town, which we could share with the Volunteers. The Corporation have spent money on the range, but when we came to negotiate we discovered that there was, in front of the range, a footpath which was very much frequented. What, practically, the Volunteers asked us to do was to accept

  1601
  the Corporation purchase of a site, and run the risk of whether we should be able to fire over the footpath.
  MR. DUNCOMBE: It is the same with the range now.
  MR. BRODRICK: Not al all. With great respect to my hon. and gallant Friend, at present we have not got a footpath in front of us, and we have certain rights which we have been using at all times. The Corporation, last October, in reply to a letter addressed to them from the War Office, suggested that, as there would be great difficulty in getting the consent of the Law Courts to close the footpath, or even to close it during actual firing, it would be better to let the matter stand over until an Act of Parliament could be proposed, and the necessary legislation carried through. My hon. and gallant Friend hurls these accusations against the War Office, but why am I to come down to this House and ask it to spend money, after having assisted to provide money towards the change of range, for the purpose of pressing upon the inhabitants the closing of the footpath which they may have the best reasons for keeping open? I think it is unreasonable to put that upon the authorities. On the other hand, I need not say our greatest desire is to settle the matter, and retrieve the Volunteers from further difficulties if we can. As soon as we can get the necessary assent to the closing of the foot path, and have made such arrangements as are fair to both sides, at that moment we shall be ready to hand over the present ground and change our range and accept the Volunteer range. All I can say is that our desire is equally strong with that of the hon. and gallant Gentleman to bring the matter to a rapid conclusion. I agreed with him, I think, on Thursday, at the interview with the officers, and I trust we shall see our way out of the difficulty without reference to the denunciation which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has hurled against me, and which I do not believe an be made good. We shall endeavour as quickly as possible to relieve the Corporation with regard to heavy firing in the middle of the town, and to see
  1602
  that the Volunteers get their range, by putting all parties square, and making proper arrangements with the inhabitants. I hope that will satisfy my hon. and gallant Friend.
  MR. DUNCOMBE: AS to what my right hon. Friend has said with regard to attacks made personally upon him, I hope it is hardly necessary for me to say that nobody who has the honour and pleasure of his acquaintance could possibly make a personal attack upon him. Nobody supposes that he is personally responsible, but I do venture to suggest that there have been delays in this matter with which, the right hon. Gentleman himself is utterly unacquainted, and it was only when this matter was threatened to be brought before the House, that he himself was supplied with anything like full information. When I used the word "insult" it did not refer to anything that had happened between us—very far from it, for we have received nothing but kind consideration at his hands—but to the way in which officials for whom he is responsible to this House have treated those with whom they had to make arrangements, ft is only when these matters are brought before the House that we have any sort of apology made by the Minister responsible. I may say that everything was going perfectly smoothly until five or six days ago, when the matter was brought to my notice, with regard to the letter from the War Office; and if I had not brought the subject on to-night I should have had no other chance of bringing it on this Session, and the War Office officials would have had another 12 months' delay. There was another matter last year that I let slip, and I had not another opportunity for raising it during the Session, and that is the reason why I brought this subject forward to-night; but after the assurances which the right hon. Gentleman has given to the Committee I do not feel justified in pressing my proposal for the reduction of the Vote.
  The Amendment was withdrawn.
  MR. J. DILLON: There is a matter to which I am very anxious to call the attention of the Under Secretary of State for War with reference to the Dum-Dum bullets. We are informed that they have been served out in large quantities to the new force which has been formed for service in West Africa, a force which may be most unhappily brought into conflict with the troops of a civilised Power. The subject has already attracted attention in the French Chamber, where it was raised by way of question the other day.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: Order, order! If the hon. Member refers to the use of the Dum-Dum bullet, I do not think it arises under this Vote.
  MR. DILLON: Allow me to draw your attention to the fact that there is a sum of £158,000 for ammunition.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: That is not for the so-called Dum-Dum bullets, but for ammunition made in England, and not ammunition made in India.
  *THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): These are the ordinary bullets.
  MR. DILLON: Will the hon. Gentleman say that none of this money is to be spent on Dum-Dum bullets?
  *MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: Yes.
  MR. DILLON: Are they confined in use to India, or is it true, as we have seen—["Order!"]—this is a perfectly proper subject, and it will have to be debated. Is the hon. Member in a position to assure the Committee that none of this money will be spent—either in supplying the troops in India with Dum-Dum bullets, or issuing them to the troops who have gone to West Africa?
  *MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: That is precisely the assurance I would give the Committee. The bullets to which the hon. Member refers are made in India.
  MR. DILLON: But is it or is it not the fact, and it is important that it should be stated, that these Dum-Dum bullets have been served out to the British troops sent to West Africa? It has been stated positively in the Press, and it is very important that we should have an authoritative statement from the War Office, as to whether that is or is not the case, for it is going to be a matter of discussion in the French Chamber in the next few days.
  *MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: I think I disposed of that point when I stated that the bullets included in the Supplementary Estimate are the ordinary bullets.
  *MR. D. F. GODDARD: The other night, when this question came up for a very short time, I had to ask a question with regard to the capitation grant, and the answer I received did not appear to me to be very satisfactory, so that I should like to put it again, until I get something rather clearer on the subject. I asked how it happened that there was this large amount for capitation grant—I may remark that I have no objection to the capitation grant at all, and I would just- as soon see it increase as not. That is not my point in the slightest degree, but it is simply a matter of how it is treated financially. I asked how it was that there was an item of £257,600 for it given in the Supplementary Estimate. The answer I received, as I understood it, was that only half of the grant was put on the Estimates last year, and hence it was necessary to put the other half in this Supplementary Estimate before the financial year ends. I am bound to say that that does not at all appear to me to agree with a sentence which appears in the Memorandum of the War Office referring to this matter. At the bottom of page 4 of the Memorandum it says—
  "This sum does not represent the total expenditure which we propose to incur, as half the amount due for the Capitation Grant of the Volunteers will, as last year, be obtained by a Supplementary Vote during the current year."

  1605
  So half of the grant for next year is to be obtained by this Supplementary Vote, which we are asked this evening to pass. Well, that seems to me to be a strange way of keeping accounts. I know it is said you must have this Supplementary Vote, because you want the money by the 1st of April, or something of that sort. That is the answer which the hon. Gentleman gave to me, but surely that is really not necessary, because if that is all it could very well be done by a Vote on account. It was only the other night that we passed a Vote on account of over £13,000,000 for the next year. What I wish to show is the confusion of accounts arising from what I cannot help calling, as it seems to me, an illegitimate use to make of Supplementary Estimate altogether. It is financing in a piecemeal way, and it makes it impossible for us to understand the accounts at all. It seems to me that, when we take up the Estimates for the year, we ought, upon these Estimates, to be able to see clearly what has to be expended on the different departments during the year. But that is not the case. You open this very Estimate for the capitation grant, and yon see in the Estimate for next year a sum of £259,500. Is that the capitation grant for the year? Not at all. We are asked this evening to vole a, sum of £257,600 in excess of that, and it forms part of the Estimate. I am quite aware that it will not make any difference in the balance whether these two items are taken together, equal, roughly, to half a million of money to be expended, but it confuses the accounts, so that when you look at them in this way it is impossible to say what is really the expenditure during the year. Well, I think that, when half the amount appears in a Supplementary Estimate, and one half only in the Ordinary Estimate, it causes a confusion of the accounts, which ought not to be allowed. I think I have very good justification for making a protest on these grounds. That is not a special thing, but it is becoming a regular method for dealing with the accounts—I cannot help calling it a very vicious method of dealing with the accounts—that should be rectified. And my position is strengthened by the return which has come into our hands relating to Supplementary Estimates voted between April and August during the past
  1606
  five years moved for by the hon. Member for North Islington. You see on the face of that return how this system is gradually growing up and increasing year after year. In the year 1893, from April 1st to August 2nd, there were no Supplementary Estimates at all. In the next year, 1894, there was a sum of £52,500. In the next year, 1895, there was £86,000; and last year there was a sum of not less than £1,692,388 passed in Supplementary Estimates, of which Votes nine were closured under the new rule dealing with supply. Well, I think on the face of it, anybody will say that is not the way in which the national accounts ought to be treated. There should not be these complications of account. I have mentioned the capitation grant, and I wish also to speak of two other accounts which appear in this Supplementary Estimate in the same year. There is Vote 8 for the clothing services, for which a sum of £220,000 is asked. I do not intend to criticise this amount. I am not saying it is too much or too little. I am not saying anything about the amount, but I am speaking of the way in which it is treated. There is a partial explanation of this £220,000 in the footnote, and it is a very partial explanation. If you turn to the Estimate for the year, I think I can show how confusing this system really is. There is shown, in this year's Estimates a decrease of £35,000 over last year's Estimates. Is that a fact? It is what anybody would gather who looked at the Estimates, but it is not so at all, because here we are asked for £220,000 which either belongs to the current year or to next year. If it belongs to the current year it must be obvious that the decrease is not £35,000, but £35,000 plus £220,000. That involves a sum of £255,000, which is very considerable and requires explanation. But if, on the other hand, this sum of £220,000 for which you are asking is not for the current account, but for next year, you have not got a decrease of £35,000, but an absolute increase of £185,000 in your Estimates. That is what I mean when I say it is very confusing to keep accounts in this way. Then you take Vote 9. There you have an enormous Supplementary Estimate of £413,000. Now, I am bound to say, in the first place, that I do not think that is a

  1607
  proper way to treat Supplementary Estimates at all. I can well understand that there must be Supplementary Estimates sometimes, as, for example, when there is a special expedition arising after the Estimates have been formed, and when an extra amount is required. But surely it is not necessary to have such an enormous sum as £413,000? Again, if you take the Vote on page 60, it shows that, there is a, decrease on next year's financial Estimates of £103,000. Is that the fact? It, is not at all the fact. You are asking for £413,000 in a Supplementary Vote. Does it belong to the current year or to next year? That is the question to which I wish to have an answer. If it belongs to the current year, it is mot a decrease of £103,000 but a decrease of that amount plus £413,000, which is a very serious difference, and justifies anybody in calling the attention of the Committee to it, and asking for some explanation. But it does not belong to the current year. There is a note which shows that the excess in this Vote is partially due to delay in the delivery of stores by contractors, which should have come in course of payment in 1896–7, and partly to the execution of orders in excess of those contemplated when the original Estimate was framed, and to the provision of an increased stock of materials, so that part of this Vote, if not all of it, on account of next year's Estimates, and this converts a decrease of £103,000 into an increase of £309,800; but whether it is a decrease or an increase it appears to me that I am perfectly justified in asking for an explanation of it. So much for that point. I hope I shall receive some satisfactory answer as to this way of dealing with the accounts, and I do not sea any real reason why the accounts should not be perfectly plain and simple. It seems to me that, when we take up our accounts, we ought to be able to see at a glance what we are spending. But we cannot do that with, accounts so confused. Going back to some questions of detail in the Supplementary Vote, there are one or two questions I should like to put For instance, here is the capitation grant. Vote 5. as to a special capitation allowance of 2s. for each efficient Volunteer, £16,300. I noticed last year that, it was
  1608
  £ 11,000. Why is there this large increase? When you look at the account, it is not accounted for. The men, as stated here, are 217,000, but last year they were 222,000. There is also a sum of £5,400 for stationery, postage, etc., and I wish to ask if it is necessary to put this in the Supplementary Estimates? Why not put it in the ordinary Estimates instead of the Supplementary Estimates? These matters should receive some attention, because this system of Supplementary Estimates seems to be very much abused in the House, and the sooner it is put a stop to the better will it be for the business of the House.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I think, if the hon. Member had had previous experience of the practice of this House, and had also studied in detail the Memorandum circulated by the Secretary of State for War, he would have found a sufficient explanation of his question. It has been the custom for many years past, I when there has been a considerable surplus in the financial receipts of the year, to charge that surplus with some Supplementary Estimates if there are public grounds for anticipating the expenditure. I think I shall be able to show exactly I what has been done in this case, why it has been done, and why there have been exceptional reasons in the current year for action of this kind. What has been done? A sum of £260,000 has been placed upon the Supplementary Estimates for the Capitation Grant for the second half of what I may call the Volunteer year. That is so much the better for the Volunteers, for the payment will be anticipated by a few weeks. It is obviously of importance to the Volunteers that the payment should be made as soon as possible, and therefore it is to the public advantage that this amount, should be inserted in the Supplementary Estimates rather than in the Estimates for next year. With regard to £500,000, the I balance of £766,000, by which the Supplementary Estimates are charged for the expenditure of the coming year, as is fully explained in the Memorandum of the Secretary of State for War, that is for the purchase of clothing and stores, to be paid for in the current financial year, which will practically relieve the ordinary Estimates for next year. It

  1609
  is to the public advantage, having regard to the reasons which justify Her Majesty's Government in proposing so this House a considerable increase in the Army, and therefore a corresponding increase in clothing and stores, that the clothing and stores be provided at as early a moment as possible. We think we have acted in the interests of the public service in ordering that clothing and those stores some months before the usual time, and bringing them for payment into the current year. The exceptional circumstances of the year, from a financial point of view, have no doubt led to a much larger amount than usual being proposed to be voted in this way in the Supplementary Estimates. Only the other day the House was informed by the First Lord of the Admiralty that there has been a saving of no less a sum than £2,270,000 on the Navy Estimates in the current year. That amount was proposed in the Estimates of last year as essential to the service of the year; it has been voted with unanimity by the House, and it would have been expended, so far as the Government were concerned, if only the progress that might reasonably have been expected had been made with the ships under construction. Owing to the entirely exceptional circumstances of the dispute between the engineers and their employers, which could not have been anticipated, and over which neither Government nor Parliament had tiny control, that progress was not made, the money could not be expended, and therefore the money will fall into the surplus of the year, and twelve months hence would naturally be used for paying off debt. As that money has not been expended, we shall have to impose upon the Estimates of next year an additional amount of £1,400,000, and I would ask the hon. Gentleman if he thinks, after the vote of this House, after the demand by the Government for this exceptional expenditure, after the sum necessary for that expenditure has been taken from the taxpayers, that it ought to go to pay off the National Debt, and that another sum, for precisely the same purpose, should again be extracted from the taxpayers next year. That appears to me to be a proceeding which we ought, as far as possible, to avoid, and therefore I proposed—and
  1610
  I am taking the whole responsibility upon myself—to my noble Friend the Secretary of State for War that, as this saving has occurred in naval expenditure, he should, as far as he thought it was in accordance with the public service, anticipate the Votes for 1899 by the purchase of stores and clothing, and by the payment of this Volunteer grant, out of the revenue of the current year, instead of imposing it on next year's taxation. That is the explanation for which the hon. Member asks, and I hope he considers it satisfactory.
  MR. WILLIAM WOODALL: The Committee is indebted to the hon. Member for Ipswich for having brought under the notice of the House the new financial conditions which are presented to us in the Supplementary Estimates. There must be very few Members of this House who do not regard the Supplementary Estimate as something which is called for in order to make up the necessary expenditure for the current year. We have now learned from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is an expedient, to which he gives his authority, for relieving the necessary expenditure of the coming year, and for enabling him to dispose of his surplus.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It has been done at any time within the last 20 years.
  MR. WOODALL: I am under the impression that never before has the House been confronted with Supplementary Estimates on so large a scale or covering so much ground. The Committee is being launched into a system which is comparatively novel, and which none of us think is free from a certain danger. The Estimates of the current year, approved by the House, ought to show the expenditure for that year upon the different services, and I shall be very much, surprised if the Comptroller General does not bring under the notice of the Committee of Public Accounts this comparatively novel innovation upon our Constitutional methods. I should like very much to make perfectly clear what is the process which has been adopted with regard to the Volunteer sanitation grant. We are supposed to pay that grant in advance, and it appears to me to be a very happy thought when the

  1611
  Government determined to pay in advance, by way of Supplementary Estimates, half of the grant presumably accruing to the Volunteers for the following year. But what the Committee ought to have made clear was why, having once started by giving an allowance of 50 per cent. to the different Volunteer corps throughout the Kingdom, that payment should be repeated. I should like to know that these contracts were made for goods which will be delivered into the stores before the 31st March. There is a very large sum for ammunition, and I should like to know-how much of that £158,000 is for stores to be delivered, and which will be delivered, before the 31st March. I put a question the other night, on the rising of the Committee, as to the contracts of the Government for ammunition, and I should like to know how far these contracts with outsiders have been satisfied, and how far the Government has been able to rely for assistance upon the great houses of Birmingham, because there have been very unpleasant rumours that some of those manufacturers have been doing a roaring trade with some of the Queen's enemies during the past year, and that while these contracts with foreigners are satisfied, the ammunition of the War Department has fallen into arrear. Of course, I have no right to speak with any knowledge of the subject, but it will be a satisfaction if the Government will give us some assurance on the point. But I protest that the mere fact of the happy accident of the Chancellor of the Exchequer being in possession of a surplus which he desires to dispose of before making his arrangements for the current year is no justification for anticipating the expenditure of the year by giving an inflated Supplementary Estimate like this.
  MAJOR F. C. RASCH: I have listened with the greatest interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Hanley, and I wish to say a few words with reference to the Cavalry remounts. As hon. Members know, the Cavalry are remounted by a system under which the Colonel and the veterinary surgeon buy horses from dealers. Certain statements were made in another place by Lord Ribblesdale and Lord Wenlock about the system, and we are supposed to know
  1612
  about our buying horses from dealers, and so encouraging horse-breeding throughout the country. That has only been a pious opinion. I should like to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he might adopt the much better system which exists in Austria-Hungary, where they breed the best Cavalry horses in the world. They have a system of depôts started by the Emperor Francis Joseph in 1866. There are nine in Hungary and eight in Austria. Sires are bred at these depôts; they are sent round to serve mares at farms all over the country, and their produce is bought by the Government at prices ranging from £16 to £32 for Cavalry and £28 for draught horses—practically £26 for Cavalry and £28 for draught. No horses are bought under five years old, and none of them are kept over eight years; they are not kept over the age of 13. Ten per cent. of the Cavalry and 12 per cent. in the Artillery are cast every year. In our service in this country, we are buying horses supposed to be four years old, but they very often are not. The horses stay very much too long in some of our Cavalry regiments, particularly in some of the Life Guards. I venture to suggest that the Government should start a number of remount depôts in Ireland. I cannot see why they should not. We hear a good deal about Irish farming and Irish industry. The Irish fanner is not in a position to pay a good price for a good sire. He gets an indifferent horse, and with the loss on produce the middleman gets a profit and the Irish farmer practically nothing at all. The expense would not be very great, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman, with his usual sense, will agree with me that it is more advantageous to pay a little more for a desirable sire than to pay a fair price for an indifferent one. With reference to the question of forage, when I had the honour to be on the other side of the House, and the hon. Gentleman sat here, we were always talking to the Government, saying that they bought their straw from France and their hay from the Argentine. It seems to me that the present Government are doing precisely the same thing, though I have no doubt they have excellent reasons for doing so. I cannot see why they should buy their forage from abroad, and why

  1613
  they should not buy it at home, so as to do what they can for the English farmer. Having slated these few questions in a moderate form, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give them his attention.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: There are two points on which I wish to make some inquiry. One of them was mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend who has just spoken. That is the question of remounts. A. certain amount of money is taken in the Supplementary Estimates for these remounts, and I should like to know how far this is an increase of horses in the present year, and how far it is an increase in the next financial year. The Committee are generally disposed to agree in the view expressed by the hon. Members on both sides of the House that we are short of horses in this country, and the questions in this Session have brought out the extent of that shortness. The numbers are really smaller than they appear to be. I want to know how far this Supplementary Estimate has made good those numbers, or how far it is a preparation for any increase which may take place in the next year. The other point concerns the allowance to Volunteer officers. I want to ask the Under Secretary, following up the question put to him by another hon. Member to-day, what are the hopes of the Government in regard to an increase in the efficiency of Volunteer officers. I imagine that most Volunteers themselves will admit that they have officers only a little over a, half of what is needed, and of that half about a half are not what can be called thoroughly efficient. Now, in answer to a question, the right hon. Gentleman seems to suggest that an increase is already taking place. I want to know whether the present arrangements are really giving an increase in the number of officers. In the last figures published, the deficiency is extraordinarily great in different parts of the country. In one regiment in Lancashire, for instance, they have only five captains out of eight, and no subalterns at all. The question seems very important, and I am sure the Committee will be glad to know the extent of that improvement, and whether it is likely to be continued.
  1614
  Another question to my mind is whether the Government ought not to take the clothing of the Volunteer regiments into their own hands.
  *MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: In answer to the question put by the hon. Member for Hanley, I would say that he should bear in mind, as regards the complaint of the Volunteers, that the Government have endeavoured to meet it, and that whereas they were supposed to pay in advance, they were in reality paying arrears.
  MR. WOODALL: I endeavoured to say so.
  *MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: In meeting that complaint, instead of giving the Volunteers in the year 1896–97 the sum which I put roughly at half a million, they gave them three-quarters of a million. The Volunteers acknowledged that to be an important concession, and it had the effect it was intended to have, of removing a considerable number of the financial difficulties from which they suffered. In making that payment of £750,000, it was convenient to the Exchequer at the time that two-thirds of the grant should be paid by Supplementary Estimate in the preceding year, so that £500,000 was paid in the preceding year, and £250,000 in what I may call the current year. When the spring of the following year came round it was expedient, as was explained at the time, to make a half grant again in the preceding year, and so in the following year only half the grant was taken, and that remains until the present time, and is continued in the present Estimate. The point to bear in mind is that the Government did make a £250,000 gift to the Volunteers, and all the financial arrangements that have taken place since that time have reference to that fact.
  MR. W. WOODALL: May I ask whether that arrangement will be permanent?
  *MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: There is nothing permanent in this life. I cannot, of course, say whether it will be permanent, for it depends upon a higher financial authority than I possess.
  MR. WOODALL: Is that the policy determined upon by the War Office, or

  1615
  is it dependent upon the exigencies and the circumstances of the Exchequer?
  *MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: It may be convenient that half that sum should be paid on the 31st March instead of on the 31st April. How long that will continue to exist is more than I am prepared to say. The right hon. Gentleman raises two points of detail upon which I would like to say a word. He alluded to the sum of £16,300, which appears in the Supplementary Estimate, as against the special capitation for efficient Volunteers, and so forth. He says it is considerably in excess of the amount of the previous Estimate. That does not happen to be the case. The fact is that in the previous Estimate the two sums were separate. The two shillings grant and the one shilling grant appeared as separate items, and if you put the two items together the real difference is only between £16,500 and £16,250. That is only a difference of £250, and that is about the ordinary fluctuation of things. In regard to other items to which the hon. Member called attention, there is an apparent decrease of £3,500. The apparent discrepancy in the figures is due to the fact that only £4,500 (instead of £11,000) was taken for this Service in the Supplementary Estimate of 1896–7, so that it was necessary to take £17,500 in the 1897–8 Estimates to make up the sum of £22,000, which it was estimated would be required for this allowance. The £14,000 now taken represents the half of an estimated expenditure of £28,000, so that there is really a considerable increase on the item. Then, Sir, my hon. Friend behind me raised the question of forage, and in answer to that I would desire to say that the Government have impressed upon commanding officers the desirability of purchasing forage from local sources, as far as it is possible to do so. To a very large extent, forage has been purchased from local sources. The difficulty is that it is found that certain forage cannot be procured from local sources at the usual prices, and the local contractors have, in a considerable number of cases, been offered the supply of forage, but their tenders have been higher than those at which the forage can be purchased elsewhere, and they have in many cases declined the contract for it, under
  1616
  the circumstances, saying that the amount paid was insufficient. I would call my hon. and gallant Friend's attention to the fact that, after all, this question of forage is probably not so serious as he seems to consider. I have some figures here which I should like to quote to the House.
  COLONEL A. LOCKWOOD: We do not care so much about the prices of forage as that forage should be purchased from home growers.
  *MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: That is the whole point. I suppose in forage, as in other matters, the price is an essential part of the transaction. I suppose, in conducting his own affairs, my hon. and gallant Friend pays some attention to the question of price. I would like to explain to the House if they will permit me, the real extent of the grievance. Now, in Great Britain—I exclude the Irish supply—in Great Britain in the year 1896–97, out of a, total supply to the troops of over 120,000,000 pounds of forage—oats, hay, and straw—65 per cent. was homegrown, and only 35 per cent. was foreign. The total cost of the whole supply of Great Britain was £209,800. Now, I have a calculation worked out to show what it would really amount to in England. I will take the whole supply, and deal with the whole of the 120,000,000 pounds. [An Hon. MEMBER: That is pounds in weight.] When we talk of forage we do not speak of £ s. d., we refer to pounds in weight, of course. I put the total at 120,000,000 pounds, in weight, of forage. Now, 65 per cent. is home-grown, but I will leave the home-grown out. The average yield per acre in the last 10 years in Great Britain for oats, hay, and straw—and I have got these figures from the returns of the Board of Agriculture—represent a total in acres of: Oats, 30,000; hay, 16,000; and straw, 5,000 acres.
  MR. H. E. KEARLEY: How many quarters to the acre?
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: The total in Great Britain, under oats, is 3,000,000 acres, hay 6,000,000 or nearly 7,000,000, so that, supposing the whole supply of oats had been bought from

  1617
  foreign sources, instead of 65 per cent. being bought from home sources, that would have represented only one-hundredth part of the whole acreage under oats in Great Britain. As regards hay, it would have represented only one-four-hundredth part, so that, after all, the question of foreign forage is, as I ventured to say at the start, of much less importance than some hon. Members appear to suppose. But I repeat that, as far as possible, as far as the prices will permit, the home sources of supply are had recourse to, and it is only because there would be a considerable addition to the Estimates if foreign supplies were altogether excluded, that the War Office does not bind itself to obtain home-grown forage exclusively.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: I should like to ask the hon. Member to explain how much the capitation grant to the Volunteers is, and how much was voted in the ordinary Estimate for 1897–98?
  *MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: £253,000.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: Taking the figures with regard to forage for 1896–97, the percentage of home-grown and foreign, would the right hon. Gentleman kindly give the figures for 1897–98 to show whether there has been any improvement in the proportion of home and foreign produce consumed during these years?
  SIR J. COLOMB: With regard to forage, can the Financial Secretary to the War Office give us any figures for 1897–1898, to show whether there has been any improvement in proportion of home to foreign produce consumed?
  *MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: The figures I have given show the proportion for the year 1897–98. It represents the ordinary state of things, and generally corresponds to the figures for each year.
  SIR J. COLOMB: Is it home-grown produce that has been consumed this year?
  *MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: The consumption of home-grown produce, the figures of which I have just given to the House, represents the year to which the figures have particular reference.
  MR. WOODALL: As a matter of fact, has there been a change in the policy of the Department with regard to these contracts or tenders?
  *MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: Certain changes have been made with regard to the contracts in ordinary use in Ireland, to meet the views of the Irish contractors, but no other change has been made. If there is anything vicious in the existing system, it is inherited from the late Government.
  *SIR A. B. FORWOOD: Before the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer be forgotten, with regard to the Supplementary Estimates, I should like to say one word upon that matter. The Chancellor of the Exchequer explained that, owing to the shortcomings of the contractors in not fulfilling their engagements, he had a surplus of something like two and a-half millions to dispose of. Under ordinary circumstances that surplus would be paid into the Exchequer, and would go in reduction of the National Debt. Now, Sir, I quite sympathise with what my right hon. Friend said—that it would be taxing the ratepayers twice over for the same purpose if, in consequence of unfortunate delay on the part of the contractors, the money which was not paid in one year had to be surrendered, and new taxation imposed the next year for the same object. That difficulty arose during the time of the Government with which I was connected. The contractors failed to earn the money provided in the Estimates. That money was expended to a certain extent as is proposed now—in support of the wants of the existing year. The right hon. Baronet opposite was chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, and the Admiralty came under the severe lash of his censure for venturing to spend the money thus unearned in other directions and in the saving of the expenditure of the following year. Now, Sir, the result of that proceeding was the Naval Defence Act. The main object of the Naval Defence Act was to prevent that surrender to the Treasury of the unearned money of contractors; that it should be carried over from one year to the next, and thus double taxation be prevented. This is a good opportunity of urging upon the Treasury that the proper course

  1619
  would be to endeavour to make some arrangement by which this money could be ear-marked; for if there is a sum of money which would otherwise have been earned by contractors, not earned by them in the year, instead of surrendering it, it should be put to a suspense account for the payment of these contractors in the following year. Now, it is an exceedingly wasteful sort of Supplementary Estimate. When the Departments get towards the months of September and November they ask for Reports from the various officers. How much is this contract going to earn, and how much will that contract require? Estimate them all and find out if there will be a surplus of a large sum of money. Rush into the market and press contractors to take orders for ammunition—say, four or five hundred thousand pounds; I say that there cannot be the same care with that great haste with regard to the prices then as there would be if it were purchased in the beginning of the year. And why is it done? Simply to avoid this double taxation, and I think this is a great opportunity for endeavouring to impress upon the Exchequer that we want another system, and that any money unearned by a contractor should be ear-marked and carried to a suspense account and be available for the following year.
  *SIR. U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I think that the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has furnished, in the concluding words of his speech, very good and adequate reasons for the action which he says the Public Accounts Committee took when he was in office. He attacked me because the Public Accounts Committee, over which I had the honour to preside, dropped upon the Department in which the right hon. Gentleman served for having used money which had been provided for one purpose, for a totally different purpose—a proceeding totally contrary to the Rules laid down by Parliament. I do not at all regret the action which we took. But the right hon. Gentleman himself pointed out, from his own experiences as an official, how mischievous it is for one Member of a Government—the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for example—to ap-
  1620
  proach another Member of the Government, and say, "Here is so much unexpended money; pray manage to spend it on something, in buying metals, etc.," things which the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly well acquainted with when he was at the Admiralty; and when persons in the position which he filled are asked to spend money in such a way, it was pointed out how badly that money is expended if, at the last minute, the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes to him and begs him to spend the money somehow. I do not think I need at all to defend the action of the Public Accounts Committee—an action which year after year has been most useful for protecting the interests of this House and the interests of the taxpayer, because the right hon. Gentleman has himself furnished us with the best reason for the action of that Committee. Nor will I follow the right hon. Gentleman into the particular recommendation which he made of passing on money from one year to another, and not having each year self-contained. If there were any fear of that advice being followed, then it would be indeed necessary to attack the arguments which the right hon. Gentleman advanced. I only desire to draw attention to the fact that by his closing sentences he has completely demolished the arguments with which he commenced his speech.
  COLONEL SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Before the Committee approach this large sum of £203,000, I think, perhaps, there ought to be some assurance from the Under Secretary of State for War that an effort will be made to improve the organisation of this enormous force, and not only the organisation of this enormous force, but also improve their armaments and equipments.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: The general question of the Volunteer Force does not arise, and the hon. and gallant Member must wait until the Volunteer Vote comes on in due course.
  COLONEL SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Not upon the capitation grant?
  *SIR H. FOWLER: In the year 1896–1897, the Government proposed that there should be a considerable increase

  1621
  in the capitation grant to the Volunteers. In round figures, a half a million per annum. [Mr. BRODRICK: No: a quarter.] Well, a quarter of a million per annum. The Government then stated that before the financial year 1896–1897 commenced, it was desirable that certain sums should be paid in advance. They got a Vote of £250,000: then the Vote was taken for £500,000 in the course of the ordinary Estimates. Then the statement upon which that Vote was granted was, that in the following year only £250,000 would be asked for. According to the answer that the hon. Member has just given to me, the Estimates for 1897–1898 would only include £250,000 taken for that purpose. Before the year 1897–1898 is closed, the Government come and get another £250,000, apparently to repeat twice over the system of paying in advance. They get an extra £250,000 in 1896–97, and now they are asking for another £250,000 in 1897–98. I know, Sir, there is no real excess—I am quite aware of that. I know that the Government are putting out the policy of payment in advance, but what we are face to face with in this system is that there is an entirely new departure in our finance—that we are copying the French system—we are not charging the expenditure of the year to the income of the year, which has been the strong point of our finance in years past, and has been our protection for the control of our annual expenditure. Now, practically, we are voting hundreds of thousands on military expenditure to-night which are really payments which belong to next year, in order to absorb a surplus. I am not going to argue whether it is right or wrong to absorb a surplus. The late Secretary to the Admiralty made a proposal to the House, which I do not think he would have proposed a few years ago—a proposal for carrying forward balances and ear-marking for certain expenditure. The Government of that day would not listen to that, but now you are doing precisely the same thing in a more insidious manner, and in a manner by which the House loses its control over the expenditure of the year. The right hon. Gentleman who is going to answer me will perhaps
  1622
  be kind enough to answer this question: Are you, or are you not, voting out of the money received by the taxation of the year 1897–98, a part of the expenditure which belongs to 1898–99? If you are, you are violating every principle of finance which has been followed out by this country for the last 25 years.
  *MR. BRODRICK: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down did not hear the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The principle of the right hon. Gentleman appears to be that, if the country on one portion of the national service—say, the Naval Service—is unable to spend in one year the sum of money voted for that Service, that it must not be used for any other portion of the national defences for the same year. Here we have the sum of £2,200,000, and I suppose that £2,200,000 must be applied to the reduction of the National Debt, and next year the taxpayer is to be asked to vote another £2,200,000, which has already been levied from him, to carry out the services which, by an Act over which the Government had no control, was postponed from one year to another. The scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer has the effect that we are preventing the taxpayer from providing money twice over. I think the right hon. Gentleman was peculiarly unfortunate in the illustration which he took of the Volunteer Capitation Grant. I should like to make this matter quite clear to the right hon. Gentleman. The first occasion on which our financial principles were violated, according to the right hon. Gentleman, was in 1896–97, in March; in that year the Government, in view of the long controversy as to whether it should be paid in advance, paid the extra £250,000. In addition they gave £250,000 in advance for the then current year in March, and the remaining £250,000 in April. What they did that year they have done again this year. This is not a payment in advance in the ordinary sense. The Volunteer year begins on November 1st. So the £250,000 we are now paying in March is paid four months after the year begins. We did this in 1896–7, the same in 1897–8, and the same in the present year. I believe that to end the financial year on March 31st is a most unbusiness-like proceed-

  1623
  ing, for you force people to bring up, by hook or by crook, everything they can. [Sir H. FOWLER: The taxes are paid in at that date.] So the taxes are, but the taxes are levied, and levied by definite rule. We cannot, however, carry out contracts by definite rule. Under the present system you are often hurried, in order that this 31st March rule may be observed. Although the Committees of the House have always upheld the system, there is no doubt it has led to a great business inconvenience. It has been said that the expenditure of the year is not confined to the income of the year, and the Supplementary Estimates have been spoken of as novelties; but that is not so. I remember these Supplementary Estimates since I entered the House, with, I think, the exception of one year; and, so far from these Estimates being the exception, they are the rule. But the Committee may rest assured we have made arrangements in good time which will secure the articles for which we now take money being supplied in due course before the close of the financial year.
  MR. WOODALL: The Committee were assured by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, finding himself in possession of a surplus, he had arranged with the War Department to expend it within the year. The right hon. Gentleman spoke just now of the inconvenience the Service suffered by having to hurry up the contractors to deliver stores before the 31st March, but, on the other hand, it ought to be remembered that contractors are bound by certain conditions of their tenders, and everything they supply is subject to inspection under the ordinary rules. What the Committee ought to sedulously guard against is that money voted ought not to be expended simply to prevent it coming back to the Treasury. I hope that what has been said to-night will not be altogether without effect in guarding against a procedure which is in distinct violation of the old traditions of the House.
  MR. R. G. VERNEY: I have only entered the House in time to hear the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that 35 per cent. of the forage for the horses of our troops comes from a foreign source. I am not going to enter into the grievances of the British
  1624
  farmer, but I will call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to this fact: that when the Warwickshire farmers read this statement to-morrow morning they will express unqualified dissatisfaction at the attitude he has taken up. Everybody knows that the best way to protect the British farmer is to encourage him by buying his produce. I sincerely hope that the Government will see their way to do that. We have been told that there has been a reduction of the foreign produce which has been imported by the Government for the Army. Although it is a reduction of the original amount, I do not regard that with a feeling of satisfaction, because if after the reduction the percentage is brought up to 35 per cent. it is not half enough. I hope the day will not be far distant when the farmers will know that the Government Departments are the first to encourage them to produce hay, corn, and everything necessary for the horses' fodder, and that the time will come when we shall see the War Office buying the whole of that which is necessary in our own country.
  MR. WARNER: The Financial Secretary has assured us that 35 per cent. of the forage is foreign and 65 per cent. is British. Will he, to make the matter clear, give us a statement as to the percentage three or four years ago? Because we have a statement in acreage, and so much ought to depend upon the amount an acre produces. What we want to know is the proportion of the percentage at the present time and what it was three or four years ago. We do not want to go into statistics, but we want to get the true proportion of the foreign forage that comes for the purposes of our Army. There is a curious statement in the papers this morning about the troops on active service in Egypt having worn their boots through. There is something wrong in the replacing of the old boots, and I should like to know from the Under Secretary for War that this is not due to the mismanagement of the War Office.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The Under Secretary for War may be a good soldier, but he is a most monstrously bad financier. I agree with the remarks of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton with regard to keeping our accounts—beginning and ending within the year.

  1625
  If this proposition is to be adopted, will the War Office submit to a reduction—I suppose it would be a pro rata reduction? If so, there is no force in the argument of the right hon. Gentleman. I submit that this is an exceedingly important matter. The whole foundation of the finances of the country rests upon this: that you should raise the whole finances by a Vote for the year; that if there is in that year a surplus, that surplus should be returned, and applied to the reduction of the National Debt. Then the right hon. Gentleman says Consols are very high, and he does not want to buy them. That may be, but what I wish to point out is that that absolutely strikes at the root of the financial system of the country, and that if that contention is to be adopted we shall have to find some new system altogether. Of course, when we have a Chancellor of the Exchequer such as we have now we may still feel safe, but suppose right hon. Gentlemen opposite cross over to these Benches; I do not know what state of confusion our finances will be in. I trust the House will not be led away into adopting these vagaries of finance. Here we have a Supplementary Estimate of £1,250,000 brought forward without any pretence that an emergency has arisen such as would justify it, and when we ask for an explanation we are told, forsooth, that it is convenient, and that, if not spent, the amount would go to the reduction of the National Debt. That is exactly where it ought to go, and, if it does not, then there is an infringement of the sound principle that the finance of the year should be contained within the limits of the year. The right hon. Gentleman says the 31st March is an inconvenient day. Well, fix another day, the 1st April or 1st January. But whatever it is, that is the day that marks the close of one financial year and the beginning of another. That is a solemn and essential principle, which ought not to be departed from.
  CAPTAIN G. R. BETHELL: I should like to ask if it would not simplify discussion and prevent misunderstanding to adopt the principle already adopted with regard to capitation grants—namely, to make the Volunteer year coincide with the financial year?
  *MR. BRODRICK: I am afraid that that would be impossible. A great deal of the Volunteer work is done at Easter, and if you get, as you would do according to the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, two Easters in one financial year, it would upset the whole of "their arrangements" for efficiency. It would be impracticable.
  CAPTAIN BETHELL: I am quite certain that it is to be done easily.
  *MR. GODDARD: As a protest against what I consider the dangerous financial policy enunciated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I move the reduction of the Vote by £1,000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,289,000, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Goddard.)
  MR. WARNER: I hope the Financial Secretary will give some answer to the question raised as to the purchase of stores locally.
  *MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: Instructions have been given to commanding officers to purchase locally, as far as possible, and I understand that the percentage of local purchasers of stores is now considerably higher than it was this time two years ago. With regard to the question the hon. Member asked as to the boots supplied to the troops serving in Egypt, I have ascertained that the bad wear of the boots was due to the fact that the road which the troops had to take through the desert consisted of rocky slate, which not only destroyed the boots of the soldiers, but injured the hoofs of the horses. The same thing happened in 1889 under the same circumstances. But there is a very considerable supply of boots in this country, and there will be no difficulty in replacing those that have been destroyed.
  MR. WOODALL: I think I am entitled to an answer to the question I put with regard to ammunition. Is it true that-certain contracts have been given to houses, which I need not particularise, that, there has been delay in delivery by those houses, and that fresh contracts have been entrusted to them, while at the same time these houses have been vigorously supplying foreign Governments?
  *MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: It is the fact that at the beginning of the year supplies were in arrear, but all arrears will, I hope, be made up by the end of the year. With regard to the particular houses to which the hon. Member refers, I know of no indulgence such as he alleges having been given to any firm.
  MR. WOODALL: Has not a contract been given to a great Birmingham firm, although that firm is in arrear, and is continuing to supply large quantities of ammunition to a great militant foreign Power.
  MR. H. C. RICHARDS: I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman whether the boots about which we have heard so much were supplied direct to the forces of the British Army or through the Egyptian Government, and whether they were sent from England or from a foreign port.
  *MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: They were boots made in England, of first-class quality, hand-made, of the usual description supplied for foreign service.
  MR. RICHARDS: From what contractors were they obtained?
  *MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: They would come from a large number of contractors.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 65; Noes 174.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again on Wednesday.

  REGISTRATION (IRELAND) BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  CHAIRMAN OF THE PARISH COUNCILS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made and Question proposed—
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to extend the provisions of the Bill to other persons who are ex-officio Justices of the Peace."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  MR. J. CALDWELL: This, Sir, is an illustration of the way business is rushed through unexpectedly. This is a Bill which was evidently not expected to be reached at this particular time, all the more so that there is now an Instruction to extend its provisions. The Bill is brought in by the Lord Advocate, and it proposed to confer upon the Chairmen of District Councils in Scotland the powers conferred upon the Chairmen of District Councils in England. Now, so far as that part of the Bill is concerned there was no practical opposition to it, but, on the other hand, it is to be borne in mind that there were others besides the chairmen of Councils who were ex-officio Justices of the Peace, and, therefore, it was that the matter was brought under the notice of the Lord Advocate, and this Bill was introduced, dealing not only with chairmen of Councils, but also magistrates and others who by virtue of their office in Scotland were Justices of the Peace. So far as regards ex-officio Justices of the Peace, I have no objection whatever to the power being granted to them, but I think we have come to the point now at which this power, if it is to be granted at all, ought to be granted not merely in the case of Scotland, but also in the case of England and Ireland as well. If it is in order, I would be inclined to move an Amendment to that effect. I do not know, Sir, whether you would accept such an Amendment.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. GRANT LAWSON): The hon. Member can not move what would be practically a second Instruction.
  MR. CALDWELL: However, Sir, I am quite entitled to say this: the Bill was brought in evidently in an imperfect condition, because it was to confer upon chairmen of Parish Councils certain powers, and it is now to be extended to other persons, who are ex-officio Justices of the Peace. That is going far beyond the scope of the Bill, as originally introduced. What I suggest is this: that, instead of adopting an Instruction now which will widen the scope of the Bill, the proper course would be that this Bill should be withdrawn, and a new Bill should be brought in, to apply not only to chairmen of Parish Councils, but to ex-officio Justices of the Peace. If this is

  1629
  done we should have an opportunity of proposing that the Bill should apply, not only in the case of Scotland, but in the case of Ireland and England.
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): I really think the hon. Member is rather ungrateful. The Bill, as originally introduced, was intended to assimilate the law of Scotland to that of England, and to allow the chairman of a Parish Council to become a Justice of the Peace without having to repeat the oath and pay fees on the occasion of each re-election. As soon as the Bill appeared on the Paper, representations were made to me from several hon. Gentlemen, including some representations from the hon. Member for Mid Lanark himself, to the effect that we ought not to stop there, but that we should extend the privilege to all Justices of the Peace. Well, that is exactly what this Instruction does. I am, therefore, absolutely unable to follow the reasons for which the hon. Member now opposes the Instruction.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.

  CHAIRMAN OF THE PARISH COUNCILS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

    CLAUSE I.
    An Amendment made.
    Motion made and Question proposed—
    "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    MR. CALDWELL: I should like to ask the Lord Advocate whether this clause will cover the case, not merely of an ex-officio who has been re-elected once, but whether it would apply if he is elected after a lapse of some years.
    *MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: The clause is not intended to apply after a hiatus of 20 years, for instance.
    MR. CALDWELL: It seems unfair that a man who is already a Justice of the Peace for one county should, on being made an ex-officio Justice of the Peace in another county, have again to pay the fee and to take the oath. He ought not to have to pay again whatever interval there has been. As the Lord Advocate is aware, this is a point which has actually arisen. Suppose a man is Chairman of the Parish Council of Lanark; as Chairman of the Parish Council for the time
    1630
    being he is a Justice of the Peace for the county. Would it be necessary, under this Bill, for that man to take the oath and pay the fees twice over?
    *MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: No.
    MR. CALDWELL: When a man has once taken the oath as a Justice of the Peace he ought not to be asked to take that oath a second time merely because he occupies a position which the law imposes upon him.
    *MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: I agree with the hon. Member, and he will bear in mind that each county has a separate Commissioner of the Peace.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Other Amendments made.
    Bill reported with an amended title; as amended to be considered upon Thursday.

  SHERIFFS-DEPUTE TENURE OF OFFICE (SCOTLAND) BILL.

    CLAUSE I.
    *MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: I rise to move to omit the word "Depute." The object of that Amendment is this: hon. Members will be aware that originally the Sheriff was a person who had practically nothing to do with the law, and that the real judge who acted for him was called the Sheriff-Depute. The work of the Sheriffs becoming very onerous, they were allowed to appoint others, who were called Sheriff-Substitutes. The modern form is to talk of them simply as "Sheriffs" and "Sheriff-Substitutes." It is an anachronism, now that the old Sheriffs have been abolished, to have a Sheriff-Depute when there is no Sheriff.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "Depute."—(The Lord Advocate.)
    Question, "That, the word 'Depute' stand pari of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Question proposed that Clause 1, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
    MR. CALDWELL: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that on the Second Reading of this Bill he stated that he would be willing to consider any suggestions that were made to him. His attention has been drawn to one very important matter, and I think it is very

    1631
    unfair to try and push the Bill through without doing something in regard to that question—I mean the question of pensions. The Sheriff-Principal in Scotland occupies the same position as a County Court Judge occupies in England. I do not see why power should not be given to grant a pension in case of misfortune in the case of a Sheriff-Principal just as it is given in the case of a Sheriff-Substitute. Take the case of insanity, for instance. In case of that misfortune happening to a Sheriff-Substitute there would be power to give him a pension; in the case of a Sheriff-Principal there is no such power. The particular case that this Bill has been brought in to provide for is this: There are, I think, two Sheriffs who are unable to perform their duties, one of whom has been for a considerable period an inmate of a lunatic asylum. I think, in the case of persons occupying the high position of a Sheriff-Principal, there ought to be some provision that the Treasury should be able to grant either a retiring allowance or a pension. In a matter of this kind the House has always been very jealous in regard to vested interests. I certainly think that we have a right to have this question considered. I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would have dealt with it before the Bill reached the present stage.
    *MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am willing to promise that the matter shall be considered and dealt with, one way or another, before the Report stage.
    MR. CALDWELL: The right hon. Gentleman knows that we cannot part with our power over the Bill in that way. If I had thought the right hon. Gentleman would have neglected to deal with the matter I should certainly have put down an Amendment.
    *MR GRAHAM MURRAY: I will consider the matter before the Report stage, and, if necessary, recommit the Bill.
    MR. CALDWELL: That is a round-about way. It will be better to deal with it while we have the Bill in Committee than to recommit the Bill—
    It being midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

  SPECIAL JURIES BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported; as amended, to be considered this day.

  BURIAL GROUNDS.
  Select Committee appointed to inquire into the subject of Burial Grounds provided by Local Authorities, under the Public Health (Interments) Act, 1879, and other Acts; to inquire whether any alterations in the existing law are necessary, especially in regard to the consecration of the ground, the provision of chapels, the allocation of fees, and the appointment of chaplain, and to report thereon.
  The Committee was accordingly nominated of:—Mr. Griffith-Boscawen, Mr. Robert Cameron, Viscount Cranborne, Mr. Bromley-Davenport, Mr. Goddard, Mr. Gretton, Mr. Laurence Hardy, Mr. Jebb, Mr. William Jones, Mr. Perks, Mr. Pym, Mr. H. C. Richards, Mr. J. W. Sidebotham, Mr. Carvell Williams, and Mr. Woodall.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Five be the quorum—(Mr. J. W. Sidebotham.)

  PETROLEUM.
  Select Committee appointed to inquire into and report upon the sufficiency of the law relating to the keeping, selling, using, and conveying of petroleum and other inflammable liquids; and the precautions to be adopted for the prevention of accidents with petroleum lamps.
  The Committee was accordingly nominated of:—Sir Thomas Gibson-Carmichael, Mr. Jesse Collings, Mr. Alexander Cross, Mr. Fortescue Flannery, Sir Edward Hill, Mr. Kenyon, Mr. Macdona, Mr. M'Killop, Mr. Joseph A. Pease, Mr. Pollock, Mr. Harold Reckitt, Mr. Compton Rickett, Sir Benjamin Stone, Mr. Tully, and Mr. Ure.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Three be the quorum.—(Sir William Walrond.)
  House adjourned at 12.10.

Preamble
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat upon the Woolsack shortly after a Quarter-past Four of the clock.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SAT FIRST.
  Lord Plunkett, after the death of his father.

  PREVENTION OF FLOODS BILL.
  LORD TURING: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to give further powers to County Councils, with a view to the prevention of floods and other damage arising from rivers and watercourses, and to move that it be read a first time.
  Bill read a first time accordingly.

  RIOTS IN BOMBAY.
  LORD REAY: My Lords, as I see the Under Secretary of State for India in his place, I beg to ask if he has received any further information as to the situation in Bombay?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of ONSLOW): My Lords, I am glad to say we have received a telegram to-day from the Governor of Bombay. The telegram is as follows—
  "Bombay still quiet. Dock labourers not yet returned to work. Total arrests in connection with the riots, about 200."

  EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES BILL.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY)reported Amendments to the Evidence in Criminal Cases Bill, and Standing Order XXXIX. was, upon his Lordship's Motion, dispensed with. Bill ordered for Third Reading.

  STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is one of a series of Bills on this subject. It is the same as that which was introduced late last Session, but which, for some unfortunate causes to which I will not further refer, was not proceeded with. The principal object of such Bills, as your Lordships are aware, is to enable the Statute Law to be revised, and to be republished in a convenient form, representing the existing law after the removal of all that has been repealed and superseded. A new edition of the revised Statutes has been actually completed; the three last volumes would have been published before the end of last year if the Bill had been passed during the course of the Session. They now await the passing of this Bill, which I have introduced thus early, in the hope that Parliament may think fit to prevent any further delay. I should be glad to add a few words as to the nature of the work which has been done. I think it would be impossible to take more care than is, in fact, taken in the preparation of these Bills; the work is done, in the first instance, by the most competent and experienced draftsman whom we can obtain, and his work is checked by a second draftsman. The drafts are then referred to every Department which appears to be affected by any of the repeals proposed, and are afterwards supervised by the Government draftsman. They then come before the Statute Law Committee, consisting of persons of the greatest skill and experience in legal and Departmental matters. The Bill is finally submitted to the Lord Chancellor of the day, who satisfies himself respecting it, and introduces it to the House. During its passage it is subjected to the special

  1499
  ordeal of a Joint Committee of both Houses, comprising what I may be allowed to call the highest authorities in either House, on the questions likely to be raised in a Measure of this kind. I am not prepared to say that infallibility has been attained in this work, or in any other that I am aware of, but the errors which have ever been discovered are remarkably few, even when all the care which I have described is taken into consideration. As to the value of the new edition of the Statutes, I will only mention one point; it is this: that the present edition of 12 volumes takes the place of no less than 91 volumes of the former edition. If your Lordships think fit to give a Second Reading to this Bill, I shall propose that it be referred to the Joint Committee for Statute Law Revision and Consolidation, in pursuance of the Motion passed by your Lordships last week. Your Lordships have been good enough to assent to a similar resolution in many previous years, and I trust that those who have already done valuable service in past years on the dry and thankless work which comes before this Committee will be willing to serve again. I desire to remind the House that the appointment of the Joint Committee does not remove from Parliament control over the Bills referred to it; but, on the contrary, ensures that no amendment of the law shall creep in under the name of revision or consolidation—a risk which is undoubtedly incurred when Bills of this kind are passed through the ordinary Committees of either House. The work is essentially that of experts, and is practically impossible of transaction in Committees of the whole House. It is the business of the Joint Committee to certify that no amendment of the law is contained in any Bill referred to it, and it is on the understanding that Parliament has confidence in that certificate that the Members of the Committee are invited to enter on their task.
  LORD THRING: My Lords, I have had, as your Lordships are aware, very great experience in dealing with the Statute Law, and I attribute great importance to these Statute Law Revision Bills, as by excluding all the expired and effete law they enable our code of law to be brought within the compass of a few
  1500
  volumes. I cannot forget the trouble I had some 25 years ago when beginning to study the mass of Statutes—trouble not only intellectual but mechanical, in going through some 10 or 12 volumes to look up a particular point of law; but now, owing to what has been done in the revision of the law, anybody who chooses may find out without difficulty what the law is. It is a mistake to suppose that artisans and other working men are not interested in the law. The revised Statutes can now be obtained at a moderate price by the numerous free libraries, and in their present form make the law acceptable to all. As the Lord Chancellor has said, 15 volumes will comprise the whole of the Statutes, and anybody of ordinary ability will be able to ascertain what the law is.
  Question put.
  Second Reading agreed to.
  The House adjourned at 4.40, till To-morrow, at 4.15.