Sitting of 24 March 1898

Preamble
MR. SPEAKER took the Chair at Three of the clock.
STANDING COMMITTEE ON LAW, ETC.
Ordered, That the Standing Committee on Law, etc., have leave to sit this day until half-past Three of the clock, during the Sitting of the House.—(Sir James Fergusson.)
DUBLIN PORT AND DOCKS BILL.
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

FILEY GAS AND WATER BILL.
SIR JOHN MOWBRAY: I beg, Sir, to move—
"That the Resolution of the Standing Orders Committee of the 8th day of March, with respect to the Filey Water and Gas Bill [H.L.] be referred back to the said Committee, and that they have power to inquire whether there are any special circumstances which render it just and expedient that the conditions upon which the Standing Orders

727
were dispensed with in the said Resolution should be further modified in respect of the said Bill, so far as regards the townships of Gristhorpe and Lebberston."
In moving this Resolution I may say that the Standing Orders Committee do not seek to make any substantial alteration in the Resolution of March 8th. The Committee reported that the Standing Orders should be dispensed with, and that the Bill should be allowed to proceed on certain conditions. One of these conditions had reference to the townships of Gristhorpe and Lebberston, and as some misconception appears to have arisen as to the precise meaning of the Chairman's Report the Standing Orders Committee are desirous of further considering that report as regards the townships I have already named. It is a small point.
Motion agreed to.

PETITIONS.
  HABITUAL DRUNKARDS.
  From West Derby, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  In favour, from Burnley and Towneley; to lie upon the Table.
  NONCONFORMIST MARRIAGES (ATTENDANCE OF REGISTRARS) BILL.
  From Norwich, against; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (IRELAND) BILL AND SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  In favour, from Wandsworth, New Basford, Doncaster Priory, Morpeth, Sowerby Bridge, Crewe, and Gerrans; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  In favour, from Cheshunt, Darlington, Nuneaton, Crewe, and High Wycombe; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, ETC.
  LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANIES.
  Account (presented 23rd March) to be printed, [No. 129.]
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1887.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 5th March, 1898, granting a retired allowance, under the Act, to Jacco Marten, Policeman, Tricomalee Naval Yard [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  COLONIAL REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS).
  Copy presented, of Report No. 9 (Dominica, Report on the Agricultural Capabilities of Dominica by C. O. Naftel, late Inspector of Estates in Ceylon) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (PLAGUE).
  Copy presented, of Further Papers relating to the Outbreak of Plague in India (No. III.) (in continuation of [C. 8511]) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, No. 2041 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  MAIL STEAMER SERVICES, NORTH AND WEST COASTS OF SCOTLAND.
  Copy ordered, "of Report, dated 15th January, 1898, of the Inter-Departmental Committee appointed by the Postmaster General to inquire into Mail Steamer Services on the North and West Coasts of Scotland."—(Mr. Hanbury.)

  GRAND JURY OFFICERS (IRELAND).
  Return ordered, "of Officers in the service of the Grand Jury in each County in Ireland, in the following form:—?
  County—

  1. Name of Officer;

  2. Position;

  3. Date of appointment;

  4. Authority or statute under which appointed;

  5. Actual present emoluments, and how paid;

  6. Nature of appointment—i.e., whether permanent or temporary from assize to assize;

  7. Whether service to the Grand Jury has been continuous;

  8. Whether he discharges the duties of his office personally or by deputy;

  9. Whether he holds any other county office or office under the Executive Government;

  10. If so, state name of office and the emoluments attaching to such office;

  I certify the above Return to be correct.
  Signature —, Secretary to Grand Jury.
  Date—."
  —(Mr. Engledew.)

  CORPORATION OF LONDON (FOREIGN CATTLE MARKET, DEPTFORD) BILL.
  Reported; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  THANET GAS BILL.
  Reported; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY (STAFF).
  Address for "Return, giving list of Executive and Administrative Staff of British South Africa Company in the
  730
  territory subject to the control of the Company, and at Capetown, on the 30th day of September, 1897, in the following form:—

  Name.

  Office.

  When appointed.

  —(Mr. John Ellis.)

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

  STATUTE LAW REVISION BILLS, ETC.
  That they propose that the Joint Committee on Statute Law Revision and Consolidation Bills do meet in Committee Room B, on Wednesday next, at Twelve o'clock.
  That they have referred the Statute Law Revision Bill to the Joint Committee appointed by both Houses to consider all Statute Law Revision Bills and Consolidation Bills of the present Session.

  ELECTRICAL ENERGY (GENERATING STATIONS AND SUPPLY).
  That they propose that the Joint Committee appointed to consider and report on Electrical Energy (Generating Stations and Supply) do meet in Committee Room A, on Thursday next, at half-past Eleven o'clock.
  HART'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to dissolve the marriage of Edith Susan Anna Vernon Hart, the wife of Henry Chichester Hart, with the said Henry Chichester Hart, and to enable her to marry again; and for other purposes."
  ABERDEEN CORPORATION (TRAMWAYS) BILL. [H.L.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled "An Act to authorise the town council of the city and royal burgh of Aberdeen to acquire and the Aberdeen District Tramways Company to sell their undertaking; to empower the town council to work or lease the undertaking; and for other purposes."
  ABERYSTWYTH GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled "An Act for granting further powers to the Aberystwyth Gas Company."
  LANARKSHIRE AND DUMBARTONSHIRE RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  And, also, a Bill, intituled "An Act to authorise the Lanarkshire and Dumbartonshire Railway Company to raise further moneys; to enable the Caledonian Railway Company to subscribe for additional shares or stock; and for other purposes."
  HART'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the first time; to be read a second time.
  ABERDEEN CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  ABERYSTWYTH GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  LANARKSHIRE AND DUMBARTONSHIRE RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

  STATUTE LAW REVISION BILLS, ETC.
  Lords Message [this day] relating to the time and place of meeting of the Joint Committee, considered:—
  Ordered, That the Committee of this House do meet the Lords Committee as proposed by their Lordships.
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.—(Sir William Walrond.)

  ELECTRICAL ENERGY (GENERATING STATIONS AND SUPPLY).
  Lords Message [this day] relating to the time and place of meeting of the Joint Committee, considered:—
  Ordered, That the Committee of this House do meet the Lords Committee as proposed by their Lordships.
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.—(Sir William Walrond.)

  RESERVE FORCES BILL.
  Bill to amend the Law relating to the Reserve Forces and Militia, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Brodrick and Mr. Powell-Williams.
  RESERVE FORCES BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to the Reserve Forces and Militia," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 146.]
QUESTIONS.

  SWINE FEVER REGULATIONS AT ELLESMERE.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he has received a Resolution unanimously passed at a meeting of landowners and farmers at Ellesmere representing to the Board the inconvenience and loss caused by the present regulations in respect to the removal of swine in that neighbourhood, especially in the case of smaller farmers and freeholders; and whether he will consider the expediency of affording some relief by confining the area of restriction to a radius of one mile from the infected place, or otherwise?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. H. LONG,): Yes, Sir. I have received the Resolution to which my hon. Friend refers, but, inasmuch as outbreaks of swine fever continue from time to time to occur in the district around Ellesmere, I regret that it is not possible for me to give the relief asked for. If local authorities and the owners of stock would co-operate with us by accepting and enforcing to the fullest possible extent the regulations which we feel it incumbent upon us to make if swine fever is to be stamped out in the same way as other diseases have been, I cannot but believe that success would be soon attained, and I would earnestly appeal for such co-operation to those interested in the matter.

  NOTTINGHAM POSTMEN'S MEMORIAL.
  MR. J. H. YOXALL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Memorial of J. T. Carrington and T. Saunders, forwarded by the Postmaster of Nottingham on or before 14th October, 1897, was duly received; can he now explain why no reply to the Memorial has been forwarded; and can a reply now be sent?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): The original Memorial from these postmen seems, unfortunately, to have been lost, but a copy of it has now been obtained from the Postmaster of Nottingham. The memorialists complain that they were taken off some sorting duties to which 7s. allowances were attached, and placed on stamping duties for which only 4s. allowances were granted. But the Postmaster General has ascertained that this was done because the men were found incompetent for the sorting work. In these circumstances, he does not consider that the men have any ground for complaint, and they will be so informed.

  BURNLEY SCHOOL BOARD.
  MR. YOXALL: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education (1) if he is aware that on the 2nd instant the Burnley School Board asked that the approval of the Science and Art Department to the proposed Secondary Education Committee for Burnley should be withheld; (2) whether, nevertheless, that approval was given on the 10th instant; and (3) whether this action is in consonance with the Department's circular letter No. 370, and his own statement in the House in May, 1897, that in districts where no voluntary combination is made, and where rival authorities are in operation, the proposals of the Departmental Committee for preventing overlapping cannot be carried into effect without legislation?
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir JOHN GORST,): The answer to all three Questions is in the affirmative.
  MR. YOXALL: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that the constitution of the secondary education authority for Burnley consists of eight governors of the grammar school, only three representatives of the school board, and no representation of teachers; and whether he will secure that a more even distribution of the representation shall be made?
  SIR J. GORST: With regard to Question 6, the committee organised at Burnley contains two, not eight, representatives of the grammar school. It contains no representative of teachers. The Committee of Council have no power to alter the committee.

  THE BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the elaborate provisions in the form of a regulation, mentioned in paragraph 26 of the enclosure in his dispatch to Sir A. Milner of 13th January, 1898, respecting the administration of the British South Africa Company, have now received his approval, and can be laid before the House?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I have already stated in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for the Chesterfield Division of Derbyshire, that the correspondence is not yet complete, and that, when it is so, papers will be laid on the Table.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea when this particular matter will be complete?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: I am afraid it is impossible; it is now with the High Commissioner, and I do not know when I shall receive his Report.

  AVERAGE ATTENDANCES IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.
  MR. ERNEST FLOWER: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been called to the suggestion of Mr. Nathaniel Louis Cohen as to the advisability of publishing further particulars of the average attendance of scholars in public elementary schools; and whether he will include in the next Departmental Report a list of schools varying 5 per cent. above and 5 per cent. below the national average of attendance?
  SIR J. GORST: The Department are at present preparing tables which will contain information bearing on the subject referred to in the Question. Perhaps the hon. Member will kindly wait till these tables are published before moving further in the matter.

  ISLANDS OF ST. PAUL AND AMSTERDAM.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the islands of St. Paul and Amsterdam are of value for telegraphic communication between the Cape of Good Hope and Australia; whether they were formerly included in the dependencies of the British Colony of the Mauritius; and whether they are now recognised by Her Majesty's Government to have passed to France in 1892; and, if so, how?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: I am not aware that it has ever been proposed that these islands should be made use of for the purpose of telegraphic communication. They were formerly supposed to be dependencies of Mauritius. In 1843 the French took possession of them, and again in 1892 the French flag was formally hoisted in them, and they are now recognised as belonging to France.

  LIMERICK MAIL DELAYS.
  MR. F. A. O'KEEFFE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if his attention has been directed to the frequent causes of complaint by the people of the city of Limerick and surrounding counties on account of the late arrival of the mails, owing to the non-providing of a special train at the Limerick Junction for that city whenever the train from Dublin is late; will he explain why the postal authorities have refused the small subsidy of £3 to the railway company to run a special train to Limerick when such delay occurs; and whether, seeing that when the mail misses connection at the Limerick Junction a delay of nearly four hours is

  737
  caused in the delivery of letters in Limerick, he will take final steps to have this grievance obviated in future?
  MR. HANBURY: A Question practically identical with that of the hon. Member's was asked by the hon. Member for East Clare on Monday last, and I must refer the hon. Member to the detailed answer which I then gave. I shall be happy to show him a copy of it.

  RE-ENGAGEMENTS OF RESERVISTS.
  MR. H. O. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, of the Reservists offering themselves for re-engagement, a large number have been rejected as unfit for service with the Colours; whether the proportion of rejections has been in some districts as high as 25 per cent., and in one case over 40 per cent., of the number of men offering themselves; and whether the War Office has in any case sanctioned the retention in the Reserve of soldiers who have been rejected as medically unfit; and, if so, on what grounds the country is to pay 6d. a day to men who have been certified as unfit to render the service for which the money is paid?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. W. ST. JOHN BRODRICK,): A return up to the 31st March, showing the particulars required in the Question, has been called for from the several districts. When the information has been received the Secretary of State will consider what action should be taken.

  NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS IN THE RESERVE.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether non-commissioned officers in the Reserve offering themselves for re-engagement will be accepted, and, if so, whether they will hold their former rank in the regiments to which they are posted?
  MR. BRODRICK: Some sergeants have returned and will be gradually absorbed in the Establishment of that rank. An unlimited number cannot be accepted: the interference with the promotions of those who have continued to serve would be unfair.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Arising out of the previous answer may I ask whether the returns will be made public in the House—will hon. Members have an opportunity of seeing them?
  MR. BRODRICK: Well, Sir, I did not propose to make them public, but I shall be ready to answer Questions upon them at any time.

  ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE AND THE "HALF-STRIPE."
  CAPTAIN G. R. BETHELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty why the privilege of wearing the "half-stripe" has recently been taken from lieutenants of the Royal Naval Reserve; and whether, as officers of the Royal Naval Reserve rank with, but after, corresponding ranks in the Royal Navy, he will consider the possibility of restoring this privilege, the loss of which is much felt by the lieutenants of the Royal Naval Reserve?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. W. G. E. MACARTNEY,): My hon. and gallant Friend is in error in supposing that the privilege of wearing the "half-stripe" on the uniform has been taken away from lieutenants of the Royal Naval Reserve, for the right to wear it has never been given to those officers. The reason why the "half-stripe" cannot be allowed to them is that it is not given to all lieutenants on the Active List of the Navy, but only to those of eight years' seniority, and as lieutenants, R.N.R., rank with, but after, all lieutenants on the Active List, the "half-stripe" would be out of place if granted to officers of the Reserve.
  CAPTAIN BETHELL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the "half-stripe" is only worn by lieutenants of over eight years' standing; and is it not the fact

  739
  that under the Queen's Regulations these gentlemen are eligible?
  MR. MACARTNEY: I am not aware of that.

  THE DUM-DUM BULLET.
  MR. J. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India who is responsible for the issue of Dum-dum bullets to the troops in India; and whether the India Office has any information as to the effect of these bullets on men or animals?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): These bullets were issued by order of the Government of India. No further sanction for their issue was necessary, nor was any such sanction either asked for or given; but Her Majesty's Government were fully informed as to the proceedings of the Government of India, and saw no reason for questioning their propriety. On the 1st of March I gave the hon. Member the substance of such information as I had as to the effect of the bullets, and added that I had asked the Government of India for reports on the subject. Those reports have not yet reached me, and are not likely to do so for some time to come.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office on what grounds he holds that the use of Dum-dum bullets is not contrary to the declaration of St. Petersburg?
  MR. BRODRICK: Because the Dum-dum bullet is "neither explosive nor charged with a fulminating or inflammable substance." These are the words of the Convention. I may repeat, what has already been stated to the House, that the Dum-dum bullet does not, as a rule, inflict nearly so severe a wound as was inflicted by the Snider bullet.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether Dum-dum bullets have been served out to any troops directly under the control of the War Office; and who is responsible for the supply of these bullets to troop serving in West Africa?
  MR. BRODRICK: The Dum-dum bullet has not been issued to any troops directly under the control of the War Office. With regard to West Africa, I must refer the hon. Member to my reply to him of the 15th inst.

  LORD JUSTICE FRY'S COMMISSION.
  SIR H. H. HOWORTH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government intend to give effect, by legislation or otherwise, to any and which of the recommendations of the Commission presided over by Lord Justice Fry; and, if so, whether they propose in the meantime to modify or change, or put in abeyance, the action of the Deputy Commissioners?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD W. BALFOUR,): The Report will require careful consideration by the Government and the Irish Land Commission before a conclusion is arrived at. In the meantime I would remind my hon. Friend that the appendices containing the evidence have not yet been published.

  SHANNON DEVELOPMENT COMPANY.
  MR. W. H. K. REDMOND: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Roscommon, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland under what conditions has a Government Grant of £9,500 been made to the Shannon Development Company; has this company carried out the conditions on which Government and the counties granted them £20,900; was part of these conditions that they should provide a daily passenger service between Killaloe and Dromod, and a cross service between Scariff and Dromineer, and how far have they done so; is he aware that this company only put four small and unsuitable steamers of sixty feet long on the river; on what grounds has the Board of Works issued a certificate that this company has carried out its conditions with the Government, which certificate has compelled the counties to pay their portion

  741
  of the grant greatly against their inclination; and will the Government order the withdrawal of the certificate?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The conditions on which the Government Grant has been made to the company are contained in the agreement between the company and the Commissioners of Public Works. A copy of the agreement and of the several Grand Jury Presentments will be laid on the Table of the House. The Board of Works have certified that the company has carried out its contract with the Government. It rests with the county authorities to say if the obligations imposed by the Presentments have been carried out. The service between Killaloe and Dromod was divided, with the consent of the parties, as provided by one of the clauses in the agreement, into two sections, with Athlone as a centre, it having been found that the through service between the extreme points could not be worked with safety or convenience. The company has also provided special services, including cross services on Lough Derg, so far as the Commissioners of Public Works have considered necessary. The two steamers generally used between Killaloe and Athlone are as large as could pass through the locks between Limerick and Killaloe. The smaller boat used between Athlone and Dromod is suitable for the work, and the fourth steamer is a launch used for local purposes on Lough Derg. The Board of Works have issued their certificate, because that Department is satisfied the company has carried out its conditions with the Government.

  BELFAST DISTRICT LUNATIC ASYLUM.
  MR. W. REDMOND: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Roscommon, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Belfast District Lunatic Asylum is dangerously overcrowded, and that a new asylum for this district is already built and ready for occupation by patients, but cannot be utilised owing to the officers and staff not yet having been appointed by the Lord Lieutenant; also that 300 patients are under care and treatment in the new asylum at Portrane, of the Dub
  742
  lin district, without a superintendent medical officer in charge; and whether the necessary steps will be immediately taken to secure a satisfactory arrangement in the districts mentioned?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Belfast District Asylum is seriously overcrowded. The new asylum at Antrim is not yet ready for occupation, though it is approaching completion. The determination of the officers and staff of the new asylum is at present under consideration, so that there may be no delay in the transfer of the patients when the asylum is completed. It is the fact, as stated, that there are 300 patients under care and treatment in the buildings erected at Portrane. The patients are under the charge of the resident assistant medical officer. There is a legal difficulty in the way of appointing a resident medical superintendent for the new asylum at Portrane.

  NAVY BOILERS.
  CAPTAIN BETHELL: On behalf of the noble Lord the Member for York I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can inform the House what type of boiler is being placed by the French in their largest cruiser building, the Jean d'Arc, which report says is to have an i.h.p. of 28,000 as compared with 25,000 i.h.p. of H.M.S. Powerful; and, whether the Belleville boiler, which is a French type, is still being adopted by the French Admiralty in their fast cruisers?
  MR. MACARTNEY: It is not considered desirable to give any detailed information in this House as to foreign designs, but the noble Lord will find some information on the subject in the report of the Commission on the French naval budget for the year 1898, and in the speech of the French Minister of Marine in the Chamber of Deputies on the 2nd February.

  MURDER OF RELIEF AGENT AT SAIRT.
  MR. FRANCIS S. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether

  743
  Her Majesty's Government are aware that Yussuf Yunan, two days before his assassination at Sairt, wrote a letter to Mr. Andrus, of the American Presbyterian Mission, relating in detail the threats of the Governor and Procureur Général of the district, who each demanded an advance of money from the Relief Funds in charge of the deceased; and whether Mr. Stavrides, legal advisor to the British Embassy at Constantinople, has communicated to the Sublime Porte a copy of that letter, together with copies of the Reports by Mr. Andrus and Vice-Consul Crowe, in support of the statements made by eye-witnesses to the effect that the six men arrested for complicity were hired assassins, paid for their services by the Governor and Procureur Général of Saint?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. G. N. CURZON,): No such letter as that described in the first paragraph has been communicated to Her Majesty's Government. Indeed, in a long memorandum in our possession by Doctor Andrus, written directly after the murder, which it described, there is no mention either of the threats or of the suspected complicity of the two officials mentioned. Mr. Stavrides has been watching the case on the part of Her Majesty's Embassy, but we do not know what documents, if any, he may have communicated to the Porte. Neither the report by Mr. Andrus nor that by Vice-Consul Crowe, both of which we possess, contains anything about the assassins having been hired by the above-named officials.
  MR. T. C. H. HEDDERWICK: Can the right hon. Gentleman name an approximate date when further correspondence relating to this murder will be laid before the House?
  MR. CURZON: I cannot answer that without notice. The whole of the papers are being collected, and will, of course, be laid. As to the data I will make further inquiry.

  POSTAL FACILITIES IN COUNTY CLARE.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, in order to increase the convenience of the inhabitants of the district, the Post Office authorities will establish an office between Ballyvaughan and Lisdoonvarna, in county Clare?
  MR. HANBURY: Inquiry was made last year on the question of establishing a post office at Ballyconnoe, the place, between Ballyvaughan and Lisdoonvarna county Clare, to which the hon. Member is understood to refer; but it was found that an office was not warranted. A delivery of letters to Ballyconnoe on three days a week was, however, established.

  LUBRICATING OIL FOR THE NAVY.
  MR. J. W. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty who are the contractors who supply lubricating oil to the Navy; and what, price is paid for it?
  MR. MACARTNEY: Lubricating oil for the Navy is supplied by limited tender from selected exporting firms, and is accepted upon approved samples, and at the most favourable price. I am not prepared to give the names of the contractors or the prices paid.

  RASHY KNAPP.
  MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the beacon locally known as Rashy Knapp, between Scurvyness lighthouse and Usan village, which has long been used as a landmark by the fishermen, both in guiding them through the channel of the Montrose River and avoiding the dangerous Craig Rock, has recently been removed; and whether he will see to its being replaced?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): I have communicated with the Montrose

  745
  Harbour Trustees, and am informed that the beacon known as Rashy Knapp stood in the middle of a field, and was removed on account of its interfering with agricultural operations by the proprietors, who were not aware that they would thereby cause any inconvenience to navigation. Neither the Board of Trade nor the Harbour Trustees have any power to compel the re-erection of the beacon on private property, but I trust there will be no unnecessary difficulty in making arrangements for the placing of a suitable mark at or near the former site.

  BELFAST FOOTPATHS.
  MR. D. KILBRIDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the extended area of the Belfast City boundary, whether he is aware that the principal city official, in giving evidence before the Select Committee on the Belfast Corporation Bill of 1896, testified that the Corporation would not require the footpaths in the extended area to be flagged; whether he is aware that, notwithstanding this representation, the Belfast Corporation have instructed their City Surveyor to insist upon the flagging of the footpaths in the outside area in the same manner as the footpaths within the old city boundary; and whether, considering that two Belfast City Bills are at present before Parliament, he will make inquiry into the matter for the information of the Members of the House?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Belfast City Surveyor (not the principal city official, who is the Town Clerk), in giving his evidence before the Select Committee with respect to the then existing streets and roads in the added area, which were not repairable by the Grand Juries, stated that he did not think the Corporation would require flagging to be done in the outside area. The Town Clerk of Belfast states that the Corporation have not, nor are they, requiring the flagging to be done in those cases. He adds that paragraphs 2 and 3 of Section 11 were introduced into the Belfast Act of 1896 to carry out this understanding. It appears from the Town Clerk's Report
  746
  that new streets have been laid out in the added area since the passing of the Act, and in such cases the Corporation have required the footways to be flagged before they would adopt them. They are fully justified, he states, in doing so, and all the owners of property adjoining, with one solitary exception, have willingly agreed to this requirement. The only Bill the Corporation have at present before Parliament is, I understand, the Belfast Corporation (Hospitals) Bill.

  SCANLAN ESTATE.
  MR. KILBRIDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that a request was ordered to be issued to the Land Commission on the 9th November last for the sale of the Scanlan Estate, in the Scarriff Union, under Section 40 of the Land Act of 1896; and that Mr. Justice Ross, on 11th March, warned solicitors having carriage of sale that he would deprive them of their costs if they did not forward the request; whether he can state if it has been yet forwarded; whether he is aware that the relieving officer of the Scarriff Union has been notice for the eviction of one of the tenants on this estate for one year's rent; and whether, under the circumstances, the forces of the Crown will be given for the purpose?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The request for an inspection of this estate has not yet, I am informed, been issued, as the resettlement of the rental is not complete. I have no knowledge of the statement as to costs alleged to have been made by Mr. Justice Ross, though. I believe that he intimated that solicitors should proceed with due diligence in all sales entrusted to them. I have called for a Report as to the third paragraph, but have not yet received it. The hon. Member must, of course, be aware that the executive cannot interpose any obstacle to the execution of the decrees of a competent Court.

  ARMY ORDNANCE FACTORIES.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will give information with regard to the Army Ordnance factories in the form of the Return standing on the Paper?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): There will be no difficulty in giving the Return for 1897–8 after the accounts of the year have been closed—say, towards the end of May. As regards, however, the Return asked for for the year 1876–7, there is great difficulty. Some of the sub-accounts, from which details would have to be taken, having long ceased to be of any use, have been destroyed. The Departments were then separate. Their accounts were not all on the same plan, and none were on the lines now adopted. To make an effective comparison between the two years would therefore be extremely difficult, if not impossible. Inquiries, however, are being made to ascertain whether any satisfactory return to meet the hon. Member's object can be prepared. If the hon. Member will confer with me, I shall be glad to meet his wishes, if possible.

  ST. OLAVE'S UNION.
  SIR T. G. FARDELL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to an inquiry held by Mr. Henry Lockwood, an inspector of the Board, on the 1st instant, relative to an application from the Guardians of St. Olave's Union to the Local Government Board to promote a Provisional Order in Parliament to extend the borrowing powers of the guardians from one-fourth (£212,070) to one-half of the annual rateable value of the Union (namely, £424,140); and, if so, whether, seeing that such power, if granted, would mean an increase in the rates of 5d. in the pound for the next 30 years, he will consider the advisability of refusing to sanction the promotion of this Provisional Order?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. CHAPLIN,): I am aware of the Inquiry referred to. If the Provisional Order were issued by the Local Government Board it would not confer on the Board of Guardians any borrowing powers which could be exercised without the sanction of the Board, and, before giving sanction to any loan, the Board would very carefully consider all the circumstances of the case.

  THE FAR EAST.
  MR. R. A. YERBURGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether it is the case, as has been stated, that the Viceroys of Nanking and Hupei and the Governor of Hunan have agreed to direct the affairs of the Yang-tze Valley from Nanking, irrespective of the Emperor's orders, and not to allow the Emperor any voice in the affairs of the government of the central and western provinces; (2) whether Russia has been giving assistance to the Korean Government in the form of the Palace guard, army instructors, and financial adviser; and (3) whether she has now withdrawn such assistance?
  MR. CURZON: We have had no confirmation of the report mentioned in the first paragraph; and in a telegram dated 22nd March Sir Claude MacDonald informed us that nothing was known at Peking of the imminence of extensive rebellion as reported from Shanghai. The answer to the second and third questions is in the affirmative.

  IRISH COUNTY SURVEYORS.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether county surveyors are an Imperial or Governmental appointment, although paid out of the local rates; whether the Grand Juries have neither the power of appointing nor dismissing them; can he define what their position will be under the Local Government Bill; and, if they

  749
  are still an Imperial appointment, will the local authorities be called on to pay their salaries as were the Grand Juries?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: County Surveyors are at present appointed by the Lord Lieutenant, subject to the approval of the Grand Jury. The persons appointed must have been previously examined at an open competitive examination. The salaries of these County Officers are paid out of local rates. They may be suspended or dismissed by the Grand Jury, with the consent of the Lord Lieutenant. Under the Local Government Bill the County Councils will have the power of appointing or removing County Surveyors with the concurrence of the Local Government Board, and they are to have such qualifications as may be prescribed by that Board. They will continue, as heretofore, to be remunerated out of local rates.

  ARDAGH CATHEDRAL, COUNTY LONGFORD.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether any consultation has yet taken place between the Board of Works and the Consultative Committee nominated by the Royal Irish Academy and the Royal Society of Antiquaries as to the means to be taken to preserve the ruins of the ancient cathedral of St. Mel, at Ardagh, county Longford; whether a sealed order has been issued by the Local Government Board closing the graveyard in which the ruins stand; and will there be any effort made to ensure attention to this matter now that the fine weather is approaching, when work could be more easily undertaken?
  MR. HANBURY: No meeting of the Ancient Monuments Committee has taken place since the date of my reply to a previous question on the subject a month ago, but it is expected that they will meet on the 4th proximo. The Local Government Board have postponed the question of closing the graveyard until September next. As previously stated, the ruins have not yet been vested by the Church Representative
  750
  Body in the Board of Works, and, as the Board believe that there is little, if anything, of architectural merit in the ruins, and that they are not being injured by the delay, they have not taken any action in the matter.

  POSTAL COMPLAINT FROM BELTURBET.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that Mr. James McGowan, Medical Hall, Belturbet, complains that his letters are being opened in transit through the Post Office; and, will he cause inquiry to be made into the matter?
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General has received complaints from Mr. James McGowan, Medical Hall, Belturbet, that his letters are being opened in transit through the post; but there is absolutely no foundation for these allegations.

  ANNUITIES UNDER THE LAND PURCHASE (IRELAND) ACTS.
  MR. J. J. SHEE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how many writs and civil bills for the recovery of instalments of annuities payable under the Land Purchase (Ireland) Acts have been issued since 1st March, 1896, at the suit of the Irish Land Commission; and whether the Land Commission can show more consideration by giving purchasers who are in difficulties at least until the gale day next after an instalment has become due for the payment of it?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Commissioners are unable to state without communicating with their local agents throughout Ireland the number of writs and civil bills that have been issued in the period mentioned for the recovery of instalments of tenant purchasers' annuities. The Commissioners state, however, that in all cases in which it may have been found necessary to commence proceedings the arrears were paid with very

  751
  few exceptions. It is the duty of the Land Commission to recover instalments of purchase annuities as they accrue, and the suggestion that a hanging gale should be allowed is not one that could be acceded to.

  DECISIONS OF LAND SUB-COMMISSION.
  MR. SHEE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the decisions in the cases heard by the Land Sub-Commission, which last sat in Dungarvan, country Waterford, have yet been given; if not, what is the cause of the delay, and when are they likely to be announced?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am informed by the Chairman of the Sub-Commission, which last sat at Dungarvan, that decisions were announced in all the cases then heard, on the 22nd February last, with the exception of four cases on the estate of the Marquis of Waterford, in which the decisions will be given on Monday next.

  IRISH POOR LAW UNION AREAS.
  MR. SHEE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether there are 13 Poor Law Unions in Ireland, each of which includes within its area portions of three counties; (2) whether the said Poor Law Unions extend into 23 counties; and (3) whether the Local Government (Ireland) Bill, if enacted in its present form, will entail alterations of the boundaries either of these Poor Law Unions or of the counties in which they are situated?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The facts are as stated in the first and second paragraphs of the Question. The reply to the third paragraph is in the affirmative.

  WOOL SORTING RULES.
  MR. FORTESCUE FLANNERY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the special rules for wool sorting are now in operation; and, if not,
  752
  when they may be expected to be put into operation; and whether, if they have been put into operation, they have been served on all employers known to be manipulating the dangerous classes of wools enumerated in the rules?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. W. RIDLEY,): The special rules have been served on all employers known to be engaged in the sorting of dangerous classes of wools; and in all save four cases, where the employers have still the right to object, they have actually come into force.

  COMMERCIAL TREATIES IN BELGIUM AND GERMANY.
  SIR GEORGE S. BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether in the negotiations for the new Treaties of Commerce with Germany and Belgium due consideration is being given to securing most favoured nation treatment for goods the produce of the United Kingdom; and whether similar treatment can be secured for goods the produce of any British Colony which may desire to secure this trade advantage?
  MR. CURZON: Yes, Sir. The object of Her Majesty's Government is to endeavour in the new Treaties with Germany and Belgium to secure the continuation of most favoured nation treatment for British goods; and to obtain for the British Colonies faculty of accession to the treaties when concluded.

  COLOURS FOR PLEASURE YACHTS.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can state the chief reasons for the enactment in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (Clause 73), that pleasure yachts are permitted, by special warrant from the Admiralty, to fly other national colours than those permitted for the mercantile marine?
  MR. MACARTNEY: I presume that Parliament saw no reason for abolishing a privilege that has long existed.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: May I ask whether the Admiralty can state the reasons for permitting this flag flying?
  MR. MACARTNEY: The Admiralty have no control over the legislation of this House.
  MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES: Upon what grounds did the Admiralty issue their warrant for this permissive section?
  MR. MACARTNEY: That is a different Question, of which I should have notice.

  SEDITION LAWS IN INDIA.
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the petition of the Calcutta Bar against the new legislation regarding sedition, and the contention therein contained that any native Indian subject of Her Majesty who petitions Parliament against alleged oppression, and thereby excites any feeling of enmity against the Government of India, will now be liable to transportation for life; and whether, looking to the provisions of Section 22 of the Indian Councils Act of 1861, he will take care that the privileges of Parliament are not infringed?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: I have seen a letter purporting to be written on behalf of the Calcutta Bar, and containing the contention to which the hon. Baronet refers, and which, on the face of it, is absurd. I see no necessity for any special precautions to protect the privileges of Parliament.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURN: Has the noble Lord any reason to doubt that the petition came from the Calcutta Bar?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: I have no reason to doubt that, Sir.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he proposes to bring under the review of Parliament the effect upon the liberty of the Press of the recent Acts passed by the Government of India dealing with the law of sedition?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: I intend, as I have more than once stated, to lay the Acts on the Table of the House as soon as I have considered them, but I do not propose to take any other steps in connection with them.

  EAST LONDON WATER SUPPLY.
  MR. H. S. SAMUEL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that there has lately been a partial water famine in the East London district; and, if so, what steps Her Majesty's Government intend taking in the matter?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: I am not aware of any recent water famine in the East London district, but in consequence of the Question of the hon. Member I have inquired of the company, and they state in reply that the assumption of a partial water famine is without foundation, that no complaints have been received by them, that their storage reservoirs are all full, and that the supply to the consumers has been continuous.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman also make local inquiry among the people who use the water supply?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: We have received no complaints from anyone. I do not know whom to apply to.
  MR. H. S. SAMUEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the statement has appeared in the East London Press?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: I am not aware of it; neither have I seen it.

  PETROLEUM COMMITTEE.
  SIR J. J. JENKINS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state about what time the Report of the Petroleum Committee now sitting will be issued?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: My right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Committee informs me that they hope to report in the course of the present Session. I understand that they have not yet finished taking evidence.

  DUBLIN POLICE MEDICAL OFFICER.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, now that the doctor to the Dublin Metropolitan Police has resigned, the wishes of the Kingstown force can be met by the appointment of a local medical officer to the police?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Dr. Nedley's retirement will take effect on the 1st May. In the meantime the whole question of the arrangements for medical attendance on the Dublin Metropolitan Police, consequent on Dr. Nedley's retirement, will be considered, including the representations made by the Kingstown force.

  NEW INDIAN CURRENCY PROPOSALS.
  MR. J. M. MACLEAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will explain the nature of the new Indian currency proposals which the Viceregal Government has submitted for his consideration?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: It would be inconvenient to attempt to explain the nature of the currency proposals which have just been received from India within the limits of a Parliamentary answer; but I may state that they will form the subject of an inquiry, which will be instituted forthwith, and that the dispatch of the Government of India, in which these proposals are contained, will be published. No action will be taken by Her Majesty's Government upon these proposals until the inquiry in connection with them is concluded.
  MR. MACLEAN: Will the Report be submitted to Parliament before action is taken?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: That will depend on the time at which the inquiry is completed. My desire is, as far as possible, to consult all who are interested.

  MUZZLING ORDER.
  MR. T. BAYLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the dogs owned by the landlord of a public house or of an hotel have to be muzzled in the house during the whole time that the house is open to customers; and, if so, whether he can see his way to relax this part of the muzzling order?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE: The reply to the inquiry of the hon. Member depends upon whether a public-house or an hotel is to be regarded as a public place, and this is a legal question which I have no authority to decide. It is, however, very desirable if rabies is to be eradicated, that dogs should be muzzled whenever they are likely to come into contact with other dogs, which would usually be the case on premises such as those to which the hon. Member refers.
  MR. R. MCKENNA: Did the Board consider the questions whether an hotel was a public place before it issued the Order?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE: It is not the duty of the Board to consider anything of the kind. The enforcement of the law rests with the local authority and the police.
  MR. MCKENNA: But you considered the nature of the Order?
  MR. BAYLEY: Would a prosecution against the owner of an unmuzzled dog in a public house be a legal prosecution or not?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE: I cannot undertake to answer legal conundrums of that kind.

  ANTARCTIC EXPLORATION.
  MR. J. F. HOGAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Admiralty is disposed to co-operate with the Colonies and the

  757
  scientific societies in the proposed resumption of Antarctic exploration; and, if so, to what extent?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): The Admiralty have been in communication with the Royal Society with reference to Antarctic exploration. The Board has been unable to promise co-operation either by the loan of ships or of officers, as officers cannot be spared at present for expeditions which may keep them away from their ordinary duties for long periods of time; but they have informed the society that if they can render any assistance by the loan of instruments, or by any information which their experience enables them to give, they will be very glad to do so.

  LOCAL REGISTRATION OF TITLE ACT, 1891.
  MR. KILBRIDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the unsatisfactory working of the Local Registration of Title Act, 1891; whether he is aware that in many cases proceedings to perfect the registration of title occupy a period of two years; whether, in view of the multiplicity of offices and officers which act as a block to the sale, transfer, or other dealing in land, he will cause an inquiry to be made into the working of the Act; and whether he will introduce a Bill simplifying and expediting the procedure under the Act?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is true that the proceedings in the registration of tenant purchasers' titles have in some cases occupied a period of two years, but apart from the rare exceptions which present inherent difficulties arising from want of proof or otherwise, the chief cause of any such delays has been the apathy or neglect of the applicants themselves to answer the requisitions issued to them by the Registrar of Titles. In those cases in which the applicants have replied registration has been effected without delay. The Act of 1891
  758
  contemplated a central office as well as local offices for each county in Ireland, and I have no evidence before me that there is a needless multiplicity of offices. I cannot give an undertaking to introduce legislation as suggested in the concluding paragraph of the Question.
  MR. DILLON: Will the right hon. Gentleman hold an inquiry?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I cannot undertake to do that without preliminary inquiry.

  OAT CONTRACTS FOR THE NAVY.
  MR. G. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether in the present tenders for forage in the Western District the standard weight for oats has been increased from 38 lbs. to 40 lbs. per imperial bushel; if so, whether he is aware that large quantities of good British oats weigh only 38 lbs. per bushel, and that, in increasing the weight, necessarily large quantities of thoroughly good British and Irish oats must be excluded; and whether he will order that the weight shall be lowered to the former standard of 38 lbs. per imperial bushel?
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: I was not aware, until the Question of the hon. Member appeared upon the Paper, that any change in the standard weight of oats laid down in War Office contracts, had recently been proposed, except in Ireland, where the standard has been raised to 40 lbs. at the suggestion of Irish growers, who, apparently, considered that standard would promote the supply of the home-grown article. No change will be made in the English standard until its effect on English producers has been considered, and I shall be glad to avail myself of any information on the matter which the hon. Member may be willing to afford.
  MR. W. JOHNSTON,: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what Irish growers requested the raising of the standard?
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: The officers of the Board recently visited Ireland and saw a large number of Irish growers, and the opinion they expressed, I believe, was unanimously in favour of raising the weight.
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: Has the hon. Gentleman any objection to laying their statements before the House?
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: No, Sir.
  MR. LAMBERT: Has the standard been raised for British oats also; if so, why, and will it be lowered?
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: No change will be made until I have had an opportunity of considering it.
  MR. LAMBERT: But the change has been made.

  FRENCH DEMANDS ON CHINA.
  SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of Slate for Foreign Affairs whether he can inform the House as to the conditions of the demands made by the French Government upon China?
  MR. CURZON: NO, Sir, I cannot; and may I say that this Question seems to me to fall into the category of Questions which I asked hon. Members a few days ago to exercise some reserve in putting at the present juncture.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that this is a question of fact and not of policy?
  [No Reply]

  WORKMEN'S TRAINS IN THE METROPOLIS.
  MR. S. WOODS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that several of the railway companies having termini in London, are not complying with the
  760
  Cheap Trains Act, 1883, by running workmen's trains until eight o'clock in the morning; that the latest train arriving in Liverpool Street, on the Great Eastern Railway, is 6.47 a.m., the Great Northern Railway arriving in Moorgate Street at 6.39 a.m., the Midland Railway at 6.13 a.m., whether he is aware that there is a great demand by the working classes for later trains; and whether the Board of Trade are in communication with the railway companies, with a view of securing compliance with the Act of Parliament; if not, will he take the necessary steps to carry out the provisions of the Act of 1883?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I am aware that several railway companies have no workmen's trains running on their lines as late as eight o'clock. The Board of Trade have recently addressed a communication to these companies on the subject. If there is a demand for additional workmen's trains, as distinct from cheap trains, I shall be glad to receive any evidence indicating the further trains desired between specific points, and I shall be happy to cause inquiries to be made, and, if necessary, use the powers conferred upon the Board of Trade by the Cheap Trains Act.

  WALTHAM ABBEY GUNPOWDER FACTORY.
  MR. S. WOODS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the alleged grievances of the workmen employed at the Royal Gunpowder Factory, Waltham Abbey; whether he has read the correspondence which passed between the workmen's secretary and Mr. Ormsby, the superintendent, in October last; whether he is aware that this gentleman refused to meet a deputation of the workmen affected to discuss their grievances; whether he will state the reasons for such refusal; and whether the permanent officials at the factory would now be willing to meet a deputation of the men to discuss existing grievances?
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: Colonel Ormsby, the superintendent at the Waltham Factory, has not refused to consider representations as to grievances brought forward, in the manner prescribed by the regulations, by any workman considering himself aggrieved; but he has declined to receive a deputation from an outside organisation called the Government Workers' Federation. The factory is peculiarly one in which strict discipline and adherence to the rules is necessary for the safety of the men employed, and in the control of which interference cannot be permitted.

  HOURS OF DUTY FOR POSTMEN.
  MR. WOODS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he is aware that the Tweedmouth Committee recommended for postmen a continuous duty, or only two attendances; whether he is aware that at the present time in some of the small amalgamated offices clerks are compelled to make four and five attendances in one day; whether he will get a Return of these offices where these duties exist with a view to the reduction of these attendances; and if he will state the number of hours the eight hours per day is supposed to cover?
  MR. HANBURY: It is not the case that the Tweedmouth Committee recommended for postmen a continuous duty or only two attendances. The Postmaster General is not aware of any specific cases where clerks at small amalgamated offices are compelled to make four or five attendances in one day, but it is probable that such an arrangement may exist. The Tweedmouth Committee, in recommending that the number of attendances should as far as possible be reduced, recognised that in the case of the smaller provincial towns, where the staff reside within easy reach of their office, the pressure of split duties is less severe than in London and at the larger provincial towns, and the extent of their recommendation in this matter was that while each split duty should be considered on its own merits it should be the invariable rule that such duties should be so arranged that the officer
  762
  performing them may enjoy during each 24 hours nine clear unbroken hours at his own home. This rule is being introduced wherever attention is drawn to its non-observance, and in these circumstances it is not necessary to get the return suggested by the hon. Member.

  GOLDEN CELTIC ORNAMENTS.
  MR. D. CRILLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has seen or received a copy of a resolution passed by the Dublin Corporation on Monday directing his attention to the fact that some time ago a body of workmen in the north of Ireland, when making excavations, discovered a number of golden Celtic ornaments of a very rare character, which, in the first instance, should have been offered to the National Museum in Dublin, but which, instead, were purchased at a high price for the British Museum; and strongly urging on the Government the desirability of having those Celtic ornaments transferred from the British Museum to the National Museum in Dublin; and whether, in the spirit of this resolution, he will use his influence to have these ornaments restored to the country whose national art they illustrate?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have seen the resolution referred to. I understand that in the absence of legislation no power exists to transfer these ornaments from the British Museum to the National Museum in Dublin. If I may express my personal view on the subject, I think it is to be regretted that the ornaments did not find their way to the National Museum in Dublin in the first instance.
  MR. W. REDMOND: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman in this connection whether he will allow the Bill which I have introduced, giving power to transfer these—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That does not arise out of the Question on the Paper.

  WEARING THE SHAMROCK.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) whether he is aware that Edward Pilkington, A.B. seaman gunner, with first class conduct, and wearing one good conduct badge, serving on board H.M.S. Retribution at Devonport, was sentenced to 14 days' cells and deprived of his good conduct badge, and reduced to second class conduct, for not taking the shamrock from his cap on St. Patrick's Day last, by order of the officer of the watch, but that this sentence has since been reduced to seven days' cells and the loss of his good conduct badge; and (2) whether he will order Edward Pilkington to be at once released from the cells in case any portion of that part of the sentence remain unexpired, and have him also reinstated in his former position in the service?
  MR. A. CHAMBERLAIN: No information on the subject is in the office, but it is evident that, if the terms of the Question are correct, the man must have been punished for disobedience to orders and in accordance with the scale authorised by the Naval Discipline Act. The answer to the second paragraph is in the negative.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: I could not catch what the hon. Gentleman said.
  MR. A. CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. Member will come to me in the Lobby I will show him my answer.

  IRISH LIGHTS BOARD.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to a letter from the High Sheriff of Dublin to the Corporation of that City in reference to recent transactions of the Irish Lights Board; whether he has read the Resolution moved by Mr. Jones at the meeting of the Dublin Corporation held on Monday last; and whether, in view of the general dissatisfaction which prevails in shipping and commercial circles in Ireland in regard to the present management of the Irish Lights Board, he will this Session introduce a Bill for the reconstruction of that body?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I have received the newspaper report of the proceedings of the Corporation of Dublin which the hon. Member has been good enough to send me. Any representations which the Corporation may be pleased at any time to make to me will receive my careful consideration. My answer to the last Question is in the negative.

  PORT ARTHUR AND TALIENWAN.
  MR. YERBURGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Port Arthur is the naval base of defence of Pekin; whether it commands the Treaty ports of Cheefoo, Tientsin, Neuchwang; whether it is the only port in China with a dock capable of taking modern warships of considerable burden; and whether the harbour of Talienwan is as good as that of Port Arthur, and how far Talienwan is from Port Arthur and from the sea on the west?
  MR. CURZON: The Questions of my hon. Friend appear to relate either to matters of fact which can be ascertained from other sources, or to matters of opinion upon which in the present circumstances I must decline to pronounce.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I rise to order. I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether a Minister is justified in this House in referring a Member, in answer to a Question, to "other sources"; and whether we have not a right to ask Ministers for definite replies as to matters of fact?
  MR. SPEAKER: Undoubtedly. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to give such an answer. It is frequently done by Ministers in reply to Questions which merely refer to matters which can be ascertained from other sources.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he would be so good as to refer us to the sources from which we may obtain the information asked for in the Question?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I do not know where the information is to be obtained.

  REMOVABILITY OF PAUPERS.
  SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether it is intended, under the Poor Law (Scotland) Bill, to make English or Irish born paupers irremovable to England or Ireland after two years' residence in Scotland, as stated in the memorandum to the Bill, or after ten years' residence as stated in Clause 5 of the Bill itself?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY,): It is a clerical error in the Memorandum. A reissue of the Bill and Memorandum will be in the hands of hon. Members to-morrow.

  CHAIN CABLES.
  SIR ALFRED HICKMAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will say when he proposes to introduce a Bill to consolidate the law as to testing chain cables and dealing with the issue of bogus certificates?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: No, Sir. I am not able to state the period when the Bill will be introduced.

  COMMISSION ON THE LAW OFFICES.
  MR. C. E. TRITTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether an order by the Presidents of the Divisions of the High Court carrying out the recommendations of the Commission on the Law Offices, presided over by the present Home Secretary, which he stated on the 9th April, 1897, would shortly be issued, has been issued; and, if not, what is the cause of the delay?
  MR. HANBURY: The order referred to, which was intended to be issued last year, has not, in fact, been issued on account of legal difficulties which have since been pointed out. The Ridley Commission, of course, did not refer to the Legal Departments, nor take any evidence respecting them.
  MR. TRITTON: Do I understand the delay is due to the legal difficulty?
  MR. HANBURY: Yes, I think some legal difficulty has arisen as to the power to make such an order.

  IRISH COUNTY INFIRMARIES.
  MR. JORDAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, seeing there is no reference to county infirmaries in the Local Government (Ireland) Bill, will he state his intentions in reference to the future position and administration of these useful institutions?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: If the Bill passes with reasonable speed through Committee, the Government will probably bring forward a clause dealing with county infirmaries. I am not, however, in a position at this stage to state what form our proposals, if made, will take.

  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACT.
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when he proposes to introduce the Bill to amend the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, which had been prepared, and was ready for consideration, in January, 1897, as stated in Her Majesty's Speech?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I am afraid I can hold out no immediate prospect of introducing the Bill which the hon. Member refers to.

  TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government will this Session introduce a Measure making provision for the superannuation of teachers in public elementary schools?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am afraid I cannot give an absolute pledge on the subject, but I have every hope that the Bill will be introduced and passed into law this Session. Of course, the Bill is one which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has more to do with directly than I have. I was not aware that that arrangement had been made.

  ILLNESS OF LORD SALISBURY.
  MR. DILLON: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Donegal I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether there is any precedent for the business of the Foreign Office being conducted by anyone other than one of the principal Secretaries of State?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I have not looked into the question of precedents; but, inasmuch as Foreign Secretaries have no privilege in respect to the ills to which all flesh is heir, I have no doubt that many Foreign Secretaries have before this called upon their colleagues to assist them.

  CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN INDIAN MILITARY PRISONS.
  DR. R. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he could state to the House how often during the years from 1890 to 1898 corporal punishment has been inflicted for breaches of prison discipline in Military prisons in India?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: There have been 304 cases, during the years from 1890 inclusive up to date, in which corporal punishment has been inflicted in Military prisons in India for breaches of prison discipline.

  STEAM TRAWLING OFF ISLAY.
  MR. D. N. NICOL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the attention of the Fishery Board has been called to the large number of steam trawlers working near the shores of the islands of Colonsay, Gigha, and Islay, and that they have destroyed the gear of the native line fishermen; and whether the Government will take the necessary steps to sea police these waters, and thereby secure adequate protection to these fishermen?
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am informed that the Fishery Board have received numerous complaints of illegal trawling and damage to lines off Gigha, Islay, etc., during the past year, and that, when possible, these complaints have always been investigated either by the Vigilant or one of Her Majesty's gunboats. The investigations by the commanders of these vessels invariably resulted in their finding that the complaints were greatly exaggerated, and the evidence vague and quite insufficient for action to be taken. The Vigilant will visit the district of Gigha, etc., as often as possible.

  IRISH RAILWAY TENDERS.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury a question of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether the Board of Works have only advertised the contract for the Donegal Railway in one Irish paper, whereas the advertisement has appeared in several English papers? Will the right hon. Gentleman see that reasonable facilities are offered to Irish contractors to become acquainted with the works to be let out to contract?
  MR. HANBURY: I am sorry I cannot give the information asked for, as I only received the notice after I entered the House. I quite admit that this is a subject for inquiry.

  COURSE OF BUSINESS.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask whether, in the event of the Army Vote No. 10 being completed early to-morrow, Vote 2 will be taken, that of the Medical Vote, Upon which an important declaration of policy has been promised by the Government?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I understand the arrangement which will be the most convenient is that after Vote 10 the Ordnance Factory Vote will be taken, and then the remaining Votes in their order.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: Beginning with No. 2?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Yes, Sir.
  MR. CROMBIE: Will the superannuation of teachers' scheme apply to Scotland?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Perhaps the hon. Member will put down Questions on this matter to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  SIR W. O. PRIESTLEY: Is it proposed to take the Second Reading of the London University Bill before Easter?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I should be extremely glad to get the Second Reading of this Bill before Easter, but I am told that the Debate on the Greek Loan Bill is likely to last rather longer than I had anticipated. Under these circumstances I am afraid I cannot give any pledge on the subject.

  MINISTERS AND QUESTIONS ON FOREIGN POLICY.
  MR. J. O'KELLY: I wish to ask whether Her Majesty's Government have protested against the occupation of Kiaou Chau by Germany.
  770
  This Question would have been on the Paper, but the officers at the Table took it upon themselves to suppress it.
  [No answer was given.]
  MR. W. REDMOND: May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will be good enough to answer the Question put by my hon. Friend? [Ministerial cries of "No."] May I ask you, then, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, whether it is in the province of the clerks of the House to remove Questions such as that put on the Paper by my hon. Friend, which was to inquire whether the Government had made any protest against the German occupation of Kiaou Chau?
  MR. SPEAKER: I did not interfere before because I really did not hear what the Question was when put by the hon. Member who first asked it. The Question is one which I now understand was put down at the Table, and was refused, and it seems to me perfectly proper, because it is a Question of a nature which the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs had distinctly stated he did not consider he was entitled to answer.
  MR. W. REDMOND: As this is a matter of some importance, might I ask you, Sir, whether the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs will clearly define the nature of the Questions which he does not wish to be asked?
  MR. SPEAKER: That is not a Question of order at all. Ministers have a right to refuse to answer Questions when put, and if they clearly classify certain Questions and state that they will not answer any Questions of that description, it would be perfectly futile to continue putting such Questions down.
  MR. O'KELLY: Has your attention been called to this fact, Sir, that the Question merely deals with a matter of fact?
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Upon this Question I wish to ask whether there is any precedent for the clerks at the Table defining what is meant by a Ministerial declaration, and may I ask whether it has not always been the practice hitherto for the Minister to take the responsibility upon himself of declining to answer each Question, and not to delegate his responsibility to the officials of the House?
  MR. SPEAKER: The clerks at the Table are not responsible. I am responsible. The clerks frequently inform Members what they propose to do, and if a Member objects he can come and speak to me about it; but in a general way they act on the assumption that the Member will appeal to me if he is discontented with what they do. As to any precedent, I believe the action generally at the Table has been, with the sanction of the Speaker for the time being, of the kind I have stated. I quite agree it is a matter which must be exercised with great discretion, and in this particular case it appears to me that the statement made by the Under Secretary was a perfectly clear one with respect to the particular class of Questions which he would not answer.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg, Sir, to ask—is the House to understand that the Question was refused by your authority or the authority of the clerk?
  MR. SPEAKER: This particular Question was not brought under my notice, but after the answer of the Under Secretary that he must decline to answer Questions of a particular class, I did authorise the clerks no to put on the Paper Questions which clearly came within that refusal.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Might I ask, with great respect, with whom the final decision rests when a Question is handed in, whether it comes within the category of Questions which the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has intimated his intention not to answer in this House?
  MR. SPEAKER: The final responsibilty, as I have already stated, is clearly mine. If it is brought under my attention it is mine under any circumstances, but of course it is the duty of the clerks, in any case where a Member thinks a Question might be put on the Paper and remonstrates, to bring the matter under my notice, which they always do.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I wish to ask you whether your privileges as Speaker of this House are not limited to excluding Questions which transgress order, and whether it is not for the Member himself to protect himself by refusing to answer?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member asks me whether my duties are not confined to Questions transgressing order. The word "order" is used with reference to the practice of the House; and whatever is contrary to the practice of the House it is my duty to exclude. As I understand my duty, it is to exclude Questions of that description. As I said before, this is a matter to be exercised with great discretion.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I desire to ask you merely for the convenience of Members—[Cries of "Agreed!"]—whether you would be good enough to state, either yourself, or make known in some way, the exact nature of the in Questions that you consider it your duty not to allow to be placed upon the Paper. Are we to understand—I am merely sinking for information, and not for the purpose of obstruction—that at the present time we are not at liberty to hand in or expect to have put on the Paper any Question directed to the Under Secretary dealing with foreign affairs at the present time?
  MR. SPEAKER: No. Nothing I have said will bear that construction. As to laying down a precise definition, I must decline to do so. If any Question is brought to the Table and any appeal made to me I will deal with it I must exercise my discretion according to what I consider to be my duty, but of course I am subject to the correction of the House.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I desire to ask—[Cries of "Order!"] This is a point of order—
  MR. SPEAKER: I hope the hon. Member will confine himself to what is simply a question of order, because I cannot allow any debate to be raised on my conduct in the Chair.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I beg to assure you, Sir, that nothing is further from my intention than to raise a debate on your conduct in the Chair. If any conduct is in question it is that of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and I desire to ask you as a point of order whether the Under Secretary is entitled in this House to refuse to answer Questions put to him by Members dealing with foreign affairs.
  MR. SPEAKER: Of the answer to that there can be no doubt whatever. It is the right, and, I might say, it is the duty of the Foreign Secretary, as it is of the representative of any other Department, to refuse to answer any Question if he thinks reasons of State require him to do so. It has been done over and over again.
  MR. W. REDMOND: All I can say is—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I must ask the Member not to debate this matter.
  MR. W. REDMOND: We are simply muzzled in this House.

PUBLIC BUSINESS.

  BILL TO AMEND THE LAW RELATING TO THE RESERVE FORCES AND MILITIA.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. W. ST JOHN BRODRICK,): I rise to ask leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Law relating to the Reserve Forces and Militia. I bring forward this Measure to make good a pledge which I gave in the Debates on the Army Estimates with regard to the conditions of employment of the Reserve and the Militia. The Measure I am introducing is of a very simple character, and deals with the present position of employment in the Reserve. At the present time the Reserve could only be called out in case of a national emergency, and the Government consider it very desirable, taking into consideration such expeditions as had taken place from time to time, that a certain portion of the Reserve should, under special circumstances, be enabled to be called out. The Government now propose to give an extra sixpence a day to a body not exceeding 5,000 men, who will be liable to be called out during the first year of their Reserve service to serve in case of any warlike operations. With regard to the Militia, at the present moment they were able to volunteer for service in the Channel Islands, Malta, and Gibraltar. Commanding officers, and other Military authorities, have recom
  774
  mended to the Government the desirability of extending these limits, and the Bill I have introduced provides for such an extension as will enable the men in the Militia to voluntarily give their services in other places besides those which I have previously mentioned. Their service will not extend to more than one year. The provisions of this Measure were explained fully to the House at the time of the introduction of the Army Estimates, and I am glad to say that they were very favourably received both by this House and by criticisms in the newspapers.
  MR. H. O. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The right hon. Gentleman has very truly said that his former proposals which he had referred to were favourably received, but I think the House ought to understand what one of the right hon. Gentleman's proposals now is. It is practically to withdraw another 5,000 men from the Reserve, making 10,000 in all. It is really to take 10,000 men from one branch of the Army and put them in another, and that is called strengthening the Army. The effect is to stamp 5,000 men with the seal of incompetence for work, because the fact that a man is liable during the whole year to be withdrawn by telegraphic notice from his work must lessen enormously his chances of getting any work. By this Bill the right hon. Gentleman introduces in the Army another 5,000 men, making 10,000 in all, all of them serving long service, and this is to be done without any discussion in the House. [Mr. BRODRICK: No, no!] Then I understand this question will be discussed again, but I wish to protest against the statement that there has been any acquiescence on the part of the House to this particular part of the Bill. Although we shall be very glad to see the Mititia employed in the way he suggests, I think there will be many hon. Members who share my opinion that the further strengthening of the Army by transferring men like this from the Reserve is not a principle which ought to be carried out, and is not a practice calculated to really strengthen the Army.
  Bill read a first time.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) [CONSOLIDATED FUND].
  Considered in Committee:—
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith), Chairman of Ways and Means, in the Chair.]
  (In the Committee.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "That it is expedient to authorise the annual payment, out of the Consolidated Fund, to the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account in pursuance of any Act of the present Session for amending the law relating to Local Government in Ireland, and for other purposes connected therewith—(a) of a sum not exceeding one-half of the amount certified to be taken as having been raised in the whole of Ireland by poor rate and county cess off agricultural land, during the twelve months ending, as regards poor rate, on the 29th September 1897, and us regards county cess on the 30th June, 1897; (b) of a sum not exceeding the amount which may be ascertained to be the proceeds in the previous financial year of certain local taxation licences in Ireland; (c) of a sum of £69,000."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  MR. JOHN DILLON: I think this question was left in the hands of the Government so as to make it impossible for them, even if they should so desire, to so alter the Bill as to make the agricultural grant up to the 31st March next. I should like to know whether that is so. As I understand the Resolution, it is so drafted as to only give authority for the issue of money on the principle that the agricultural grant will begin to accrue from the 29th September, as set forth in the clause, I had not altogether abandoned the hope that the right hon. Gentleman would have altered that clause so as to allow the agricultural grant to begin to accrue from the 31st March next, and provision made in respect of the payment to local bodies during the next six months. What I would ask the hon. Gentleman to do is this: I do not ask him to decide this question now, but I ask him not to bind his hands, and so to alter the wording of the Resolution as to leave it an open question. It will then be open for him to change, if he thinks fit to change, the clause of the Bill. Now, what are the facts of the case? This is the case
  776
  so far. I lay aside for the moment all question as to the distribution of the agricultural grant in Ireland, and as to the claim of Ireland to get for the agricultural interest in Ireland the same treatment as the agricultural interest in Great Britain, because the Government have abandoned all attempt to resist that claim.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): This Resolution is necessary to enable the financial proposal in the Bill to have effect. No doubt, when the Bill was reached, if Irish members should be able to convince the House that a larger grant should be made, and the Government were to yield to that view, it would be perfectly possible for the Government to propose to the House another Resolution embodying that determination, and for the House to adopt it.
  MR. DILLON: I think the right hon. Gentleman will admit the truth of what I am going to say. I do not pretend to be a thorough master of this subject, but I understand that it would be possible for the Government so to draft a Resolution as to obtain the required authority to acquire this money without binding themselves on this particular point. When the Government ask us to pass a Resolution in such words as these, it does seem to me that, so far as this particular Resolution is concerned, it does settle this point.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD W. BALFOUR,): I think not. The Resolution reads—
  "A sum not exceeding one-half the amount certified to be taken as having been raised in the whole of Ireland by poor rate and county cess on agricultural land during the twelve months ending 29th September, 1897, and as regards county cess on 30th June, 1897."
  That fixes the standard year, but it does not prejudice the question.
  MR. DILLON: I desire to ask if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give us any assurance that the clause will be altered so as to allow the grant to begin to accrue on 31st March, instead of 29th September, the payments to be made to the local authorities during the next six months?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It is perfectly clear that what the Resolution authorises is the payment of a sum equal to a whole year's advance. The Resolution is necessary to enable the financial proposals in the Bill to be carried into effect. If when the Bill is reached Irish Members can persuade the House that the grant should begin on 31st March, and the Government yield to that view, it seems to me that it might be done under this Resolution.
  MR. DILLON: It is impossible for the Government so to draw a Resolution to acquire the money without binding themselves on this point.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I think not. The Resolution does not prejudice the question as to whether the grant is to begin on 29th September or any other date.
  MR. J. C. FLYNN: Irish Members regard with very great suspicion any Resolution which will in any way bind us in advance to a vital clause.
  MR. J. J. CLANCY: I desire to ask whether the grant will be estimated by the standard year of 1897, taken by the Government, or an average of years?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: By the standard year; as now proposed it must not exceed the amount of the standard year.
  MR. CLANCY: Will this Resolution, if passed, prevent Irish Members proposing in Committee on the Bill an Amendment with a view to arranging for an average of years?
  MR. J. MORLEY: Supposing the Committee on the Bill were to come to the conclusion that the Estimates shall be made, not on a standard year, but on a figure to be arrived at by taking an average for two or three years, will this Resolution preclude us from considering the question whether the figures upon which rents are to be foreclosed have to be arrived at by cess, or upon an estimate of three years?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I think it would.
  MR. J. MORLEY: If we pass this Resolution it will not preclude us from altering the standard year—that is, the figure upon which the rent is to be adjusted, or to take an average of three years, from 1895 to 1898, for instance.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The Committee authorises, as a grant, an amount corresponding to the amount for the particular year. I apprehend that if the Bill is altered in the sense the hon. Member for the Montrose Burghs desires a further Resolution would be necessary before it could be proceeded with.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have no such desire.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: As the right hon. Member suggests.
  MR. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer give some assurance that, whatever the form of this Resolution, the question of whether it should be a standard year or an average year would not be debarred from further consideration?
  MR. J. C. FLYNN: Will it be possible, in the subsequent stages of the Bill, to move an Amendment to Clause 34, which differs altogether from the idea of a standard year being fixed?
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I could not give an opinion without seeing the Amendment, but I should think that no Amendment would be possible in the sense the hon. Member mentions, because that might lead to the grant being greater than the House may now agree to give. So long as the grant is less than that which the House is now considering, of course any means of arriving at that grant can be inserted in the Bill, but no means can be inserted of arriving at a grant which might be greater than that proposed by this Resolution.
  MR. J. MORLEY: It seems to me that, if we adopt this Resolution, we should not be able to move an Amendment providing that the figure should be arrived at, not by one year, but by any three years that might be chosen.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It would be impossible for the Government to give information as to whether the average year would be larger or smaller than the amount of the standard year.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I wish to point out that hon. Members from Ireland might contend that it would be fairer to the tenants that the figure to which the rents shall be adjusted—the figure in the minds of the Land Commissioners—should be, not the figure suggested in the Resolution before the Committee, but another figure, arrived at upon an average of years. Is it clear we may not move an Amendment substituting a three years' average for the standard year?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I should imagine that it would be possible to move an Amendment that a year, or an average of years, should be taken for the purpose of fixing the standard rent, but it would not be possible under the terms of the Resolution to move an Amendment which would have the effect of increasing the amount of the Agricultural Grant
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The right hon. Member the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that if, in the course of discussion on the Bill, it should appear necessary to move a new Resolution, which would cover a larger amount, that might be done. But, as I understand it, that could not be done, because we could not have a discussion in the House upon anything which would require a Resolution for a larger grant, and, therefore, there can be no discussion which would result in the moving of a new Resolution. But the objection taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland is still stronger, because he says, "I cannot tell what the amount will be." Therefore, I imagine an Amendment would be out of order if it is uncertain whether the result of that Amendment would be to give a larger grant than that which the Resolution covers. It, therefore, comes to this: that this Resolution practically stereotypes the grant; so, at least, I gather from the answers given by the right hon. Gentleman opposite.
  MR. M. HEALY: According to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, if the Resolution passes in its present form it practically decides this question, because the mere possibility, as I understand it, of an Amendment to the grant proposed by the Resolution would invalidate the Resolution. As the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland has said, it is impossible for him to give us any exact information as to the figures months hence, and impossible to know whether any Amendment will be necessary, and it follows that any Resolution proposing an alteration in the method is to be calculated, whether by standard year or an average of years, would be out of order. But, observe the difficulty in which the Committee is placed. This Resolution we are now discussing has not appeared on the Paper; we have not the exact terms before us, and it is impossible for us to examine or discuss it. I have not made up my mind on the question of whether a standard year or an average of years would be better, but I think all sections of the House will agree with me that it is a matter for open discussion. All we ask is some undertaking that the question will remain open to us, and apparently, by the Chairman's ruling, that opportunity will not be given to us if the Resolution is passed in its present form.
  MR. DILLON: The hon. Member for Cork has pointed out that this Resolution was not on the Notice Paper, but I can go a step further and point out that when I found it was not on the Paper I went to the clerks and asked for the terms, but I was unable to obtain a copy. By this Resolution, as far as I can understand it, the Government are tying their own hands.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: When the order for taking this Resolution was put on the Paper yesterday it was not thought that it would require any lengthened Debate. I confess I am not qualified to interpret points of order, and I do not desire to shut out discussion of points which hon. Members desired to raise. At the same time I feel bound to say that we adopted the year named, a single year, as the

  781
  period upon which the calculations should be based, because we believe that these proposals were absolutely in accordance with the provisions of the English Act, and we should not feel justified in departing from those provisions, so as to give Ireland more favourable terms than Parliament has already given to England. That, possibly, may require that a discussion should be raised on the Resolution, instead of in Committee, on the Bill, and I think it would be best that we should not proceed with this matter now but postpone it for a time in order to consider when the discussion should be raised. It may be right to make the Resolution wider; it may be, on the contrary, more in accordance with our own convictions that the Resolution should be narrowed; and if hon. Members object to it, then the Debate should be taken on the Resolution rather than on the Bill. I will, therefore, move to report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question put—
  "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  Agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

ORDER OF THE DAY.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
  Order for Third Reading read;
  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I think, Sir, it may perhaps facilitate procedure on the next Bill if matters connected with the Foreign Office portion of Votes included in this Bill are discussed under conditions which admit of the foreign relations of this country being considered in a collective form. Our foreign affairs, I think it will be granted, must be considered by Parliament as a whole, that is to say that the discussion of the attitude of this country with regard to foreign affairs is apt to land the House and the country in confusion, in consequence
  782
  of those who wish to form a judgment upon them not being able to obtain any intelligent view of the situation as a whole. Now, Sir, one word upon the position in which this House now finds itself with regard to any discussion upon foreign affairs. Her Majesty's Ministers have, as I venture to think, very properly declined to be drawn into any statements which in their judgment would be contrary to the public interest. But that course ought to be observed not only in this House but elsewhere, and I will go so far as to say that I think Ministerial utterances in the country have been in some instances calculated to convey an erroneous impression to the public mind both at home and abroad to a far greater extent than any answers to questions put in this House could do. Ministers have from time to time made public statements regarding the condition of our relations with China and with other countries in connection with Chinese territory which have occasioned considerable confusion and misunderstanding. Now, Sir, we have been told that Her Majesty's Government has decided upon a clear and distinct line of policy with regard to China. I, for one, should be very glad to know what that line is. We have seen it stated by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury that he adheres to the statement he made some two years since to the effect that he regarded without fear or dislike the idea of a Russian outlet for commerce below the line of winter ice. That is an intelligible proposition which I, for one, most cordially endorse; but my right hon. Friend went on to make it clear that while he adhered, as I am glad to find he does, to that very sensible declaration, he associated himself, to my surprise, with an attitude of uncompromising opposition to the acquisition of any portion of Chinese territory by any foreign Power whatever, which was certainly inconsistent with his own previous language, because we know perfectly well that a "Russian outlet for commerce"—I quote the words of my right hon. Friend—"below the line of winter ice," will be absolutely useless unless there were some means by which Russian trade could reach that port. The concession to Russia of a right and of a legitimate claim to an ice-free

  783
  port obviously necessitates an agreement with the proposition that Russia must have some means of reaching that port. Well, the means of reaching that port would only be by a railway in the North of China, which we are officially informed has been long under consideration, and, in part, at any rate, has already been carried into effect. Now, that being so, I think it is most desirable that it should be made known, not only to public opinion in this country but outside, what are the legitimate demands of Russia in that respect which have been recognised by Her Majesty's Government, so that they may not be confused with matters affecting other parts of China where Russia has no rights whatsoever, and where we ourselves have very substantial interests which the Government, as we have reason to believe, intend energetically to defend. Now, China, although a somewhat large locality, is treated, I regret to say, sometimes in Ministerial speeches, as well as in newspaper articles, as if it was a comparatively limited area, and the word China is used in a general sense as including large areas to which the language of Ministers, I venture to think, is not intended to apply. We hear a great deal about open ports. There is also another favourite expression. I think it is called the "open door." Well, Sir, the "open door" appears to me to be a very ambiguous phrase. The "open door" is interpreted, I see, in some quarters, and, I think, in some Ministerial quarters, to mean that the whole of China, including Manchuria, is to be open to the free and unfettered advance of all nations, and that no foreign State, Russia included, is to be allowed to exercise exclusive sovereignty over any portion thereof. This House, moreover, has, under the leadership, for the nonce, of my hon. Friend the Member for the Ecclesall Division of Sheffield, committed itself unanimously to the declaration that the acquisition by any Power in the world other than China itself of a single inch of Chinese territory was against the interests of this country—a most astounding proposition, which I, for one, certainly am not prepared to endorse. Well, that being so, it seems to me that it would very much strengthen the hands of Her Majesty's
  784
  Ministers, in insisting upon the points which are of vital importance to this country, if they could be dissociated from suppositions and ideas which are entirely at variance with some, at any rate, of their own previous declarations, as well as with what is obviously inevitable in the near future. To mix up the vital interests of this country in Southern China with the inevitable acquisition by Russia of large tracts in the North of China appears to me to weaken our position and to be calculated to do very serious injury to this country. And I would point out that the newspapers not only construe this language in that sense, but announce to their readers that the country is absolutely, by the words that fall from the mouths of Her Majesty's Ministers, committed to this preposterous doctrine—that not a single inch of Chinese territory shall be acquired by any other Power, and that English goods must have equal facilities afforded them from a commercial point of view to those of any foreign Power throughout the length and breadth of what has hitherto been known as the Chinese Empire. Now, Sir, that doctrine, I must own, is a very startling one. It is further put forward seriously in Ministerial language, that in the case of a Treaty between any two countries, notwithstanding the alienation of a portion of territory by one of the high-contracting Powers, that Treaty, so far as the other high-contracting party is concerned, remains in force over those portions of territory which have been expropriated. That is a doctrine, I think, unknown to international law, and which no authority would for a moment support. Take, for instance, the case of the restoration of the Reichland to Germany after the war of 1870. Does anybody contend that French Treaties continue to operate over the whole of what was formerly part of the French Empire? Take again the case in which the late Emperor of the French recouped himself for his aggressive action in the war of 1859, by appropriating to himself two provinces from the King of Sardinia. Could it be said that treaties previously made with the King of Sardinia continued in force, notwithstanding that change of territory? I might refer to the case of the Ionian Isles and many

  785
  other instances; but I do not wish to weary the House. There is, I venture to say, no authority which could be listened to for a moment which would contend that such views were in accordance with the law of nations, and that being so, we may well ask whether the language understood to have been used by Her Majesty's Ministers tends to support a doctrine which has no authority whatever in support of it? I should take the line, rather, that they do not intend their language to bear that construction, and that they perfectly admit in principle that if any territory around Hong Kong was taken by ourselves for the purpose of protecting that dependency, any Treaty rights affecting that portion of territory possessed by France or other countries with China would, of course, be abolished. This doctrine, therefore, requires to be brought within the reach of ordinary common sense. But I must further point out that the doctrine of the "open door" has been propounded in a manner which certainly renders extremely difficult by this country the adoption hereafter of the policy which has been strongly urged by practically all the important colonies which form portions of the British Empire; that is to say, the accordance of preferential trade facilities within British territories to members of the British Empire, and upon that point alone it appears essential that this country should dissociate itself from any such ideas as are involved in this absurd doctrine of the so-called "open door." Now, Sir, I have touched upon these points because I think it is desirable that we should understand exactly where we are. If the Government say that the continuance of a position of uncertainty in this respect, having regard to the difficulties by which we are surrounded, is desirable, I, for one, shall feel bound by their decision, and will say no more upon the point. But, without anticipating, in any way, other questions about to come before the House, I will just point out that we are not in a position to consider what responsibility this country will incur in connection with the Greek loan until we know how that matter affects our relations with other countries in the world; that is to say, the question must be considered not only
  786
  in connection with Greece, but with regard to our foreign affairs at large. I could quite understand the Government saying it is desirable to give in to Russian susceptibilities in the Near East, with a view to obtaining some compromise in the Far East; but if, in a matter like this, we give way to Russia in the Near East we thereby give considerable offence to other Powers who have an interest in the maintenance of the status quo in the Near East, while, at the same time, we fail to derive any advantage from our concession to Russian demands. In that position of our foreign affairs it appears to me that any proposal to give the guarantee of this country to a foreign loan is a matter requiring very anxious consideration, though I do not intend to oppose it, because I am glad to find that the principal object to which this loan is to be applied is the refunding of money which the Turkish Empire was, by the unjustifiable action of Greece, compelled to spend. I will remind the House that the guarantee of this country diminishes the rate of interest to be paid, because, had this country not joined in the guarantee, the other Powers would not have commanded the money at quite so low a rate as is now secured. But I find that, after Turkey, the largest slice is to go to one of our co-guarantors. The Russian Government is credited with the intention of taking a very large slice of the loan about to be proposed to be guaranteed by this House; or, in other words, we are to guarantee a subsidy to the Russian Government, doubtless to be expended in the fortification of Port Arthur, and therefore I think that the House ought to inquire what our relations are with that country in all quarters of the globe. That consideration, I think, justifies the inquiries I have made; but, as I said before, if the Government consider that it is undesirable that these questions should be answered, I will accept their decision as final. There may, no doubt, be some little suspicion that it was the refusal of Her Majesty's Government to join in the blockade of certain portions of Greece and of Crete that brought this war about. That blockade was, I believe, very anxiously desired, even in the interest of Greece itself, and by nobody more strongly than the unfortunate King of Greece and his advisers. Nothing was more desired

  787
  by them than that the Powers should assent to the proposition of the German and Austrian Governments to blockade the coast and prevent them from making extreme fools of themselves, and from following the advice of, at any rate, 100 Members of this House, who must feel keenly also their grave responsibility in connection with this war. I will not intrude any further in reference to this loan, and I will only ask whether the Government can throw any further light upon these matters.
  SIR. E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I concur, Sir, with much that my right hon. Friend has said in the earlier portion of his remarks, but there is one point with regard to our relations with foreign countries which I think the Government may be fairly congratulated upon, and that is, there is a distinct improvement not only in the feeling of the country and of this House, but also of the Government, towards the Turkish Government. The miserable and constant nagging which was indulged in by Members on the other side of the House towards the Turkish Government has been abandoned, and I hear from Constantinople that our Ambassador, who has been largely responsible for many of the misfortunes which have happened there, is now behaving as an envoy of this country should. I repeat, he is behaving as an envoy of this country should behave towards a sovereign to whom he is credited. Whatever may be the private opinion of the Ambassador, there is not the slightest doubt as to what his duly is when he is accredited to a foreign Court. That duty is to maintain friendly and courteous relations towards the Sovereign of the country to whom he is accredited, and if he cannot do that it is his duty to retire. I am, of course, glad to see from the papers that our Ambassador has resumed those friendly and courteous relations with the Sovereign of Turkey which it is the duty of every Ambassador to observe. On this subject I will say no more than this, that the sooner the House and the country and Ministers realise that we cannot possibly do without the support of the Ottoman Power—and events which have recently happened in the Far East and the Near East have proved it—the better, for this country cannot maintain itself without
  788
  the co-operation in time of need of the Ottoman Army. Without that co-operation we cannot hold India, and cannot possibly meet an attack from Russia. Of course I understand the meaning of the cheers from the hon. Members opposite, but I am stating facts which it will be just as well to realise, and I again say that to this country, with its small and utterly inadequate military force, the support of the Ottoman Army is absolutely necessary. Sir, I believe that the salary of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is included in this Appropriation Bill, and I wish to say a word or two with reference to the right hon. Gentleman's manner of answering questions. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly well within his rights in inviting Members to show reserve in asking questions about certain subjects, and, Sir, that request of his I individually have respected, for since he made it I have only put one question upon the Paper, and that was a question as to a matter of fact, and not a question of policy. I asked him if he could inform the House as to the terms of the French demands upon China, and not only did I put this question in the most general way, so that it was perfectly open to the right hon. Gentleman to decline to answer it, but I asked him if he could answer it, because it is quite obvious that events might have so progressed that the right hon. Gentleman might have been in a position to answer it, and if the right hon. Gentleman had said, "I cannot answer it in the public interest," I should not have dreamed of pushing the matter further, but, in addition to declining to answer it, he thought fit to deliver a homily—
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. G. N. CURZON,): May I inform the House, and remind the hon. Gentleman, that I told him two days ago, when he put the Question on the Paper, the exact nature of the reply that I should give, so that it was with an ample foreknowledge of what I should do that he persisted in putting the Question again to-day?
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: The statement of the right hon. Gentleman exactly confirms what I have said. I expressed my regret to the right hon. Gentleman that I was unavoidably

  789
  absent, and he informs me that he could not conveniently answer that question. In consequence of that statement, I asked him whether he could answer it. This happened two days ago, and I thought events might have changed. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman will find that his method of answering questions will advance public business, or will increase his own personal influence. I do not wish to refer to what happened afterwards, as that is a matter of great delicacy, and concerns a ruling from the Chair, which can be raised on another occasion. I will only say that I think it is desirable that the old practice of the House, which makes Ministers themselves responsible for each act which they perform in this House, should be as far as possible observed. I should not think of saying anything about the Far Eastern question at this moment, because we have been told by the Government that the negotiations are in a critical state, and we all hope that these negotiations will end in a way which will result in maintaining the prestige, the commerce, and the honour of this country. Hon. Members on either side of the House who wish for information have a right to have that information, and I would remind the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that questions are the only means open to private Members by which they can obtain information. The liberties of private Members have been greatly restricted in late years. A very few years ago a question of this sort would have immediately given rise to a Motion for the adjournment of the House, and Ministers would have been compelled to give an answer to such a question as this, which now the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is able to refuse to answer offhand. We have a right to obtain the information, and we are perfectly willing, if Ministers tell us in the usual way that an answer to an important question would be prejudicial to the public interest, to at once accept that statement, and decline to press the question. The anxiety which now exists with regard to this foreign question is not without cause. I would remind Ministers, and especially the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, of this fact, that we have seen
  790
  the interests of this country affected, and prejudicially affected, in every quarter of the globe. We have seen failure after failure to assert the rights of this country abroad, and the instances are innumerable of the truth of that statement. There is hardly a case in which our interests have come into collision with those of other countries but what there has been a retreat, and a very considerable surrender and loss of prestige to us. That being the case, when such grave questions as the crisis in the Far East have arisen, when the Germans are occupying Kiaou Chau, and Russia is occupying Port Arthur, the greatest anxiety is felt to know what is going on; and that anxiety is mixed with considerable alarm. I therefore hope that the right hon. Gentleman and other Ministers will consider that there is reason for the anxiety of hon. Members to have full information when events are happening involving the most vital interests of this country in the Far East and elsewhere—information which at present they are unable to get.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: My right hon. Friend the Member for Thanet has taken the opportunity, perfectly within his right, upon a Consolidated Fund Bill, which, after all, is only an occasional Appropriation Bill, to raise a very important question. There is no more important question, I think, in the interests of this House or of the country than the question of the limits within which we should allow the power to Ministers to give or refuse information. On the one hand, no doubt, they have a discretion—a discretion which ought to be exercised under a sense of great responsibility and of great reserve before refusing that information. On the other hand, we should be very wrong if in any respect we parted with the great privilege of the House of Commons to question the Government of this country upon all occasions, and I quite admit that the course of conduct followed in recent years has been very largely to restrict the liberties of Members of the House of Commons in this regard. We ought to be extremely jealous of the refusal of opportunities to the House in its action with regard to the Executive Government. I only say this with regard

  791
  to the general principle. I certainly cannot charge myself, and I do not think that I shall be charged by the Government, with having endeavoured to extract, from them any information which they might think prejudicial to the public interest. I quite understand and I should certainly always respect the discretion of the Government, but I think that there ought to be a little more consistency on their part in the exercise of that discretion. I confess I observe that discretion is not by any means universally exercised. I will say nothing of speeches before dinner and after dinner which have been made by Ministers upon the most critical public affairs whilst negotiations were going on—speeches which, in my opinion, have very often seriously compromised the relations of this country with other States, and which contained statements of policy which have not always been reconcilable one with another. And then, when we ask for an explanation in this House how one statement is to be made to conform with another, we are told that it would be contrary to public interest to answer, although we have two contradictory, or, at all events, not altogether reconcilable, statements from two different Members of the Government, and therefore, to that extent, the Government are responsible for a curiosity which they may find it inconvenient to satisfy. But I observe that, with regard to discretionary matters connected with the Colonies, there is no reserve whatever. I might even say that questions are provoked. I have known occasions when at midnight telegrams have been read to the House upon matters relating to the most dangerous and delicate questions at issue between us and France. The Government have not been satisfied to wait for questions to be asked, but the questions have been actually invited. I observed that in another place, only two days ago, questions were asked upon specific matters which everyone knows are the precise questions at issue between this country and France, and answers of what I can only call a most controversial character were given by the Under Secretary for the Colonies. That is not consistent with the adoption of the position that no answer will be given with reference to negotiations now pending. I am
  792
  myself in favour of the exercise of the largest discretion in respect of negotiations pending; but, as we know, there are the most difficult and critical negotiations going on between this country and France, and no discretion has been exercised at all. Statements are made and answers given which, in my opinion, are not the least likely to lead to a favourable termination of these negotiations. Then there is another matter. I think the hon. Member for Sheffield is difficult to satisfy. [Sir E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Oh, no!] I am well aware that his ambition is unlimited, because he has been accepted as the Leader of Her Majesty's Government in matters of foreign policy, and especially of Far Eastern policy. We may have had some difficulty in ascertaining what is exactly the policy of the Government with reference to China; but, after having made rather ambiguous and not altogether consistent statements upon that subject, they waited for the hon. Member for Sheffield to bring forward a Resolution which comprehensively dealt with all the matters at issue, and with avidity they accepted it without difficulty as a vote of confidence in their policy. Is the hon. Member not satisfied with a unanimous vote of confidence accepted by Her Majesty's Government? What more can he desire? It was a Resolution dealing with all the critical questions at issue in China which are going on at this moment between Great Britain and Russia and Germany and France, and it was propounded ex cathedrâ by the hon. Member for Sheffield—if you can speak ex cathedrâ from a seat below the Gangway. It was a unanimous determination, and it was a determination which, I confess, greatly astonished me—indeed, I may say that I never was so astonished in my life as in that Debate, when the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs got up and said, "We accept unanimously this Resolution." [Mr. CURZON: No.] The right hon. Gentleman said he accepted it with no difficulty. [Mr. CURZON: No.] Yes, "No difficulty," was the phrase. He had no difficulty in the matter. I will not discuss the policy of that extraordinary Resolution, because I do not desire to go into the general policy of

  793
  the Eastern Question. I am only pointing out to the Government upon this matter that if we are to respect their discretion they ought to be a little more discreet themselves. They ought not to contradict one another in their speeches after dinner upon Far Eastern policy; they ought not to contradict one another as regards the treatment of these delicate questions in the Foreign Office and Colonial Office; and they ought not to seek guidance below the Gangway and offer to accept cheerfully Resolutions which, in my opinion, they will find of a most embarrassing character in their future dealings with this matter. They have practically made a declaration upon the whole question, although, no doubt, it came from the mint of Sheffield—a declaration dealing with the desirability of maintaining the integrity and independence of the Chinese Empire as well as of the Ottoman Empire. That may be a policy in the long run quite as difficult to carry out in the case of China as it has been, and will continue to be, in the case of Turkey. I think it is time that we should ascertain the limits of this discretion, and I hope we shall not be subjected to Resolutions of this character, involving as they do most serious consequences, and accepted, as it seems to me, in a most inconsiderate manner—Resolutions which bear most seriously on pending negotiations. If Resolutions of this character are to be carried in this House we must know the meaning of them, and the effect they may have upon negotiations that are pending with other Stares. There is one other point, alluded to by my right hon. Friend the Member for the Thanet Division of Kent, as to which I should like to ask a question, and that is, in what relations do we stand to Greece in connection with the evacuation of Thessaly contingent on the settlement of the Greek Loan? There is also the position of Crete with reference to what I suppose me may now speak of as the deceased Concert of Europe. The Under Secretary was asked, the other day, by my hon. Friend what course the German Government had taken with reference to Crete, and he said they had withdrawn the ship or ships which they had there. We ought to know a little more, I think, as to the consequences of that withdrawal. That is not a pending
  794
  negotiation; it is an accomplished fact. We had there in Crete, under what is called the Concert of Europe, an armed force of all the Powers who constituted the Concert. It is a very strange thing that one of those Powers should have withdrawn her ships. We ought to be told what is the meaning and what is the consequence of that action with reference to the administration of Crete, of which we, in common with the other Powers, have taken upon ourselves the charge. Does the situation remain the same as before the withdrawal of the German forces? We are also told that the withdrawal of the Austrian force is imminent. I think we are entitled to be told what the situation of this country, and other countries with whom we may be acting in concert, is with reference to the administration of Crete. Is it the fact that at this moment we are acting with France and Russia alone in regard to Crete? I should be glad were the answer to the question in the affirmative, because I have always thought that that was the natural, as it is the traditional combination. It is the combination by which the emancipation of Greece was effected by Mr. Canning just before his death in 1826 or 1827, I think. We ought to be told whether or not that is our situation at the present time, because the question bears upon a still more important one—namely, the evacuation of Thessaly, which is closely connected with the Greek loan. I should like to ask whether the Concert of Europe—that is, all the Powers together—have determined to effectuate the evacuation of Thessaly. Are they acting together with reference to the Greek loan, which is the preliminary, the condition precedent to the evacuation? Are they guaranteeing, or, rather, acting in common for the purpose of securing the evacuation of Thessaly in favour of Greece upon the payment of the loan? We really do not know what is the meaning of the change which has taken place with reference to what we used to call the action of the Concert of Europe. Because it is a very striking fact about this supposed harmonious co-operation of the Powers that one of the Powers should have openly withdrawn its forces, and that another is expected to do so. My noble Friend the Member for Cricklade put another

  795
  question; he asked whether measures for the establishment of Prince George in the governorship of Crete were in progress, and I was extremely surprised at the definite answer of the Under Secretary, to the effect that there would be no difficulty in answering that, because there were no measure in progress. Then what are you doing? we first ask. Who are you in Crete? Who do you consist of? And, secondly, what are you doing? We have been told that all the Powers have been agreed for more than 12 months that the first thing to do was to establish a Christian Government in Crete; and now, in the month of March, 1898, I ask, who are you who are now taking measures to establish a Christian Government in Crete; and what measure are you taking for the purpose? And the answer given is, "No measures are in progress at all." I think before we go on to the next stage, which is the matter of the Greek Loan, we ought to have some much more definite information upon the relations which Her Majesty's Government occupy with reference to the other Powers in the Near East, as well as in the Far East.
  MR. CURZON: The speech of the Leader of the Opposition has been divided into two very dissimilar parts. The latter part consisted of mild and very proper questions about the Concert of Europe, the state of Crete, and the evacuation of Thessaly; and to those questions I think I shall have no difficulty in briefly replying. The right hon. Gentleman has asked what difference is caused in the situation in Crete, and in the attitude and responsibility of the Powers, by the withdrawal of the German forces from Cretan waters. As far as I know, there is no difference whatever. Germany had quite a small contingent of land forces at Canea and one ship of war. The German Emperor having withdrawn those forces, the island remains, as it has done during the last year, a deposit in the hands of the other Powers, who, as far as I know, are not likely to deviate in the least from their former attitude of responsibility, because they have not the armed force of Germany on the spot. Then, as regards the evacuation of Thessaly, the right hon. Gentleman asked if all the Powers were actually acting together, or likely to act together.
  MR. DILLON: It is said that Germany has ceased to take any interest, and does not intend to interfere in the fate of Crete. Does the hon. Gentleman say that?
  MR. CURZON: I have not said that, and I have no right to say it.
  MR. DILLON: They gave notice of their withdrawal.
  MR. CURZON: As to the evacuation of Thessaly, the right hon. Gentleman asks whether all the Powers are acting together with absolute unanimity. I can give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance for which he asks, not only as to the Powers who are giving the guarantee, but as to all the other Powers who are quite unanimous upon the question. I need not, I think, go into the conditions determined by the Treaty of Peace and the negotiations which have been since conducted, as to the time when and the conditions under which the evacuation will take place. But it is obvious that the position of advantage occupied by the guaranteeing Powers, and acquiesced in by all the other Powers, will put them in a position to enforce the conditions. That being so, I think we may look forward with confidence to the continued co-operation of the Powers in this respect, and may believe that the evacuation of Thessaly will be carried out by the Turkish troops under the terms of the Treaty of Peace. Next, the right hon. Gentleman expressed surprise at an answer which I gave to the question put by the noble Lord the other day with reference to the candidature of Prince George. I said, in answer to that question, that the negotiations were not at present proceeding, and the explanation of that answer must be obvious to the right hon. Gentleman, and, indeed, it was suggested in his speech. We regard for the moment the question of the evacuation of Thessaly as the paramount question in Europe, and when that question has been decided then I hope that the Powers will take up again the candidature of Prince George, which has not been abandoned, but which is only in abeyance for the moment. Now I pass to the earlier part of the right hon.

  797
  Gentleman's speech, which was of a very different character. I do not know whether it was intended to assist the Government in the attitude of reserve which they have been obliged to take up, or to injure the Government in the estimation of the House and the country. The right hon. Gentleman commenced his attack by referring to certain after-dinner speeches made by certain members of the Government. [Sir W. HARCOURT: I include speeches before dinner.] I do not know to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred, and I wish he would name the speakers. This general charge, made without reference to individuals, is one that I need not and cannot take notice of. Then the right hon. Gentleman fell foul of the Colonial Office—an attitude on his part with which we are familiar, and which is always easier to adopt when the exponent of the policy of the Colonial Office is not in his place. Finally, the right hon. Gentleman denounced in unmeasured terms the conduct of this House in passing unanimously, three weeks ago, a Resolution against which the right hon. Gentleman himself did not vote. His chief charge against the Resolution about China, moved by the hon. Member for the Ecclesall Division of Sheffield, was that it was unanimously accepted by this House. He did not see that he was including himself in that charge. [Sir W. HARCOURT: It was due to my astonishment.] The right hon. Gentleman explains his vote in favour of that Resolution on the ground of his astonishment—a most inadequate defence from the leader of one of the great Parties in the House. Then the right hon. Gentleman asks, what are the limits of the discretion which the Government propose to exercise in respect of declarations referring to their Chinese policy? I can answer that question very easily. The limits of the discretion which the Government think it necessary to observe have not yet been reached, and the Government have no intention of over-passing them. My hon. Friend below the Gangway, the Member for the Ecclesall Division, made this evening an ingenious attempt, characterised by his customary subtlety, to extract from the Government the very information which I have for some days declined to give
  798
  at Question time, and the comment of the Leader of the Opposition was this: that the Government must, of course, accept full responsibility for the attitude they adopt in giving or withholding information. That is the case, and, as far as I am concerned, I do accept full responsibility for every answer I have given in that sense. I quite admit the right of any hon. Gentleman to put any question he pleases, subject, of course, to the judgment of you, Sir, and the Gentlemen at the Table, in accordance with the orders and procedure of this House. I also admit the natural desire entertained by hon. Members on both sides for information. But I am bound to say, in qualification of that, that I am not certain that the majority of the questions put to me are mainly or exclusively intended to extract information. Sometimes I think the questions are of a character, and are asked with the purpose to extract information from the Government which it may not be to their convenience to give, and I do not think it can be said that a simple and unadulterated desire for knowledge can be said to lie behind all these questions. With regard to questions, I can honestly say—though I do not know whether the House will give me full credence in the matter—that, since I have held my present post, I have had the utmost desire to give the fullest information possible in my answers. I have carefully abstained from sheltering myself behind a vague official formula, and I do not like to quote the public interest unless it is really involved. The hon. Member for Sheffield says to me: "If you only said you could not answer on those grounds, I would never bother you any more." I am much obliged to the hon. Member for the hint. In future I shall bring this hitherto unused weapon out of my armoury, and I have no doubt that he will give me abundant opportunity of using it. If I have been compelled to adopt this attitude of reserve with regard to questions, I do not think it can be said that it is an attitude which we have adopted on other occasions in this House. The right hon. Gentleman looks this afternoon with disquietude and censure upon the whole of our proceedings three weeks ago, but will he allow me to remind him that in that

  799
  discussion it was solely in deference to the request made by the right hon. Gentleman with all his authority, that I did on that occasion endeavour to make a full statement of the grounds on which the Government were acting.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: That is quite true, but I devoted all my energies to speaking against the Motion of the hon. Member for Sheffield, and I fully understood from the statement of the Under Secretary that he was against it, too, and I was very much astonished when the right hon. Gentleman ended by accepting the Resolution.
  MR. CURZON: I am not conscious of any discrepancy between the terms of the Motion and my speech on the occasion to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. I certainly did not give my vote under the influence of the astonishment of the right hon. Gentleman. We thought it was a policy we might recommend the House to adopt, and the House having been unanimous upon the matter, we need not, I think, now go into it further. But I only referred to the point to remind the House that the Government cannot be accused of any reluctance in putting their views before the House with regard to this Chinese question. That ample statement having been made, I must decline to accept the opportunity now given for repeating or amplifying it. It is not according to usage, and it is not right that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen should come down here without notice of any kind, and upon the discussion of a Bill of a general character of this description invite and press and urge the Government to make public statements on delicate matters of policy which the representative of the Government on foreign affairs has previously stated that he cannot give. If I were to respond to the invitation of the right hon. Gentleman I should be departing from the attitude we have advisedly taken up, and, in response to a particular question which he put to me at the close of his speech, I do not hesitate to say that any such premature discussion as he has invited this afternoon might be fraught with serious consequences—more serious consequences than he perhaps
  800
  contemplates—to the public interests of this country.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the House will allow me to say a few words in connection with this matter. I have felt, and others have felt, during the last few weeks, that many unfair questions have been put in connection with China and West Africa, and that the object of some of these questions was to embarrass the Government at a time when it would be much wiser to keep silent. I wish to say that we have no sympathy with this policy of attempting to extract statements of an extremely delicate nature from Ministers, the result of which might tend to involve this country in war. I think this is one of the worst practices of modern times in democratic assemblies, and it makes the position of any Government difficult in the case of delicate and serious negotiations going forward. Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a word or two on the peculiar circumstances of the present time. I do believe that, never in the life-time of any here, has our country been more likely to head towards a dangerous crisis than at present. With regard to China, Mr. Speaker, I, as a commercial man engaged in business all my life, and with every desire to maintain the full rights of this country, think that we have no right to take up the position that other Powers shall not acquire Chinese territory. China is an independent but moribund country which, sooner or later, will come under the control of civilised countries, and we, with our hands absolutely loaded with territory all over the world, have no right to take up the position that foreign Powers shall not be allowed to touch China. It is a position which we should not be able to maintain, except at the risk of engaging in gigantic wars. We control, at present, one-fifth of the whole territory and one-fourth of the whole population of the globe, and yet we look with tremendous jealousy on any Power who is attempting to gobble up some small portion of the globe still left. This is a position which is perfectly intolerable, and it is clear to me that if public opinion in this country is going to ratify this line of action, we are committed to a policy which will test

  801
  the strength and powers of this country to the fullest extent. Now, with regard to the trade of China, I wish to say a word on the exaggerated ideas which prevail as to our business with China. I have heard many statements, and read many speeches, which, I think, are simply ridiculous. The trade with China in which we are chiefly interested is our exports, which last year amounted to eight millions, out of a total of nearly two hundred and forty millions to all parts of the world. About one-thirtieth of the British exports went to China last year. That is not a very serious matter, and let me say that if China were likely to fall under the control of civilised Powers, even with high tariffs and under decent government, our trade would increase. If the four hundred millions in China were divided between three or four of the European Powers our trade with China would probably be much larger than now. With regard to these large territorial acquisitions—gained in recent years, and which are frequently mentioned by the Secretary to the Colonies, and others—I do not believe that the two millions of square miles we have added to the Empire during the past thirty years would give occupation to the people of this country for twenty-four hours. It is, in fact, an almost worthless territory, with an almost worthless trade, and it is an absurd idea which is being propagated in this country that these savage regions have been taken for the purpose of getting employment for our labouring classes. It is an absolute delusion. They give almost no employment, and their trade is almost valueless. What we should look more to is the development of our trade, much the largest portion of which is home trade, and that trade is growing. It is quite true that our exports to foreign countries are not growing to any appreciable extent, but yet the people of this country have never been more employed, never better paid, than at present. What is the reason of the immense increase in our home trade? It is that this country spends an enormous income and gives enormous employment in making articles of home consumption. Look at the surprising number of small trades which are springing up in London and the other towns in articles of luxury which more than com
  802
  pensate for any falling off in foreign trade. I am glad to have the approval of the Leader of the Opposition. I say that the people of England have never been better employed, or better paid, than at present. The immense number of minor trades which have sprung up in recent years, and which depend upon the peace and prosperity of the country, cause an enormous expenditure. Therefore I say we have no occasion to look with such envy at foreign acquisitions of territory as we are doing. It is an obvious mistake. All these acquisitions would not give employment for a hundredth part of the population of this country. If we get into war with France and Russia combined, it seems not at all improbable that, before it is finished, we will have sunk in capital a hundred times as much as the whole value of this trade we are fighting for. I believe, as a practical man of business, that the country is being misled by the newspapers during the past few months as to the immensity of our trade with China. Our trade can take care of itself, and does not require to be bolstered up by an arrogant policy. We have a way of taking it for granted that we have a right to dictate to the rest of the world as to what it ought to do. I believe in a more peaceful policy. The great mass of the people of this country do not want war. They will not approve of an arrogant policy intolerable to other nations. We want peace with all mankind, and I make an appeal to Members of this House, seeing the great peril on every side, to urge a milder, calmer, and more reasonable attitude, and I say that any Government which drags this country into war will go out of power, and not return for many years.
  MR. W. H. K. REDMOND: Mr. Speaker, I desire a few minutes in which to call the attention of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs to recent questions, and I refer to those questions now, because, in accordance with a ruling given, they are not allowed to be put in the ordinary way at Question time. The right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs says he has got no objection to answer any legitimate questions which are put to him with reference to the affairs of his Department, but he did not confine himself to that statement, which was,

  803
  perhaps, true enough. He took it upon himself to inquire, in what I may call an exceedingly unwarranted way, into the motives which inspired gentlemen who put these questions to him. Well, Sir, I am bound to say that I think it is at least the business of Members of Her Majesty's Government in this House, when questions are directed to them, to answer those questions to the best of their ability, or not answer them, as they think fit, but to refrain from casting any reflections on the motives which may have induced hon. Members in putting them. I do not desire, Mr. Speaker, to use any language unbecoming to debate in this House, but I must say that I feel strongly inclined to use language of a very emphatic nature with reference to what I may call the haughty lecture delivered by the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs to private Members who have what appears to be in his opinion the audacity to address a single question to him with reference to his Department. Now, Sir, those private Members, although they may be humble people in their way, many of them, although some of them who desire information may come from Ireland, and be not in any way superior people, are all entitled to information when they ask for it. When the right hon. Gentleman was speaking with reference to the withdrawal of Germany from Crete I asked him a question in perfect good faith whether Germany had given notice to Her Majesty's Government and to the other Governments taking part in the joint occupation of Crete that it intended to withdraw. Surely that is a question of a legitimate kind, and of sufficient interest to demand an answer; but the right hon. Gentleman, in the exercise of his opinion as to how an Under Secretary ought to conduct affairs in this House, was not sufficiently courteous to give me a reply, and he will see at once that, so far from saving time in refusing to answer that direct question, he has necessitated me taking this opportunity of asking more fully on the point.
  MR. CURZON: I really did not know that the hon. Member had put the Question. I have no recollection of it.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I put it to the right hon. Gentleman immediately after a question addressed to him by the Leader of the Opposition. If the right hon. Gentleman says he did not hear it—I uttered it very loudly—of course, I accept what he says. Before dealing with the withdrawal of Germany from Crete and the action taken by the other Powers of Europe I desire to say a very few words with reference to the action of Her Majesty's Government in matters regarding China. It has already been stated that a Resolution was adopted unanimously in this House some few weeks ago, placing it on record that it was the deliberate opinion of this Parliament that the integrity of China should be respected, and that it should be respected was to the interests of the people of this country. A Resolution to that effect is sufficiently serious, coming unanimously from this House, and the least we might expect would be, after a Resolution of that kind had been unanimously passed, that it would have some binding effect on this Government, and that they would act up to it. Have they done so? Since that Resolution was passed we find that, so far from the integrity of China being maintained, there is actually a race going on for breaking up China and for seizing various portions of it. We have asked repeatedly if the Government have uttered any protest against the action of Germany in seizing Kiaou Chau and other portions of Chinese territory. A question to that effect was put down on the Paper in the ordinary way, by an Irish Member to be sure, but still a Member entitled to ask a question of the kind. That question was ruled out of order. I put it now: Have Her Majesty's Government opposed the German Government in any way in seizing in the most warlike way a large portion of Chinese territory? That is a question certainly which is quite legitimate. It has a direct bearing on the Resolution unanimously passed in this House in reference to the integrity of the Chinese Empire, and yet that question, all-important as it is, dealing with a matter which has engaged

  805
  the attention of the whole civilised world, we are told here is one that a British Member of Parliament is not entitled to ask; that that is a subject on which he may not demand any information whatever from Her Majesty's Government. I beg leave to say I differ altogether from the view which is held by people who believe that a Member of this House is not entitled to ask such information from Her Majesty's Government. But then we have been given in a roundabout way certain information with reference to the action of Her Majesty's Government in regard to Russia in China. The right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is also masterful enough to say in this House more than once that he does not think it for the public interest that questions with reference to Russia in China should be answered in this House. But, in spite of that attitude of reserve on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, it is a notorious fact that Her Majesty's Government have made, or are making, protests of some kind against the demands made by Russia for Port Arthur and Talienwan, and other demands which have been made upon the Chinese Government. I protest against the action of Russia in regard to Port Arthur and other parts of China; but what we want to know is, has any protest been entered against the conduct of the Germans in their wholesale robbery—I must call it that—of the Chinese people? Are we to understand in this House that, whereas protests are made with reference to Russia, this country is afraid to utter one word of protest when the German Emperor makes speeches of a high-falutin' nature about "mailed fists," and striking people here and there, and sending his Royal brother across the seas with ironclads to conquer China? Are we to understand that when these warlike declarations and actions are made by the German Emperor this country is afraid to utter one single word of protest, and Germany is to do as she likes, and work her own sweet will in reference to this Chinese question? I say, if that is the situation, it is a situation that ought to make any Englishman, any native of this country who has any regard for national pride, blush for the action and conduct of his Government. Personally, I am opposed,
  806
  whether it be by Germany or Russia or this country, to the wholesale interference of European Powers in places like China. The Chinese people may not be civilised in accordance with the ideas of civilisation held in this country, but I say that you have not yet proved that any European Power by establishing itself in China can make the people of that country happier by your appeal to civilisation than they are under the system under which they were born, and under which they live at the present time. As far as I am concerned, as an Irish Member, I utter the strongest protest I can against this partition of China, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, unless he wants the name of England to become a byword in the East—I want him to say whether the Government have had sufficient courage to utter any protest against the conduct of the Germans and their Emperor in regard to China. Yes; the right hon. Gentleman said the Germans had gone away from Crete. What a great respect the people of Germany have for the people of this country! On this question of Crete a Concert of the European Powers was entered into. France, Russia, Germany, and this country sent ships and men to Crete in order to try and bring about some satisfactory settlement in reference to that unfortunate country; and without, so far as we know, a single word of notice, without as much as "By your leave," or "With your leave," when it suits them the Germans take their ships and men away, and leave Her Majesty's Government practically in the lurch in Crete. Was the Concert entered into upon these terms by the Powers taking part in it, that any one Power, without giving any notice, or the shortest possible notice, could break away from the Concert as Germany has done, giving no notice or warning to the other Powers? I say if those are the terms upon which the Concert of Europe in Crete was entered upon, it is not very wonderful that up to the present time that Concert of Europe has not succeeded in doing much good for the people of Crete oppressed by the Turks. I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs two or three plain and straightforward questions, and I shall take every opportunity in this

  807
  House of repeating those questions at every time that I am at liberty to do so. I altogether repudiate—it is not only myself, but I feel sure there are numbers of Members in this House of all Parties who repudiate—the monstrous proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs that he is only bound to answer such questions as seem good to the clerks at the Table of this House. Well, the right hon. Gentleman said so, the right hon. Gentleman used the very words that I am now repeating. Perhaps he will be good enough to tell us what he did say. [Mr. CURZON: I did not say so.] The right hon. Gentleman distinctly in my hearing said this, but he did not use the word "clerks." I beg his pardon; he said "subject to the approval of the gentlemen who sit at the Table." Well, now, I ask what is in the slightest degree different in that statement from what I have said? I do not wish to labour the point, but I do think the right hon. Gentleman is not justified in deliberately contradicting me on a trivial point of that description. He is obliged to admit that the statement that I made is practically on all fours with the statement he made. I do not take that view, and I believe lots of Members of this House do not take the view that when we put questions here, subject to our rights and privileges in this House, we are not entitled to an answer; and as my hon. Friend the Member for County Roscommon was not allowed to put questions on the Paper, I will put them here now, as I am at liberty to do. The questions are these: In the first place, what action has Her Majesty's Government taken with regard to the demands made by Russia in China; secondly, what action has been taken by Her Majesty's Government in regard to the unwarrantable action of Germany in China; and, thirdly, did Her Majesty's Government receive any notice or warning whatever that Germany intended to withdraw from the Concert of Europe, and withdraw her ships and men from Crete? These are three questions of a simple character, and I think the right hon. Gentleman is bound to reply to them. He will tell us that it is not in the interests of the public service that he should do so. Well, the interests of the
  808
  public service are made the cloak for a good deal of reticence from time to time in this House; but, really, I think we are fast approaching a period in statements of this kind about the necessities of the public service when it will be more honest and straightforward for Her Majesty's Government to lay down the proposition, and act upon it, that in foreign affairs the Cabinet is entitled to do what it likes, to reveal just as much as it likes, and to withhold all information from Members of the House and from the country. If that is the position taken by the right hon. Gentleman, it is an intelligible position. No doubt it may solve some difficulties in this House, but I am certain there are numbers of Members of this House who utterly deny the proposition that any Government, in a time like the present, is entitled—I will not use any language of a strong character—but, I say, which is entitled scornfully to refuse demands made by private Members of this House for information. After all, it is not only private Members who ask for information. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has asked for information more than once in reference to these matters, and I say that if private Members are not entitled to an answer he, at least, is. I ask the right hon. Gentleman now to be good enough to answer these questions that I have put to him, and if he does not do so I can only attribute it to the fact that the foreign policy of Her Majesty's Government at the present time, in face both of France and Germany, is a policy of cowardice—yes, a policy of cowardice—such as people in this country would not tolerate; because I believe that when the people of this country thoroughly come to understand what is this policy of truckling under to Germany and other Powers, but especially to Germany, which is being indulged in by this so-called strong Tory Government—when that is thoroughly realised, I believe the mass of the people of this country will repudiate the Government and their policy at the same time.
  MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES: A great deal of heat has been introduced into the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down. Undoubtedly this is a very

  809
  important matter. Reduced as we are now as private Members to the two subjects of Estimates and questions for the consideration of foreign affairs, it is most important that our rights should not be more interfered with. With great deference and humility I would submit that possibly a little more charity and condescension on the part of Ministers, and some remembrance that even Members below the Gangway are human beings, might be acceptable. What we cannot but feel in this House is this, that the newspapers know everything. Intelligence is published in the newspapers; intelligence is known to the man in the street; it is published in foreign Green Books and Yellow Books—I have myself cited serious dispatches published in the French Yellow Books which at this moment the House of Commons has not got; and we do think that information should be given with more consideration. I must speak one word as to the Resolution which this House passed unanimously. Having seconded that Resolution, and taken a certain share in the Debate which secured its unanimous acceptance by this House, I naturally feel an interest in it. I think it is not quite fair for the right hon. Gentleman opposite to complain that that Resolution was adopted by Her Majesty's Government. Her Majesty's Government adopted it because they felt quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman himself would adopt it.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I beg pardon. I distinctly stated at the beginning of my speech that my object was to assist the Government to resist that Resolution and the Gentleman who moved it and the Gentleman who seconded it.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Well, but then, how very strange was the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman! Of course, we know that whether he has a Party or not may be questionable, though, when we look at the forlorn derelicts sitting in rows on those benches, no further doubt should exist; but we are quite certain that he can always find a teller. If he had challenged a Division affirming what he now tells us was his position towards this Resolution, and the two unfortunate
  810
  Members responsible for it, he would have had no difficulty in showing the world that he was against it. He sat absolutely silent. He made no challenge, nor did any Members of his Party; nobody said a word. The proposition was so self-evidently true, so absolutely undeniable, so completely unexceptionable, that even the right hon. Gentleman himself was converted from his original purpose, as expressed in his speech, of opposing it. The result was there was no challenge. The Resolution was passed unanimously. Is it not right that it should have been passed unanimously? It only reaffirmed the desirability, the necessity of maintaining the independence of Chinese territory—not integrity, as the right hon. Gentleman, I think, inadvertently said. Well, but that is not only the policy of this House, it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer many days before this Resolution was passed, more than a fortnight, I think—at any rate, a full fortnight—declared in a public speech that Her Majesty's Government intended to maintain the open door in China for England even at the cost of war. The Resolution did not go so far as to suggest war; it did not even go so far as the open declaration of policy by Her Majesty's Government. I will make one admission. I may frankly say I did not anticipate the acceptance of the Resolution. It is true, Sir, that I helped to drug the dose, but I had imagined that a wry face or two at least would have been seen on the Treasury Bench, and I was highly pleased and gratified to hear the right hon. Gentleman state that he accepted it. That Resolution, in the face of all that had occurred, was undoubtedly a pledge on the part of Her Majesty's Government that rather than allow the dismemberment of the Chinese Empire they would go to war. That is the only logical outcome of the acceptance of that Resolution by Her Majesty's Government, that, if necessary, they would go to war to maintain their position. Well, Sir, what has happened since? We do not quite know what has happened, but much has happened. What is quite clear is that in China we have banded against us in the north Germany and Russia, and in the south France. They are entirely agreed as against this country. That is

  811
  quite certain. I believe means may be found, not, perhaps, such violent means as have been suggested; not a raid on Port Arthur on our part, which would get no support from others, and would mean a permanent occupation of Port Arthur by a British army—I do not suggest that—but I do believe that means can be found of maintaining British interests, and of supporting British honour in the Far East in spite of the combination, now avowed—not denied—of the three Great Powers against us. I do believe that. Well, Sir, one other point. The right hon. Gentleman has criticised the conduct of the Government with regard to their recent policy. All their difficulties arise from the fact that they have followed his policy, that being what is called continuity in foreign policy. And it is in consequence of having followed the right hon. Gentleman's policy in the name of continuity that all the difficulties have arisen. These mistakes, in my opinion, have occurred too often, and are too serious. They are the mistakes of a Government that have chosen to adopt the policy of their predecessors, wrongly, as I think, and with bad judgment, I believe; but it does not lie with those predecessors, when that policy has failed to secure the desired results, to reproach the Government with having adopted such a policy. I may say that I have observed this, that whereas this country appears, if one may judge from the dispatches, to have gone into this Cretan question with the settled desire to abase Turkey and exalt Greece, the result has been that Greece has been abased and Turkey has been exalted. In fact, we put our money on the wrong horse. We now give a guarantee for a loan, which seems to me to be a more extraordinary loan than has ever been suggested to be raised before. I rose mainly in order to make an earnest appeal to the Government to interfere as little as they can with the liberties of private Members in putting questions, to be as kindly, as amiable, and as communicative as they can in answering these questions, and to put into their answers a little of the tone of Christian charity. I think they will find the Members not disposed to abuse their privileges in asking those questions. They may remember that there is never any indiscretion in asking a question; it is
  812
  only in the answer that the indiscretion can lie.
  MR. DILLON: I wish to say a few words about the terrible condition of the Christian population of Crete. It is a subject on which I have endeavoured to enlist the sympathy of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I would remind him that when we spoke on this subject a year ago he answered in a sort of sneering way, saying that he felt sure that the Christian population in the interior of the island would be better off than ever they were, inasmuch, as they not only would have their property, but the property of their neighbours. Yet I believe that the reports published within the last few days in the Manchester Guardian are well founded. I do not believe everything I read in the newspapers, but some things I do believe. The right hon. Gentleman informs us that the Foreign Office has no information about the condition of these people, and he assumes that they must be well off, that they have not only their own property, but the property of their Moslem neighbours, which they have stolen. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to read a few of the accounts that have been published in the Manchester Guardian concerning the condition of things in regions which can be visited by British soldiers, or by the admirals, chiefly in the province of Canea. The writer gives the names, mentioning large districts where the population are, and have been for a considerable time, living to a large extent on roots and what they can pick up out of the fields, that they are being starved, and that they have in a great many instances died. This is a horrible state of things; yet the right hon. Gentleman, neither upon this occasion nor upon any previous occasion, has tendered any hope to the House that we are within measurable distance of an end being put to the horrible chaos and disorder in Crete. I hope he will feel that there is an obligation on the part of the Government, to take some active steps with a view to bringing relief to these starving people. This testimony I speak of comes from an Englishman, and it is borne out by telegrams which have appeared in the Times. It is to

  813
  the effect that the greatest suffering which exists to-day in Crete exists in the province of Canea which is garrisoned by English troops. The suffering is not so great where the Russian and French troops are. If this be so, it is a great disgrace to the English troops. There is one other point to which I wish to direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. I remember a year ago, in a Debate in this House, I suggested that the only course to adopt would be to put outposts of the international troops at certain points. That has been done, and it has been recommended to the case of Canea. Anyone who reads a description of what has been going on will come to the conclusion that this is the only sensible thing to do, and the only plan which will give any hope of relieving the population. It is not more than a year since the English troops went to Canea, and yet a system of skirmishing and firing is going on at present all round that unfortunate town. The right hon. Gentleman alluded to the question of a Christian Governor for Crete, and stated that the negotiations are now in abeyance. The reason he gave was that the primary question at present in Eastern affairs is the evacuation of Thessaly. As long as the Sultan believes that he can put off the settlement of the Cretan question by delaying the evacuation of Thessaly, the greatest possible inducement is given to him for delaying that evacuation. I rise to make one more appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to take some steps to relieve those unfortunate people who are starving.
  COLONEL SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I only wish to say one word upon the China question. Having had an opportunity of being in the country, and visiting Pekin, I was astonished to hear the statement that the Chinese trade is valueless to this country. Now, in the opinion of the whole of the export houses in this country, and in the opinion of the manufacturers and artisans, China is one of the best foreign markets we can possibly have. Therefore, it is of the greatest value to this country that every possible support should be given to the Government in dealing with this question. The Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs
  814
  said the other day that 82 per cent. of the whole of the foreign trade of China was in British hands. Not only that, but I am able to bear personal testimony to this fact, that the great majority of the foreign residents in China are English and the large houses in China are English, moreover the great mass of the carrying trade of China is in British hands, and even on Chinese ships the officers and engineers are nearly all English, because, if they are not English, the rates of insurance are always increased, if they are not prohibitory. If the hon. Member for Flintshire had not relied entirely on the letter of Sir Robert Giffen in the Times he would not have made the statement. The hon. Gentleman distinctly said he did not attach much importance to the Chinese trade. I heard that statement from the lips of the hon. Member. In 1896 China took of British goods nearly £9,000,000 worth. [Mr. DAVITT: How much of the British trade is opium?] We do not export opium. That has nothing to do with the condition of Chinese trade at this moment. I can say this, Mr. Speaker, representing as I do an industrial constituency, that the working men of this country attach the greatest importance to keeping open the Chinese market, and are determined to afford every possible support to the Government in this matter. At this moment a very large number of Members are sitting in one of the Committee Rooms discussing the Chinese question, and I am certain that a great portion of the Members of this House are determined to give all possible support to Her Majesty's Government in the extremely difficult negotiations they are conducting at this time. It would be impertinent for me to say anything in praise of my right hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, but his courtesy and the desire he has shown to give all possible information is appreciated by the great majority of private Members. Anybody who has the slightest experience in the conducting of difficult negotiations knows how impossible it is to conduct them if questions are repeatedly asked on those difficult and intricate matters. Although hon. Members may not think their questions of great importance, more weight is attached to their queries in foreign

  815
  newspapers than we in this country assign to them. I do protest in the most emphatic manner against the declaration of the hon. Member for Flintshire as to the Chinese trade. I hope hon. Members will not base their faith on the extraordinary letter in the Times from Sir Robert Giffen, but will inquire for themselves from the exporting houses and manufacturers as to the immense value of keeping open the Chinese market to British trade.
  MR. H. LABOUCHERE: Practically, the figures given by the hon. Gentleman opposite are almost precisely the same as those given by the hon. Member for Flintshire, who stated that our export trade to China was £8,000,000. The hon. Gentleman opposite said the trade was something under £9,000,000. Really, was it worth while making that speech when it was only a question of a few hundred thousand pounds? The fact is, I believe, that my hon. Friend the Member for Flintshire exaggerated a great deal, because I have the greatest respect for Sir Robert Giffen, and when I read the Times this morning I saw that he stated that our export trade to China was something under £2,000,000 or £3,000,000. [Sir HOWARD VINCENT: I do not believe it.] My own impression is that our trade is larger than is supposed, because Hong Kong is a place like Gibraltar, where a great deal of smuggling goes on, and, in all probability, what is smuggled into China from Hong Kong is not found in any statistical abstract. The hon. Gentleman the Member for King's Lynn seemed to be under the impression that that remarkable Resolution, which has been the result of the collaboration of the hon. Gentleman with the hon. Member for the Ecclesall Division of Sheffield, had received the unanimous assent of the Liberal Party. It never received any assent on this side of the House. I do not know why it is, but sometimes the House is not so anxious as it ought to be to listen to the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Ecclesall Division. Everybody thought that it meant a count-out; I myself thought so; and when I looked at the Resolution I thought it extremely absurd, and that in all probability there
  816
  would be a count-out, and I would take my chance and go. Many Members on this side and the other side of the House followed my example. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Monmouthshire, as the Leader of the Opposition, sat watchful and prepared, if there was no count-out, to express his contempt for the Resolution. In doing so he spoke for the entire Party on this side of the House. My right hon. Friend having expressed his contempt, shrugged his shoulders and walked out. Now, Sir, we admit that the Resolution was adopted by Her Majesty's Government, and, therefore, I do think we ought to have some explanation from the Government as to what they precisely mean with regard to that Resolution. Here, we are in no difficulties with foreign countries; this is a domestic matter, and one upon which we may surely ask for some information. Do they mean by that Resolution that they object to leases? Do they mean that we protest against Germany and France obtaining leases in China after we ourselves have made a declaration that, under no circumstances, would we obtain from China any accession to the territory of Hong Kong? I do think we have a fair right to demand this of Her Majesty's Government, because, undoubtedly, the Resolution may be misunderstood in foreign countries; and we see ourselves that France has been so anxious to tread in our steps that she at once obtained an assurance from the Chinese Government that they themselves would not alienate any territory just as we had obtained an assurance that the Chinese Government would not alienate any portion of our territory. Sir, I speak here as one of the supporters of Lord Salisbury's foreign policy. I am bound to say that I have always thought that there are only three truly sensible persons in regard to foreign policy in this Kingdom at the present time, or, rather, that the three most sensible persons are Lord Salisbury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth, and, I must add, my own name. I am not criticising or complaining of Lord Salisbury's action, I consider that Lord Salisbury is the one man who saves us from war. I believe that were it not for Lord Salisbury hon. Gentlemen on the opposite bench would drag us—or

  817
  drift us, if you like to call it so—into war with foreign countries, and they would be backed up by the large jingo sentiment which exists behind them, and which, to a certain extent, I am sorry to say, exists on this side of the House. Sir, Lord Salisbury's policy in China appears to have been, as far as I can see, a thoroughly sound and sensible policy. Lord Salisbury fully recognises that we must not lay down that China belongs in any exceptional manner to us. He recognises that there must be, in our arrangements in regard to China with foreign countries, a certain amount of give and take. Lord Salisbury, and the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, whom, I presume, shares the view of his illustrious uncle, said that it was only reasonable that Russia should have a port free from ice, and, of course, we know perfectly well that if he stated this he was aware that the object of obtaining that port was to connect it with the Siberian railroad, and, consequently, he gave a free hand to Russia to make that railroad. Sir, whatever may be the amount of our commerce with China, we have exceedingly little commerce with Manchuria, and I see no reason, anxious as I am to maintain our treaties with China, why we should quarrel with Russia or any of the Powers. It is obvious that Russia, from her geographical position, will acquire, not absolute dominion over Manchuria, but paramount influence both politically and commercially. We may regret it, but it cannot be helped, and we must accept facts as they are. Then, as regards Germany, it seems to me, admitting that Russia was going to acquire a foothold in Manchuria, that it was sound policy on our part to agree to Germany also acquiring a port in that direction, on the general principle of divide and rule. Now, we clearly have a right to complain of the reticence of the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in regard to answering questions. I quite admit that there are questions, when negotiations are going on, that it is undesirable to answer, and I am perfectly certain nobody would think of pressing him in this matter. We have agreed to the position of Germany in Northern China, and surely we have a
  818
  right to know what has been the action of Her Majesty's Government on the subject. The question of the withdrawal of German men-of-war from Cretan waters might also have been answered; there is nothing mysterious in that. I confess, myself, it is of very little interest to me whether the German Government have given that concession or not, but I cannot see on what ground the right hon. Gentleman chose not to answer that question.
  MR. CURZON: The reason why I did not answer that question was because the speech containing it was delivered after my own. The questions to which the hon. Member has alluded never appeared on the Paper. I have never declined to answer them. They were asked in a speech after I had already delivered mine. How, then, has it been in my power to answer them?
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I would point out that one of the questions was not allowed to be put on the Paper.
  MR. CURZON: That has nothing to do with me.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: One of the questions was not allowed to be put on the Paper because the right hon. Gentleman had stated that questions of this kind—
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not go into questions not put on the Paper. That does not arise in this Debate.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I am only stating a fact. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make it clear to the House of Commons that he personally has no sort of objection to questions being put down on the Paper, and that he himself will exercise his discretion whether he will answer them or not.
  MR. M. DAVITT: May I ask whether I should be in order, to give the Under Secretary an opportunity of speaking, in moving that this Bill be read this day three months?
  MR. SPEAKER: It would be in order, but very unusual to do so.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"—(Mr. Davitt.)
  MR. DAVITT: In the interest of the rights of private Members replies should be given to the questions addressed to the Under Secretary by the hon. Member for East Clare (Mr. W. Redmond). I understand that the right hon. Gentleman said that he is precluded from replying because these questions were addressed to him after he had made his speech. To give him an opportunity of replying, I will move the Motion I have indicated.
  MR. J. J. SHEE: In seconding the Motion I desire to suggest that perhaps this would be a convenient opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs to inform the House at what time his interdict as to answering questions addressed to him on certain subjects will expire, and how hon. Members are to know that his attitude of reserve has come to an end. If questions as to foreign affairs are not allowed to be put on the Paper, what means has the House of ascertaining when the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared to depart from his present attitude of refusal to answer such questions?
  Mr. SPEAKER then put the question.
  MR. CURZON: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for moving his Motion, and for giving me the opportunity of saying a few words. There seems to be, on the part of some hon. Gentlemen, an idea that I have refused, or am reluctant, to answer questions on which they seek information. As regards these particular questions, I may state that I was not even aware that they had been handed in at the Table. I entered the House, and I found a heated discussion going on apparently on my inability to answer a question I had never seen. As to the question of the hon. Member for Clare, I can only ask him to observe the usual practice of the House
  820
  and to give notice of his question. It is not fair to hold a pistol at our heads and to accuse the Government of improper reticence in not answering questions of which no warning has been given. If the hon. Member will put his question down, I will endeavour in this, as in any other matters of public interest, to give a reply.
  MR. DILLON: That is very fair and reasonable. Then we are to understand that questions on China, the Far East, and these important matters under negotiation, will come under the notice of the right hon. Gentleman, and he will decide whether he considers it consistent in the interest of his office and the country to reply? [Mr. CURZON assented.] I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
  Question proposed—
  "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  GREEK LOAN [GUARANTEE].
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith), Chairman of Ways and Means, in the Chair.]
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolution—
  "That Her Majesty be authorised to guarantee the payment of an annuity not exceeding £3 12s. per cent. on the nominal amount of securities to be issued by the Government of Greece for the purpose of raising a Loan not exceeding £6,800,000 in pursuance of a Convention to be signed between Her Majesty and the Governments of France, Russia, and Greece, and that provision be made out of the Consolidated Fund, or the growing produce thereof, for the issue of such sums of money as may from time to time become payable by Her Majesty, under the guarantee of the said Convention."—(Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: In moving the Resolution which has been placed in my hands, it will not be necessary to detain the House at any length with the history of the events of

  821
  the past two years, so far as they have affected the relations of Turkey and Greece. It is in the recollection of all of us that the result of that unhappy war of last year left Greece practically at the mercy of Turkey, with finances which had been before in a disordered state reduced to practical bankruptcy, with a defeated army, and in a condition perilous to her future existence as a nation. Sir, in these circumstances, the Committee will remember that the European Powers felt it necessary to step in. A peace was made involving the payment of a large indemnity from Greece to Turkey. The European Powers, seeing the desperate condition of Greece, and recognising the necessity of delivering the province of Thessaly from Turkish occupation, appointed a Commission in which each of the six Powers were represented, to inquire into the financial state of the Greek Kingdom. That Commission held a thorough and exhaustive inquiry, and made a Report early in the present year, which, I think, fully stated both the present circumstances and future prospects of Greece. It appeared from that Report that, owing to the great expenditure on the war, owing to the loss by Greece of one of her best provinces, the finances of the country could not be expected to revert again to a state of equilibrium until 1903, and that, in the meantime, large sums would have to be provided, not only for the indemnity to Turkey, of about £3,700,000 in our money, and the further sum by way of compensation for injuries to private persons done by the Greek troops amounting to £92,000, but to make provision for the deficit in the Greek Budget for 1897–98, and for the conversion of the floating Debt, and for future possibilities between 1898 and 1903. It has been calculated, after full examination by this Commission, that in the year 1903 the revenue of Greece may be expected to amount to £2,495,000, or thereabouts, that the necessary expenses of administration will amount to about £1,618,000, which would leave a sum of £877,000 for the payment of interest and sinking fund on the existing Debt of Greece, and for the same purpose on the Debt which would now have to be contracted for the purposes which I have described Provision has been made by a law, which has been passed by the Greek
  822
  Parliament, for the institution of a Commission of International Control over the finances of the country. To that Commission will be allotted certain definite sums arising from some internal revenues, and also from the customs of certain places which will provide a total amount adequate for the service of the existing Greek Debt, the interest on which will be very largely reduced, and also for the service of the Debt which it is now necessary to contract. It is estimated that the service of the existing Greek Debt will require the sum of £625,000 a year, leaving £250,000 for the service of the new Debt. Now the amount of the new Debt, it is proposed, shall be the sum of £6,800,000. Of that £3,800,000 will be required for the indemnity to Turkey and compensation to persons injured during the war by Greek troops, and £1,200,000 will be needed to meet the deficit of 1897–98, making a total of £5,000,000. It is proposed that a loan of that amount shall be issued at once, as soon as the necessary arrangements can be completed, leaving a sum of £1,000,000 to be issued for the purpose of converting the floating Debt of Greece—of course, to those who hold the floating Debt—and a further sum of £800,000 to be issued by such future instalments as may be necessary for deficits expected to arise subsequent to 1898. Well, it will be obvious to the Committee that, looking to circumstances that have occurred, the credit of Greece in the market could not by any possibility raise the sum of £6,800,000 on an annual payment of no more than £250,000. Therefore, the case that was presented to the Powers was this: that unless some of the Powers were prepared to extend the advantages of their credit to Greece, it would be practically impossible for Greece to recover her position as a nation and absolutely impossible for her to fulfil the terms of her Treaty with Turkey, under which, on the payment of the indemnity, Thessaly was to be evacuated by the Turkish troops. Therefore, having taken this matter into consideration, Her Majesty's Government, together with the Governments of France and Russia, have agreed to give Greece the benefit of their credit by guaranteeing a loan of the amount I have stated. It is proposed, as I have said, that the maximum amount of the loan will be £6,800,000.

  823
  This will cover the whole amount of Greece's borrowing requirements, and will effect the conversion of the floating Debt. The amount immediately raised being £5,000,000, it is proposed that it shall be raised in bonds bearing interest at the rate of two and a-half per cent., to be issued at a fixed price at the highest rate which the state of the market at the date of issue will permit. Greece shall pay an annuity of two and a-half per cent. for the first five years, and thereafter three and three-fifths per cent., by which the loan will be repaid in about 53 years from the date of issue. The sinking fund will be applied in annual drawings of the bonds at par, and the loan will be convertible at the end of 20 years. I do not know that on the financial side of the question I have much to add to what I have already stated. From what I have said the Committee will see the extent of the responsibility of the country. The guarantee is proposed to be joint and several, and the payment to Greece will be secured by the Commission of International Control, to which the revenues I have referred to have been assigned by the law passed by the Greek Parliament. There is a further point to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth has already alluded, and to which all of us will attach the most vital importance. Is it reasonably secure that the payment of the indemnity will result in the evacuation of Thessaly? Now, Sir, on that I may state to the Committee that it is provided by Article VII. of the Law of Control, which has been passed by the Greek Chamber with the approval of the six Powers, that the proceeds of the loan for the war indemnity, and for compensation to private individuals, will be held in their entirety at the disposal of the International Commission, which shall employ them for the payment to be made to the account of Turkey, in conformity with the arrangements effected by the Greek Government, so that it is not possible that the indemnity shall be paid to Turkey otherwise than as settled by agreement between the Powers and Greece. It is notorious that Greece is not the only impecunious Power in this matter, and that even for the purpose of enabling the evacuation of Thessaly to be effected it is necessary
  824
  that Turkey should be put in funds. It is quite clear, consequently, that Turkey cannot obtain the indemnity without the evacuation under the provisions I have referred to, and she will have every interest in fulfilling her engagement and effecting the evacuation at as early a day as possible. But I have further to add that we are now in communication with the other Powers, who are working in complete harmony with us in this matter, with a view of fixing beforehand the exact date of the payment of the indemnity, so that if it be necessary, as I do not anticipate, to exercise any pressure on Turkey, that pressure will be unanimously exercised by the European Powers. I hope I have explained sufficiently what are the terms of the proposed loan, and I shall be glad to give any further information on the subject which may be in my power. I may add that the terms of the Convention will be affixed to the Bill, so that the House will, when the Bill is printed, be able to see precisely the nature of the obligations by which it is proposed this country shall be bound.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked whether the obligations of Greece towards Turkey, under the Convention of 1881, had been taken into account, or whether the engagements entered into 17 years ago were nugatory and of no effect. If, he said, nothing had been done towards fulfilling that engagement, it threw rather a lurid light upon the prospects of the new Loan.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am afraid I have failed to make myself clear to my hon. Friend. What has been done is this: The financial position of Greece by the institution of the proposed Commission of International Control will be absolutely different from what it has been before. Sufficient revenue will be assigned to the Commission to be collected by the monopoly company—which will be practically placed under their orders—and handed over to them without any intervention by the Greek Government, for the service, not only of the new Loan, but of the previous international obligations of Greece.
  MR. F. S. STEVENSON: It is clear from the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a later stage will be more convenient for discussion, when the exact text of the Bill is before us. I wish to ask two questions which, perhaps, he will be able to answer. He referred to the fact that the text of the Bill will be printed in the Convention. Will the Convention include the dates of the payment of the money to the Turkish Treasury? The second question I wish to ask is this: The Greek Chamber has decided that a Loan of 8,000,000 drachmas is to be incurred for the purposes of meeting certain aspects of the distress in Thessaly. I take it that that will only be employed after the evacuation by the Turkish troops. Does the total amount of £6,800,000 include that 8,000,000 drachmas, or is it in addition?
  MR. T. WODEHOUSE LEGH: I do not desire to continue the discussion; but there was one important phrase dropped by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He asked whether it was certain that payment of the indemnity will secure the evacuation of Thessaly. Well, it was very difficult to be certain on such a point. But certainly, from the information I gather, I am under the impression that there will be no difficulty made by the Turks themselves, provided no other question is mixed up with the evacuation of Thessaly. I believe most of the Turkish troops are as anxious to evacuate Thessaly as the Greeks are to see them depart. If any difficulty should arise—and a difficulty may arise, because the Sultan is not a person who is wanting in ingenuity—it will be owing to the fact that the candidature of Prince George of Greece for the Governorship of Crete has been pressed forward at an inopportune moment. That may indirectly cause a postponement of this most desirable thing. The necessity of the evacuation is recognised by both sides. Everybody will be pleased when the evacuation takes place. I believe my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn has no objection to the proposals which are made. I am convinced that they will meet with the approbation of the country
  826
  generally, and I think we ought to be able to calculate upon the permanent gratitude of the Greek nation.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: One question has been raised by the hon. Member who last spoke—a question of singular importance—in connection with this Loan. He says that, provided no other question is mixed up with the matter, the evacuation of Thessaly will take place, under the provision of the Agreement; but if, he says, the candidature of Prince George of Greece for Crete is mixed up with this matter at an inopportune moment, then the negotiations for the evacuation will break down. [Mr. LEGH: Might break down.] The policy which has been followed in connection with this Loan is the policy of three Powers, although six Powers are in a degree concerned in demanding the evacuation at a given date. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in another portion of his speech says, "some of the Powers," by which he must mean three Powers, but in the name of six. Now, it is a notorious fact that a particular choice has been made by one of the Powers for the Governorship of Crete. That difficulty, it is now suggested by the hon. Member, may prevent the evacuation of Thessaly. That is to say, that it will be the policy of one Power or, perhaps, two Powers, to thwart the majority of the Powers who are guaranteeing this Loan. I think this is an occasion when some of us who are by no means favourable to a general alliance between this county and Russia, or between this country and France, should put it clearly before the House that, in regard to the affairs of the Eastern Mediterranean, the traditional policy of this country of acting together with Russia and Franco is the one which we are bound to follow. There can be no doubt that the bulk of French independent opinion has followed with anxiety the difficult negotiations for the creation of this Loan, and that it is popular in France. However great the difficulties are of our acting with France in many questions before us at the present time, this is a matter in which we can safely and prudently act with France and Russia. I hope the Government will go

  827
  forward with the support of these two Powers, and will follow the traditional policy which has brought the kingdom of Greece into existence.
  LORD E. FITZMAURICE: Is it intended to present any Papers to the House on this subject? I wish to point out, with regard to what has fallen from my right hon. Friend below the Gangway that even in 1888 the Turkish Government took steps precisely of the kind which he rather hinted at in order to use the negotiations in regard to the evacuation of the Montenegrin territory in such a way as to secure a pledge that they would not be called upon by any other Power to evacuate territory which they had undertaken to evacuate on the Greek frontier. As many hon. Members, I am sure, will recollect, these negotiations in consequence were spun out, owing to the ingenuity of the Turkish Government, for a time which, I think, altogether astonished our own able diplomacy, accustomed as it has been to Turkish tactics. The matter is, no doubt, especially familiar to one eminent member of Her Majesty's Government—I mean the First Lord of the Admiralty. I only allude to that to show that it is a reason for feeling confident, for it was very largely owing to his great energy and ability that eventually those most troublesome negotiations were carried to a successful end. What happened is this: the Turkish Govenrnment entered into an agreement for the evacuation of a certain territory in Albania, and when the Montenegrin troops arrived to take possession they were received, not in the manner they ought to have been received, but they were fired upon, and no less than seven men were killed, and then the whole of the negotiations had to commence again. The papers show that the Turkish Government then went round to one Power after another, attempting to get an understanding that if they gave way about this territory, and finally handed it over, or some other territory, then they might receive an assurance that no pressure would be brought by any other Power to bear upon them in regard to Greece. Now, the danger is that the Turkish Government will do exactly the same
  828
  thing with regard to Crete; they will try to arrange that if they evacuate Thessaly they need not consent to the candidature of Prince George for the Governorship of Crete. There is one other reason, and I am sure it will appeal to my right hon. Friend on the other side of the House who has just returned from these regions. There is not only the Turkish soldier to take into consideration, because no doubt he is anxious to get out of Thessaly, but there is the Turkish tax-gatherer. Formerly one of the most important items of Turkish revenue was the sheep tax of Thessaly, which used to bring in £1,000,000 sterling a year. But the Turkish tax-gatherer has lately descended on Thessaly, and although the Turkish soldier is anxious to go, the tax-gatherer is anxious to stay as long as he can. Thessaly has been ravaged, and no doubt the revenue would not produce anything like £1,000,000 sterling a year now. This tax is levied upon large herds of sheep driven from the northern territory, some of which have never been touched by war, and which are Turkish territories. Still, there may be a minor temptation to the Turkish Government to delay the evacuation as long as possible, and I think it all the more likely, because it was well known in 1880 and 1881 that at that time one of the reasons why the Turks did not surrender the territory which they knew they would have eventually to give up, was that they desired to push the fulfilment of their obligations as far forward into the year 1880 as possible, in order that the sheep tax should pass into the hands of the Turkish tax-gatherer before they handed it over to Greece. I mention these few facts, because there is a very great anxiety that this matter should be carried through successfully, and that the unfortunate inhabitants of those regions should be allowed to return in peace to their desolate homes.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD - BARTLETT: I notice that the noble Lord who has just sat down has dealt with great force upon the evacuation of Thessaly, and I noticed that he used the expression that "Thessaly had been ravaged." Well, Sir, I should like to know by whom Thessaly has been ravaged. No occupied province has ever been so well treated

  829
  before by European soldiers, and statements of that kind should not be made in this House.
  LORD E. FITZMAURICE: I mean ravaged by the ordinary operations of war.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD - BARTLETT: Well, the word "ravaged" is not applicable to what has happened in Thessaly. Well, Sir, this loan of £4,000,000 marks a very interesting—[An hon. MEMBER: It is not £4,000,000.] Well, whatever the amount of the loan is, at all events it is simply the outcome of the action and policy pursued by Her Majesty's Government. This is one of the direct proofs of the atrocity scare; it is absolutely the effect of the atrocity agitation upon Her Majesty's Ministers, because, but for the action they took in concert with the rest of Europe, especially with regard to Crete, there would have been no Cretan trouble, no Greek war, no suffering to Greece or Turkey, and no loan. This is the absolute effect of atrocity-mongering of the Radical Party in this country upon Her Majesty's Government, whose representation and action produced the weakness of the Government in refusing to blockade the Piræus and Volo, so as to prevent the mobilisation of the Greek army. That is the direct cause of this loan, and of the unfortunate financial position in which Greece finds herself to-day. Well, now, I heard the Under Secretary not long ago use a most remarkable expression. He said that the question of paramount importance in Europe now was the evacuation of Thessaly by the Turks. Sir, I have never heard a more astounding statement. If that really is the view of Her Majesty's Government, if in view of the tremendous problems and difficulties which at present surround this country and all Europe, the view of Her Majesty's Government is that the question of the evacuation of Thessaly is of paramount importance, then the policy of Her Majesty's Government must be regarded as almost hopeless. It is a question of interests, it is a question of sentiment, and a thing which we all desire to see done, and which the Turks are as anxious to see done as anybody
  830
  else; but to describe this as the one question of paramount importance is simply to say that the Gentleman who used the expression is devoid of all sense of proportion. [The FIRST LORD of the TREASURY: No, no!] I am sorry the Leader of the House does not agree with me; but that is the fact. I heard the Leader of the Opposition, a little while ago, dealing with the action of the Government in allying themselves to France and Russia in order to secure the evacuation of Thessaly. Well, Sir, we know perfectly well what are the views of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, in spite of the attacks that France and Russia are continually making against British interests in every quarter of the globe. The one idea in the minds of some right hon. Gentlemen opposite is to secure an alliance with France and Russia against the Turkish Empire. It is a most distressful feature of this position that the Leaders of the Opposition should also show that they are without sense of proportion, and that my right hon. Friend should have allowed such an expression to pass from him, which also goes to show that he too is without that sense of proportion. The important point in all these questions is that we should not alienate from us the support of the Ottoman power and Mussulman feeling throughout the world. That is the question of paramount importance for our interests in the Far East or the Near East, and I say that this policy is tending to alienate the Mussulman people, but I think there are signs of a much wiser policy and feeling on the part of this House, and on the part of Her Majesty's Government, towards Turkey; but to place the evacuation of Thessaly as the question of paramount importance makes one think that great interests in the Far East—I am speaking of the Northern Pacific and of China—should not possibly be sacrificed in order to secure this practically worthless concession, though perhaps from some points of view it is sentimentally a valuable arrangement for France and Russia with regard to Greece and Thessaly. I quite admit that indirectly, and perhaps directly, this loan will not be a disadvantage to Turkey. I have no doubt that the securing of the payment of the war indemnity will be of very valuable

  831
  service to the depleted exchequer of the Porte, and therefore this action on the part of Her Majesty's Government need not be regarded as hostile to Mussulman interests, and I do not for one moment place it in that light. The point I wish to call the attention of the House to is this: that it is most undesirable that our great interests in the Far East should be sacrificed in order to secure what is, as regards British interests, a perfectly useless combination on our part with France and Russia, and it is an arrangement which will have to be very carefully worked. The Turkish Government will have to be dealt with with great consideration in all these matters, because great pressure is being used with Turkey to induce her to join with Russia against us, and these negotiations with regard to Greece and Thessaly are being used as a lever to force an alliance against us. And, Sir, with regard to the Cretan question, I do not know whether it would in any sense come under this loan as part of the general Greek question I am referring to. I take quite a different view to the Leader of the Opposition as to the supposed abandonment, or, at all events, of the cessation of negotiations in support of the candidature of Prince George for the Governorship of Crete. He is, no doubt, a superior and able Prince, and he might be a good Governor, but it is very undesirable, when Mussulman feeling is so great, that we should force upon Turkey the appointment of Prince George, who will naturally be objected to by the Sultan and by the Turkish Government. It was really unfortunate that the Government should have been misled into supporting the candidature of Prince George, because he could never be acceptable to the Porte. I really cannot see why a suitable Christian Governor of Crete could not have been found amongst the subjects of the Porte. I think everybody would admit, from a Turkish point of view, that that would be a reasonable demand, and it is difficult to understand why the Government would not accept a suitable Christian Governor for Crete.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is now wandering away from the Question before the House.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD - BARTLETT: I will now, Sir, cease with reference to that subject. I hope in the arrangements that are made for this loan that consideration will be paid to the feelings and interests of the whole population, and that Her Majesty's Government will never lose sight of the fact that has been ignored by both sides and both Parties during the past three years, that it is absolutely essential for us to maintain and keep on our side the good feeling of the Mussulman population of the world, and especially of the Mussulman population of India.
  Resolution agreed to; to be reported to-morrow.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (MERCANTILE MARINE FUND) [EXPENSES].
  Resolution—
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of all expenses now charged on and payable out of the Mercantile Marine Fund, except those relating to lighthouses, buoys, and beacons, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to amend the Law with regard to the provision for the payment of certain expenses under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, and with regard to the levying of light dues."—(Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR. J. HERBERT LEWIS: There is a question which I desire to address to the President of the Board of Trade, in the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in regard to this matter. The question is this, whether the House by passing this Resolution now, does not tie its hands absolutely and finally with regard to the expenses relating to lighthouses, buoys, and beacons. Does this Resolution

  833
  prevent the Houses from passing any Amendment upon the Bill when it comes downstairs from the Grand Committee on Trade?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. CHARLES T. RITCHIE,): No, it does not do that. It is simply a Resolution.
  MR. J. HERBERT LEWIS: The right hon. Gentleman is aware that a great question has been raised in reference to this Bill by the shipping community of the United Kingdom, and that question is whether, as a matter of fact, these dues are not to be abolished altogether, and I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that any Amendment to that effect will not be shut out by the adoption of the Resolution now under discussion.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: Certainly it would not be shut out. The House discussed that question the other day on the Second Reading and decided against that proposition. The Bill does not provide for that, and we do not ask for it, because the Government are not prepared to do it, and the House has agreed upon that point.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Then the right hon. Gentleman says "No." Unless this resolution is made wider it will not be competent for any Member to move the inclusion of any public vote or to reduce the public vote. These subscriptions refer to expenses incurred in relation to Colonial lights on the coast of Morocco. These expenses are on public votes and this Resolution and the Bill propose to exclude them. Now, the object of many hon. Members is that they should not be so excluded, consequently I take it that I am right in my conclusion that if the Resolution is carried as it is now drawn it will not be competent to make a Motion. There is another point to which I attach great importance. It is very unfortunate that by the forms of this House we shall really be prevented from discussing a part of this Bill,
  834
  because it will be impossible to discuss it when we come into Committee in the usual way. On page 6, for instance, there are examples from the charge of the new rates of light dues. Of course, these examples include some of Her Majesty's ships. Now, there are a great many of us who desire to move in that matter in Committee, and to discuss the exemption of Her Majesty's ships and ships belonging to foreign Governments, but we could not possibly—I think I am right in saying it—move the Motion for the exemption of Her Majesty's ships, because we shall have no right to make a Motion to that effect. The result of that is that unless we can discuss the whole question of Her Majesty's ships on this Motion we cannot discuss it at all, although it is in this Bill. As regards foreign ships we may think that they ought to be, but we are cut off from all discussion of this question, whether it should be omitted or retained in the Bill. That, Sir, is a very considerable inconvenience, and I do not quite know how otherwise I can, in the face of this Resolution—
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: This Resolution does not refer to these dues.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Yes, that is so, but I am afraid that I have not made my point quite clear. The Resolution only refers to the relief of the Mercantile Marine from certain charges, as a public charge. What I should wish to say is that the Resolution if passed in this way precludes us from discussing matters on page 2, and we cannot move to omit, I take it, from the Bill the expenses of certain lighthouses and other matters.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I have heard the argument of the hon. Gentleman upon this point, and I see no reason why he should not move such an Amendment in Committee.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: That entirely satisfies me on section 2, subsection 3 and 5, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will remember that. As to the Motion on page 6, the inconvenience remains, and naturally must remain, but we shall perhaps be

  835
  able to get some charitable consideration from the right hon. Gentleman in the course of the Committee in regard to that point.
  Resolution to be reported to-morrow.

  PRISONS BILL.
  [On the return of Mr. SPEAKER, after the usual interval, the Order of the Day for the Second Reading of the Prisons Bill was read.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. W. RIDLEY,): Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to occupy very much of the time of the House in explaining the provisions of this Bill, the Second Reading of which I now desire to move. The fact is, that I have given to the House a good deal of information, what I believe they will feel is almost an excessive amount of information, as to what has been going on in regard to our prisons during the last two or three years, and quite an adequate amount of explanation of the Bill which is now before the House. The House is in possession of the statement, drawn up by the Prison Commissioners, of what they have done up to the present time on the recommendation of the Committee, presided over by my right hon. Friend on the Front Opposition Bench (Mr. H. Gladstone), whose services and those of his colleagues upon that Committee I desire, on behalf of the Government, cordially to acknowledge. I have also laid upon the Table of the House an explanatory memorandum, which deals with the proposals of this Bill, and the rules which I propose to make under this Bill if it becomes an Act, and a further statement which is very important, showing what portion of these rules are really old rules, which are now in existence, either as being made on the authority of the Secretary of State or
  836
  as statutory enactments, and what portions of them are either alterations or additions, proposed to be made under the powers of this Bill. Therefore, Sir, there is, I think, a considerable amount of information in the possession of the House with reference to the proposals of this Bill. Sir, the Report of the Committee over which the right hon. Gentleman opposite presided was a very exhaustive and a very full Report, and there were a good many of the recommendations of that Committee which the Secretary of State was able to carry out without either consultation with the Treasury or special legislation, and a great portion of this work, I think it will be found, I have been able to do. There was a certain number of other proposals of the Committee which required the consent of the Treasury, and those also have been given effect to. But there were other proposals which required legislation, so that if I endeavoured to give effect, as I desired to do, to the recommendations of the Committee, it was necessary to ask Parliament to sanction legislation. But, Sir, when I came to consider the subject, I thought it was a proper opportunity for reviewing the whole field of our prison enactments, and for seizing this chance of introducing legislation, which, if it could not at the present moment absolutely enact a new code, should at all events be an amending Bill tending in that direction. Now, Sir, broadly speaking, I think the fault which is to be found with our prison system, apart from any criticisms which may be made upon it, on the ground of harshness and so forth, which I do not deal with now, is its want of elasticity, by which, it will be understood, I mean there is a vast number of statutory rules which cannot be dispensed with, and there is a lack of power for the individual treatment of cases which come under the attention of the Secretary of State. Therefore I think it may be fairly said that there has been, and the Report of the Committee will show it, a certain reaction against the uniformity which was the aim—the principal aim—of the Act of 1877, and, indeed, of the Act of 1865, which preceded it. The work of securing that uniformity, Sir, was almost entirely the work of the late Chairman of the Prisons

  837
  Board, Sir Edmund du Cane, and I think everybody interested in the prison work of this country ought to recognise the great ability and energy which Sir Edmund du Cane brought to bear upon that subject, and the immense public value of his services. Now, Sir, the Act of 1877 was not so much an Act to amend the administration of our prisons as it was an Act for dealing with local taxation reform which gave to the Imperial Government of this country the administration of our prisons, and that Act has had the result, as I believe, of doing away with a great many of the abuses which existed in some of our local prisons, and of making our prison system uniform. In fact it now enables us to face the question of prison reform, if we desire to do so, with a clear view, and with the fact before us that we have a real and substantially uniform system, both for our convict and local prisons throughout the county, with which to deal. This Bill, therefore, as an amending Measure, has for its primary object the creation of powers for applying differential treatment or classification, or any word of that sort that you wish to use, to our prison population; and what I am anxious to do in this Bill is to go as far as I can in the direction of this differential treatment of our prison population, as is consistent with the proper punishment of criminals, the maintenance of discipline, and the protection of society. This Bill is not a revolution of our prison government. I hear some hon. Gentleman on the other side cheering ironically, but I do not know what kind of revolution they desire; this is a Bill which enables a great deal to be done with regard to our prison treatment, which can be done with advantage, and which I hope we shall be able to do. The Bill is partly a modification of the rules connected with our present law, and it partly gives power to do a great deal more. The fact is that we ought all to acknowledge that we do want power to award adequately severe treatment to those who are really criminals, and to mitigate the treatment for those who are not really criminals in our prison population. My whole proposal is based on the idea of consolidation in dealing with all parts of the prison code, local and convict, but in the first instance it is necessary
  838
  to bring in this amending Bill, the Second Reading of which I am now moving. Its principal provisions are intended in the first place to provide for that amalgamation of administration which is contained in Clause 1 following the recommendations of the Committee of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite. The directors of convict prisons, as the House knows, appointed by the Secretary of State under the Act of 1850 and the Prison Commissioners appointed under the Act of 1877 are in practice the same persons, and I propose to give effect to that which is the existing practice, and to secure that there shall be one report and one set of figures, and that the inspectors who are now available only for the work of local prisons shall have their work extended to the inspection of convict prisons. Sir, the next proposal is, and it is a very important one, that the Secretary of State should have power to make rules both for convict and local prisons. At present, as the law stands, the rules for convict prisons are made by the Secretary of State, as the executive officer, without laying them before Parliament, and without Parliament knowing anything about them. For local prisons the rules are mainly statutory under the Act of 1865, but there is some supplementary power given to the Secretary of State to make certain qualifying rules under that Act, or the Act of 1877. Sir, as I have said, the system has been found to be too rigid. At all events, I believe that was the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman's Committee, and this Bill is intended to do away with the unyielding character of that statutory code, and to enable the Secretary of State to make rules and lay them before Parliament, thus bringing before Parliament the whole of the penal rules of this country. The second clause is intended to give those powers. It goes on to say that those powers shall include the power of regulating the nature of the hard labour to be carried out in our prisons, and, secondly, it takes power to make rules which will deal with the classification of prisoners. As regards hard labour, the clause is a wide clause, and it enables regard to be had in the making of the rules to the sex, age, industry, and conduct of the prisoners. This, Sir, is a very important advance and a very important

  839
  power to give to the Secretary of State, because hitherto the rules affecting prisoners sentenced to hard labour have been very inflexible, and have inflicted, I do not say injustice, but, at all events, hardship upon prisoners which, if the administration had been able to discriminate, they would have been very glad to alleviate. I believe I am correct in saying that the Scotch Prisons Act of 1877 contains a clause to this effect. Then, Sir, with reference to Classification, the first point relates to the question of juvenile offenders. There can be, as I believe, in the whole of our dealing with the criminal population of this country nothing more important than keeping our juvenile population as far as possible out of prison. To send our unfortunate young offenders to prison is the very last thing we should do. The next thing we ought to do, if we must send them to prison, is to keep them as far as possible separate from the older and habitual offenders of the criminal population. I hope that the statement made by the Prison Commissioners in the Paper which has been laid before the House will show that so far as the power possessed by the Secretary of State goes he and the Prison Commissioners have done all that could be done in the matter without legislative powers during the last two or three years. I should say, in the first instance, that although the First Offenders Act has not been used to the full extent to which it might have been used, yet there is an increasing disposition to use it, and I find, at all events with regard to juvenile offenders, in the last Report of the Prison Commissioners, that there were only 42 juvenile offenders in prisons at that time, at the end of the year, as against 89 and 127 in the preceding years. Then, Sir, we have made an experiment in collecting juvenile prisoners who are committed for one month or longer in certain local prisons, with a view to their separate treatment, and I am happy to say that I have seen nothing but the best reports of that experiment. I think that, so far as it can be done, it is desirable to carry that reform still further, and that the arrangement, combined with an extended use of the First Offenders Act, will do something towards the classification and separation
  840
  of our juvenile offenders. Sir, the Committee presided over by the right hon. Gentleman opposite recommended that the age of juvenile offenders should be raised from 16 to 17. The House will see that in the rules now proposed it is not provided definitely that the age shall be raised to 17, because I believe it is the fact that in that class which is unfortunately predisposed to criminality, not from their own fault very likely, there is a great deal of precocious ruffianism, and it is much safer to make enactments such as those contained in these rules, which will enable us to treat as juvenile offenders any prisoners who, in the opinion of the governor, the chaplain, or the visiting justices ought to be classified as juveniles, although they may declare themselves to be over 16. That, I believe, will have the effect of doing what the Committee desired, to enable a distinction to be made between some of these young prisoners, who, although they declare themselves to be of a particular age, should really be classed as juveniles, and those who ought to be classed as adults. With reference to juvenile convicts, the last Report of Directors of Convict Prisons is, I think, a very interesting one. The House, will find that there has been a considerable diminution in the number during the year of our juvenile convicts. There were only two convicts under the age of 16 at the date of their conviction, as stated in that Report, and I cannot help hoping and believing that such a state of things as that is due to the action of the reformatory schools, which are, to the best of my belief, doing exceedingly good work in this direction. The question is often raised of a separate prison or of separate treatment for these juvenile convicts. I am afraid that it is true that a very large number of the juvenile convicts who are sentenced between the ages of 16 and 21 are really very bad subjects. I find that out of 209 cases—and I am now taking the same Report of the Prison Commissioners—only 29 of that 209 were found fit, after inquiry, to be put in the starred class. The great majority of them were guilty of grave crime after previous conviction. That is a very grave fact, because we are dealing with our juvenile convicts. Twenty of them were guilty of robbery with

  841
  violence, 30 of murder or manslaughter, 40 of rape, and 10 of unnatural offences. Therefore you have got to deal with what everybody must admit is an exceptional class of ruffianism, which cannot be dealt with as first offenders, or juvenile offenders, even in the ordinary sense of the word. What we propose to do is to modify the rules which have debarred some of them from the possibility of entering into the starred class, to examine every case upon its merits, and try, so far as we can, to deal with each one of them under a policy of segregation. I believe it is true, even in the case of some of these young ruffians whom I have mentioned, and, possibly, mainly of those who have been guilty of sexual crimes, that after a sentence of imprisonment there is more possibility of their reform than there is of some of our habitual criminals. To go on with the question of classification under Clause 5, which is headed "Misdemeanants," it is proposed to make another class between the first and third class. The existing Acts under which the prisons are now worked distinguish from the ordinary prisoners those prisoners who are awaiting trial, debtors, surety prisoners, and misdemeanants who are not sentenced to hard labour, and this last class is to be divided into at least two divisions, whilst some power is given to make regulations as to treatment. No power is given in the case of misdemeanants not of the first class, and therefore in practice there is little difference between the treatment of the misdemeanant who is not sentenced to hard labour and is not of the first class and the ordinary criminal who is condemned to hard labour. Therefore the proposal is to establish a second class with less rigorous treatment. I have had many representations from Visiting Committees all over the country that such a thing would be very desirable, and I believe that everyone who has had any experience in prison treatment or discipline will feel that there are many classes of persons committed to prison who do require to be kept at some labour and some kind of restraint and discipline, but yet who are not really criminal, and ought not to be treated as such. They comprise, broadly, speaking, that class of people who are committed to prison in
  842
  default of paying a fine. There are many classes of such prisoners, who have been guilty of offences for which the Legislature has directly provided that the punishment shall be the payment of a fine. They form a very inconvenient portion of our prison population, being liable to be dealt with too lightly on one side and too hardly on the other. The Bill enables these prisoners to be dealt with in another way, and, therefore, under Clause 5 a power is given to the Court to inflict such a sentence as, under the circumstances, is thought to be proper. [Sir H. FOWLER: Fining for misdemeanours.] I have considered that point, and I have come to the conclusion that it would be well to separate this class from possibility of association with felons. Another classification is the introduction of the star class in local prisons. The experiment of the introduction of the starred class in our convict prisons has been very successful. Since its formation in 1879 up to last September I think there were 2,183 males who were put in the star class; of these the number returned to penal servitude upon subsequent conviction was only 20, or something like 1.1 per cent. and of those whose licences were revoked only a small decimal; and of the females who were put into the starred class under the new system of 1879, numbering 93, not one returned to penal servitude after conviction. Therefore I say that that is a satisfactory trial, so far as it goes, of our starred class system in convict prisons, and it is proposed under the new rules to extend and develop this starred class in our local prisons. With reference to this classification, we get a kind of treble classification—first offenders, habitual, and juvenile—and it is proposed under the new rules to make the progressive stage system in our prisons a regular portion of our criminal system. In combination with that proposal is one which I am sure will commend itself to the House — namely, that, as in the case of penal servitude prisons, there should be a power to earn some remission of sentence in accordance with the industry and good conduct in the prison, to give an incentive to such good conduct while in prison. I believe that it is universall yadmitted that the power to

  843
  earn these good conduct marks has a good effect, and I am sure we shall be wise in extending it now. Further power, which I am sure will equally commend itself to the House, and which has been recommended in many quarters, and especially by the Scotch Committee upon habitual criminals, is the power to release a prisoner upon the payment of a portion of the sum for the non-payment of which he has been committed. That has been a reform which has been long wanted, but it cannot be done without legislation, because after a person is committed to prison for non-payment of a fine, there is no power to allow any payment other than the full payment which may be possible on the part of himself or his friends, which would have the result of releasing him from prison. That is an end which we might usefully aim at, and a further recommendation, apart from what appears to be the justice of it, is that, as will be found from the memorandum which I have laid upon the Table of the House, it promises the best possible results to the Exchequer. I have followed the recommendations of the Committee with regard to the abolition of punishment cells, with the exception that the Bill provides that there shall be in every prison a cell for the additional security of a refractory prisoner.
  MR. DAVITT: Will that mean the abolition of dark cells in Ireland?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I do not believe they exist. There are no dark cells now, but in order to remove a public misconception, this Bill provides that there shall be cells which are only intended to be different in character from ordinary cells to the extent that they are strong, and prevent prisoners who are refractory from damaging themselves. There is a further section for the prevention of the overcrowding of our prisons. There is also a further important provision with reference to the Visiting Committees. I have been desired to extend the powers of Visiting Committees in our local prisons. I need hardly go over the whole ground, or say how we
  844
  hope to bring into alliance with the present authorities—namely, the Visiting Committees—the Prisoners' Aid Societies in this country. A full account is given in the Report of the present Commissioners of what has been done in this direction, and I believe that the system is working well, and that there is in many quarters of the country increased activity in the way of helping these societies, which the Government are very anxious to assist by every means in their power. But, Sir, I think it will be found that extended powers are given to the Visiting Committees under these rules, and there is the important provision further of making this appointment in the case of our convict prisons. It is proposed that the Secretary of State should have power to appoint a board of visitors to act in the same way, and to have the same powers, as those which exist in the case of our local prisons. I do not imagine that there will be much opposition to that proposition. An idea has existed that inspectors should criticise the action of the Commissioners and report to the Secretary of State, but it seems to me that the inspectors should act under the Prison Commissioners, and see that their rules are properly carried out, and that those who are sent to prison, if they wish to appeal to the Secretary of State or to the Visiting Committees of our local prisons, are able to do so, and I hope that by means of this power, under Clause 3, it will be possible to do a great deal in that way, to the satisfaction of the Prison Commissioners and the Secretary of State, and to our convict prisons.
  MR. E. H. PICKERSGILL: Would the right hon. Gentleman say by what reasons he has been led to propose to repeal Section 11 of the Prisons Act, 1865, relating to the prison chaplain? That is repealed by Clause 12 of this Bill.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: This provision in Clause 12 is to enable chaplaincies to be held where possible with the cure of souls in the district. I believe that was recommended by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. Where it is

  845
  possible for the local clergyman to spare the time and do the work in the prison we propose by this clause to enable him to do so. I think it is a very useful thing if you have got a clergyman who knows the population and is willing to take an active part in the administration of our local prisons to allow him to do so. Clause 13, about which I thought I might be asked a question, is really for the purpose of preserving a portion of the Schedule of the Act of 1865, the rest of which is repealed by the Act. It makes no change in the position of the clerical officers of the prison. It simply re-enacts a portion of the Schedule, which, in accordance with the general scheme of this Bill, has to be done away with. I hope that, at all events, I have explained what are the intentions of this Bill.
  SIR C. CAMERON: The right hon. Gentleman has not referred to debtors.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I have referred to debtors as coming under the new classification, and, therefore, they would be able to be put to some kind of industrial labour if desirable. There are a few classes of prisoners as to whom I have had stronger representations made to me than these, with reference to the very insufficient means of dealing with debtors in our prisons, and it is believed and hoped that by means of this classification we may be able to put some of these idle and useless persons to some industrial labour whilst they are in confinement. They are certainly included in the classification of Clause 5, and are intended to be so included. I have given the House in the few remarks I have ventured to make, and in the Papers which have accompanied this Bill, a very full explanation of what the proposals are. I do not say I have solved—I have not attempted to solve—many of those prison problems which require to be solved, but what I do say is that we are making a step forward in the direction of solving some of those problems which, as I believe, can only be solved by careful
  846
  and cautious experiment. The Bill taken by itself, and the Rules with it, embody a great deal of the present practice, which I believe has not up to the present time been thoroughly understood by the public, because they embody rules made by the Secretary of State and which Parliament has assented to. They embody some improvements which are the results of the developments of our present system, and what I believe has been a most valuable and careful administration of our Prison Commissioners and Directors, and they also embody a great many of the recommendations of the Committee of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, of whose labours I have already spoken; and they embody also other proposals, which are the result of a very careful consideration of these difficult problems by a Board of Commissioners under a chairman, who is a most capable, efficient, and sympathetic public officer, and during the short time he has been prison chairman he has shown, by his energy and capacity, the greatest desire to introduce safe reforms into our system. I believe that if the House will pass this Bill, which I propose to refer to the Standing Committee on Law, and if the House will give the Secretary of State these powers, they will be doing a great deal to sanction further means of steadily developing humane administration of our prisons without in any degree diminishing the discipline which is necessary to their efficiency. In that hope I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
  MR. L. ATHERLEY-JONES: We are all indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for the very full, though terse and lucid, manner in which he has described the provisions of this Bill. I feel somewhat diffident in dealing with this question of prison reform because my knowledge is limited, but I have a very strong conviction upon the matter and I venture to invite this House to express an opinion hostile to the Second Reading of this Bill upon grounds I shall endeavour very shortly to explain. My first and principal reason for objecting to this Bill is that we are asked to carry out a very considerable change in the discipline and management of our

  847
  prisons; we are asked to review the whole system of both convict and local prison management without having any opportunity afforded to us of dealing with the details of the proposed new scheme. We have had placed before us a Bill which empowers the Home Secretary to draft the rules, and we are called upon to accept or reject that empowering enactment without having any opportunity afforded us of dealing with the rules which are the subject-matter of this Measure, or criticising them to the fullest extent as we might if we had the rules themselves embodied in the Bill. But we have no means of making any alteration whatever in any of the rules which commend themselves to the right hon. Gentleman as being desirable. The only method by which this body of rules, consisting of two considerable volumes, can be challenged is by an Address from both Houses rejecting the whole of them. We have no means of considering, changing, or modifying seriatim the rules by which the convict and local prisons of this country are to be governed. When as Home Secretary, Sir George Grey introduced a Prisons Bill he laid down as a matter of essential importance that notwithstanding it was an arduous and difficult task for the House to deal with the details of the prison rules, yet having regard to the vast importance which attached to the discipline and economy of prisons he would not take upon himself the responsibility of drafting the rules, except with the assistance of the House. This is a very grave departure from what, for my own part, I consider, and what I venture to submit to the House, was the very sound view taken by Sir George Grey. We have, I submit, a clear right to have laid before us, I do not say any little petty administrative rule, but the broad general principles upon which prison discipline is conducted. Nobody, looking at this Bill, harmless as it appears in itself, would be able to form the smallest or most remote conception of the way in which the prisons of this country will be conducted. I say that Parliament is derogating from its functions in allowing permanent officials to formulate rules, and leaving itself only the power of petitioning against the rules. I will not, and
  848
  cannot, attempt—it would be an impertinence to do so—to examine the details, it would take too long, and be too tedious and otherwise objectionable, but I can draw attention to the fact that I have gone carefully through the rules of the Act of 1865, contained in the schedule of that Act, and, with one or two microscopic exceptions, I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to point out how these rules further lead to the more humane treatment of prisoners than those of the Act of 1865. In some directions, as I shall point out in a few minutes, they are less humane, and I say it is discreditable to this country that, after a lapse of more than 30 years, no more humane or civilised method of endeavouring to govern the prisoners of this country should have been found by our statesmen and the wisdom of this House. Now, in the first place, I do assert—and it is an assertion which has the general corroboration of every jurist and philanthropist of Europe who has written upon the subject of prison discipline—that prison discipline is more severe in this country than it is in any other civilised European nation. That is not an idle assertion, and there were articles in one of the leading French periodicals some time ago in which comparison was made between the systems of prison discipline in Europe. It was the opinion of the writers of those articles that the prison discipline of England was more severe than that of any other country in Europe. I speak not with regard to convict prisons merely, but also with regard to the short terms of imprisonment, and I venture to tell the right hon. Gentleman that a sentence of two years' hard labour is a sentence which no judge, in my judgment and in the judgment of more capable persons than myself, should inflict upon a fellow-creature. I recollect the late Baron Huddlestone telling me in the latter days of his life that from what he had learned and from what he had seen, he would in no case, under no possible circumstances, inflict a sentence of two years' hard labour. I, in common with others, have had an opportunity of observing the condition of unhappy victims who have been convicted and sentenced to two years' hard labour. Nobody, who has not had an opportunity of observing the condition of the victims,

  849
  can have any conception of the effect of a lengthened term of imprisonment, even on the most robust. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the present system, with regard to children, and I shall have the sympathy of all sides of the House when I say I deplore that children should be sent to prison at all. There were, if you take the last prison statistics, in 1896 no less than 55 children under 12 years of age sent to prison as convicted prisoners, and 1,913 children between the ages of 12 and 15. A Prisons Bill might have provided, but for which this Bill does not adequately provide, that there should be isolation for the juvenile offenders. But a Prisons Bill to be effective should remove the children wholly from the influence of the prison, and there is no reason why they should not be. It would not have been beyond the scope of this Bill to have dealt with that subject. I will endeavour to deal with these points as rapidly as I can: this Bill proposes to make three classes of misdemeanants. The provision as to first-class misdemeanants leaves the thing just where it was before, because the judges for obvious reasons are averse to sentencing a person as a first-class misdemeanant; it was felt to be a privilege of the rich to be sent as a first-class misdemeanant, and the judges thought, and rightly so, that it was not right to make that distinction, so that there is practically no first-class misdemeanant. The second-class misdemeanants exist at the present time, but their lot is not to be made better. I do not see by comparison with the rules of the Act of 1865, and the rules formulated in this Bill, that the condition of the second-class misdemeanant is to be bettered, but I do see that a class of persons is to be brought into that class which were never brought in before; you are going to bring in persons who have disobeyed a judge's order, perhaps, through a scruple of conscience, or who have committed a technical offence; there are a great many honest, hard-working people who are in gaol now, the victims of misfortune, and those people, who have led honest and blameless lives, are, under these rules, to be dressed in prison dress because the rules which govern second-class misdemeanants says they are to
  850
  wear distinctive prison dress. They are to be dressed as prisoners, they are liable to be photographed, and subjected to other indignities, and, worst of all, they are obliged to assort with criminals. The Acts of 1865 and 1877 contain an express provision that the debtor prisoners are to be kept distinct from criminals. But this Bill is reactionary and retrograde. [Sir R. WEBSTER: No, no!] The right hon. Gentleman contradicts me. If I have made a mistake I shall express my regret fully and withdraw my statement. I say under this Act the debtor class is made misdemeanant, and if you look at the rule you will find—I am speaking from memory—that they have to wear distinctive dress, and if you look at the general rules, which are to be read together with the special rules, except so far as they come in collision with the special rules, you will find they are to be kept, "as far as practicable," distinct from ordinary prisoners—that is, persons who are criminally convicted. Now, what I say is that it is an outrage that the persons who have not been convicted of any crime—who are the victims of misfortune, who are the victims of some disobedience of the law, such, for instance, as not complying with the Vaccination Act—should be classed and obliged to associate in a measure with criminals. Under Section 40 of the Prisons Act of 1877 there is an express provision that persons convicted of sedition or seditious libel shall be kept separate from the ordinary prisoners, and treated, I think it says, as first-class misdemeanants. Now, this Bill repeals Section 67 of the Act of 1865, and by implication it also repeals Section 40 of the Act of 1877, and the only cases in the whole realm of the prison law of this country where you find distinct treatment is meted out to certain classes of political offenders is swept away. The objections to this Bill do not end there. There are many more in my opinion equally serious. I recognise the advantage of allowing prisoners to have the benefit of a reduction of their sentence as a reward for good conduct. The real main point we ought to consider in dealing with the Prisons Bill—and

  851
  probably it will be another 20 years before we deal with it, for it was in 1877 when we last dealt with it—is whether we cannot do anything to make our prison treatment more humane. I do not speak as a sentimentalist on this question. I agree that prison must be more or less associated with vindictive punishments. ["No, no!"] Well, I will not argue that question now. I am prepared, for my part, to accept the observation of the Home Secretary. Surely something might be done by this House to deal with this important question, and not to leave it with the permanent officials. I do not mean to say that we have not many good and faithful public servants who discharge their duties most efficiently, but they are not reformers. Reforms when they are made emanate from this House irrespective of Party. I am sure hon. Members on the other side of the House are just as ready to deal with prisoners from the humane point of view as we are, and I do most seriously urge upon the Home Secretary whether it is expedient that this House should delegate to permanent officials the task of laying down a code for the Government, or whether it is not far better that we should ourselves do it, even at the expense of time; or if the House would not do it let this Bill, as in the case of the Bill of 1865, be sent to a Select Committee, with representatives on that Committee of the most experienced men in the House of Commons. The only reason the Home Secretary gives against Parliamentary Rules is that such rules are not elastic. If you want power to change the rules, surely that is managed by a rule giving dispensing powers, that rule to be laid on the Table of the House for 40 days. But so soon as these rules are laid on the Table for 40 days, so soon will they become law. They are absolutely inelastic. There is no power for the Home Secretary to make another rule by a similar process. However that may be, there is no question about it that the great bulk of these rules are not of a character that require to be elastic. They are general rules for the treatment of prisoners, and our
  852
  experience of the treatment of prisoners from the time we made our first attempt at reform up to the present time has enabled us to see the right method of how prisoners are to be treated, to see that some attempt should be made to reclaim them, and thus avoid the melancholy admission to be found in our criminal statistics that more than one half of the prisoners in our prisons have been previously convicted. I beg to move the Amendment that the Bill be read this day six months.
  SIR C. CAMERON: In one sense this Bill is certainly reactionary. I listened to what my hon. Friend has said as to the treatment of debtors. I have looked into the matter, and there is no question that in regard to the treatment of debtors the proposal of the Home Secretary is the most reactionary that has been presented to Parliament during the last 40 years. Now, Sir, on the subject of imprisonment for debt there is a very considerable diversity of opinion. I am not going to argue the question of the abolition of imprisonment for debt, though. I believe it should be abolished, and might be safely abolished, as it has been abolished in certain parts of the Kingdom—in Scotland, for instance. It may be that in England a sufficient amount of diversity of opinion exists as to the expediency of maintaining imprisonment for debt to render it a most inopportune and most reprehensible thing to propose that the imprisonment should be more disgraceful and punitive than it is. In the Act of 1865 there is a clause which my hon. Friend, who moved the rejection of the Bill did not quote. Under Section 4 it is laid down that means should be provided for separating debtors altogether from the criminal prisoners. In 1875 provision was made for the amelioration of their rules. By the 38th Section of that Act it was provided that the Secretary of State might alter or add to them with respect to the classification and treatment of prisoners imprisoned for

  853
  non-compliance with the order of a justice or justices. Such rules are in mitigation, and not an increase, of the effect of such imprisonment as regulated by the Prisons Act of 1865; so that the Prisons Act of 1865 laid down that prisoners for debt should be separated from all association with criminal prisoners, and the Act of 1875 allowed the Home Secretary to make rules in mitigation of, and not in aggravation of, the severity of their punishment. Now he proposed to treat them as criminals. [The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT: Not at all.] There is no doubt, if he will look at the official Memorandum at page 17, he will see by Clause 5 of the Prisons Bill it is proposed to repeal the law now regulating the treatment of debtors, and to classify them either as first or second-class misdemeanants, according to the discretion of the Court. If the proposal becomes law, the special privileges they now enjoy will be considerably curtailed, and the necessity of labour imposed on them. They are now treated, as I understand, as first-class misdemeanants, and have the privileges of such. They are not subjected to a number of indignities that criminal prisoners are subjected to, and they have indulgences in the matter of correspondence and in the matter of receiving visitors. All these things are to be taken from them. In the second place, the class to which they are to be relegated have compulsorily to take a bath on their reception, whether they require it or not. It is provided that they shall be as far as possible kept apart from the ordinary criminals. The provision is, "That they shall be kept entirely separate from criminal prisoners." They are not to mix with third-class or the worst class of prisoners, but they are to mix with second-class prisoners. They must work—well, I do not say that that would not be a good thing; but if you allow a second-class misdemeanant to work or not as he thinks fit, it seems to me that it is a remarkably retrograde step to compel the debtors to work. That is departing altogether from the lines that have up to now governed our treatment of debtors. There are several points in the Bill I approve of, especially with regard to the admission and the remission of fines, and also to the earning of a
  854
  remission of sentences by good conduct, although I think that might be with very great benefit extended to shorter terms of imprisonment than nine months. I know that when I was visiting the Scotch prisons I was repeatedly told by the Governors of those prisons that it would be a very good thing to ensure good behaviour amongst the shorter sentence prisoners if they could promise them a remission of sentence to the extent of a few days from their term. I cannot see any reason for limiting it to the graver class of offences—namely, those punished with a minimum of nine months' imprisonment. I wish to emphasise what appears to me to be a very grave blot upon the Bill, and I endorse very much what my hon. Friend has said about the inexpediency of Parliament allowing all control in the matter of prison rules to be out of their hands.
  MR. HERBERT J. GLADSTONE: My hon. Friend who has just spoken speaks with great authority on this matter. I am quite prepared to admit that the question with regard to debtors that he has raised is one that can be properly considered by this House, but to me it seems more a matter for Committee than for the Second Reading stage. The position of debtors under the Bill does not seem to me at all prejudiced. At any rate, the Court has power to direct them to be treated as first-class misdemeanants. And in the second place they are to be given industrial labour. Those who have visited prisons and seen the debtors loafing about with nothing to do, will probably agree that they are the most miserable portion of the prison population, and I think it is a very great advantage to them that they should have industrial labour given to them whereby they can earn a certain gratuity. It is my intention to give a very clear and decided support to the Second Reading of this Bill. I cannot say that I agree with the main contentions of my hon. Friend the Member for Durham. He complained of Clause 2. To my mind that clause is the most valuable provision in the Bill. He complains that it gives power to the permanent officials, and that it is a dangerous principle to change the system from the lines of the Act of 1865 and give powers to the Home Secretary to draft rules to be laid

  855
  on the Table of the House. I disagree with that. As the Home Secretary said, the present system is far too rigid. He and the Prison Commissioners are tied and bound absolutely by the rules laid down in the schedule of the Act of 1865. He cannot alter them unless he brings a Bill into this House. The Bill enables the Home Secretary to modify such rules as fuller experience shows ought to be altered; and my hon. Friend ought to remember that under this system the powers of the House of Commons and the powers of hon. Members who are interested in prison questions will be very largely increased. At any rate, they will know exactly what is going on; they will have the power of speaking on any new rules which may be laid on the Table; and I hold it is to the interest of hon. Members that Clause 2 should stand part of the Bill. My hon. Friend went on to complain of the prison severity. That is a very great and important question. But this Bill, so far as it goes, diminishes instead of increases the severity, and deserves the support of my hon. Friend. He complained also that there was no provision by which children should not be sent to prison. The Committee over which I had the honour to preside went carefully into that matter. Children who are under remand or sentence must be confined somewhere. If any hon. Member will consult the evidence laid before that Committee, he will see that the disadvantages of confining children either in workhouses or in police cells are far greater than those entailed by putting them in certain portions of prisons where they are treated differently from the other prisoners. Therefore, I think the observations of my hon. Friend are not in the least arguments against this Bill. Other matters he raised will be subjects for the Committee. I hold there is no case against the Bill. I desire to acknowledge the very generous manner in which the right hon. Gentleman opposite has taken the House into his confidence in regard to this Bill, and the subject of prison discipline; he has given us plenty of information in a fair and frank manner. At the present time attacks are still being made upon the present
  856
  prison system. Attacks were made before on the prison system and the prison officials, and the Home Secretary of the day appointed a Committee of Inquiry. I should like to call attention to the finding of the Committee with regard to that point. After full and impartial consideration that Committee unanimously came to this conclusion—
  "We do not consider that there is reason for general condemnation of a system which resulted originally from careful inquiry and much deliberation, and which was specially and successfully designed to put an end to many glaring and patent evils. Similarly we do not consider that it is right to lay the burden of all the shortcomings of the prison system on the central prison authorities, who have carried into effect under successive Secretaries of State the Acts approved by Parliament: who have loyally and substantially carried out the various recommendations made from time to time by Commissions and Committees; and who as administrators, have achieved in point of organisation, discipline, order, and economy a striking administrative success."
  I think it is only right, by reason of the attacks that are still being made upon prison officials, that I should draw attention to the finding of the Committee in 1894—the unanimous finding.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: No, no; it was not the unanimous finding.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Of course I will not challenge the statement of the hon. Gentleman, but I do not recollect myself any division of opinion on this subject; and the Report was signed by all the Members of the Committee. Now, Sir, this Bill has been described as a small Measure. I quite agree that it is a small Measure in many ways. But it ought not to be revolutionary I do not believe in any revolutionary upheaval of the present prison system, either in the interests of the prison authorities or of the prisoners themselves. It does not pretend to give any complete scheme of reform. There are three omissions which prevent it from being a complete scheme of prison reform,

  857
  classification is a subject which is all important in prison matters. The Home Secretary has done a great deal in that direction, but at present there is no provision for dealing separately with persons confined for drunkenness. We are promised a Bill. I hope we shall soon see it. The presence of prisoners who are sentenced for drunkenness is a constant source of difficulty. They are not criminals in the ordinary sense of the word, and only complicate the already difficult question of prison management. Secondly, a proposal for the establishment of a penal reformatory for prisoners between the ages of 16 and 23 is still under consideration. It is a very important matter—I for one attach the greatest importance to it—and I hope in course of time it will be carried into effect. Thirdly, habitual offenders are not dealt with under the Bill, or under the rules, except that in the prison, as far as possible, they are to be kept as a class apart. Sir, the habitual prisoner is most difficult to deal with. He is, unfortunately, too often brutalised by the prison system, and unfortunately, also, he is not sufficiently deterred by the treatment which he knows by experience he has to expect. The Committee recommend that this class of prisoner should be dealt with under a different penal system altogether, and the Prison Commissioners practically concur in our view. The right hon. Gentleman has, I think, undertaken to do his best to get a Royal Commission appointed to consider the whole question of the sentences and treatment of habitual prisoners, and I do most earnestly hope that he will get that Commission appointed, because it goes to the root of the whole prison system. The sooner you can deal drastically with this class of habitual offenders, and on different lines from those of the present prison system, the better it will be for the general treatment of prisoners in the country. No scheme of prison reform can be thorough which does not include these three subjects. I admit they cannot be included in this Bill.
  858
  Now, Sir, questions regarding the functions of Prison Commission inspectors, Prisoners' Aid Societies, etc., are very important, but they are not so important as that which cannot be supplied be any Bill or Act of Parliament—a humane prison administration, supported by a properly trained and sufficiently numerous prison staff. I look far more to an enlightened spirit of administration than I do to this Bill, good as it is so far as it goes. This Bill, Sir, is the outcome of a Report of the Committee. What is the basis of that Report? The basis of that Report was a fuller application of reformatory methods to the prison system of the country. We had the remarkable evidence of Sir Godfrey Lushington, who, speaking with his great experience and long connection with the Home Office, summed up the effect of the present prison system in these words—
  "I regard as unfavourable to reformation the status of a prisoner throughout his whole career; the crushing of self-respect, the starving of all moral instinct he may possess, the absence of all opportunity to do or receive a kindness, the continual association with none but criminals, and that only as a separate item amongst other items also separate; the forced labour, and the denial of all liberty. I believe the true mode of reforming a man or restoring him to society is exactly in the opposite direction of all these; but, of course, this is a mere idea. It is quite impracticable in a prison. In fact, the unfavourable features I have mentioned are inseparable from prison life."
  Now, Sir, the Committee, taking the statement generally, thought that Sir Godfrey Lushington had rightly described the effect of prison life upon the average prisoner, but that he was wrong in his conclusion that nothing could be done; and we reported in these words—
  "We think that the system should be more elastic, more capable of being adapted to the special case of individual prisoners; that certain discipline and treatment should be more effectually designed to maintain, stimulate, or awaken the higher susceptibilities of prisoners, to develop their moral instincts, to train them in orderly and industrial habits, and, whenever possible, to turn them out of prison better men and women, both physically and morally, than when they came in."

  859
  That was our finding, and to give effect to it there was much to be done. I have mentioned three subjects inseparable from a proper classification which are yet absent—and necessarily absent, I admit—from this Bill. But a great deal remains to be done by administrative action. The Home Secretary and the Commissioners have already done much. This Bill is designed in enable the Home Secretary to give fuller effect to the recommendations of the Committee. I do not know whether I shall be permitted to show in a few words how much has been done already by the right hon. Gentleman and the Commissioners as the result of the Report of that Committee. I have made a rough analysis of the statement presented by the Commissioners, showing to what extent they had given effect to the recommendations. I find that there are eleven proposals of primary importance. Of these five have been wholly adopted, five partly adopted, and only one rejected; of 27 secondary proposals 21 have been adopted, two have been partly adopted, and four rejected. With regard to 12 other suggestions the Prison Commissioners urge that they are simply in conformity in existing practices prevailing in the prisons, or that they are neutral on the subject. On the three main points which I have already dealt with, which are not in this Bill, the Commissioners in the main agree with the Report. This is a result which the members of the Prison Committee have every reason to be satisfied with. I do not know of any inquiry, whether it is that of a Royal Commission or a Committee of this House, which has been followed, and so quickly followed, by changes so numerous and so excellent. Now, it should also be remembered in connection with this Bill that the new rules embody a great deal of the existing practices; but when you have practices in prisons you have always full power to depart from them. These practices are embodied in these rules, which must guide the conduct of prison officials in all prisons in the country. The whole result shows, to my mind, that during the last three years there has been a noticeable change in prison policy.
  860
  There are many points that I should like to discuss now, but they would hardly be relevant, and we shall have an opportunity of raising them when we come to the Prison Vote. But there is one very important matter that this House should bear in mind. The Prison Commissioners have adopted, I think, a great many excellent proposals. They have worked very hard, they have done a great deal; but everything will depend upon the manner in which they give effect to the proposals which they have adopted, on the permanent, steady administration by which they can be carried out. Taking the Bill as it stands, I welcome it as a necessary supplement to administrative action. It is a Measure certainly very valuable as far as it goes. I have great confidence in Mr. Brise, the present Chairman of the Prison Commissioners. He has had great difficulties. He succeeded a distinguished official, very difficult to follow. He has to deal with a somewhat stereotyped system. I recognise his difficulties. But given to him the necessary time, I believe he will earn for himself an honourable reputation as a prison reformer. I have two criticisms to make on the clauses of this Bill. I agree with the hon. Member for Bridgeton with regard to Clause 7. The Prison Commissioners have stated that the system of reducing sentences has worked so excellently in convict prisons that they are disposed to adopt the principle for local prisons. But what is good for a prisoner sentenced to a term not exceeding nine months would, to my mind, be good for a prisoner sentenced to a term not exceeding six months. I agree that this is a matter for argument and experience. The Committee in this matter made no positive recommendation with regard to the term of imprisonment, but, personally, I hope that the lower term will be inserted in the Bill after discussion in Committee. The number of prisoners affected by this proposal is comparatively small. In 1897 the number of prisoners committed to the local prisons for nine months was only 2,019, and the number committed for a period between nine and six months was 3,528, so that if Clause 7

  861
  were amended, and six months inserted instead of nine months, the prisoners affected would amount to 5,547, taking the statistics of 1897, while the total committals for all periods in the year were 148,081. It is not a very formidable proposal to reduce the nine months to six, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will consider the point and, if possible, make the reduction. My next criticism is upon Clause 3, which relates to the appointment of visitors to convict prisons. It is to the effect that—
  "The Secretary of State may appoint for any convict prison a board of visitors, of whom not less than two shall be Justices of the Peace, with such powers and duties as may be prescribed by prison rules."
  There is a certain absence of decentralisation in this Bill, and that is a weakness. I have always thought that the prison system of the country was somewhat too much under the Prison Commissioners, and that the Commissioners had a rather exaggerated idea of giving up any of their powers for fear of impairing their dignity and authority in the administration of the prison system. I agree it would be unwise to impair the authority of the Prison Commissioners, but if it would be possible to interest capable men and capable public bodies like the Visiting Committees in different parts of the country in this work, then the Prison Commissioners may with safety delegate certain portions of their work to them. This third clause proposes that the Home Secretary—
  "may appoint for any convict prison a board of visitors, of whom not less than two shall be Justices of the Peace, with such powers and duties as may be prescribed by prison rules."
  But, as I understand the rules, these boards will practically be under the authority of the Prison Commissioners, or, rather, the directors of convict prisons—who are practically the same. The directors of convict prisons may assign to the Boards of Visitors such powers as they
  862
  think fit, they may delegate to them the task of trying prisoners for breaches of discipline, and of awarding punishments. But it does not seem to me that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Home Affairs, or the Prison Commissioners, have grasped the keen interest which a great many people in the country feel in the fate of convict prisoners under the present system. The whole system of punishments is in the hands of the prison directors, who go to the prisons, hear charges against prisoners, and administer punishments. It must be remembered, too, that these punishments are equivalent to imprisonment, and the matter is all the graver because these men in convict prisons are removed from the public view for terms of fifteen and twenty years; nobody can get at them, nobody knows about them, and they are buried for the term of their imprisonment. But the public has a right to demand full security for the proper treatment of these prisoners. I do not for a moment urge that there has been any misuse of their powers by the prison directors; indeed, I am sure they have done their very best, and have administered their duties very well; but in their own interest it seems to me that they should be ready to adopt a more free system, a system which would take the public more into their confidence. What happens now, and what is the remedy for the prisoner? Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that a prisoner gets a harsh sentence from a prison director. What is his remedy? He can appeal to the Home Secretary every six months, and, naturally enough, prisoners take full advantage of the right; but what can the Home Secretary do in the matter? These petitions come in hundreds and thousands to the Home Office. The Home Secretary has many important functions and duties to discharge, and it is impossible for him to see a tenth, twentieth, or a hundredth part of these petitions. But if one petition be brought to his notice by anyone inside the office, or outside, what naturally happens? It is sent down for the remarks of the prison directors, and, under the present

  863
  system, I do not see what else can be done. But the directors intervene in their own case, and have the first say. I do not allege that there has been any misuse of power, but the system is not one in which the public at large have confidence; there is no guarantee against injustice. I admit that the duty of awarding punishments in prisons, and particularly the convict prisons, requires a thorough knowledge of the prison system. The recommendation of the Prisons Committee of 1896 was that these tasks should be entrusted to a judicial functionary. We had in our minds a functionary somewhat of the nature of a stipendiary magistrate, who would gain the necessary experience, and who, being a public functionary, would have a real sense of responsibility to the public, and would, therefore, afford the public greater security. I welcome this Bill as an instalment. It does not by any means give effect to the most valuable proposals which have been made for prison reform, but it contains seven or eight valuable clauses, and is part of a general policy, with which it is necessarily closely identified, a policy which must not be lost sight of by any hon. Member in considering the Bill on the Second Reading. No law, no form of rules, will make the prison system a success; the administration must be carried on in an enlightened and humane spirit, so that the public may have full confidence in the system. At present public opinion on this question has been roused, and the administration of the Prison Commissioners will now and henceforth be closely and keenly watched. I believe the Prison Commissioners will welcome that public interest; they will feel that they are not only doing formal, routine work in the depths of the Home Office, or elsewhere, but that they are administering new methods under the gaze and criticism of the public at large. I believe they will be encouraged to new efforts, and I hope that the Home Secretary, who has done so much, will continue to watch these matters, and follow
  864
  up the working of this Bill, and of these methods and principles, which have now been adopted by the Home Office, and if he does that, having already done so much, he will be entitled yet further to our gratitude.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I desire to associate myself with by far the greater part of the observations made by my hon. and learned Friend who moved the rejection of this Bill, and especially with reference to the change which it is proposed to make in the treatment of debtors. The legal position of debtors in this country presents a curious history, and I think there is some inconsistency in the fact that the country, which compliments itself upon having absolutely abolished imprisonment for debt, now, for the first time in its history, proposes that debtors shall be treated as criminal prisoners. [The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT: No.] Most certainly as criminal prisoners. It is proposed that they shall be treated as persons convicted of misdemeanour, and the test, the picturesque test—if I may use the expression in this connection—of the truth of my statement is that they are to be compelled to wear prison clothes. Sir, I desire to call the attention of this House to one particular class with whom the House, during the time I have been a Member, has often expressed sympathy—I mean persons committed by county court judges for non-payment of debt. Attention has again and again been called in this House to the strange inequality in the manner in which county court judges exercise their powers of committal. I shall not pursue that point, but it seems to me that there are strong reasons why the House should not now take the startling step of treating debtors as criminal prisoners. I also desire to say a word or two with regard to the effect of this Bill upon certain classes of misdemeanants, because I cannot at all follow the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Home Affairs, in the statement he has made as to the effect of this particular clause.

  865
  May I just read a line or two from the Memorandum? It says:—
  "It is proposed to include in this class debtors and a multitude of offenders whose acts, though legally criminal, involve nothing dishonourable or disgraceful."
  Undoubtedly this provision will have this effect, it will include a number of offenders whose acts are neither dishonourable nor disgraceful. But it will act unequally, because, whereas it will include persons who are committed for the non-payment of rates and of reformatory fees, and non-payment towards the support of a parent in the workhouse, it will not include in the benefit of its operation other classes equally entitled with the former, such as the parent who is fined for not sending a child to school, a member of the Salvation Army fined for obstructing a thoroughfare by preaching, or a parent fined for the non-vaccination of his child. Those people will not enjoy the benefits of that provision. It will still be possible to treat the Salvationist, convicted of a charge of obstruction, or an anti-vaccinationist convicted for non-vaccination, as certain persons were treated a little while ago who did not have their children vaccinated, and who, according to the evidence given before a Departmental Committee, were imprisoned for seven days, stripped, bathed, weighed naked, examined for marks on their person, their hair cropped, and who were compelled to sleep on a plank bed. This Bill will not ameliorate the condition of that class of offenders. Their position will be relatively worse, because this Bill proposes to place in front of them two classes of misdemeanants, and therefore there will be a tendency to treat them more harshly than they are treated now. Now, I want to say a word as to the meaning of the word misdemeanour. What is a misdemeanant? As I understand, misdemeanour is an indictable offence below felony. It is true that if an indictable offence is treated under the Statute by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, as some indictable offences may be, the Court has the discretion of ordering the offender to be treated in this lighter manner, but the offence must
  866
  be an indictable one, and therefore you leave out from the benefit of the provision a large category of offences, police and municipal offences, because they do not fall under the legal meaning of the word misdemeanour. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman means that this should be the case, but certainly, so far as I can see, that will be the effect of it; but the right hon. Gentleman may in Committee enlarge the meaning of the word misdemeanour so as to embrace these cases. We know that under certain Statutes many indictable offences can be treated summarily, but unless they are indictable they do not come under the term misdemeanour. To my mind it is perfectly clear that that is the legal effect of the words. Whether it was the intention of the draughtsman I do not know, but, whether he had any instruction to do so or not, he has certainly limited this provision to indictable offences, whether they are treated summarily or not, but they must be indictable offences, and police and municipal offences are not included. The right hon. Gentleman said this Bill had presented him with a great opportunity. I quite agree—a great opportunity for ameliorating the condition of the prisoners, and improving the administration of our prisons. But I must add, to my regret, that he has not taken advantage of the opportunity which this Bill has given. In the face of the recommendations made by the Committee which considered this matter, and the points pressed upon him by hon. Members sitting on this side of the House, the Home Secretary has replied that his hands are tied by the statutory rules of the Act of 1865. This Bill makes a clean sweep of those rules, and gives the right hon. Gentleman a free hand; and I notice with some surprise, and not a little disappointment, that the Home Secretary intends practically to re-insert the statutory rules of the Act of 1865, with very little alteration. I should like to point to a few illustrations to make good that proposition, but let me say first that these rules as they stand are very misleading, and they are incomplete without the Standing Orders. I have asked the right hon. Gentleman to give us the Standing Orders, because without them

  867
  we cannot form a true estimate of the effect of the statutory rules. Let me illustrate what I mean. This is one rule with regard to local prisons—
  "Provision shall be made in every prison for the instruction of prisoners in reading, writing, and arithmetic, during such hours as may be approved. It will be the duty of the chaplain to give daily his personal superintendence to that instruction."
  Well, that is an announcement with regard to instruction which is certainly emphasised in sufficiently important, not to say pompous, terms. What do I find when I turn to the Standing Order which gives effect to that rule? It simply says that each prisoner is to have at most 30 minutes of instruction twice a week—a daily paper put it at 20 minutes—but I think that is a grossly inadequate carrying out of both the letter and spirit of the rule. Another illustration is this, chief warders have been made governors in accordance with the recommendations of the Departmental Committee. So far good, but there are certain other changes which I do not think will recommend themselves to the hon. Gentlemen of this House, namely, that the man who is governor is storekeeper also. The storekeeper has been got rid of; his duties are carried on by the governor, who is assisted by the schoolmaster when he is not engaged in his scholastic duties. I very much doubt whether that provision carries out the spirit of the statutory rule. The statutory rule provides that the governor shall duly visit the kitchen daily and inspect the provisions. It was obviously intended that he should be a check upon the storekeeper, but you have abolished the storekeeper, and the governor has himself the provisioning, and there you have not carried out the spirit of the Standing Order by providing for the proper inspection of the food for the prisoners. Now, I requested that the Standing Orders with regard to prisoners be laid upon the Table, but the Home Secretary declined, and the ground that he alleged was that the Standing Orders were very voluminous, most of them were
  868
  of a Departmental, character, and that those of general interest are made public. Let me test that statement by an example. The teaching of industries was strongly recommended by the Departmental Committee, and there is nothing with which the interest of the public is more closely concerned. The Prison Commissioners say in their recent observations that a scheme for the skilled teaching of trades anions prisoners has been sanctioned by the Home Secretary. We ought to see the terms of that scheme; I am not satisfied with a brief description of it, but the Home Secretary declines to give further information on the subject. He says it deals with questions and details which it is not desirable to publish. I ask whether he intends to refuse to the hon. Members of this House any further information as to this important scheme? If he does, I shall say the Commissioners do not produce the Standing Orders because they dare not; they will not bear the light of day. For many years secrecy has been the bane of our prison administration. It is a policy which is altogether out of date and out of place in any department, but it is peculiarly odious and specially dangerous in prisons. It might give rise to grave abuses, and one would have thought the right hon. Gentleman and the Prison Commissioners would have welcomed any sign of interest in prison matters among Members of Parliament, and other persons occupying positions of some influence or importance. But, instead of that, we are regarded as intruders; every difficulty is put in our way, and information is refused. The inference is obvious, and the only mode of purifying the moral atmosphere of our prisons is to let into it the light of day. Publicity is a sine quâ non of any wholesome system of prison administration in this country. What is the use of laying statutory rules on the Table for the approval of the House if Members are not allowed to see the Standing Orders and regulations? These rules, as Members can see for themselves, are in many cases vague and undeterminate, and their effect depends upon the use made of them. Again, Sir, the Departmental Committee suggested

  869
  the satisfaction of the public mind in regard to prisons by making the Inspectors independent of the Commissioners. But these Commissioners are gentlemen occupying high positions and receiving large salaries, and it seems to me a little absurd to appoint a Home Office clerk with a salary one-third of what these Commissioners are receiving in order to overlook the work of the Commissioners. No, Sir; I think the Visiting Committee ought to be the eyes and ears of the public in this matter. At present there can be no doubt that the visiting justices do not discharge their proper functions. There are at the present time, two classes of visiting justices. There is one class that visit prisons as little as possible, and perform their duties in a very perfunctory way, and there is another class of visiting justices, appointed year after year, who really seem to become more official than the officials themselves. What we want is to introduce a more popular element on the Visiting Committee. Why should you not have upon the Visiting Committee of our local prisons representatives of the local authority of the district? [Laughter.] That is not a revolutionary proposal. Hon. Gentlemen opposite laugh, and show that they have given no attention to this question, because what I am at present proposing is practically the law at present in Scotland. Why, then, should we not follow the excellent example of Scotland? Why should we not introduce a popular element on these Visiting Committees by allowing, under proper provisions, some representatives of the local authority to be on those bodies? With regard to the Visiting Committee of convict prisons it is proposed by the Bill as it stands to give absolutely carte blanche to the Home Secretary with regard to the constitution and appointment of these Visiting Boards. We know nothing, except from one of the rules, that their term of office is to be three years. We neither know their number nor the qualifications they are to possess. In this respect, at any rate, the Bill must be altered. We must lay down with some degree of preciseness the character of the new Visiting Board of
  870
  convict prisons. I think we ought to go further than that. We ought to lay down in the Bill generally a description of the duties these Visiting Boards are to discharge. The right hon. Gentleman says we want elasticity. Then let us lay down in the Bill what I may call the statutory minimum of the duties the Visiting Board is to discharge; and let us give power to the right hon. Gentleman to impose upon the Visiting Board any further duties he may think proper. I should like to mention one point before I sit down, and that is the question of the prison chaplain. There is one clause in this Bill which proposes to repeal Clause 2 of the Prison Act of 1865. Clause 2 of the Prison Act of 1865 provides that the chaplain of more than one prison, and the chaplain of any prison containing 100 prisoners and upwards, shall not hold any benefice or curacy; and the Bill proposes to repeal that enactment. Now, Sir, I question very much whether we shall act wisely in repealing that enactment. I do think that we ought to provide, if the number of prisoners amounts to a certain number, that in that case, at all events, the chaplain should not hold any outside benefice. We ought more and more to recognise the importance of the duties of the chaplain, and we ought, therefore, not to accept the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, which would enable a clergyman who had outside work to be the chaplain of a prison containing a very large number of prisoners. I shall certainly not vote against the Second Reading of this Bill; there are good points in the Bill, and I hope that in Committee it may be amended. I am sorry to hear, by the way, that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to refer it to the Committee on Law. I think a Bill of this kind is of sufficient importance for the House to keep it in its own purview, and certainly the Government of the country is not so overburdened with business this Session that there is any excuse for referring this Bill to the Committee on Law. I hope that on that point the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider his intention.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: I do not know that I am prepared to oppose any of the proposals embodied in this Bill, but I cannot help feeling that the Bill has presented an opportunity of doing much good, which the Government has sadly missed. I must say that my experience as a member of the Departmental Committee, over which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds presided, furnished me with many revelations which surprised me. I had assumed that the administration of prisons was well ordered, was humane, was kindly, and was beneficial; but when the Committee had finished its labours, when I had personally visited I do not know how many local prisons, or how many convict prisons, I came to the conclusion—and the conclusion was forced upon me in spite of myself—that the administration of the prisons of this country was inconceivably cruel and inhuman. I do not believe there is a single country within what is called civilisation which furnishes anything so abominable, so repulsive, and so inhuman as the English prison system. Why. Sir, to talk about the treatment of prisoners in Russia and Siberia, when we consider our own treatment of them in English prisons, is a mockery. In Russia, at any rate, they do not deprive prisoners of the human faculty of speech. In our prisons men have to go on living what is called a human life, and yet are deprived of the human faculty of speech. What is their condition when they come out? Their self-possession is gone; they are unable to take their place in the human community; and you have disabled them from recovering the position they occupied in the world. I am not speaking of what I myself think. One of the Prison Commissioners told me, with regard to Chatham Prison, as to which there were investigations some years ago, that the unfortunate men in that prison were made to live a life of hell upon earth. That was the opinion of a man who was thoroughly conversant with the truth. On that Committee of Inquiry we had a Prison Commissioner. I invited him to
  872
  explain to the Committee whether he thought corporal punishment was absolutely necessary in the administration of prisons, and he said that in his opinion it was absolutely necessary, that they could not administer without corporal punishment. I put before him the figures relating to corporal punishment in your English local and convict prisons, and asked him to compare them with the figures of the Irish prisons for the same year. I forget the exact number; but whatever they were it does not matter, because in the Irish local prisons there was not one single case of corporal punishment; and there was not one single case of corporal punishment in the Irish convict prisons. That was a strange contrast, and I invited him to explain how it was that the proportion of insanity in English prisons, local and convict, was so high as compared with the percentage of insanity in Irish prisons. He could not say how it was. When he looked at the Returns of complaints the same story was told. I invited him to say whether the percentages of insanity, of punishments, of admitted suicides, and of complaints were all much higher in English than in Irish prisons. He was not prepared to admit that either. He was utterly unable to even suggest any explanation. But, Sir, if you go into the English prisons and watch the lives, year by year, month by month and day by day, of the men imprisoned there, the explanation becomes clear. Men in English prisons are not treated as men; you treat them as numbered and ticketed things. You forget that they are men. Take hon. Members in this House, whether they call themselves Liberals or Conservatives, is there so very much difference between me and them? The same things please me as please them; the same things irritate me as would irritate them; the same things would move me to violence as would move them to violence. I have stood in prisons and interviewed prisoners of every class and every age. I cannot see that there is any great difference between myself and those prisoners, any more than there is between me and hon. Gentlemen now sitting around me. The majority of these men are to be pitied rather than despised. I

  873
  appeal to anybody to say whether, if he had been placed in the circumstances in which most of these men were placed in their childhood, he would have been one bit better. I do not believe it. It is all very well for people who are in good circumstances, people who have had the advantage of a good early training, to moralise in this matter; but what chance had these people, brought up in the slums and alleys of our large cities, whose parents had no playground to offer them except the streets—these poor children whose first slight faults there were no kindly friends to correct, whose first notion of morality and law is connected with the police courts. If for their first offence they are sent to prison, they are ruined for life. Any prison administration which is conducted on lines of common sense and humanity would endeavour to keep juvenile offenders outside the walls of our gaols as much as possible. I remember that before the Departmental Committee, of which I was a member, we had as one of our witnesses a very intelligent convict prisoner, and he explained to us that the reason why men were recommitted to prison again and again was because of the existing state of things. The prisoner who is discharged from prison is absolutely without hope; it is the want of hope that ruins these poor prisoners. If you imprison these men for long periods you ought to give them some hope, at any rate, of regaining, when they come out, the position they have lost. It may be difficult and costly, but the expenditure will be worth your while. Again, another important consideration in prison administration is classification. Classification has been attempted, but it is not carried to anything like the extent to which it reasonably may be carried. If you get a confirmed scoundrel, and you know him to be such, instead of letting him loose upon society you should, after several committals, detain him, not necessarily under conditions of great severity, but, at all events, keep him where he can do no further harm. But people who are not habitual criminals, people who are likely to make a fresh start, should
  874
  be so treated that they will have every opportunity of recovering the positions they have lost. With regard to punishment, I desire to point out how differently prisoners are treated, simply because they are prisoners, to the way in which other citizens are treated. An ordinary citizen in this country cannot be sentenced by a judge or court to corporal punishment without the intervention of a jury. But in the case of a charge of misconduct made against a prisoner there comes in a man who may have been once on a time private secretary to the Home Secretary, a man who is not a lawyer, who has no idea of the laws of evidence, who is not practised in jurisprudence at all; this man acts as the supreme judge; the prisoner is brought before him without an advocate; there is no jury; evidence is given by some warder, backed up, perhaps, by the governor, and on the strength of that evidence this man can sentence the unfortunate prisoner to flogging. The Prison Commissioners, at all events, admitted that it could be done. That is what is actually done in convict prisons. I say it is a most improper thing. These men ought not to be entrusted with a power which you do not trust unchecked to the judges of the Supreme Court. Having examined the cases of these men, and interviewed, I dare say, hundreds of them, I feel strongly that the system of administration in prisons is based on a wrong principle; that it loses sight of the human nature of the criminals; that it does not give them a chance. It is not a small Bill such as this that you want dealing with a number of petty details; you want a broad-minded, large-hearted Measure—a Measure which has regard to the humanity of the prisoner and to the hope which ought to be held out to him of amendment and rehabilitation.
  MR. C. B. STUART-WORTLEY: The hon. Member who has just sat down spoke with that sympathetic impulsiveness which makes his utterances always command our attention. At the same time there are elements in his speeches which make him not the best

  875
  qualified to form a judgment upon this matter. Let us see what it is that the hon. Member asks us to accept from him. It is that the English nation, which, in most things concerning philanthropy and humanity, has not shown itself at all backward, and in which public opinion probably has its way more swiftly than in any other nation, and is less deflected by sinister interests than in any civilised State in the world—the hon. Member tells us that in this country these elements of philanthropy have had such a feeble effect that our prison system is more inhuman than the prison system of any other civilised State.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: Excuse me; I believe, and I said, that the public in this country knows absolutely nothing about what goes on in prisons.
  MR STUART-WORTLEY: In this country alone, among civilised States, so far as I know, provision is made for unofficial lay inspection of prisons. ["No, no!"] Is not that so? Are not our Visiting Committees not only unofficial lay inspectors, but also persons having the special experience necessary for that purpose? I admit that what I have said at present only amounts to à priori argument. I have simply ventured to put in the balance my experience which has driven me to exactly the opposite conclusion to that arrived at by the hon. Gentleman. I do not believe that our prison system has the dire results described by the hon. Gentleman. I believe that if any such abuses exist as he has described public opinion would find them out and would be sufficiently powerful to stop them. One admission I will make. I cannot conceive any prison system at all in which you would not have some risk of abuse and of private ill-usage. That must be so in the nature of things, because the prisoner is, by the condition of things, necessarily segregated from the rest of his race. But I think the hon. Gentleman has assumed too much. Those who know much about the prison system—and, fortunately, we
  876
  have many hon. Members in this House who know a great deal about it—know that the most careful provision is taken, and with considerable success, for letting in the light of skilled unofficial opinion upon prison administration. Not only is that the case, but this skilled unofficial opinion is just that kind of opinion which is least likely to take a prejudiced view in favour of the present system, because those who express that opinion are the representatives of the old local system who, it might be thought, might show some feeling of pique at being displaced. I think, Sir, it was necessary for me to say this because it is not just to the officers who have devoted their energies to the improvement of our present system that the hon. Gentleman's strictures should pass uncommented upon. Now let me pass to some observations made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bethnal Green. He says that this Bill fails because it proposes to subject debtors and other kinds of non-criminal prisoners to certain discipline. After all, what is the debtor, what is the anti-vaccinationist, what is the Salvationist, but a man who defies society? He is a man who wishes to be a martyr, and means must be devised to reduce him to submission. ["Oh, oh!"] Yes, as long as the law is what it is, the law has to be carried out. If the law is unjust let it be repealed, but so long as it remains we have to bring the law-breaker to submission. You must not allow a man the advertisement of martyrdom; you must not allow a man to crown himself with the martyr's crown without enduring the martyr's pain. This Bill gives the Home Secretary the power constantly, from year to year, to bring up the prison system to the latest, the most improved, and most humane standard, and hon. Members are able, year by year, to criticise it and to bring pressure to bear upon the Executive without being met by the difficulty that legislation is necessary before reform can be introduced. I do not for one moment believe that the Prison Commissioners would wish to oppose the reforms

  877
  proposed by the hon. Gentleman opposite. It is said that the Visiting Committees are not representative—that they are only magistrates. We all know what the true value of that kind of contention is. It is meant for outside consumption, and will be estimated at its true value in this House. For my part, I do not believe that the Prison Commissioners would object to the visits of representatives of city councils and town councils, and so on. I do not believe the smallest public disadvantage would result from their so doing, and I do not think the Prison Commissioners would object. Sir, I believe this is a thoroughly good Bill. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may have their reasons for opposing it, but if they are really sincere in the representations that they submit to this House they will support the Bill instead of opposing it.
  MR. R. B. HALDANE: I have listened with great interest to the remarks of the hon. Member for East Donegal. He and I sat together on the Departmental Committee, over which my right hon. Friend the Member for West Leeds presided, and I am not aware that the hon. Member dissented from our Report. I think he signed it. But certainly, although we insisted on great and sweeping reforms we did not go so far as the hon. Member has gone in his speech to-day. But if I must dissociate myself from what has been said by the hon. Member for East Donegal, I must equally dissociate myself from what has been said by the hon. Member who has just sat down. The right hon. Gentleman, referring to his Home Office experience, has spoken in a tone of optimism of our present system. He has referred to his long experience at the Home Office, in the course of which he must have had many opportunities of making himself acquainted with the system that we are discussing. But I would remind the hon. Gentleman that his experience terminated in the year 1892, and that since then there has been an elaborate inquiry by a Departmental Committee, and that Departmental Committee have, rightly or
  878
  wrongly, published a series of recommendations. It puts its finger upon some very great defects in the present prison system. That Committee was not a Party Committee. It had associated with it men like the right hon. Gentleman opposite, of great experience as chairmen of quarter sessions and as magistrates, men of all shades of political opinion, and its Report was unanimously made. That Committee recommended some very sweeping changes.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEY: The mere fact that the Committee was appointed proves my case.
  MR. HALDANE: The Committee was appointed in 1894, after the period of the right hon. Gentleman's experience, upon which he came to the conclusion that the prison system of that day was so good a system. The Committee made all these recommendations, and they were endorsed by the late Secretary of State, and further, they were taken up by the present Home Secretary, and have been taken up, I believe, with real zeal and real thoroughness of purpose by the present Chairman of the Prisons Committee. In that condition of things, I, for one, am wholly unable to associate myself with any view which regards our prison system, until recently at any rate, as a satisfactory system. And I go further and say that while I look upon this Bill as a satisfactory Bill, and shall certainly vote for its Second Reading, I am able to regard it only as the mere beginning of wisdom rather than the end. It is not a question of the powers you give to the Secretary of State, it is not a question of rules you lay down; it is a question of the thoroughness with which the reform is administered; and whether that can be carried out or not we can only judge after we have had some experience of the new rules and the machinery of the new Act. It is not so much legislation as the spirit in which the legislation is to be administered, that is the important thing. If you get the right men at the head you may make a bad

  879
  system work well; if you get the wrong men, you may make the best system of little or no good. I have confidence in the men at the head of affairs at the present time. I am satisfied that they desire to do what is right, and if I approach this Bill in a spirit of some criticism it is not because I distrust their general purpose, but because I believe that there remains still a great deal to be done. The prison system in this country has gone through three stages. First of all, there was the period which may be said to have come to an end with the work of people like Miss Fry, and the great prison reformer Howard. At that time there were all sorts of abuses taking place in connection with our prisons; they were insanitary and improperly governed, and there were many things which were a great blot upon our system. A change was brought about, but I am not sure that in all respects the change was for good. One thing, at least, may be said: that there was in those days more individuality left to the prisoner than under the second stage. In the second stage, many abuses were reformed, but the system became so organised that the prisoner was reduced to the position of a mere number, and deprived of all individuality, and no inducement or incentive was offered for reform. Probably it may be argued, in defence of that second stage, that the abuses to be combatted were such that the establishment of a cast-iron uniformity of system was the only means of reforming the abuses. That system was stereotyped by the Act of 1857, and by the Act of 1865. Then there has come a third stage, the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman proposes in this Bill, and I think with absolute justice, to do away with the hard and fast machinery of the Prisons Act of 1865. It abolishes the schedule of rules under which all prisoners are treated alike, and gives us a set of rules under which, for the first time, a Secretary of State will have considerable lati
  880
  tude and considerable freedom. Now, I regard that as a great improvement, and if the change is thoroughly carried out—and I say again that the important question is in what spirit the change will be carried out—all will be well. But, at the same time, I cannot help calling attention to the fact that, while the right hon. Gentleman has proposed certain great reforms, there are some things which he has left untouched by this Bill. I do not think that Clause 5 dealing with the limits of misdemeanour is at all satisfactory. Also, I think that the time has come when it is absolutely necessary that we should have some knowledge of what really goes on inside our prisons. I do not suppose that there is, after all, any absolute ill-treatment of prisoners, but with a great machinery of this description there is the inevitable tendency to get into a groove, and it is desirable that the public should be made acquainted with the exact facts. There are other defects in this Bill. In the first place, I notice—what has already been referred to—that the system of corporal punishment is preserved with the penalty, which is a very serious one, placed at the discretion of a single person who may be defective in training or knowledge of the criminal law; in other words, without any trial, without any opportunity of defence, a prisoner may be sentenced to a punishment which you mete out only under the most exceptional circumstances to the most hardened criminal tried before a judge and jury. That is a system which, under the present conditions, seems to me to be absolutely indefensible. Then, Sir, although I would not desire to pass any slight at all upon the Prison Commissioners, I do think it is desirable that we should have some outside inspection of our prison system—that there should be some way of bringing public attention to bear on what is the true condition of things, otherwise than through those who are necessarily, to some extent, both judges and advocates, the administrators

  881
  of the system. Remember that your prison system is necessarily a secret system. You cannot, of course, have the public constantly visiting the prisons, and unless you have some means by which there can be inspection by some outside independent authority you are always liable to have abuses growing up. There is one other subject that struck me, as a member of the Departmental Committee, as being at the very root of the whole question of the future of our prisons, and that is, how we are to occupy the time of our prisoners. In my view a prison ought to be somewhat of a reformatory; it ought not to be a mere place of punishment. The reformatory element consists in this, more than in anything else: that you take such steps as are within your power to make the man who goes into a prison leave it a better man than when he went in. You can only do that by giving him a useful training and education; you can only do that, in the case of a grown-up man, by fitting him for a calling at which he may earn his livelihood and become a useful citizen after the period of his imprisonment has expired. For that purpose it is absolutely essential that you should extend very much the system of prison labour which you have at the present time. Our prisoners, particularly those committed for nine months, are deprived, in their earlier months at any rate, of any opportunity of pursuing their trades. I remember, on the occasion of a visit to one of our prisons, that one of the prisoners said to me: It is the imprisonment of the soul, not that of the body, which we feel. What chance has a man who is debarred from books, as a prisoner is in the earlier period of his imprisonment, who has but little facility for learning a trade—what chance is there of that man turning out a reformed and useful member of society when he is discharged from prison? I think the right hon. Gentleman will not have completed his work unless he goes much farther than this Bill proposes. I was once visiting
  882
  Portland Prison, and I was talking to a man who was a lockmaker. I asked him, what were his feelings at Portland as contrasted with his feelings during his first nine months in the local prison. He said: It is a difference not less than a difference between Heaven and Hell; when I was in the local prison I had no occupation for my mind, I had nothing to do; but here I am learning to make locks, and when I go out I believe I shall be able to earn a livelihood. I do urge upon the right hon. Gentleman the desirability of a considerable extension of the system of prison labour. I repeat that I think this Bill is a most useful Bill, and I congratulate the Government on having brought it in. I trust that the defects I have pointed out will be remedied in Committee, and that in that process the Bill will be made even more useful. But in the main it is a good Bill, because it sets free the hands of the right hon. Gentleman to go further upon the course in which he and the Prison Commissioners have started, and which I hope they will pursue in the spirit which appears to animate the Bill. It is impossible for us to judge of these reforms until we have seen them in operation. I myself should be glad to see, two or three years hence, the appointment of a Committee to report upon the working of this system. I believe that, if the right hon. Gentleman carries out the powers which will be in his hands thoroughly and firmly this Bill will be a success. But if the only thing done is that certain rules are to be made, and things are to be allowed to go on in the old way, then I for one have no hope that any lasting benefit will be derived from this Bill.
  SIR J. DORINGTON: I have been greatly surprised at the speech to which we have listened from the hon. Gentleman, the Member for East Donegal, a colleague of mine on the Departmental Committee. I was quite aware that he took a strong view of the conditions under which the

  883
  prisoners lived, but I was not aware that, after all our inquiries, and after signing our Report, to which I do not remember his proposing any Amendment, he still held that our prison system is inhumane and cruel. I must say that the impression which I gathered from the inquiry of the Departmental Committee, and from personal visits to the prisons, was that the present system is a very satisfactory system on the whole. That it is capable of improvement, like all other human institutions, is without doubt. The amendment of our prison system commenced at the beginning of the century, when things were about as bad as they could be in our prisons, and I think they were worse in the Government prisons than they were in the local prisons. Then Howard came on the scene, and induced some of the local prisons to alter their system, and the position was enormously improved, Later on the Government took greater interest in the matter, and they set to work and forced the local authorities to bring their prisons up to the best possible type. That was about the year 1848, and the prisons that were built at that time have never been improved upon since that time. The very best prisons we have now are those built about that time, and those built more recently are upon the same lines. Not very long ago I had, by the favour of the Home Secretary, an introduction to the Belgian Minister, and I was able to investigate the Belgian prisons. I believe the Belgian system is supposed to be the best on the Continent. France is far behind; Italy, I think, has done a great deal; but the Belgian prisons are the best, and they are nearly identical with our own. Our model is their model. Their system and ours, as regards the form of structure, are identical. The hon. Member for East Donegal said that no system so severe as ours existed elsewhere. I think the Belgian system is far more severe. It is the system we first took up in this country,
  884
  in the days subsequent to Howard and Miss Fry, known as the silent system. That system was found far too severe for our prisoners to stand, and it has been long since done away with in its most severe form in this country. In Belgium it is still retained, and solitary confinement is enforced up to ten years' of imprisonment. [Mr. A. O'CONNOR: Not absolutely, I think.] Yes, absolutely; and at the end of ten years the prisoners are allowed the option of changing their prison for one where association is allowed or remaining in solitary confinement. I am informed that many of these unfortunate prisoners actually prefer to continue in the solitary confinement to which they have been so long accustomed. Now, I want to say a few words with regard to the industrial aspect of imprisonment. Under the system of local imprisonment before 1877 great attention was paid to prison work, and many trades, in the best of the local prisons, were carried on. When the Government system came in the Government still retained the labour system in the larger prisons, but the smaller ones were not so well provided for. I think this is a subject which should encage the attention of the right hon. Gentlemen. Lately there has been a great improvement in this respect. Then, one of the main points upon which the Departmental Committee insisted was that association among prisoners should be allowed so far as was consistent with not introducing the evils arising from contamination. The hon. Gentleman who last spoke mentioned the want of individuality which arises from the present system, and expressed the view that the old practice was better. I would remind him that intolerable mischief arose under the old system; so great was the contamination arising from the intercourse of prisoners that it even tended to create a gaol population. We got rid of that by a new system of confinement—the separate system—and we now again desire to allow prisoners to associate more freely, trusting to

  885
  discipline to prevent the evils of contamination. The point to reach, which can only be determined in practice, is the extent to which association can be permitted without bringing in its train the evils I have already alluded to. That was approved most strongly in our Report, and I think the Prison Commissioners are doing their best to carry that out. On the whole I think our prisons have derived considerable advantage from the Act of 1877, but our system is still much too mechanical, and this Bill is intended to remedy that defect. That is one reason why I support it, and thank the Government for introducing it. I cannot help thinking that when the Chief Commissioner of Prisons has his hands set free, as he will by this Bill, he will be able to make our prisons a much better model for all Europe than they are even at the present time.
  MR. DILLON: The Departmental Committee investigated this matter from the outside; it will perhaps be of some advantage to this House to hear some criticisms from one who can speak with inside experience. I entirety agree with the hon. Member for East Donegal when he states his conviction, arrived at from his investigation as a member of the Departmental Committee, that the prison system of this country is the cruellest and most inhuman existing in any country in the world. That is my conviction also. Some years ago I believed, as many of the people in this country do believe, that the Russians treated their prisoners with great severity, and cruelly, compared with the British system; but I have arrived at the conviction long ago that the Russians are, in the treatment of their prisoners, a humane race in comparison with the people of this country. In the first place, capital punishment is almost unknown, and as to their prisoners sent to Siberia I say that, whatever may be the suffering on the journey, once the prisoners reach Siberia, they are infinitely better off than prisoners at Chatham, or Portland, or Dartmoor. One
  886
  point to which I particularly desire to call attention is the question of the treatment of political prisoners. I notice with regret that in this Bill no attempt is made to deal with that question. I consider it one of the worst blots on the prison system of this country. If it be true, and I believe it is, that in a general sense you have a convict system which is the most inhuman in the whole of Europe, your treatment of political prisoners is unspeakably worse than that of any other civilised nation. What do you do in this country? Under that infamous Act which was passed for the purpose of getting certain well-known Irishmen into your power, in 1848, you treat political prisoners as on the same footing with the lowest criminals in the land. Within the last 40 or 50 years men who have been brought up accustomed to comparative comfort, men of high education, have been thrust into your convict prisons, and treated as on the same level with the commonest criminals, for what were unquestionably, and without; dispute, purely political offences. What is the nature of this treatment? It has been described as treatment which reduces the prisoners to the condition of mere brutes, and there can be no doubt that that is true. The criminal system of this country is not a system aiming at the reformation or improvement of the prisoner; it is a system which invariably degrades and de-humanises the prisoner. But if that be an infamous and indefensible system when applied to an ordinary criminal, a man without much education, one who has been so brought up that he would not suffer very keenly by the deprivation of any mental occupation, what is it when applied to a man of education, accustomed to reading and intellectual occupation? I say that human ingenuity never devised any more intolerable torture than that of locking up a man for 10 or 15 years, or even for one year, in a solitary cell, denying him the right to use his intellect and denying him the right of speech with his fellow creatures. If I speak with some warmth on this matter it is because I consider

  887
  that those who have had actual experience of the system from the inside are better qualified than others to speak as to the suffering it involves. I am bound to say that during the greater part of my imprisonment I was, through the humanity of Irish doctors, allowed to read books and newspapers. But I had during that period spent a sufficient time under the conditions of an ordinary criminal, without the permission to read books or newspapers, or to enjoy any other occupation whatever during the whole livelong day, to enable me to understand the maddening character of such punishment. I say it is a system by which you brutalise men, if you do not drive them mad. Sir, the right hon. Gentleman opposite has appealed to his six years' experience at the Home Office as qualifying him to speak upon this question. I venture to say that if he had had six days' experience of solitary confinement he would be in a better position to speak of the sufferings of prisoners. He spoke as though prisoners were not human beings at all, but were like pigs, or animals with no minds. [No, no!] Yes. There, is not a single note in his speech which indicated that he regarded prisoners as within the pale of humanity. He rather seemed to regard them as a lot of stalled animals, towards whom our only duty was to see that body and soul were kept together.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEY: If the hon. Member is referring to me, I must ask him to quote my exact words, and not paraphrase them in a wholly unjustifiable way.
  MR. DILLON: I was not quoting the right hon. Gentleman's words.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEY: No, you are very seriously misrepresenting them.
  MR. DILLON: What I was complaining of was not so much what the right hon. Gentleman did say as of what he did not say. I was complaining that
  888
  there is nothing in his speech to indicate that he had any sympathy with the prisoners.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEY: The hon. Member said that I spoke of the prisoners as if they were stalled beasts. I never said any such thing.
  MR. DILLON: What I said was that the right hon. Gentleman spoke of them as if they were to be treated just as we treat stalled beasts. [Cries of "With-draw."] I decline to withdraw. I reiterate that the preliminary necessity in the case of any man who approaches this question in a truly sympathetic spirit is that he should take into account that you can torture a man more through his mind than through his body. My indictment of the prison system is this, that it is a system of daily and hourly torture; and it is only in the case of those unhappy creatures who from years of this torture are reduced to such a condition that they have practically no minds at all, that that torture is ever brought to an end.
  It being Twelve of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

  NONCONFORMIST MARRIAGES (ATTENDANCE OF REGISTRARS) BILL.
  Considered in Committee; Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Wednesday, 15th June.
  OLD AGE PROVIDENT PENSIONS BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [23rd March] further adjourned till Tuesday next.

  IRISH SURNAMES BILL.
  Considered in Committee; Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.
  House adjourned at 12.5.

Preamble
THE LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack at a Quarter-past Four of the clock.
PRIVATE BILLS.
  HEYWOOD CORPORATION WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  Petition for additional provisions; of the Corporations of Heywood and Middleton, together with proposed amendments and clauses annexed thereto; Read, and referred to the Examiners.
  BLACKPOOL AND FLEETWOOD TRAMROAD (TRAMWAY EXTENSIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
  Committed; the Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  FILEY WATER AND GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  Committed; the Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  EDINBURGH AND DISTRICT WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported, with Amendments.
  SHERINGHAM GAS AND WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported, with Amendments.
  SWANSEA GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported from Select Committee, with Amendments.
  EDINBURGH AND LEITH CORPORATIONS GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported from Select Committee, with Amendments.

  MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD (NEW WORKS) BILL. [H.L.]
  Report from Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with consideration of Bill, opposition thereto having been withdrawn; Read, and ordered to lie on the Table; Orders made on 28th February and 4th March last discharged.
  Bill committed for To-morrow.

  EDINBURGH MERCHANT COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
  Read third time; Passed, and sent to Commons.
  MORLEY CORPORATION (GAS) BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported from Select Committee, with Amendments.
  CRANBROOK AND PADDOCK WOOD RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported from Select Committee, with Amendments.
  TYNE IMPROVEMENT COMMISSIONERS (CONSTITUTION) BILL. [H.L.]
  Report from Select Committee, That Committee have consolidated Bills under title of the Tyne Improvement Bill [H.L.]; Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  TYNE IMPROVEMENT BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from Select Committee, with Amendments.
  ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
  Brought from Commons; Read first time; to be printed; and to be read second time To-morrow.—(The Marquess of Lansdowne).—[No. 33.]
RETURNS, ETC.

  INDIA (OUTBREAK OF PLAGUE).
  Further Papers relating to the outbreak of Plague in India; No. III. (in continuation of [C.-8511.]).
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  WEST INDIA ROYAL COMMISSION.
  Report of the West India Royal Commission, Appendix C., Vol. IV., containing analysis of verbal evidence.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  TRADE REPORTS, 1898.
  Annual Series: Diplomatic and Consular Reports on Trade and Finance; No. 2041. La Rochelle.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION BOARD (IRELAND).
  Annual Report for 1897.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  COLONIES (MISCELLANEOUS).
  (No. 9) Dominica: Report on the agricultural capabilities of Dominica, by C. O. Naftel, late Inspector of Estates in Ceylon.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION BOARD (IRELAND).
  Rules, and programme of examinations for 1899.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  GENERAL MEDICAL, COUNCIL (RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURE).
  Returns of receipts and expenditure of the General Medical Council and of the Branch Councils for England, Scotland, and Ireland; also receipts and expenditure of the Dental Registration Fund, for the year ending 31st December, 1897.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  PRISONS (ENGLAND AND WALES) VISITING COMMITTEES.
  Order, dated 16th March, 1898, made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, consolidating the existing orders as to the constitution of Visiting Committees of local prisons.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANIES.
  Statement of accounts and of life assurance and annuity business, and abstracts of actuarial reports, deposited with the Board of Trade under "The Life Assurance Companies Act, 1870," during the year ended 31st December, 1897.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SUPERANNUATION.
  Treasury Minute, dated 5th March, 1898, granting a retired allowance to Jacco Marten, policeman, Trincomalee Naval Yard.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  ALIENS BILL. [H.L.]
  A Bill to Regulate the Immigration of Aliens; Presented by Earl of Hardwicke; Read first time, and to be printed. [No. 34.]

  FLOODS PREVENTION BILL. [H.L.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  LORD THRING: My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of the Floods Prevention Bill. This Bill, with some slight amendment, is just the same Bill as was brought in and passed in 1896 and 1897. I have brought it in again this year at the urgent request of the County Councils Association. I rather lay emphasis on the fact that I bring it in at the request of that association, not because I wish to avoid criticism, but to show your Lordships that this Bill is no fad of my own, and that I have not brought it in to gratify my own fancy. It is a Bill prepared by, and on behalf of, an association which represents five-sixths of the comities of England, and therefore practically represents five-sixths of the agricultural population of England, and it is believed by them that it will be extremely beneficial in its character. With respect to the object of the Bill, it is almost sufficiently explained in
  714
  the title. It is a very small Bill, and will only give to county councils power to prevent floods in places where no other river authority has control. The Bill does not interfere with areas already under river authorities, but only fills up a gap in legislation in respect of places where there is no power to control the watercourses. What is the use of an owner moving an obstruction if other obstructions are allowed to remain below or above him? This Bill is only to enable county councils to do what nobody else could do—namely, to remove obstructions in the river where there is no other authority having control. Then, my Lords, I must read to you the powers very shortly which this Bill gives, to prove to you that the statements which were made last Session are entirely and absolutely exaggerated. The powers conferred by this Bill upon county councils are these: they may cleanse, repair, or keep in a state of efficiency any watercourse, bank, dam, or other like work. They may construct a new work in the place of an old work, but only in the place of a work out of repair, and they cannot make any material alteration without the consent of the owners. They may carry out improvement, but so as not to substantially alter the existing character of the work. They may remove obstructions not resulting from the original course of the river, but such as have been caused by natural causes or accident. They may—this clause was introduced by Lord Camperdown—proceed at law against persons illegally creating obstructions. Lastly, they may, with the consent of the owners and occupiers, remove dams and other obstructions. Then, my Lords, with regard to what they are to pay, they have to pay full compensation for any damage done. I admit that in the last Bill the word "illegal" was inserted with respect to damage, but on the advice of the Lord Chancellor, who is always kind to my legislation, and to whom I owe a debt of gratitude, I struck that word out. With regard to the question of rating, can there be anything more absurd or absolutely ridiculous than the idea as recommended by Lord Heneage last Session of dividing a county into uplands, midlands, or lowlands, in order that a few obstructions in rivers and watercourses may be removed? Why,

  715
  my Lords, the uplands, midlands, and lowlands are represented in the county council, and will not tax themselves unnecessarily. As to taxing subordinate districts, they have no power to do that except with the consent of the subordinate districts. It appears to me impossible that there could be a Bill more limited in its powers than this one. If there is any fault it is that it is too limited, but it would be hopeless to pass a great Bill through this House. I have informed your Lordships of the nature of the Bill, to the Second Reading of which I ask your Lordships to assent, and I will now shortly state what has happened to this Bill. It was brought in in 1896, and Lord Salisbury objected to the absence of certain safeguards. I put in those safeguards, and the Bill passed through all its stages, being fully considered in the Standing Committee and amended. The Bill passed this House, but owing to the press of business in the Commons, as is not unusual, it failed to get through that House. Then, my Lords, last year the Bill, which I had anticipated would pass through without any difficulty at all, was, to my great and infinite astonishment, opposed. First, there was the question of the uplands and lowlands; I was told that I ought to have divided the counties. That was absolutely impossible. Lord Heneage drew the conclusion that because my Bill could not prevent drought in the uplands I ought not to prevent floods in the lowlands. Can there be a more extraordinary argument than that? Then he said the Bill was controversial. How, in the name of goodness, can a Bill to prevent floods be more controversial than questions affecting sanitation, highways, etc.? If the local authority has power in the one case, why not in the other? Then there came this extraordinary objection. Lord Heneage said—
  "Under this Bill there was net a single watercourse, not a supply of water, not a single storage of water, that could not be interfered with by the Bill."
  Every word of that is inaccurate. In the first place, all watercourses are excepted which are under the authority of any other river Board. With respect to the supply of water, it is specially provided that they shall not interfere with the
  716
  supply of water. In respect to the storage of water, the Bill provides that they could not remove any dam or other wall or means of storing water without the consent of the owners. Therefore, my Lords, every one of these objections is really and truly inaccurate. Then, again, Lord Salisbury—we all regret his Lordship's absence and the cause of it—said—
  "They could enter into your garden and takes your fish-pond, and they could do what they pleased with it."
  The fact is, they could not take any standing water or fish-pond at all; that is provided against in the Bill. Therefore, I think, my Lords, that my small Measure was rather hardly dealt with. As Lord Salisbury is not here, I will not allude to the argument which he addressed to me with respect to looking out of the window of a railway carriage, and so forth. I think I have proved to you that this Bill is one of extremely limited powers. It is as Bill very much desired by the agricultural population. It is a Bill which can do no harm, and which may do great good. I will conclude by asking your Lordships, without having regard to my age or to those infirmities, which were alluded to in the last Session, to consider this Bill without prejudice as a Measure brought forward on behalf of five-sixths of the counties of England, and which they believe will be extremely beneficial.
  LORD NORTON: My Lords, this Bill was before your Lordships last year, and your Lordships threw it out on the Second Reading. I was one of those who supported the Second Reading, and I shall do so to-day. I think the country is indebted to the noble Lord who has just sat down for persevering with his Measure, and for doing his utmost for a very important object. As he stated just now, there are very few subjects of greater importance than the conservancy of our rivers, and where there is no Conservancy Board, or river authority, it is important that some public body of that nature should be created. What is, I think, more important is that private individual should be proceeded against

  717
  for any damage they cause to the rivers, or who, in the language of this Bill, "illegally create obstructions or damage to the watercourses of the country." There should be, on the part of the public, a means of compelling private owners to maintain the rivers or watercourses passing through their property in a proper condition, and also to enforce penalties upon those who damage the rivers of the country. I confess that I think there are faults in this Bill of very considerable magnitude, though I think they are such as might be corrected in Committee. I am rather astonished that this Bill has passed your Lordships' House once already. A year ago it passed through the ordeal of a Standing Committee, and how it passed with the blots remaining in it I can hardly conceive. At present the language of the Bill is vague and unguarded. I will refer, for instance, to the first clause, which says that the object is to prevent floods, and then the words are added "or any other damage." Well, "any other damage" is a very vague sort of expression. In the same clause there are the words, "they may cleanse, repair, or otherwise keep in a due state of efficiency, any watercourse, weir, bank, dam, or defence against water, or other work of a like nature." The words "or other work of a like nature" are also excessively vague, and this is rather a dangerous power to give. Then, again, county councils have the general power, in another section of the clause, to repair works that are out of order all over the country, and carry out any improvement or alteration "which does not materially change the character of the work." These are phrases of a very vague description, and I am rather surprised that they passed a Standing Committee without correction. But the most important part of the Bill is the third clause, which gives county councils the power of levying the expense upon districts and parishes as a special rate. Some parts of a parish or district might be benefited and others not, and to adjust the payment to the parts of the locality which would be benefited has been the great difficulty in all attempts to legislate on this subject. I can recollect years ago that difficulty occurring when a Measure of this sort was proposed in Parliament. I think your Lordships will recollect the
  718
  discussion turned upon whether lowlands, uplands, or midlands should be equally rated. The prevention of floods may do a great deal of good to a valley and no good to the upland, and to rate the uplands for the benefit of the valley was considered not fair, and upon that point several Bills have been wrecked altogether. The noble Lord gets over the difficulty by not alluding to it at all, but by proposing a special district rate. I do not think that can be done. Every man judges by his own experience. I have myself just cleared a river four miles along a valley, at a very considerable expense, and under this Bill the county council may carry on the clearance of that river for the whole of the rest of its course, partly at my expense. I should think it very unfair that I should have to pay towards the clearance of the rest of the river after clearing, at my own cost, my own portion of the river. The power of levying the expense by a special rate is too great to be entrusted to county councils. We know that county councils are very ambitious of extending their powers. Those powers were given by Parliament for certain distinct executive functions. They are already trying to extend those powers so as to include legislative functions, and at this moment have combined in an association of county councils throughout the Kingdom to petition Parliament to alter part of the Act constituting county councils by giving them further power to support Bills in Parliament—in fact, to take a share in legislation. Even in the exercise of their executive functions some restriction should be placed upon such works as these. This Bill proposes to allow county councils to combine. Suppose county councils combined to clear the whole of the valley of the Thames, which they might do. This would be a national work, extending beyond the proper limit of the functions of county councils. I recollect an expression of Lord Salisbury's some time ago. His Lordship said that these councils and boards, which Parliament had been creating in such large numbers, were all infected with "megalomania," and anxious to be superior to the kind of bodies Parliament intended them to be. Only yesterday the Second Reading was agreed to in the other House of a Bill to

  719
  enable poor law unions to combine by elected representatives in a sort of Parliament of such bodies. All these are circumstances which I think should make us extremely cautious in giving enlarged powers to local bodies. The 4th Clause provides that these bodies may undertake works without inquiry. They have already powers of taxation greater almost than those of Parliament, because there is less check upon their proceedings. Public opinion cannot bear upon their proposals so easily as in Parliament, and the extent of the taxation which this country is already exposed to by local bodies of this sort is great. They have also raised a large amount of loans, which are a very formidable adjunct to the public debt. Altogether, I think this Bill requires very considerable checking and alteration. At the same time I am ready to vote for a Second Reading, because I believe that if restrictions are inserted, and the consent of those chiefly affected by the works to be undertaken is stipulated for, the Bill might be made useful for the important purpose of the conservancy of our rivers, which, throughout the whole Kingdom, are being seriously polluted and obstructed.
  LORD HARRIS: Your Lordships have heard, or been reminded, of the history of this Bill, which has been brought in on two previous occasions by the noble Lord opposite, and it is not necessary for me to go over that ground. But I think, from the speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down, your Lordships will realise that the House has not been unwise in hesitating, as it did last year, to give a Second Reading to this Bill. As the noble Lord who introduced the Bill has explained to your Lordships, he has accepted to some extent the suggestions that were made to him last year, and has introduced changes in the Bill as regards certain points in which it was thought the Bill needed Amendment, and I think your Lordships will gather from what my noble Friend beside me has said that under the innocent exterior of an enabling Bill this Bill contains drastic provisions. The Bill gives county councils very large powers with regard to the property of individuals. For instance, in the third clause the county council is
  720
  given power to enter on anybody's land regardless of whether the stream, watercourse, or river belongs to that person, for the purpose of carrying out such works as it thinks necessary, and without notice. I admit it is only in cases of emergency that they have power to do this, but it is for the county council to say when the emergency exists. I do not know what your Lordships' experience of county councils may be, but mine is that a very large part of the work is done by committees. I do not say that is a bad way of doing the work. The work is done practically, quickly, and with great saving of labour and trouble to busy people. But there is, at the same time, a risk of propositions slipping through the councils themselves on the mere acceptation of the recommendation of a committee. Therefore I think your Lordships would be wise to accept the opinion of the noble Lord who sits behind me, that this Bill requires something more than passing through the ordinary procedure of your Lordships' House, and what I am instructed by the President of the Local Government Board to advise is that a Second Reading should be given to the Bill on condition that it is referred to a Select Committee.
  LORD THRING: My Lords, I shall be happy to assent to the course suggested, and I am glad to think that the Bill will be read a second time. I do not think the force of exaggeration can go beyond the statements of my noble Friend Lord Norton. He said, my Lords, that the Bill will enable county councils to rate anybody any way they like. It is exactly contrary. The special rate can only be imposed on parishes and sanitary authorities by their own consent. This is purposely provided for. With regard to differential rating, which he talks about, he knows that it is impossible to divide uplands, lowlands, and midlands so as to make the rate absolutely adapted to the benefit received. He knows, and everybody else knows, that all the Drainage Bills in England which have been passed for the alteration of watercourses have given up differential rating. What injustice, my Lords, does this Bill do? The county councils will only use their own rate. If they use the rate of anybody else it must be with the consent of the

  721
  ratepayers. As to private land being entered without notice, it could only be entered for the purpose of inspecting works, and nothing more. I trust that in suggesting the reference of the matter to a Select Committee the noble Lord does not mean to postpone it to the Greek Kalends. I hope this Bill, the evils of which, if any—and I deny there are any—have been most grossly exaggerated, will pass within a reasonable time.
  Question put.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill rend a second time accordingly, and referred to Select Committee.

  SPECIAL JURIES BILL.
  Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to be read third time To-morrow.
  REGISTRATION (IRELAND) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order); Reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; Bill to be read a third time To-morrow.
  STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL. [H.L.]
  Referred to Joint Committee on Statute Law Revision Bills and Consolidation Bills.

  OFFICERS' UNIFORMS.
  LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government when the red serge patrol jacket for officers of Royal Engineers and Infantry was last introduced; how often the sealed pattern has since been changed; what is the object of these constant and expensive changes of uniform; and who is the official responsible? Before putting these questions I should like to say a few words to your Lordships, by which I think I can show that the matter is much more important than appears at first sight. My Lords, ever since I entered the Army,
  722
  nearly 23 years ago, the uniforms have been often changed, but in the last few years the changes have been so frequent and so universal that it has become a most serious tax on officers. In these questions, my Lords, I took the red serge patrol jacket, because it was the one article of comparatively recent introduction, and of which the history is very simple, and I hope your Lordships will bear with me in speaking of it in a personal way, as I cannot quote other officers' tailors' bills, and I can quote my own. As far as my regiment is concerned, the red serge patrol jacket was introduced in the year 1895, and in May of that year I purchased, as ordered, a red serge patrol jacket, for £6 8s. 6d., and, as with that jacket a belt had to be worn outside, I had to buy a new belt. In 1897 I was ordered to wear my belt inside my patrol jacket. A considerable amount of alteration had to be made to my patrol jacket, and the belt, which I had purchased at a great expense two years before, had become absolutely useless. I had to pay 13s. 6d. for the alterations to the jacket, and any officer who had got wet in his red patrol jacket, or gone through manœuvres, or got warm in it, and thereby marked it, was obliged to buy an entirely new one. In January of this year, my Lords, I received the following order, which I venture to read to your Lordships, as I do not pretend to understand it myself—
  "It is notified for your information that the following alterations to the red serge frock have been approved: Blue cloth shoulder straps instead of red cloth, butt seams instead of welted seams, patched breast pockets instead of pleated."
  I asked my tailor how much these alterations would cost, and he told me they would cost a guinea and a half. This is not a large amount, but this order affects some 8,000 officers, in round figures, and, if every one of these officers has to spend a guinea and a half, it will amount to something between 12,000 and 15,000 guineas for the pleasure of wearing butt seams instead of welted seams. My Lords, it is not only a question of the red patrol jacket. During the last three or four years there is scarcely any officer's uniform in the Service which

  723
  has not been altered. Our swords, our scabbards, our spurs, our horse furniture, our caps, and pretty nearly everything we own, have been altered, and altered frequently. In the matter of my scabbard, I might mention that when I was promoted Major in 1894 I bought a brass scabbard. In 1897 I had to revert to a steel scaboard, and this year I have to purchase an entirely new sword. There are, we know, a large number of applicants for every vacancy in Her Majesty's Army, but it is otherwise in the Militia and Volunteers. In those services there is a serious deficiency of officers, and the constant additions to the expense necessitated by these changes must exercise a serious deterrant effect on their ranks. There are many of your Lordships who know more about Volunteers than I do. I will, therefore, merely say that ii seems to me a mockery to offer an officer a sum of money to purchase his uniform, and then issue edicts which make that uniform obsolete in twelve months. I will refer now to the Militia, to which I belong. The Militia is most seriously short of officers. In another place the Under Secretary of State for War said the deficiency in the commissioned ranks of the Militia was no less than 712 officers. That is a very serious question, because, it is from the Militia that you would expect to get your additional officers for the Army in case of war. In asking a young gentleman to join the Militia we ought to be able to tell him what his expenses will be, what his regimental subscriptions will be, and the cost of his uniform, which we cannot do under the present system of changes. Again, my Lords, an officer who is hesitating as to whether he will leave the Militia or not may be influenced to leave in consequence of these changes. He will probably say, "If I have got to spend severed pounds on altering my uniform, I shall leave." I do not say an officer is going to leave because he has to spend a guinea and a half in altering his uniform, nor do I say that it will prevent any young gentleman taking a commission, but what I do say is that these constant additions to the expense, the trouble they cause, as well as their cost, exercise a serious deterrant effect on possible candidates, and tend to drive officers out of the force. In the present state of affairs, and having regard to the lamentable con
  724
  dition of the commissioned ranks of the Militia, I think anything which tends to drive one officer out of the force, or to discourage one officer from joining, is a grievous mistake.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I have some difficulty in reconciling one or two of the detailed statements of fact made by the noble Lord with the information which I have endeavoured to collect in the War Office.
  LORD RAGLAN: I shall be happy to show the noble Marquess my tailor's bill.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR: I am, however, able to give the noble Lord an explicit answer with regard to the particular garment to which his Questions refer. The latest sealed pattern of the red serge patrol jacket, or frock, was approved for officers of Infantry in 1896, and was adopted by the Royal Engineers at their own instance in 1897. It had been discovered that frocks of a variety of patterns were being worn without authority, most of them being departures from the then existing sealed pattern. It was, however, found that the sealed pattern itself was far from perfect, and accordingly it was decided that instead of requiring officers to conform to the sealed pattern, the sealed pattern itself should be altered and made to approximate as closely as possible to those patterns which seemed best adapted for the wants of the service. All officers were allowed to wear out the frocks already in their possession before conforming to the new pattern. No change in the pattern has been made since 1896. I have great sympathy with the noble Lord's feelings in regard to frequent or apparently vexatious changes in officers' uniforms, but I cannot help thinking that, in this instance at all events, he has founded his charge upon a very slender foundation. I can assure him that our desire is, on the one hand, to avoid involving officers in unnecessary expense, and to get rid of needless complications in the uniform of the different arms of the service, and, on the other hand, to make no changes which might be repugnant to regimental feeling or tradition.

  725
  Applications from commanding officers for permission to alter or add to the uniforms of their officers are frequently received, and the policy of the War Office has been to discourage such changes, unless they are connected with regimental traditions, or tend to render the uniform more serviceable in the field. Whether every change which has been made in recent years in officers' uniforms has been judicious I am not prepared to say, but I believe that the military authorities have succeeded in getting rid of many useless and unsuitable patterns, and in substituting for them garments more serviceable and less expensive. In some Cavalry regiments, for instance, officers were required to be in possession of no less than seven coats of different design for wear in the United Kingdom alone; and abroad it was found that almost every foreign station had its special pattern of foreign service uniform. I need not dwell on the expense and trouble occasioned to officers when moving from station to station. I am able to say that during the last three years no changes have been introduced without first ascertaining the views of the officers concerned. Many of the changes made have been introduced at the request of the units themselves, made through the General Officers commanding the Districts. In every case where a change has been thought desirable at headquarters it has been submitted to General Officers in order that they might obtain the opinions of the Commanding Officers. And in all cases, as in that to which the noble Lord has referred, time has been given to enable officers to wear out garments about to become obsolete before adopting a new design. I can assure the noble Lord that the opinion which he has expressed in regard to needless alterations in the design of uniforms is not lost sight of at the War Office, but I strongly suspect that a good many of the variations of design of which he complains so much have been due, not to the intervention of the military authorities, but to the action of Commanding Officers, who have, it is well known, in some cases, been a little too anxious to introduce what seemed to them improvements of their own invention in the uniform of their regiments. The military tailor is also, I am told, to some extent answerable. The civilian tailor is, as we all
  726
  know, an insidious person; the military tailor appears to be as plausible as his civilian confrère, and more audacious in his procedure. With regard to the question of official responsibility for changes of uniform, I need scarcely inform the noble Lord that in all these matters the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State alone, is responsible to Parliament.
  House adjourned at 5.15 till to-morrow at 4.15.