Sitting of 27 February 1899

Preamble
MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER took the chair at Three of the clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH).
  MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 62 has been complied with, viz.:—
  Stockport District Water Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

  METROPOLIS WATER BILL (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, pursuant to order of the House of the 21st day of February, That, in the case of the following Bill, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have not been complied with, viz.:—
  METROPOLIS WATER BILL.
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
  BARRY RAILWAY BILL.
  To be read a second time To-morrow.
  CARDIFF RAILWAY BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  CENTRAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  CENTRAL LONDON RAILWAY BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  CHARING CROSS, EUSTON, AND HAMPSTEAD RAILWAY BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  COUNTY OF LONDON AND BRUSH PROVINCIAL ELECTRIC LIGHTING BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  CROWBOROUGH DISTRICT WATER BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  EAST LONDON WATER BILL.
  To be read a second time upon Thursday 16th March.
  EAST LONDON WATER (TEMPORARY SUPPLY) BILL.
  To be read a second time upon Thursday 16th March.
  GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY BILL.
  To be read a second time upon Tuesday 7th March.
  GATESHEAD AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  HARROW AND UXBRIDGE RAILWAY BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  HORSFORTH WATER BILL.
  To be read a second time upon Monday next.
  ILFORD GAS BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  LINCOLN AND EAST COAST RAILWAY AND DOCK BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  LONDON, BRIGHTON AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY (PENSIONS) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  METROPOLITAN WATER COMPANIES BILL.
  To be read a second time upon Thursday 16th March.
  MIDLAND AND SOUTH WESTERN JUNCTION RAILWAY (NORTHERN SECTION) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  NORTH PEMBROKESHIRE AND FISHGUARD RAILWAY BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  ST. JAMES'S AND PALL MALL ELECTRIC LIGHT BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  SHOTLEY BRIDGE AND CONSETT DISTRICT GAS BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  SOUTH EASTERN AND LONDON, CHATHAM AND DOVER RAILWAY COMPANIES (NEW LINES) BILL.
  To be read a second time To-morrow.
  TAFF VALE RAILWAY BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  GLASGOW CORPORATION TELEPHONES BILL.
  (By Order). Second Reading deferred till Monday 13th March.
  BARKING TOWN IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  (By Order). Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
  METROPOLITAN POLICE PROVISIONA ORDER BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
PETITIONS.
  EAST INDIA (CONTAGIOUS DISEASES).
  Petition from Padiham, against State regulation; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION OF CHILDREN BILL.
  Petitions in favour;—From Oakham;—and, Stockton-on-Tees; to lie upon the Table.
  PETROLEUM BILL.
  Petition from Wigan, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  POOR LAW OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION ACT (1896) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Abram, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  RATING OF EMPTY HOUSES.
  Petition from Fulham, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour;—From Malton—and, Stone; to lie upon the Table.
  VACCINATION ACT, 1898.
  Petition from Caxton and Arrington, for repeal; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  EDUCATION (SCIENCE AND ART).
  Copy presented,—of Forty-sixth Annual Report of the Department of Science and Art, being that for the year 1898, with Supplement (by Command); to lie upon the Table.
  TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION ACT, 1839.
  Copy presented,—of Minute sanctioning the Subjects to be taught under Clause 8 of the Act, for the County Borough of Limerick (Fifth Minute), dated 14th February 1899 (by Act); to lie upon the Table.
  PIERS AND HARBOURS (PROVISIONAL ORDERS).
  Copy presented,—of Report by the Board of Trade of their Proceedings under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, and General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, Amendment Act (by Act); to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 74.)
  TRADE REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS SERIES).
  Copy presented,—of Reports on Subjects of General and Commercial Interest, No. 496 (by Command); to lie upon the Table.
  SUPERANNUATIONS.
  Copy presented,—of Treasury Minute, dated 18th February 1899, declaring that for the due and efficient discharge of the duties of the offices of Professor of Botany and of Professor of Geology* Royal College of Science, Dublin, professional or other peculiar qualifications not ordinarily to be acquired in the public service are required (by Act); to lie upon the Table.
  NAVY (REVISED SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1898–9).
  Estimate presented,—of the Further Amount that will be required during the year ending 31st March 1899, beyond the sum already provided in the Grants for Navy Services for the year (Parliamentary Paper No. 62, Session 1898) to meet additional expenditure arising on certain Votes (by Command); Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. (No. 75.)

  MAILS (AMERICAN SERVICE).
  Return ordered,
  "Showing the number of days, hours, and minutes occupied in the transit of Her Majesty's Mails, both outward and inward, carried during the year 1898 by steamships between Queenstown and New York, and also between Southampton and New York; the Return to specify the names of the steamers, and to indicate by asterisks or otherwise those not carrying the Mails under contract (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 169, of Session 1898)."—(Sir John Leng.)

  NEW MEMBER SWORN.
  Wiliiam Henry Holland, esquire, for the County of York, Southern part of the West Riding (Rotherham Division).
  QUESTIONS.

    REPORT OF THE INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES.
    SIR C. DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the probable delay in the publication of the annual report of the Chief Inspector of Factories for last year, it would be possible to publish the reports to the Chief Inspector of the various inspectors, or extracts from them, such as are generally given in the Chief Inspector's report; and whether, particularly, it would be possible to publish the report for 1898 of the principal, lady inspector, generally given as a whole; and the returns of accidents and prosecutions, generally given as appendices, so that they would be available before the discussion on the Home Office Vote, or at least before the end of the Session of Parliament?
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. J. COLLINGS,): Perhaps I may be allowed to answer in the absence of my right honourable Friend. He thinks that it is quite impossible to break up and anticipate the text of the Chief Inspector's report in the manner suggested. But the tables relating to accidents and prosecutions could be issued earlier. He thinks that this would be useful, and he will make arrangements for their publication as soon as possible.

    COWDENBEATH (FIFESHIRE) LEVEL CROSSING.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland is aware that the railway level crossing in High Street, Cowdenbeath, Fifeshire, is absolutely un-
    596
    protected by gates for shutting public traffic off the railway during the passing of trains; and will he take such steps as may be necessary for the public safety?
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. G. MURRAY,): The crossing in question is over a private, not a public railway. There are single, but not double gates, and special precautions by means of a watchman are taken for the safety of the public, with the result that only one accident has occurred since 1855, and no person was injured in it. The arrangements of the road are in the hands of the road authority, and the Secretary for Scotland has no jurisdiction in the matter.
    In reply to a further Question by Mr. WEIR,
    MR. GRAHAM MURRAY said: I am personally well acquainted with the crossing. The railway is blocked by the gates, but the road was not. When a train passes, then the watchman stops the people.

    ROSS SHIRE MILITIA.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the proposal to call up the Ross-shire Militia for annual training in the month of July instead of April, as hitherto, will seriously interfere with the avocations of many of the men who earn their livelihood as fishermen, will he consider the expediency of continuing the training during the month of April?
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL WILLIAMS,): The proposal has been dropped, and the training will take place in Scotland at a time suitable to the convenience of the battalion.

    THE CARABINEERS.
    MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to send the Carabineers to India in the trooping sea-

    597
    son of 1899; and if he could explain why this regiment, which only returned from India in 1888, should be detailed for foreign service before the 15th, 14th, 13th, 10th Regiments of Hussars, and 12th Lancers, which corps all returned from India previous to 1888?
    MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: The Carabineers will go to India in the trooping season of 1900. Their position on the foreign service roster was advanced four years in order to obtain as soon as possible a due proportion of the number of Dragoon regiments abroad to that at home. The regiment when it goes abroad will have been 12 years at home.

    PILOTS' GRIEVANCES.
    MR. FOSTER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the remarks of the President of the Admiralty Court, as reported on the 20th instant, under the heading, "Grievances of Pilots," in an action by Thomas Whit wall, a licensed Trinity House pilot, on behalf of a large body of pilots, to test the construction (if the Merchant Shipping (Exemption from Pilotage) Act, 1897, the defendants being the owners of a Norwegian ship whose captain had refused the services of an English pilot to pilot the vessel up the Thames to Gravesend; whether he is aware that the learned President expressed his great regret that there was no codification of a few simple rules laying down as to when ships should be under compulsory pilotage; whether any steps will be taken by the Government to carry out this recommendation; and whether, in view of the finding of the Court in the case, that foreign vessels without passengers are exempt from pilotage under the Act of 1894 and the Act of 1897, while British ships are not to exempted, the Government propose to take any and what steps to remedy this difference of treatment as between British and foreign ships and British and foreign pilots in British waters?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): I have seen a newspaper report of the judgment of the President of the Admiralty
    598
    Division of the High Court in the case of Whitwall versus Owners of "Columbus." The Board of Trade will bear in mind the remarks of the learned President as to the desirability of codifying the rules as to compulsory pilotage, but this could not be done without repealing and re-enacting the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Acts relating to pilotage, a task which I am not at present prepared to undertake. The honourable Member is, I am advised, not correct in his view of the law as to British ships. British ships when not carrying passengers are by Section 625 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, exempted from compulsory pilotage in the London District.
    MR. FOSTER: May I ask whether it is the fact that foreign passenger vessels, if their masters hold pilot certificates, are exempt, from taking pilots?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I should prefer to have notice of that Question; it is totally different to the one on the paper.

    AFRICAN NATURAL HISTORY.
    SIR E. GREY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is proposed to take any steps to prevent the extinction of rare or interesting species of wild animals or birds in Africa; and, if so, whether the cooperation of other Powers has been invited or secured?
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. ST. JOHN BRODRICK,): Steps have already been taken to guard against undue destruction of wild animals by the issue of Game Regulations, and we are in communication with the German Government as to collective action. It is proposed to hold an International Conference in London in the spring.

    PATENT AGENTS' REGISTRATION.
    MR. ALBAN GIBBS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government have it in contemplation to introduce a Bill

    599
    framed on the lines of the Patent Agents' Registration Bill of 1894, as amended by the Select Committee; or, if not, whether he will carry out the recommendations contained in page 6 of the report of that Committee, namely, that unless the Bill, as amended, or some Measure on similar lines, should become law at an early date, the Board of Trade should remove the register, and the appointment and control of the Registrar, and the examinations, from the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents, and make other arrangements to carry out the provisions of Section 1 of the Act of 1888?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: No, Sir; I must refer my honourable Friend to a reply which I gave to a Question put by the honourable Member for the Strand on the 4th March last year. The position of matters is unchanged. The Board of Trade recommended amendments to the bye-laws submitted by the Institute under their Charter, framed so as to enable members of the profession of Patent Agents not members of the Institute to enter that body, and so obtain a position to take part in the government of the profession as a whole. If the proceedings under the bye-laws, still in progress, do not prove to have a satisfactory result, the Board reserve the power to take other action.

    GOLDSMITHS' COMPANY'S JURISDICTION.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that, on Monday 25th July, 1898, Inspector Outram, with two detectives from the Criminal Investigation Department and two officers from the Assay Office of the Worshipful Company of Goldsmiths, proceeded with a search warrant to the premises of Mr. Reuben Lyon, 125, High Holborn, London, and seized over 300 pieces of modern silver plate into which counterfeit hall marks had been transferred for the purpose of fraudulently and largely increasing their money value by representing them as antique silver plate; and if the Worshipful Company of Goldsmiths, instead of
    600
    publicly prosecuting Mr. Reuben Lyon, privately fined him a sum of money, withholding his name from publicity? I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for the Rome Department if he is aware that in April, 1897, William Wyatt and Charles Rimer were prosecuted by the Assay authorities and were found guilty of fraudulently transposing the hall mark from certain wares of gold to other wares of gold, without lawful excuse, and were sentenced to 14 months' imprisonment with hard labour; that in October of the same year John Jefferay pleaded guilty to a like offence and was sentenced to five years' penal servitude; and that in March of 1898 Isidor Weil was found guilty of feloniously producing imitations of the dies of the Goldsmiths' Company, and was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment with hard labour; and whether the Worshipful Company of Goldsmiths possess the optional power of either privately fining or publicly prosecuting for such an offence; and, if the former punishment is inflicted, do the fines go into the funds of the National Exchequer or into those of the Worshipful Company of Goldsmiths? I beg further to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if in order to minimise the depreciation in the value of genuine antique gold and silver plate, such as that owned as family heirlooms, by private collectors, and by respectable dealers, and for the better protection of the public generally, he will take the necessary steps to have the law so amended as to transfer to the Public Prosecutor the duty of dealing with persons charged with forging or otherwise tampering with the hall mark, and persons dealing in counterfeit modern or antique gold and silver plate, with a view to their being adequately tried and punished?
    MR. JESSE COLLINGS: The prisoners referred to in the honourable Baronet's second Question were convicted and sentenced as stated. Wyatt and Rimer were prosecuted by the Birmingham Assay Office, and Jefferay and Weil by the Goldsmiths' Company. With regard to Lyon, the Goldsmiths' Company inform me that, having received information that a large quantity of silver was deposited on his premises, the marks upon which were either forged, or had been tampered with in various ways, a

    601
    search warrant was applied for and obtained, and a large quantity of spurious silver seized under it. The forgeries and transpositions of marks on this silver had been very skilfully effected, and no evidence being forthcoming that Lyon had himself made them or caused them to be made, the Company were advised by the counsel, on whose advice they had acted in prosecuting Jefferay and Weil, that, though the case was one of great suspicion, there was no material for a criminal prosecution, there being not sufficient evidence of guilty knowledge on Lyon's part. The Company therefore took proceedings, under 7 and 8 Vic, cap. 22, sec. 3, to recover the full penalty of £10 in respect of each article, and confiscated the plate which had been seized. Lyon professed inability to pay, but after some demur the amount was forthcoming, and was paid through a solicitor. The result of the action of r the Goldsmiths' Company is that Lyon no longer carries on the trade. In cases where the Company sue for penalties and those penalties are paid, they have no power to advertise the name of the offender. By Section 10 of the Act mentioned penalties recovered are to be applied by the Company "in defraying the expenses of their Assay Office and of detecting and prosecuting offenders" against the Act. By an earlier statute the Company are prohibited from making any profit out of their Assay Office, and I am informed that the Company perform the duties imposed on them at considerable cost to themselves. I have consulted the Director of Public Prosecutions as to the suggestion in the third question. The only offence (except bankruptcy offences after an order made by the Court under Section 166 of the Bankruptcy Act) which is specified eo nomine as one in which it is the duty of the Director to prosecute is murder, the other cases in which it is his duty to take action being generally defined in Section 2 of 42 and 43 Vic, cap. 22, and Regulation 1 of the Regulations made under the Prosecution of Offences Acts. I agree with the Director's view that there is no good reason for placing offences of the kind in question in a special category. I see no reason for finding fault with the way in which the Goldsmiths' Company or the Assay Offices carry out their statutory powers; and there is nothing to prevent the Director from taking
    602
    action in any case should he think it desirable to do so, nor any person who may think there has been any failure of justice from communicating with the Director.

    ELY POSTMAN'S GRIEVANCE.
    MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, if any compensation has been awarded to Postman Armsby, of Ely, for the loss of his horse, which was taken from his charge by the orders of his postmaster and was fatally injured while in charge of the man who used it by the postmaster's orders.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): The question of making this-postman a grant towards the loss incurred by the death of his horse is under consideration, and the Postmaster-General is about to seek the authority of the Treasury for the amount.

    POSTMEN AND PRIVATE PARCELS.
    MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, if he will explain why the allowance paid as compensation for the loss of the privilege enjoyed by postmen, prior to 1892, of carrying private parcels has not been continued to the rural postmen of Watford and Ellesmere in addition to their ordinary wage; and is he aware that these men are receiving at the present time only the same wage as comrades who never possessed the privilege of carrying private parcels?
    MR. HANBURY: As this question refers to alterations of payment dating back for a long period, and some of the documents relating to them are not at this moment available, it has not yet been practicable to obtain full information upon the points raised. But the matter is receiving the Postmaster-General's attention, and he will communicate with the honourable Member upon it as early as possible.

    TORQUAY POSTMEN'S CLAIMS.
    MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I leg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, if he can explain why postmen John Knap-man and William Chave, of Torquay, who were in February 1894 appointed as full time unestablished men, and for three years after received the same increment as the established men in the same office, have had refused to them the increased increments recommended by the Tweedmouth Committee; on what ground has it been decided that they are only entitled to an increment every alternate year; and are they not included in the recognised established force at Torquay, which, according to the Estimates, consists of 45 postmen on a wage scale rising from 18s. to 2Cs. weekly by an annual increment of 1s. 6d.?
    MR. HANBURY: The postmen John Knapman and William Chave, of Torquay, are not entitled to any increment under the provisions of the Tweed-mouth Scheme. On the contrary, under a strict observance of the rule of the Post Office these men should not be employed at all, as they failed to obtain the necessary Civil Service Certificate, but as an act of grace the Postmaster-General allowed them to remain in the service in the capacity of unestablished postmen on fixed wages. As a further act of grace they have from time to time been granted increases of pay from 1s. to 1s. 6d. a week. I may state that both men signed a form stating that they clearly understood that their employment was of a temporary nature, at fixed wages, terminable at any time, and that it gave them no claim to pension, gratuity, or compensation.

    THE DISS MAGISTRATES AND THE CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR.
    MR. SOAMES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the practice of the Diss bench of magistrates in refusing to grant certificates of exemption to conscientious objectors under the Vaccination Act, 1898. unless they have attended at the clerk's office on
    604
    a previous day to fill in a form giving notice of their intention to apply for a certificate; and whether the magistrates are within their rights in requiring the attendance on two separate days of persons who in many cases would have to come a distance of several miles, and would lose wages on each occasion?
    MR. COLLINGS: I am informed that the magistrates referred to by the honourable Member do not require applicants for certificates of exemption under the Vaccination Act, 1898, to attend at the clerk's office on a previous day; but that they expect all persons applying to the court to present themselves at the clerk's office previously to the sitting, in order that their applications may be put in proper form. If this practice, has the effect suggested in the question I think that steps should be taken to prevent this result, and I have so informed the magistrates.
    MR. SOAMES: Has the right honour able Gentleman's attention been drawn to the notice in the Diss Express of January 27th, in which it is stated that the practice adopted by the Bench is to require applicants to attend at the clerk's office on the day previous to their meeting, and—
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The honourable Member's Question is not in order.

    PRISON ADMINISTRATION.
    MR. FLOWER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, under Rule 70 of the rules proposed to be made under the Prisons Act, 1898, for local prisons, it is intended to withhold all library books from convicted prisoners sentenced to one month's imprisonment?
    MR. COLLINGS: Under Rule 70 prisoners will be supplied with instructive and educational books from the prison library during the first month of their sentence. After that they will be able by good conduct and industry to gain the privilege of having works of a more amusing character also to read.
    MR. FLOWER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-

    605
    ment whether he can state what officers will he charged with the duty of inflicting corporal punishment in local and convict prisons under Rule 84 for local prisons and Rule 78 for convict prisons, in the Draft of Rules proposed to be made under the Prisons Act, 1898; and if it is a fact that schoolmaster warders and hospital warders have in some cases been employed for this duty; and whether the employment of such officers for this purpose has been sanctioned?
    MR. JESSE COLLINGS: As a rule the punishment would be inflicted by one of the ordinary discipline staff, the discretion resting with the Governor to select the most competent person. It is not likely that such a duty would be entrusted in the ordinary course to the schoolmaster or hospital warders. There is no rule regulating this matter, which can be safely left to the discretion of the Governor, who is best able to judge, according to all the circumstances of the case.
    MR. FLOWER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Draft of Rules proposed to be made under the Prisons Act, 1898, and now upon the Table of the House, contains, in accordance with the advice of the Departmental Committee of 1894, all the rules relating to the administration of local and convict prisons; and, if not, whether he will lay all prison rules upon the Table of the House?
    MR. COLLINGS: The Draft includes the whole of the Rules, properly so called, for the government of local and convict prisons. There are no other rules in existence, but merely orders or general instructions as to the mode of carrying out the Rules. These are usually called Standing Orders, and are liable to alteration from time to time, according as circumstances may dictate. The Secretary of State has undertaken to furnish the Library of the House of Commons with a copy of these Standing Orders for Local and Convict Prisons, and copies will be furnished accordingly as soon as the Rules on which they are based mature. The House of Commons will then be in possession of a complete set of Rules and instructions, regulating the government of Prisons in every detail and particular.
    MR. FLOWER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in all future Annual Reports of the Commissioners and Directors of Prisons, a tabulated statement of the number of lashes inflicted in every case of corporal punishment, and the number of days of dietary punishment to which prisoners have been sentenced, will be inserted?
    MR. COLLINGS: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative, but the Home Secretary is afraid he cannot undertake to give the details suggested in the second part, as their collection and tabulation would cause an amount of clerical labour wholly out of proportion to the value of the result obtained.
    MR. FLOAVER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will arrange that the Annual Report of the Prison Commissioners shall in future contain the Annual Reports of the Visiting Committees of Local Prisons and of the Boards of Visitors of Convict Prisons?
    MR. COLLINGS: These Reports are for the information of the Secretary of State, rather than of the public, and I think it will be found that they are more valuable if treated as confidential, than if written for publication.
    MR. FLOWER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in local prisons, there are any cells used for the confinement of prisoners undergoing or awaiting punishment which can be artificially darkened by perforated iron shutters; and, if so, if he will direct the immediate removal of all unnecessary obstacles to the entrance of light into all prison cells?
    MR. COLLINGS: The Commissioners some time ago gave orders for the removal of these perforated shutters, and in many cases these have been already removed, and the work is gradually proceeding. It involves both time and expense, as in many cases the windows have to be reglazed and a stronger glass provided.
    MR. FLOWER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-

    607
    ment whether under Rule 189 of the draft of proposed rules under the Prisons Act, 1898, for local prisons, a prisoner awaiting trial is to be deprived of the special provisions of sub-rules 1, 2, 3, 4, until the Visiting Committee which may meet once a month has considered his case?
    MR. COLLINGS: This Rule has been in operation for 20 years without any difficulty arising. It is not necessary for the whole Visiting Committee to accord these privileges, but it is in the power of any one member of the Committee to act, or in his absence the Governor would act provisionally. The constant visits of individual members of the Visiting Committee make the rule easy of application.

    CAVALRY TRANSFERS.
    CAPTAIN JESSEL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he can state how many men have been transferred since 1st January, 1898, from cavalry corps in which they had originally enlisted to other corps, and how many of these men volunteered for transfer?
    MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: The number of men transferred since 1st January, 1898, from cavalry corps in which they had originally enlisted to other corps is 70, all of whom volunteered.

    KINGSTOWN TO CARLISLE PIER RAILWAY.
    MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether he is aware that a request has been made by the Dublin and Wicklow Railway Company, Ireland, that the line of railway from Kingstown to Carlisle Pier should be doubled in order to facilitate the dispatch of the mails at Kingstown; and whether, since large sums of money have been expended by the Treasury at Holyhead to give quick discharge to the mails, he will direct that the request of the Dublin and Wicklow Railway be complied with in regard to Kingstown?
    MR. HANBURY: Yes, Sir. I understand, however, that the application is mainly based on the necessities of the passenger service (which has largely increased) rather than those of the mail service. The bulk of the land on which it is proposed that the widening should take place is now the private property of the Railway Company; and, before that property was transferred to them by the Government for this very purpose, it was expressly arranged that the State was to bear no part of that expense. If the intention of the Kingstown Township (Transfer of Harbour Roads) Act of last Session had been that the Government should defray the cost of the works there would have been no reason for the transfer of the land. In any case, I do not consider it desirable that the Government should construct such works as these on private property. No money has been spent on private property in the case of Holyhead, to which the honourable Member refers.

    STATIONERY FOR THE ADMIRALTY OFFICES.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state whether the Departmental Committee, which was appointed in 1897 to inquire into the heavy expenditure for stationery in Admiralty Offices, has reported in favour of an economy; and, if so, to what, extent?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. W. E. MACARTNEY,): Certain regulations recommended in the Report of the Committee have been adopted as regards printing, lithographing, binding, and the supply of stores, and it is believed that they will ensure the observance of due economy in the matter.

    ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS.
    COLONEL LOCKWOOD: I beg to ask the honourable Member for West Salford, as Ecclesiastical Commissioner, if the Ecclesiastical Commissioners take great tithes from some

    609
    parishes to such an extent as to leave the incumbents of those parishes with a less income than £200 a year; and if the Commissioners of Queen Anne's Bounty are in the habit of demanding a tenth and firstfruits from livings under £200 a year?
    THE PARLIAMENTARY ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONER (Mr. LEES KNOWLBB,): In answer to the first part of the Question, the practice of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in dealing with parishes from which they have derived revenue is, speaking generally, to raise the income of benefices in public patronage with a population of 500 and upwards to the value of £300 a year before distributing the surplus revenues elsewhere. Owing to depreciation in the value of tithe rent charge and agricultural land the income of many benefices thus augmented has suffered diminution. The original augmentation was made upon the basis of the income which the benefice then possessed. It is not possible for the Commissioners at the present time to readjust such incomes in order to raise them again to the amount then provided-It should be remembered that the Common Fund of the Commissioners is derived from property in different parishes, together with dividends and interest upon investments. The surplus of this fund is the only source from, which they can make grants to augment poor benefices, and to provide for the needs of great and growing centres of population. With regard to the second part of the Question, I am unable to state what is the practice of the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty.
    COLONEL LOCKWOOD: What is the amount per annum granted on the ground of "local claim"?
    MR. LEES KNOWLES: Out of augmentations amounting to a total annual value of £817,000, about £431,000 has been granted on the ground of "local claim," and the remaining £386,000 to endow new districts and cures with large populations and to meet benefactions.

    RIVER SPEY FATALITY.
    SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he will order an inquiry into the circumstances attending the drowning of two men at the Aberlour Elchies Ferry on the River Spey on 23rd December last?
    MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: There has already been a full inquiry into the circumstances of the accident in question. The result was to show that the ferry boat was worked on a wire rope carried across the river, and supported on upright posts at each side. The ends of the wire rope were attached, by means of eyes, to iron bolts. The strain on the rope, owing to the river being in flood, caused one of these bolts to straighten out; the eye slipped off, the rope slackened, and then broke, and the boat was carried down the river. In consequence of the accident, the Crown authorities have been in communication with Mr. Grant, of Elchies, who is the owner of the ferry, and the County Councils of Banff and Elgin, who, along with the justices, are vested by statute with the supervision and regulation of ferries, with the view of securing the safety of the public.

    GOVAN TELEGRAPHIC CHARGES.
    MR. JOHN WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether he is aware that the Post Office Department insist on telegrams for Govan having the word Glasgow; and whether he can see his way to have this annoyance discontinued?
    MR. HANBURY: No, Sir, the Postmaster-General is not aware that his department insists on telegrams for Govan having the word Glasgow. If the honourable Member will bring to the Postmaster-General's notice any case in which the addition of the word "Glasgow" has been insisted upon, inquiry will be made into it. Meanwhile the attention of the officers of the department will be called to the matter by means of the "Post Office Circular."

    LORD KITCHENER'S SALARY.
    MR. H. ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state what salary is attached to the position of Governor-General of the Soudan; and whether the officer holding this position will, in addition to this sum, draw his ordinary army pay during the period of his administration of that province?
    MR. BRODRICK: As Governor-General of the Soudan, Lord Kitchener draws pay at the rate of £1,000 a year with £500 for travelling allowance. This is in addition to his pay as Sirdar of the Egyptian Army. He draws no pay from British Army funds.

    METROPOLITAN MAGISTRACY.
    MR. COHEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the serious inconvenience occasioned at the Metropolitan Police Courts by the indisposition of four Metropolitan Magistrates, which has resulted, as stated on the 22nd instant by Mr. Francis, sitting at Marylebone Police Court, in the proceedings at that court being delayed for two hours owing to the non-arrival of a magistrate; whether he is aware that this detention has necessitated the detention of prisoners in custody two hours longer than necessary, a proceeding described by Mr. Francis from the Bench as very hard on prisoners; and whether arrangements can be made to strengthen the magistracy temporarily in similar emergencies in the future?
    MR. COLLINGS: The Home Secretary has consulted the Chief Magistrate, and is aware of the great inconvenience caused by the unfortunate illness of so many of the Metropolitan Magistrates. A committee is now inquiring into various questions connected with the administration of justice in London, and they will no doubt consider whether any changes are desirable in the direction indicated in the Question.

    DEATH DUTIES.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the absence from the annual report of the Inland Revenue Commissioners for 1897–8 of two important tables relative to the death duties which were published in previous reports—namely, the table giving the classification of capital values of estates and of the net receipts of duty in respect of each category, and also the combined table showing the combined estate duty, probate duty, and inventory and account duty; whether he will consent to a Return embodying these two tables; and whether he will give directions that these tables shall in future be published with the Inland Revenue Commissioners' Report, as was done in 1896–7?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF HIE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): The tables in question were omitted in accordance with the recommendations of a Committee which was appointed in 1897 to revise the Statistics of the Department. But the information contained in them will be found given more fully than in the old tables on pages 146–7 and 157 of the Report for 1897–8. There is, however, one omission—the net receipts of estate duty in each category—and this will be given as a Return, and included in the tables in future years.

    POSTAGE ON OFFICIAL LETTERS.
    MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether, in communicating with Members of the Government, or officials in Government Departments, on public business, there is any necessity for the people to pay postage?
    MR. HANBURY: No letter is entitled to pass without prepayment of postage unless it is sent exclusively upon the public business. Letters upon public business may be sent to Members of the Government at their respective Departments without prepayment, but not

    613
    elsewhere, and also to certain of the chief permanent officers in each Department who are authorised to receive service letters.

    KASSALA.
    MR. COGHILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether any dispatches have been received concerning the operations undertaken by the troops at Kassala against the Dervishes during the period between the taking over of Kassala from the Italians and the Battle of Omdurman: and whether he will call for them to be sent if none have been received?
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO TUB WAR OFFICE (Mr. POWELL WILLIAMS,): No dispatches relating to the period mentioned have reached the War Office, but it is possible that some may have been received by the Foreign Office.
    MR. COGHILL: Perhaps the Under Secretary for War will say?
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOB WAR (Mr. GEORGE WTNDHAM,): We have only received two telegrams, which were addressed one by Colonel Parsons to the Adjutant-General at Cairo, the other to Lord Cromer by the Sirdar. Both reported successes obtained in the Kassala region. Inquiry will be made as regards detailed dispatches, which have not yet reached us.

    SOLDIER'S KIT.
    MR. STRACHEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War why the British soldier, who is at present served out with necessaries of his kit free on enlistment, should not have them renewed in the same way as he has his tunic and other articles of clothng: and whether a soldier re-engaging for 12 or 21 years has to supply himself with his underclothing, etc. at his own' expense, and is thereby unable to clear his Is a day?
    MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: It is estimated that the cost of abolishing
    614
    stoppages for upkeep of the kit of soldiers serving at home would be between £110,000 and £140,000 a year, and the Secretary of State is not prepared to recommend an addition of such a sum to the Army Estimates.
    MR. STRACHEY: And does that sum represent merely the cost of shirts and socks, etc.
    MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: It applies to the upkeep of the soldier's kit.

    RUSSIA AND THE ARMENIANS.
    MR. STEYENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is able to confirm the information that the Russian Government has issued an administrative order prohibiting the permanent settlement in Russian territory of the Armenian families which were driven from their homes in the eastern provinces of Asiatic Turkey by Kurdish and Circassian brigands and by Ottoman irregular troops during the period from 1894 to 1897: whether, in consequence of that order, several thousands of Armenian refugees have been or will be compelled to leave the districts of Kars, Erivan, Tiflis, Ardahan, and Batoum; and whether Her Majesty's Government will use its friendly offices with the Government of the Tsar with a view to inducing His Imperial Majesty to permit the widows and orphans who have sought a refuge in the towns and villages of Trans-Caucasia to remain in their present domicile?
    MR. BRODRICK: In June last information was received at the Foreign Office that the Russian Government had published early in May a proclamation to the effect that all immigrants of Armenian extraction and Turkish nationality residing in the Governments of Baku, Kutais, Tiflis and Erivan, and in the Province of Kars were to quit the country within a year. It is believed that some thousands of persons were affected, but the matter is one for discussion between the Russian and Turkish Governments, and Her Majesty's Government could not properly interfere in it unless requested by one or the other of the parties.

    WIDENING OF PARLIAMENT STREET.
    MR. H. GLADSTONE: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works what will be the width of the new Parliament Street between the buildings and between the kerbstones on the east and west sides respectively; whether the front of the new buildings is to align with the Home Office, or to be set back; whether he can give the approximate height of the new public offices at the south-east angle; whether it is proposed to so arrange the refuges that the traffic from Victoria and Westminster Bridge can be divided into two separate streams; and what will be the width of the new Charles Street?
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): In answer to the right honourable Gentleman I beg to say that the width of the new Parliament Street between the buildings will be about 140 feet, and the width between the kerbs about 95 feet- The front of the new buildings will be set back from 10 to 15 feet from the corner of the Home Office. The approximate height of the new public offices will be 78 feet, the tower at the south-east angle being about 106 feet. The arrangement of refuges will follow that already in existence in Parliament Street, which has been found most convenient for traffic purposes. The width of the new Charles Street will be 80 feet.

    PUBLIC BRIDGES IN SCOTLAND.
    MR. GORDON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if County Councils in Scotland have already power to purchase and use such land as they require for the erection of public bridges, in the event of the present owner being unwilling to negotiate; and, if such powers do not exist, whether the Government will consider the necessity for further legislation?
    MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: The answer to the first Question of the honourable Member is in the negative. As regards the suggestion made in the second Question, the Secretary for Scotland will con-
    616
    sider it along with the question of ferries, but he cannot undertake to propose any amendment of the Local Government Acts during the present Session.

    CHRIST CHURCH SCHOOL, ALBANY STREET, MARYLEBONE.
    MR. FLOWER: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the London School Board is within its legal right in determining to issue through the visitors employed by the Board a form of questions to be answered by the parents of children attending Christ Church School, Albany Street, Marylebone, which form invites the parents to state whether they are paying school fees or not, and if they desire free education for their children; and if not, what action the Committee of Council on Education will take in the matter?
    THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,): The action of the London School Board in singling out one particular voluntary school for such inquiries appears to be invidious; but the Committee of Council have no power to determine the legal rights of the London School Board in such matters.

    RAILWAY CONCESSION'S IN CHINA.
    MR. JOSEPH WALTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will furnish a return giving particulars of the concessions for 2,800 miles of railway in China which have, up to the present, been granted to British investors?
    MR. BRODRICK: It would be unusual for Her Majesty's Government to give particulars of concessions granted to private individuals or companies, even if the full particulars were in all cases known to them; but the figures giving the number of miles of railway as to which a preference has been secured or promised to British enterprise can be given.

    IRISH INLAND REVENUE OFFICERS AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether officers of the Inland Revenue in Ireland are allowed by the rules of the service to become candidates for and sit as district councillors and town commissioners under the Local Government (Ireland) Act?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The Board of Inland Revenue have not yet issued any instructions upon this point; but the matter is under consideration.

    NORTH DUBLIN WORKHOUSE.
    MR. CAREW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a copy of the Resolution passed at a meeting of the Guardians of North Dublin Union on the 15th instant, requesting him, in consequence of the continued congestion of the workhouse, due mainly to the influx of about 800 paupers from the various counties of Ireland, to bring in a Bill to assimilate the Law of Settlement in Ireland to that of England and Scotland; and whether the Government will take steps this Session to carry out this reform?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. GERALD W. BALFOUR,): I have received a copy of the Resolution referred to. The reply to the second paragraph is in the negative. Apart from the question of the time which such a Measure would occupy, I have grave doubts as to its expediency.

    "PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES."
    MR. COCHRANE: I Leg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will make arrangements for the "Parliamentary Debates" to be delivered to Members of this House who sign a general Sessional Order, instead of continuing the present arrangement under which it is necessary for them to sign the Demand Form daily?
    MR. HANBURY: No, Sir; it is an essential part of the arrangement that only those Reports shall be supplied for which Members specially apply. The object of the new arrangement is to carry out a suggestion made last Session and supported by the then Leader of the Opposition, that Members interested in particular current Debates should be able to obtain them for immediate reference. It is not intended to supply every Member of Parliament with a complete copy of "Hansard" gratis. Even in the case of ordinary Parliamentary papers the issue of the pink paper, to avoid unnecessary printing, was intended to prevent a general order requiring all papers to be sent indiscriminately.

    SCOTCH SCHOOL BOARD ELECTIONS.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, having regard to the fact that on the 5th April, 1897, he stated that the question of the alteration of the law in regard to School Board Elections in Scotland would receive consideration before the next triennial election, will he now state whether the Government intend to propose any change in the law?
    MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: I can only refer the honourable Member to the answer I gave to his Question on the 21st of February, which really answers the present Question.

    CROWN SALMON FISHINGS.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state in whom the Crown salmon fishings of the river and estuary of the Broom, Ross-shire, are vested?
    MR. HANBURY: There are no Crown salmon fishings in this river or estuary.

    MITCHELSTOWN POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS.
    MR. W. ABRAHAM (Cork Co.; N.E.): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, if ho will shortly arrange for delivery of letters once a day at

    619
    least to the Union of Mitchelstown, situated about half a mile from the town; and also consider the necessity of a delivery through the districts approaching Glanduff and Araglen, at present indifferently served?
    MR. HANBURY: Proposals for affording a delivery at the Union of Mitchelstown and in the districts near Glanduff and Araglen are under examination at the present time, and the necessary arrangements shall be completed as soon as possible. The delivery at Mitchelstown Union will be made once a day (Sundays excepted), but the frequency of delivery at the other places referred to cannot at present be stated.

    DUNDRUM TRAWLING DISPUTE.
    MR. McCARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Michael Murphy and seven others were prosecuted at Petty Sessions, Newcastle, county Down, at the suit of the Crown, for injuring property belonging to the owners of a trawler fishing in Dundrum Bay; whether the mode of fishing practised by the trawler, while quite as destructive to the fish as ordinary trawling, is alleged to involve no violation of the law; and whether under the circumstances the Crown will make inquiry into the whole matter before lending its services to support such a serious evasion of the law on the part of the owner of the trawler?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The facts are as stated in the first paragraph. The further hearing of the case has been adjourned to the next Petty Sessions to be held on the 17th March, and, pending the result of the magisterial investigation, I do not think it desirable to reply to the inquiries contained in the second and third paragraphs of the Question.

    COUNTY DOWN DISTRICT COUNCILS.
    MR. McCARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the new district councils in Ireland, whether he is aware that, in the following dis-
    620
    tricts in county Down, Castlewellan with 465 electors, Ballinahinch with 537 electors, Kilkeel with 608 electors, and Moira with 616 electors, three representatives have been allowed for each district, and in Rathfriland, with 620 electors, only two representatives have been allowed: if he will state why Rathfriland is treated thus; and whether he will direct the attention of the Local Government Board to the matter, in order to extend the right of similar representation to Rathfriland?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The facts are as stated in the first paragraph. Rathfriland is in Newry Union the other electoral divisions referred to in the Question are in Downpatrick or Lurgan Unions. The claim of Rathfriland Division for increased representation could not be properly determined by comparison with the electoral divisions of other and differently circumstanced unions. The Local Government Board are required by section 23 of the Local Government Act to fix the number of district councillors for each electoral division comprising a municipal town. The representation of the rural divisions, however, is fixed by the statute, and although the Board are given power by the 111th section to increase the number wherever they think the division should be divided, they have not interfered with the general provision of the Act assigning two district councillors to each division, unless the Board of Guardians have called attention to special circumstances in the case of a particular division which appeared to warrant their doing so- The Board of Guardians of Newry Union made no such representation in the case of Rathfriland Division. It is perhaps right to mention that there are about 4,300 electoral divisions in Ireland, and even if the Local Government Board had desired to investigate the circumstances of all these divisions in order to determine the precise number which had a claim to be divided it would have been quite impossible to have done so in time for the first elections. As the notices of election are now posted, no change can be made in the representation of any division for the coming election.

    COLONIAL MINTS.
    MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what are the practical difficulties, that must be surmounted by the Colonial authorities to the satisfaction of the Treasury before permision can be given to coin silver in the Australian branches of the Royal Mint; is he aware that the Melbourne Mint is ready to erect the necessary machinery as soon as the Treasury sanction is received; and whether he can state the amount of estimated Imperial revenue that will be lost by granting this concession?
    MR. HANBURY: It would not be possible to explain, in reply to a Question, the practical difficulties which beset this subject. I may mention that they are mainly connected with providing adequate safeguards against the dangers of over-issue as well as withdrawing worn coins; and the Treasury await the submission of united proposals from the Governments of the Australian Colonies on the various points to which the attention of the Colonial Office has been drawn. The readiness of the Melbourne Mint, to which reference is made, is necessarily premature, as that establishment is a branch of the Imperial Mint. The loss to Imperial revenue which the grant of the concession to the Australasian Colonies alone would involve cannot be estimated with accuracy, but it cannot, at present prices of silver, be put at less than £20,000 a year.

    ST. JAMES, NORTHAMPTONSHIRE, SCHOOL.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he will take steps to enable several hundred children of St. James End, Northamptonshire, to fulfil their legal obligations in respect of the Education Acts, which they are now precluded from doing by the action of the managers of the only school in the place?
    SIR J. GORST: There is nothing to prevent the children, to whom the honourable Member is understood to refer, from fulfilling their legal obligation to attend school, but they are expected to
    622
    conform to rules, which have been laid down by the managers for the order and discipline of the school, and are approved by the Committee of Council.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: In consequence of the answer I have received, I shall, on a very early opportunity, call the attention of the House to it.

    INEBRIATES' HOMES.
    MR. HAZELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, as to the Habitual Inebriates' Act of last Session, how many inspectors of inebriates' homes have so far been appointed, and what are the qualifications necessary to such appointments, and the conditions under which they are held; and whether it is intended to appoint any women to such posts?
    MR. COLLINGS: The Home Secretary has appointed one inspector of certified inebriate reformatories under the Act of last Session, and has selected, in accordance with the recommendation of the Deparmental Committee, which was appointed to advise him in the matter, a "practical and energetic medical man, with a know ledge of institution management and of the treatment of inebriety." At present there is no need for additional inspectors. If the necessity arises, my right honourable Friend will give careful consideration to the question of appointing a woman.

    IRISH ENCUMBERED ESTATES.
    MR. ARCHDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he could state to the House the number of encumbered estates in Ireland under the control of the English Court of Chancery?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am informed that there is no information available on the subject of this Question in the Department of the Land Judge in Ireland.

    FOREIGNERS IN THE MERCANTILE MARINE.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention, has been drawn to the report of the case of R. v. Barker and Passingham, tried; n the Crown Court at Liverpool before Mr. Justice Day last week, when evidence was given that the crew shipped at Port Townsend on board the British ship "Mary A. Troop" included a Chinese, a Finn, a railway clerk, and a commercial traveller who had never been to sea before, and when the learned Judge commented on the way in which the shipping laws are carried out in foreign ports by British Consuls; and whether he will, either directly or through the Foreign Office, impress upon such officers the necessity for a vigilant discharge of their duties in regard to the sanctioning of the engagement of crews for British ships?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: Yes, Sir, my attention has been directed to the case referred to in the question. Her Majesty's Consuls are not expected, and indeed have no authority, to act as judges of the qualifications of seamen shipped before them.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: May I ask whether a section of the Merchant Shipping Act does not expressly require the sanction of a Consular officer for the engagement of seamen?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: The honourable Gentleman had better put that Question down.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: If the Chinaman and the Finn had never been to sea before, how did they get here?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: You had better ask the honourable Member.

    NEW YORK CONSULAR OFFICE.
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what alterations, if any, have been made in Her Britannic Majesty's Consular Shipping Office at New York, United States of America,
    624
    with regard to the engagement and discharge of seamen; whether instructions have been given to exclude all crimps, boarding-house keepers, and others from such office during the time of the engagement or discharge of seamen; whether seamen now receive their advance notes in the Consulate; whether shipping fees are still exacted from seamen by crimps; and whether police officers have been engaged to maintain order and prevent seamen being assaulted whilst transacting business in the shipping office?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I am unable to add anything to the reply given on Monday by my right honourable Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture.
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: May I ask when we are likely to get a reply to this Question?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I have already informed the honourable Gentleman that I cannot add anything to the reply given on Monday last.
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: Will the right honourable Gentleman give instructions to the Consular officers to see that these things are conducted in a proper manner?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: The honourable Gentleman must be aware, from the reply given to this Question, that the attention of the Foreign Office has been directed to this matter, and they are now inquiring into it.

    LASCARS ON P. AND O. BOATS.
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is now in a position to state the number of Lascars employed as sailors, firemen, and coal trimmers on board the P. and O. steamship "Australia," which was due to sail on the 23rd instant; whether he can state how many cubic feet of space is provided for each Lascar in the forecastle of this vessel: whether the said vessel is a British ship registered in the United Kingdom; whether

    625
    the crew of this vessel has allotted to them the cubic accommodation as provided by the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894; and, whether he can state if the forecastle of this vessel has been inspected by Board of Trade officials during the time she has been in dock?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I am informed that the number of Lascar sailors, firemen, and coal trimmers carried by the P. and O. steamer "Australia" this voyage is 148, with, possibly, the adition of a, boy or two. The Lascars are berthed in the poop aft. On the starboard side the space available per man is 66 cubic feet, and on the port side 64 cubic feet. The "Australia" is a British ship, registered at Greenock, and the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, requires that "every place occupied by seamen shall have for each seaman a space of not less than 72 cubic feet, and not less than 12 superficial feet." The vessel has been inspected by the Board of Trade officials during the time she has been in dock, with the result I have stated, but I wish to add that the P. and O. Company contend that the "Australia" comes not under the Imperial, but under the Indian Merchant Shipping Act. This point will be carefully inquired into, but I think it right to add that were the "Australia" carrying a European crew—in accordance with the complement usual to vessels of her size and character—the crew space allotted throughout the vessel would be in excess of the statutory requirements.
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: Arising out of the Question, may I ask the President of the Board of Trade whether section 210 of the Merchant Shipping Act does not provide that each seaman shall have 72 cubic feet of space; that where the law is not complied with the owners are liable to a penalty of £20 for each offence; and whether the President of the Board of Trade intends to enforce the law against this wealthy company?
    THE PRESIDENT or THE BOARD OF TRADE: No doubt the honourable Gentleman has quoted the law correctly, but I am advised by my advisers that no obligation rests upon the Board of Trade to prosecute in the particular case referred to by the honourable Gentleman.
    626
    However, the matter is now the subject of negotiations between the Board of Trade and the P. and O. Company. Of course, it may be held that the law applies to Lascars as well as Europeans; but, so far as the merits of the case are concerned, every honourable Member must know that Lascars are in a very different position to Europeans, and though 64 feet may not be within the letter of the law, 64 feet for a Lascar is certainly not less than 72 feet for a European.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is the right honourable Gentleman aware that one of the Members of the present Administration is a director of the P. and O. Company—Lord Selborne?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That does not arise out of the Question. The Question on the paper has been fully answered.
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I wish to ask the right honourable Gentleman whether he thinks the Lascars should not have the same—
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The honourable Member is now arguing on matters of opinion.
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I will put this Question down again to-morrow.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I will ask a Question which does arise, Sir. I wish to ask the right honourable Gentleman whether he has received, or whether any complaints have been made by the Lascars in reference to these matters?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I have not only not received any complaints, but I have no reason whatever to think that they are dissatisfied.
    MR. GILHOOLY: Does not a Lascar come within the definition of a seaman under the Act?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Notice must be given of that Question.

    HON. A. B. MORINE.
    MR. MCKENNA: I beg to postpone asking the Secretary

    627
    of State for the Colonies whether he can state if the Honourable A. B. Morine, formerly a Minister of the Colony of Newfoundland, was dispensed from further service in his office by the Governor of the Colony on grounds appertaining to his conduct as a Minister. But I will take the opportunity of asking whether it is proposed to take the Colonial Estimates to-day?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): Not in the absence of the Colonial Secretary.

    CLERKSHIPS AT THE WAR OFFICE.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what are the reasons for delaying the appointment of an incumbent to the vacant Assistant Accountant Generalship of the Army, and to the three vacant principal clerkships at the War Office; and whether the Secretary of State will favourably consider the claims of retired officers of the Army Pay Department to be appointed to vacancies on the directing staff at the War Office, if they are recommended as meritorious by the Commander-in-Chief and certified as duly qualified for civil employment?
    MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: It is intended to fill up some of the vacancies referred to. They were not tilled up as they occurred, because an inquiry into the duties of the civil staff of" the War Office was in progress. The inquiry is not yet concluded, but the Secretary of State is satisfied, having regard to other vacancies which are in prospect, that there are no sufficient reasons for entirely arresting the flow of promotion. The officers mentioned in the second paragraph of the Question would not suitably fill the vacant posts.

    EAST HAM CHILD'S DISAPPEARANCE.
    MR. DAVITT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of a little girl, six years old, daughter of Mr. John Russ, of East Ham, who disappeared after leaving school on Sunday last; is it a fact that the police of the district
    628
    were communicated with at once, but took no steps to help to trace the child until 26 hours afterwards; whether, if this statement is correct, he will order a more prompt attention on the part of the police in future cases of this kind; and whether any special effort has been made by the authorities during the past few days to discover the fate of this child?
    MR. COLLINGS: It is not a fact that the police took no steps to trace the child until 26 hours after being communicated with. A description was telegraphed to surrounding stations and telephoned to the Essex constabulary immediately it was received from the child's father. The matter was dealt with most promptly, and the most strenuous efforts have been, and are being, made to discover the missing child.

    PROPOSED RULES UNDER THE PRISON ACT, 1898.
    MR. FLOWER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will arrange that a discussion upon the draft proposed rules under the Prison Act, 1898, may take place before. 12 o'clock upon some evening appropriated to Government business, within the 30 days during which the Act directs that the rules shall be upon the Table of the House?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I am afraid I cannot give my honourable Friend any pledge on this subject. Possibly he may have an opportunity of discussing the rules before 12 o'clock, but in the present condition of public business I am not sure of being able to find an opportunity for him.

    PRIVATE BILL FEES.
    MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, considering the recommendation of the Select Committee on Private Bill Procedure (Scotland) of last Session, that, as the House fees produce a sum far in excess of the expenses incurred, they should be reduced, he will

    629
    take the necessary steps to carry out this recommendation by amending the Standing Order of 1864, by which these fees are fixed?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I do not propose to suggest to the House, in the course of the present Session at all events, any Amendment of the existing Standing Orders upon this or any other subject. I may remind the honourable Gentleman that, while our fees are regulated by Standing Order, no Resolution of this House or modification of our Standing Orders would affect the charges of fees of the House of Lords.
    MR. COGHILL: Will the right honourable Gentleman be able in any way to facilitate the discussion by the House of this subject, either on the question that "Mr. Speaker leave the Chair" or on any other occasion?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: As far as I am aware, there is no opportunity of discussing on Standing Orders, either on any Vote in the Estimates, or on the question that Mr. Speaker leave the Chair. It is not my duty to give a ruling on the subject, but I do not remember any such thing ever being done.

    THE MAHDIS TOMB.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the report with reference to the demolition of the Mahdi's tomb, and the circumstances connected therewith, which Lord Cromer has been directed by the Government to furnish, will be accessible to Members of the House of Commons; and, if so, will it be printed and circulated before the first reading of the Kitchener Bill?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Yes, Sir; before any proceedings are taken upon the vote of thanks to Lord Kitchener we shall, of course, be glad to put the House in possession of any knowledge we may possess upon this subject.
    MR. STANHOPE: May I ask the right honourable Gentleman
    630
    whether he has any information that the Soudanese desecrated the grave of General Stewart at Khartoum.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREA-TREASURY: No, Sir; I am not aware of that fact.

    SAVINGS BANK VOTE.
    MR. BARTLEY: May I ask the right honourable Gentleman whether, seeing that the Supplemental Estimate for Savings Bank Deficiencies was taken rather by surprise, the First Lord of the Treasury will put down Report of it at an early hour, so that Members who were absent when it was taken may have an opportunity of discussing it?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I cannot give any promise on the subject. I cannot admit there was any surprise in regard to the Supplementary Votes. There was no undue haste in dealing with them. It may be, however, that Report of Supply will come on at a reasonable hour.

  ST. JAMES, NORTHAMPTONSHIRE, SCHOOL.

    MOTION FOR ADJOURNMEXT OF THE HOUSE.
    MR. LABOUCHERE,Member for the Borough of Northampton, rose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz.,
    "The persistent refusal of the Managers of the only school in the urban district of St. James, Northamptonshire, to admit above 300 children of the ratepayers of the district into this school on the sole ground of their wearing a medal, thus rendering the parents of these children unable to fulfil the obligations imposed on them by law;"
    but the pleasure of the House not having been signified, MR. SPEAKER called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than 40 Members having accordingly risen.
    Motion made—"That the House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
    MR. LABOUCHERE: In spite of the laughter of honourable Gentlemen opposite, I am convinced that this is a matter of urgent public importance. It is not only urgent to the inhabitants of Northamptonshire, but it is also urgent to Dissenters in every part of the country. The case, Sir, is this: St. James End is a suburb of Northampton, containing about 6,000 inhabitants. It is in the Parliamentary Borough of Northampton, but it is not in the Municipal Borough. This suburb is attached to the school district of Dunstan Cross, and there are also two agricultural villages in the district, with the result that although, I am given to understand, the majority of the inhabitants of this urban district are in favour of Board schools, they are outvoted by the agricultural voters in the two villages outside. There is, therefore, at, present only a Church of England school there. The Church of England school is, I believe, a most estimable school, after the manner of Church of England schools. It spends £1,650 a year, and its annual subscriptions are £40 a year. In September last 150 children of Nonconformists declared, through their parents, their intention of withdrawing for the period of religious instruction. At the same time there was a conscience-class school established just opposite, where the children went to learn the leanings of their particular religion during the period that the religious instruction was given in the school. By Christmas this number had increased to about 350, 300 of whom were taught in this little conscience class, while about 50 went to the Board schools in Northampton. The numbers are exceedingly large, the House will observe—300 taught in this way in, the little room opposite the schools. Well, the conscience school met, I think, at nine o'clock, and at half-past nine the children went to be registered. On account of their number, there was some difficulty in marking them in. Consequently the heads of the conscience school thought a very simple plan would be to have a medal, upon, which was the number of the child, and by which means it would be possible to ascertain quickly how many children were present. The medal was issued on 22nd December, just before the holidays, which ended on 9th January. On that occasion—namely,
    632
    9th January—the children went across from this little school to the large Church of England school with the medals on them. They were told by the teachers to take them off. The children, like all Northampton parents—very much amenable to the law—took off the medals, but there was one little girl who had strong views on the subject—or perhaps I ought to say that her mother had strong views on the subject, for she had sewn the medal on to the child's pinafore. The pinafore was taken off, a pair of scissors was placed in her hands, and, under the eyes of the schoolmistress, the girl was forced to cut the medal off the pinafore, thus injuring the pinafore. The girl, still feeling that she ought to obey the direct orders of her mother, put the medal on again, upon which she was caned and otherwise punished. Of course, this excited a great deal of indignation among the parents, and on the following day they told their children to wear the medals. They therefore presented themselves with the medals, but were refused admission, and had been locked out ever since. Now there is an inscription on this medal. The inscription, I believe, is a very sound one, and though I do not wear medals myself, I should be proud to have such an inscription on any medal of mine. It is, "We want a Board school." But the inscription has nothing to do with the question. The managers have laid down that these children are not to he admitted if they wear any medal whatsoever, as is clear from the following notice which has been served on the parents—
    "January 12th.
    "Dear Sir,—I have to inform you that the wearing of medals"—[not this medal, hut "medals"]—"is contrary to the rules of the St. James's School. I am compelled, therefore, to refuse your children admission as long as they come to school wearing medals."
    Well, Sir, that is a very remarkable order to give, because we know perfectly well that there are medals—or ribbons identical with medals—which children do wear. I believe there are children who belong to the White Cross Society, who wear white medals, and children belonging to the Band of Hope, who wear blue medals, and everybody knows that Catholic children very often wear medals, or a cross, bearing the words "Ave Maria." And am I told that the managers of a Voluntary school are to say that the children

    633
    attending it shall not wear medals? It is absurd. But it is even worse than it appears, because I am credibly informed that a great many ritualistic curates appear in these Voluntary Church of England schools wearing crosses. Are curates to be allowed to wear an equivalent to a medal showing their views with regard to religion, and the children to be refused? Sir, I have had an interview with my right honourable Friend the Vice-President of the Council. The Vice-President of the Council was very conciliatory, I admit, but he was firm. He said, as I gathered, that the managers were right, or that they were not so far wrong that he ought to interfere in the matter. But that is not the point. For many years this school has been kept entirely by funds and subscriptions from the State. The children have only this school to go to, and many parents feel that they would not be fulfilling their proper obligations if their children were not cancelled there. We know perfectly well what happens in country districts where there is a Church of England school only—the clergyman is the great man of the place; there is no one to interfere with him. Put if you allow this inroad upon the rights of Nonconformists in a suburb of Northampton, we can well imagine what will take place in country schools. The children, as I have said, have this little conscience school, where they attend to the number of about 300. It may be asked, Why don't they go to the Board schools of Northampton? Well, the reason is that the nearest Board school is a mile and a quarter from St. James End. That is a long way to send little children; and in the nearest school there is no room for them. The other school is a mile and a half distant, in addition to which the road is very bad, and there is a great deal of traffic upon it. It would, therefore, be very undesirable, and almost impossible, to compel little children to trudge through a long country road, backwards and forwards, to school. The parents, therefore, are in this position—they are stopped from fulfilling their legal obligations, and, as I say, stopped unfairly and improperly, and yet the Department will not interfere and put an end to this state of things. I quite admit that I think it would be desirable if St. James End were separated from the rural villages by making it a school district, or joining it
    634
    to the Board school district of Northampton; and if the right honourable Gentleman the Vice-President will assure me that he will alter the present arrangement, and that in future—or as soon as possible; I do not mention any particular time—St. James End shall have a school district of its own, or that it shall be added to. Northampton, I will not press the matter, but will even try and arrange some sort of modus vivendi. I will go so far as to say that I will urge the parents—notwithstanding their undoubted rights—to withdraw this medal for the time being. Sir, I want the House clearly to understand what I am moving the Adjournment for. The question is not whether these children are to be allowed this particular medal with this particular inscription, but whether they are to be allowed to wear any medal. To my mind, the action of the managers at St. James End imposes not merely a disability, but an insult upon the parents, and I contend that the right honourable Gentleman ought to tell them that the present state of affairs is not to continue. Putting aside the fact that it is very possible that parents may be liable to pains and penalties, it really is a sad thing that you should, have a school maintained almost entirely by the State, and yet that there should be 300 little children turned adrift into the streets day after day, and not able to get any sort of education except the little voluntary education which is given them. In order to meet the difficulty, the children ought to be allowed to go into this school—that is the point—with their medals or without them; and unless I receive a satisfactory assurance from the right honourable Gentleman, I shall take the sense of the House upon the matter.
    MR. CHANNING: Representing, as I do, an adjoining constituency to that of the honourable Member for Northampton, and having interested myself in this subject, I should like to say a few words in seconding his proposal for the Adjournment of the House. The question is, after all, a very simple one. The State has paid £1,660 a year for the education of certain children in this district, while the voluntary contributions are only £37 10s., and yet the children of this school are being deprived of the education which has been paid for in this

    635
    enormous proportion by the taxpayers of the State. The right honourable Gentleman who represents the State, in his reply this afternoon, so far as I understand, accepts the managers' excuse as a reasonable cause for their withholding the education that they have contracted to give these 300 or 400 children, and for which the State is paying £45 down for every subscriber's £1, and says that the wearing of a simple little medal or badge on the breasts of these children is a sufficient reason for these managers refusing to fulfil the contract. That is the point, Mr. Speaker, and it is a point which the right honourable Gentleman cannot fly away from with his usual jests and subterfuges. [Ministerial laughter, and cries of "Oh!"] I am sorry I have betrayed myself into an expression of that kind, and I will withdraw any word that may be considered in the least offensive to the right honourable Gentleman. I do, however, want the House to realise that what is apparently a trivial question, which honourable Members opposite laugh at, is a very serious question indeed. These children are being withdrawn by their parents, under the law of the land—under the 7th section of the Education Act of 1870. They are perfectly within their right in withdrawing those children from the religious instruction of the school, and having at the same time the benefit of the whole of the secular instruction. Now, Sir, my honourable Friend has laboured this case somewhat before the House, but I would ask the indulgence of the House for a moment while I say one or two words about it. I should like to ask the right honourable Gentleman specifically whether, in the first place, he admits that the managers of any school can make any rules they please as to the apparel children shall wear, or shall not wear? The right honourable Gentleman shakes his head. I am very glad he does, because I have always regarded him as a man of intellectual force. I would, however, remind him that his inspector, at the somewhat farcical inquiry he held at Northampton, said that it was perfectly within the right of managers to make any rule whatsoever with regard to the schools. I was reading the other day the very interesting auto biography of my honourable Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr.
    636
    Arch), edited by Lady Warwick. In that book there is a description of a Warwickshire parson, who imposed upon all the children in the village school a certain way of cutting their hair. The mother of my honourable Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk was, however, a plucky Nonconformist, and she had the courage to face the parson's wife, and the result was that this absurd regulation was knocked on the head. I would ask the right honourable Gentleman whether he would have approved of rules like that? I would also ask him whether these managers have said that they would allow no medals whatever to he worn in the school? In 1897 these children were allowed to wear the Jubilee medals in the school, and my honourable Friend has referred to the case of Catholic children. Suppose a committee of managers of an extremely anti-Catholic type were to pass a rule that no Catholic child should appear in the Church of England schools with a cross or one of the innocent little medals of the the Catholic religious societies—a badge indicating the particular religion of the wearer? Surely the right honourable Gentleman would not accept that as a sufficient reason for excluding a child from school. Now, Sir, I contend that there is animus behind the whole of these proceedings. I wish the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Dartford had been in his place. He would have remembered, if the present Vice-President does not, that I drew the attention of the House to a similar case six or seven years ago, where parents had withdrawn their children under the Conscience Clause from the religious teaching in the Church school at Ringstead, in Northamptonshire. The clergyman in that case was as despotic in his treatment of those children as the clergyman in the present case. When the children returned to the school after the religious teaching they were each day humiliated by being put at the bottom of the class. Now, I drew the attention of the then Vice-President, the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Dartford, to the case, and he very frankly said that it would be a breach of the Conscience Clause, and he righted the matter. Well, Sir, I say this matter is very much more serious. It is not a matter of

    637
    treating these children with disparagement and with contumely in the school; it is a matter of depriving them by this shallow and miserable pretext of these medals of the education which they are entitled to receive, and which the right honourable Gentleman is paid his salary by the country to see that they are receiving and will receive. Now, Sir, I should like to know whether the right honourable Gentleman is the man who ought to challenge the right to use some distinctive badge, when he was responsible for the introduction of the Education Bill of 1806, which came to so miserable a fate in the House. That Bill contained a clause, as many honourable Members will recollect, in which it was provided that religious teachers of all denominations should have access to the schools, and have the children of their particular denomination set aside and marked off from the others. The 27th clause of the Education Bill provided that the religious teacher should have access to the schools.
    *THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL (Sir JOHN GORST,): No.
    MR. CHANNING: Well, the right honourable Gentleman can explain his Bill again in any way he pleases, but the impression on my mind is—
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The honourable Member is travelling away from the subject of the Debate.
    MR. CHANNINO,: Mr. Speaker, with all respect, I would submit to you that my argument is this—that, in order to carry out the object which proposed, in the 27th clause of the Hill of 1896—namely, to have separate religious teaching in the schools by the teachers of various denominations, it would be necessary to have some mark of distinction on the different sets of children. It would be almost impossible to work that clause without some kind of distinctive badge. That is the sole object with which I desire to put that question. I think it is perfectly clear that these people are acting in a practical and reasonable spirit in wishing to have some token or badge on these 300 or 400 children, so that they may be taken off to their own
    638
    schoolroom and taught there. Now, Sir, I have read the speech of the Rev. Mr. Hurrell, in which he refers to the whole question of the withdrawal of these children, and anyone reading that speech will see the animus there is behind the whole of these proceedings. The order with reference to the medals is a pretext associated with other humiliations imposed on children and their parents, with the set purpose of coercing the children back into the flock of the Rev. Mr. Hurrell to learn his catechism. It is a policy of coercion from beginning to end, and nothing but coercion. To forbid 300 or 400 children to enter the schools because they wear a medal is a miserable pettifogging pretext to oppress humble Nonconformists, and deprive them of the educational advantages the law allows.
    *SIR J. GORST: Mr. Speaker, this is a very small matter on which to move the adjournment of the House, but it is one which deserves the attention of the House, because it is a novel and, I think, not at all a praiseworthy method of carrying on the agitation in favour of Board schools. The people of St. James' End are prompted by outside influence, and largely by a society of which, I believe, the honourable Member who has just spoken is a distinguished member.
    MR. CHANNING: If the right honourable Gentleman refers to the Education League in Northampton, I have nothing to do with it. I am a member of the Northamptonshire County Education League, founded by Lord Spencer, but that association has taken no official part whatever in these proceedings.
    *SIR JOHN GORST: It is one of its ramifications. The agitation began after the election in August last, in which the School Board party were defeated, and one of the first steps was to withdraw more than 300 children from the school under the Conscience Clause. Here let me say that there has been a great deal of misapprehension among honourable Members about the power of the Conscience Clause. There is a right to withdraw children from religious infraction, but not to withdraw them from a school.
    MR. LABOUCHEBE: Will the right honourable Gentleman allow me to explain? The managers have no accommodation for separate teachings; they have one schoolroom only.
    *SIR J. GORST: I understand that the managers of the Church schools are very glad to allow the teaching of the children in the conscience school. The difficulty often arises in various parts of England and Wales, and the state of the law is not at all satisfactory. School Boards are within their right in making such arrangements as they please as to the time for religious instruction. I will give the House an illustration of what occurred in a village school a short time ago. A little Nonconformist girl was separated from the rest of the village school at the time of religious instruction, but, woman-like, she paid especial attention to what she was forbidden to hear, and when the time came for the annual examination by the diocesan inspector, that little girl went in for the Scripture examination, and won the prize. The House will remember that in 1896 the Government tried to induce the House of Commons to assent to a real Conscience Clause which would allow children not only to be withdrawn from religious instruction, but to have such religious instruction as the parents preferred, and this clause would have made absolutely legal the course taken by the Nonconformists at St. James's End. But that clause was bitterly opposed. And who opposed it? The very Nonconformist Party who now complain of the inefficiency of the existing Conscience Clause. Well, the next step taken by the Education League of Northampton was to send children to school decorated with medals, a specimen of which I hold in my hand. Everybody knows how easy it is by giving children emblems to make violent partisans of them. If you give them a piece of ribbon or a rosette to wear you may turn them into partisans of almost any cause you like. But what a pity to do so! How much a proceeding of that kind interferes with the good order and discipline of a school. The honourable Member for Northampton mentioned the fact that the little girl was punished. I regret that she should have been punished for refusing to obey the order to take the medal off, but I would ask
    640
    right honourable Members to carry their recollection back to their boyhood days, and think of what would have been the fate of a boy who refused to remove a medal or party emblem when told to do so by his class-master. Well, this medal was intended to indicate that the little girl was taking a particular side in the contest that was going on. The Department sent down the senior chief inspector, who was, of course, the best official we could send, and who was entirely impartial in the matter, because he happened to be neither a Nonconformist nor a Churchman. The inspector reported to me that this particular medal was provocative and intended to provoke. The honourable Member has asked me what rules managers may make for observance in their schools. They may make such rules as they think fit and which are reasonably necessary for the maintenance of discipline and good order in their schools. The Committee of Council are of opinion that a rule which prohibits children from wearing medals which are provocative or intended to provoke, so long as it is impartially administered on both sides, is a very good rule, and sufficient reason for managers and teachers refusing to allow children wearing such medals in their schools. Where there is risk of quarrel and in this case there had been fights already—I think it is perfectly reasonable—and I hope the House of Commons will admit it—for the managers to prohibit partisan medals altogether. But I have a great authority on this subject. The honourable Member for Northampton has himself written a letter—I read the letter at the time it was written—in which there is some extremely good sense. I will read a sentence to the House—
    "Apart from the question of a School Board the question seems to me to be this: Have the children the right to wear a medal of a Party and controversial character?"
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I had some doubt whether it could be done without the permission of the right honourable Gentleman, and I wondered whether the right honourable Gentleman was prepared to give the permission.
    *SIR J. GORST: The honourable Gentleman thought, at all events, that there was a great deal of doubt about it. I myself have inquired

    641
    through a senior chief inspector, and I have no doubt about it. The Education Department, though they much regret the unfortunate quarrel going on in Northampton, are perfectly prepared to support the managers of the schools. Now, may I say one word in the hope that this unfortunate difference may be put an end to? I do not blame the children of Northampton, and I do not very much blame the parents, because, as I say, they have been worked upon by outside influence. But I do blame the noblemen and gentlemen and Members of Parliament who have encouraged them to carry on this unfortunate quarrel in which the children are the only sufferers. The battle between the Voluntary schools and the Board schools will, I suppose, continue to be waged through all our time. Let us carry it on by all legitimate means, but don't let us bring the children into it. So far as I know, there is no religious difficulty between the teachers and the parents. I have not had one single instance brought to my notice in which the religious difficulty has not been imported from the outside from political motives, and if the honourable Members for Northampton and Northamptonshire will only use their influence to induce the parents of these children to let their children return to school, I am quite sure they will consent in a moment. The moment outside influence is withdrawn I believe the children will be allowed to return to school.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have only one word to add to the Debate. I should like to point out to the House that the right honourable Gentleman very cleverly evaded the whole issue. The question is not whether these children, by wearing the medal, have been guilty of a breach of discipline, but whether that breach of discipline has been sufficient to justify the managers of the schools in excluding
    them from the educational advantages provided by the State. The ruling which has been laid down by the Department is to the effect that breaches of discipline should be met by the ordinary laws. How is it that the rule laid down by the Privv Council does not apply to this particular case? I venture to submit to the House that the special rule has been made in order to assist the clergyman who happens to manage this school to use too much influence over the children in the matter of religious instruction.
    SIR J. BRENNER: I understand that the honourable Member for Northampton will withdraw his Motion to-day if he can get a satisfactory answer from the right honourable Gentleman the Vice-President of the Council. Whether my honourable Friend thinks that he will receive a satisfactory answer or not, I really do not know. I am bound to say, Sir, that the answer that he has received is not satisfactory to me. My honourable Friend the Member for Northamptonshire when he said that there was animus behind this matter, encountered a cheer from the other side. I was pleased to hear it, and I am very much obliged to the honourable Member for giving honourable Gentlemen opposite an opportunity to cheer and laugh. There is animus, Sir, and I shall give my vote in favour of the Motion of my honourable Friend in order to protest against clericalism, and I shall take care to represent any votes given against the Motion as votes of approval of clericalism. Many honourable Gentlemen have a large proportion of Dissenters among their constituents, and I give them distinct notice that I intend to do so.
    Question put—
    "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
    The House divided:—Ayes 99; Noes 201. (Division List, No. 21.).

    AYES.

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

    Wake, Edward

    Clough, Walter Owen

    Allan, William (Gateshead)

    Brunner, Sir J. Tomlinson

    Colville, John

    Allen, W.(Newc.-under-Lyme)

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Commins, Andrew

    Allison, Robert Andrew

    Burt, Thomas

    Crombie, John William

    Asher, Alexander

    Caldwell, James

    Daly, James

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Cameron, Sir Chas. (Glasgow)

    Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

    Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

    Davitt, Michael

    Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Dillon, John

    Birrell, Augustine

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

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Duckworth, James

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Spicer, Albert

    Farquharson, Dr. Robert

    Mappin, Sir Fredk. Thorpe

    Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

    Mellor, Rt. Hn. J. W. (Yorks.)

    Steadman, William Charles

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

    Stevenson, Francis S.

    Gold, Charles

    Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

    Strachey, Edward

    Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

    O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Hayne, Rt. Hon Chas. Scale-

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Hazell, Walter

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Wallace, Robert (Perth)

    Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

    Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.

    Perks, Robert Willliam

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Holland, W. H. (York, W.R.)

    Pickard, Benjamin

    Wedderburn, Sir William

    Jacoby, James Alfrel

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Weir, James Galloway

    Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Price, Robert John

    Williams, J. Carvell (Notts.)

    Kinloch, Sir J. George Smyth

    Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.)

    Wills, Sir William Henry

    Lambert, George

    Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

    Wilson, John (Govan)

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

    Leng, Sir John

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

    Woods, Samuel

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

    Lloyd-George, David

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Logan, John William

    Scott, C. Prestwich (Leigh)

    Lough, Thomas

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Sinclair. Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

    Mr. Labouchere and Mr. Channing.

    MacNeill, J. Gordon Swift

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    M'Cartan, Michael

    Souttar, Robinson

    NOES.

    Arehdale, Edward Mervyn

    Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

    Hobhouse, Henry

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Dorington, Sir John Edward

    Holland, Hn. Lionel R. (Bow)

    Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Howard, Joseph

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Drage, Geoffrey

    Howell, William Tudor

    Baird, John George Alexander

    Drucker, A.

    Hozier, Hon. James H. Cecil

    Balcarres, Lord

    Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

    Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

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

    Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

    Hutton, John (Yorks. N.R.)

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

    Elliot. Hon. A. R. Douglas

    Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

    Barnes, Frederic Gorell

    Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Barry,Rt. Hn. A.H. Smith-(Hunts)

    Finch, George H.

    Kemp, George

    Barry, Sir F. T. (Windsor)

    Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

    Bartley, George C. T.

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Kenyon, James

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Fison, Frederick William

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. Wm.

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

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    Kimber, Henry

    Beckett, Ernest William

    Fletcher, Sir Henry

    Knowles, Lees

    Bethell, Commander

    Flower, Ernest

    Lafone, Alfred

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Folkestone, Viscount

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Biddulph, Michael

    Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

    Lawrence, SirE.Durning-(Corn

    Bill, Charles

    Fry, Lewis

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Lawson. John Grant (Yorks.)

    Bolitho, Thomas Bedfo'rd

    Garfit, William

    Lecky, Rt. Hon. W. Edw. H.

    Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme

    Gibbs, Hn. A.G. H.(City Lond.)

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    Leighton, Stanley

    Boulnois, Edmund

    Gilliat, John Saunders

    Llewellyn, Evan H. (Somerset)

    Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)

    Goldsworthy, Major-General

    Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Swansea

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

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

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir. J. Eldon

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

    Goschen,RtHn G.J. (St.Geo.'s)

    Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

    Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool)

    Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Lopes, Henry Yarde Duller

    Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Lowe, Francis William

    Chelsea, Viscount

    Green, W D. (Wednesbury)

    Lowles, John

    Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

    Gull, Sir Cameron

    Lowther, Rt. Hon. Jas. (Kent)

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Halsey, Thomas Frederick

    Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo.

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Rbt. Wm.

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

    Macdona, John Gumming

    Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

    Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

    MacIver, David (Liverpool)

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Heath, James

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

    Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

    Heaton, John Henniker

    M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh,W.)

    Curzon, Viscount

    Hermon-Hodge, Rbt. Trotter

    Malcolm, Ian

    Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

    Hill, Rt. Hn. A. S. (Staffs.)

    Marks, Henry Hananel

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead)

    Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

    Davenport, W. Bromley-

    Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    644

    645

    Milner, Sir Fredk. George

    Russell, Gen. F.S. (Cheltenham)

    Thorburn, Walter

    Monckton, Edward Philip

    Rutherford, John

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Monk, Charles James

    Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Moore, Count (Londonderry)

    Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. Myles

    Valentia, Viscount

    More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

    Savory, Sir Joseph

    Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H.

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

    Seton-Karr, Henry

    Ward, Hn. Robert A. (Crewe)

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

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Warr, Augustus Frederick

    Nicol, Donal Ninian

    Shaw-Stewart, M.H. (Renfrew)

    Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

    Norton, Capt. Cecil Wm.

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

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

    O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Wentworth, B. C. Vernon

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

    Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

    Whiteley, George (Stockport)

    Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

    Smith, J. Parker (Lanarks.)

    Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

    Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

    Spencer, Ernest

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

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

    Wyndham, George

    Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

    Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth)

    Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edw.

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

    Purvis, Robert

    Stephens, Henry Charles

    Young, Commander (Berks,E.)

    Pym, C. Guy

    Stock, James Henry

    Richards, Henry Charles

    Strauss, Arthur

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

    Sturt, Hon. Humphrey Napier

    Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

    Robinson, Brooke

    Sutherland, Sir Thomas

    Roothschild, Hon. Lionel W.

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Round, James

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

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    Houses of Lords and Commons Permanent Staff,—That they have appointed a Committee of Five Lords to join with a Committee of this House to consider and report on the subject of the Houses of Lords and Commons Permanent Staff, and request that this House will be pleased to appoint an equal number of its Members to be joined with the said Lords.
NEW BILLS.

  REGULATION OF RAILWAYS BILL.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,)I beg leave to introduce a Rill to extend and amend the Railway Regulation Acts. The Bill is introduced for the purpose of devising some means by which, if possible, the number of accidents which happen to railway servants in the performance of their duties can be reduced. I am afraid that, whatever we do, a number of accidents amongst railway servants will continue to happen. They are engaged in extremely dangerous operations, and necessarily many accidents must and will continue to occur. But, Sir, if it is possible by legislation or otherwise to take means to reduce the number of accidents I think it is the bounden duty of Parliament to take those means. Now, Sir, the most dangerous of all the operations which railway servants undertake are those in connection with shunting and the coupling and uncoupling of wagons, for this makes it necessary for the ser-
  646
  vants engaged in these operations to get between the trucks, and therefore many fatal and other accidents are annually occurring. Well, Sir, the attention, of the House of Commons has for the last three or four years been called to this state of things, and the Government have determined to take some steps by which the lives of the men so employed may be safeguarded. [At this stage the right honourable Gentleman's remarks were interrupted for a short space of time by the cries of a gentleman who sat under the Gallery usually reserved for permanent officials of Government Departments, who had been seized with a fit. The sufferer having been carried out of the Chamber by the officers of the House, the right honourable Gentleman resumed.] Sir, the attention of Parliament has been more than once, of late years, called to the desirability of adopting some means by which these accidents might, to some extent, be avoided, and it is not only in this country that attention has been called to these matters. In the United States of America, in 1893, the Congress there passed a law providing that within five years automatic couplings should be provided and fitted to all rolling stock, and thus the necessity for men going between the trucks would be avoided. That term of five years has now been extended two years longer, and in the year 1900, I understand that the whole of the rolling stock in the United States will be furnished with these automatic couplings. They have been found, so far as they have gone, largely to reduce the number of accidents which occur, and so the

  647
  object of the present Bill is to follow the example which has been set us by our cousins in the United States, and to ask Parliament to give the Board of Trade power at the end of five years to call upon the railway companies of this country to supply the whole of their rolling stock with automatic couplings.
  MR. DAVITT: Will the Bill apply to Ireland?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: Certainly. The Bill provides that no railway company will be allowed, after the expiry of the time, to draw any truck, whether belonging to a private owner or not, which has not automatic couplings. There are one or two other matters of importance dealt with in the Bill. The Measure provides that after two years the Board of Trade can also order steam brakes to be put on all engines. There are a very large number of engines now furnished with steam brakes, but many of them are not so furnished, and as it is quite clear that steam brakes can be applied much more rapidly and much more effectually than any other brake, the Bill provides that they shall be provided. We also provide that hand-brakes shall be supplied to both sides of the trucks, and by that means we render it unnecessary for a man to have to go from one side of a truck to the other. Sir, we also make the same provision with regard to labelling the trucks. We shall make it necessary, after the expiry of two years, that all trucks shall be provided with labels on both sides, which will also render it unnecessary for the railway servant to go from one side of the truck to another. Besides this, we also make a provision with regard to communication between pasengers and the driver and guard. At present the law does not apply unless the train proceeds a distance of over 20 miles without stopping. We shall make the law in future applicable to all trains, however shortly they run, and we shall provide that in two years these passenger communications approved by the Board of Trade shall be applied to all trains. The only other provision in the Bill which I will refer to is a financial one, which will make it easier for the railway companies to incur
  648
  this necessary expenditure. I think a provision of that kind the House of Commons will think desirable and necessary. I am satisfied, Sir, that if this Act becomes law the railway companies will find, as they have found in the United States, that there will not only be a very large saving in the number of accidents to life and limb, but they will also find that the convenience of moving about their trucks will be so great that they will not desire to revert back to the old system.
  Bill presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. (Bill 99.)

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING (CLAUSES) BILL.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I have now to ask leave to introduce a Bill for incorporating in one Act certain provisions usually contained in Provisional Orders under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888. Honourable Members who are familiar with Provisional Orders under the Electric Lighting Acts know that, in every Electric Lighting Order, some 70 or 80 clauses are incorporated in the Bill, these clauses being almost identical in every one of the Electric Lighting Orders-made. This entails very great expense and very great delay in connection with these orders, and it also creates considerable liability to mistakes. We propose by this Bill to provide that, instead of setting out on every Electric Lighting Order, as is now done, the whole of those 70 or 80 clauses, they may be incorporated as is now done in regard to the Clauses Act. This change will effect a very considerable saving both in time and in money. They will not be of the stereotyped order, but the Board of Trade will have the power to vary them, if necessary, in respect of any particular order.
  Bill presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. (Bill 100.)

  ANCHORS AND CHAIN CABLES BILL.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: The next Bill which I ask the permission of the House to introduce is a Measure to simplify and amend the law relating to the testing and sale of anchors and chain cables. It is practically a consolidation Bill. The law now provides that anchors and chain cables used on board ship shall be subjected to the test, but the law has been found to be extremely unsatisfactory. It is contained in three or four Acts of Parliament, and it has been pointed out to the Board of Trade that this renders the law extremely uncertain, because these Acts are not altogether in accord the one with the other. Thus the law is very easily evaded, and it is also very difficult to enforce. There is only one new provision in this Measure. We find that private testing firms are in the habit of putting on marks which are of a character likely to make it appear that those articles have been tested under the auspices of the Board of Trade. Now we do not desire to prevent private establishments testing and putting marks on anchorage and chain cables, but we do desire to provide that when those articles are tested at a private establishment, and not at the public establishment licensed by the Board of Trade, they should have upon them a clear and distinct mark which will show that they have been tested privately, and not by those officers appointed by the Board of Trade.
  Bill presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. (Bill 101.)

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES), 1898–9.

    CLASS II.
    1. Motion made, and Question proposed—
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,400, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1899, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs."
    Motion made, and Question proposed—
    "That Item A (Salaries), be reduced by £100."—(Sir Charles Dilke.)

  FOREIGN OFFICE ADMINISTRATION.
  *SIR C. DILKE: This money concerns two subjects—telegrams, upon which, by the rules of recent years, it is impossible to raise the question of policy; and the item for the salary of the new Assistant Under Secretary in the Foreign Office. Last year, when this appointment was first rumoured, and afterwards announced, some questions were put here as to the reasons which had made it necessary to appoint this new Assistant Secretary, and the statement made here was that the appointment was due to a very great increase in the work of the Foreign Office. Now, anyone who has watched the conduct of the Foreign Office during the last few years is aware that an enormous number of new duties—not only new in bulk, but new in character—have recently been thrown on the Foreign Office by the policy of this country. This is not a Party question, because it has gradually grown up under successive Governments; but it is a matter thoroughly deserving the attention of the House, and which is distinctly brought before it for the first time by its inclusion in this Estimate. Now, this great increase in the work of the Foreign Office has, in my opinion—and we shall hear what the Under Secretary has to say with regard to it—been mainly caused by the Foreign Office undertaking duties which are not properly duties appertaining to the Foreign Office at all, and carrying on the government in Colonies and undertaking wars; and having, in fact, all these miscel-

  651
  laneous duties which have at other times been thrown upon the Colonial Office and India Office, which have a staff for the purpose, and which have not before been discharged by the Foreign Office. Some years ago there was one particular case where such duties were, for a short time, thrown on the Foreign Office. There were then strong reasons for throwing the government of the Colony in that case on the Foreign Office; but peculiar as it was, that arrangement was brought to an end because it was found thoroughly unsatisfactory. For that technicality there were no doubt reasons which made it necessary that the work should be thrown on the Foreign Office. It was the Under Secretary of State and the head of the Turkish Department spending all their time upon devising uniforms for a police force which brought that to an end. It is only quite recently that such a system has sprung up again, and if you will look at the new work in the Foreign Office for the last few years, I think the House will be astonished when it goes through the list of the new duties which have been thrown on the Foreign Office in connection with countries, some of them foreign, some of them Protectorates, and some of them real Colonies. Of course, with regard to the duties which have been thrown on the Foreign Office in connection with Egypt, that arrangement was probably inevitable. There are probably circumstances connected with our position in Egypt, which make it impossible for any Office but the Foreign Office to deal with; and that may, to some extent, account for the new duties thrown upon it in connection with the arrangement as described here as regards the Soudan. But outside the great additional duties which have been thrown upon the Foreign Office in connection with Egypt and the Soudan, there have very recently sprung up new duties in connection with the Foreign Office which belong really to the Colonial Office, for they concern Colonies of this country, for which the Foreign Office is not the proper Office to carry out those duties. I do not speak as an enemy of the Foreign Office, but as a great admirer of it, having a great respect for its staff of clerks. The more one looks into this question the more one feels convinced that the Foreign
  652
  Office ought to discharge diplomatic duties, and not the duties of government and of carrying on war. I hope we shall have an opportunity to consider how far the Foreign Office can possibly carry out military duties, apart from the control of the War Office, which would give an uniformity of system which at present is wholly wanting. Well, now, Sir, as to the matters which are entirely new duties at the Foreign Office. There is the control of Uganda and of Unyoro; the control of Zanzibar, the Protectorate of British East Africa and Somaliland. Now, no statement has yet been made to this House upon this subject, and it is a matter upon which I would invite the Under Secretary to tell us what is the fact. It has been stated that the India Office is making Somaliland a Foreign Office matter, but I do not know whether that will carry or will not carry the Island of Sokotra. Then there is British Central Africa, which is a pure colony, where there is no native Government of any kind, such as that which we generally contemplate when we talk about the Protectorates. British Central Africa is a pure colony, and absolutely indistinguishable from other Colonies in the same neighbourhood which are under the control of a different Office—namely, the Colonial Office. It may be said that there is some difficulty in cutting off from the-Foreign Office the control of countries like Unyoro, because of its nearness to the Soudan, but there is a great gap of space between those countries on the East Coast of Africa which are accessible from the Indian Ocean and the Soudan. There is a much greater gap than between the countries which the Foreign Office governs in South Africa and the countries with which the Colonial Office has to deal in South Africa. Everything south of the Zambesi, although under the High Commissioner and under the Chartered Company, is dealt with by the Colonial Office, and everything north of the Zambesi is dealt with by the Foreign Office, though under the same persons. In Barotseland, for example, we have the Foreign Office control; but across the Zambesi we have Colonial Office control, and the thing is a working arrangement between the two offices. I think this is a matter which deserves the at-

  653
  tention of the House, especially when a demand is being made upon us for a new Assistant Under Secretary of State, who seems to be required on account of the new work thrown upon the Foreign Office in connection with these eight Protectorates which I have described. In addition to these there is the work of the Foreign Office on the West Coast of Africa. That, I believe, the Foreign Office is now getting rid of. The Under Secretary ought to tell us what are the arrangements come to between the Foreign Office and the Colonial Office with regard to the Niger Protectorate. That has hitherto been under the Foreign Office, and we hear that that is in future, to be under the control of the Colonial Office. I think we ought to be told whether the Foreign Office has already got rid of its work on the West Coast of Africa. This work is purely Colonial in these countries, and yet they are really governed by the Foreign Office, although they should be governed, like any other Colonies, by the Colonial Office. I should probably not be in order on this Vote if I were to enlarge upon the facts in regard to the various individual instances; but we shall have another opportunity of considering the effect of Foreign Office control on the government of Uganda, and it will be better probably that I should reserve that matter for discussion upon a later item than to attempt to discuss it upon this particular Vote. We all know with regard to this subject what has been the result of our attempt to govern Uganda and Somaliland by the Foreign Office. We have discussed this matter on a former occasion, but very briefly, and we are now being invited to discuss it again. If the present state of things is a temporary arrangement, can we consider that the existing wars in Uganda will give us a state of things which holds out the hope that there will be any change in the administration as carried out at the present time. I think affairs in Uganda are going from had to worse. The time has come when the Foreign Office ought to make up its mind to part with its eight or nine Colonial dominions, and hand them over to some other authority more fitted to administer them. I shall conclude by moving a reduction of £100 in respect of the salary of the new Assistant Under Secretary of State for
  654
  Foreign Affairs, and, unless very clear explanations are given in the House, I shall have to divide the Committee on the subject.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRODRICK,): The matter which has fallen from the right honourable Gentleman has been, to some extent, I think, mixed up with other Questions which do not altogether govern the increase that has been made to the staff of the Foreign Office. The right honourable Baronet has rather assumed that the increase in the Foreign Office staff would not have been necessary except for the assumption of extraneous duties by the Foreign Office. Sir, I do not think that would be borne out by anybody. I shall deal presently with what has fallen from the right honourable Gentleman in that, particular; but I do not think that anybody can doubt, that, if the staff of the Foreign Office, was only adequate in times gone by, it is now extremely inadequate. It is not necessary to go back a great number of 3rears, because we know that fifty years ago all the offices were on a very easygoing footing. To go no further back than the Parliamentary career of the right honourable Gentleman himself. Between 1883 and 1898 the development of the Foreign Office has been prodigious. In 1883 the number of dispatches that came in and went out of the Foreign Office were 70,000. In 1888 they had risen to 75,000; in 1893 it was 88,000; and between 1893 and 1898 they rose by progressive steps from 88,000 to 102,000—making an increase in the number of the dispatches passing through, in and out, the Foreign Office of 32,000 in a period of 15 years. During all that time there has not been an appreciable increase in the staff, and I am bound to say, with perhaps some knowledge, having spent a great number of years in another department, I do not think it is possible to over-rate the amount of time and attention that is given in the Foreign Office by the higher permanent officials. Not one of the present permanent officials has for years past been able to take his annual holiday completely. They are there to a late hour at night, and I know that a great many of them work at home as well. But, whether they work at home or not, the increase in

  655
  the staff is absolutely necessary. Last year the increase in the staff was too moderate, and it was absolutely necessary that, there should be a further increase of the staff in the present year. Looking at the question the right honourable Gentleman has raised, I am not quite sure that he is right in saving the pressure in the Foreign Office has been caused through Uganda. But, after all, what is the reason why this country is not administered by the Colonial Office? Surely that is obvious. Every step involves the conduct of Foreign Affairs. So long as you are negotiating in Africa with Germany, France, Belgium, and Italy those questions can only be dealt with by the Foreign Office. In the negotiations that are going on in regard to the Protectorates, question after question arises with which only the Foreign Office can deal; and to hand the Protectorates concerned over to the Colonial Office would only cause an immense amount of departmental correspondence. On the other hand, I think it is desirable that those matters which can be handed over to the Colonial Office should lie so handed over. For instance, the Niger Protectorate will be taken over by the Colonial Office during the present year. The administration of Somaliland is now in the hands of the Foreign Office, having been transferred from the India Office; and as regards the other African Protectorates, they cannot be separated because they are being administered as a whole. The officials of the one work with the officials of the other, and the troops of one have lately been employed by another. It has been necessary to continue to work them together up to the present. As to Uganda and the prospect of quietness there, I will not deal with that question now, as that can be dealt with on the larger Tote for Uganda, which has been put down. One of the difficulties, I may say, of handing over these matters to the Colonial Office is that that department is very cramped for space, and they do not care to take any more work there than they can help. I do not think I need add anything to that, except to say, with regard to all these things, it is a matter of convenience, and I cannot see that it can be carried on any better by one department than by another. I am not specially in love myself with the
  656
  principle of the Foreign Office having to carry on military expeditions, but at the same time I cannot say that we have ever found, where that has to be done, that the efforts of the Foreign Office compare unfavourably with the efforts of the War Office in connection with our small wars. They have been carried on with celerity, and I do not think that there has been any greater expense, and, indeed, I think the House will find that the public purse has been most rigidly guarded; and I think there has been no difference between the War Office and the Foreign Office, and that the agreement with regard to the nomination of proper persons to take command has been complete.
  SIR E. GREY: I do not think there is really a very great difference of opinion between us upon this question as to whether the Foreign Office ought to administer these large territories or not. The question is not whether the Foreign Office administers Protectorates well or with less trouble and expense than the other offices or departments can do it, but whether, in the long run, administration is not a kind of work which ought, as far as possible, to be managed by one office. There ought to be a large staff of officials under one office, trained for the purposes of administration, and capable of being-transferred from one territory to another. Clearly, that one office cannot be the Foreign Office. The Foreign Office is not an administration office, because the administration must always be subordinate to Foreign Office work. But when reflections are being made upon the administration of the Foreign Office where it has had to administer, then I would ask the Committee to bear in mind that in many cases the Foreign Office has been confronted with a far more difficult task than the Colonial Office. The Foreign Office can only deal with questions of boundaries and spheres of influence. We know that the territories with which they deal must, in the long run, be brought under close control: but, so long as it is unsettled, and so long as it brings us into communication with other Powers, these spheres of influence must be administered by the Foreign Office. The Foreign Office, therefore, is called upon to take over a very large job of administration with

  657
  a, small staff and somewhat scanty resources. I deprecate any invidious comparison between these offices, and I think you will find that, as soon as it is possible, the territory is transferred to the Colonial Office by the Foreign Office, after the Foreign Office have done something for the sake of order, and the Colonial Office consequently has not had such a hard task. I admit that, in the long run, it should be the object of the Foreign Office to get rid of the administration altogether if they could. There are some eases which must always be dealt with by the Foreign Office. Take Zanzibar, which is a British Protectorate. Other Powers have treaty rights there, and it is impossible, so long as those rights exist, that Zanzibar will be administered by the Colonial Office, because we could not submit to the intolerable delay of a third office being brought into our relations with Foreign Governments. I think that the right honourable Gentleman opposite is in substantial agreement, with what I say. What has been said with regard to the Oils River, now called the Niger Coast Protectorate, indicates a very considerable step, and I daresay there are others in view. I am sure the figures which the right honourable Gentleman has given to the Committee will have convinced them that some new scale must be arrived at for the payment of the Foreign Office, and I object to its being said that, if the administration now in the hands of the Foreign Office were taken over by the Colonial Office matters would easily be mended. The question of this Vote should not depend on Foreign Office administration, because if to-morrow the bulk of it was transferred, it will be necessary to maintain the office of the Assistant Under Secretary, and, therefore, I trust that the right honourable Gentleman will not seek to deprive the Foreign Office of this legitimate assistance, but will withdraw his Motion.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: In my opinion, and this is what I shall submit to the House, the Foreign Office is organised in such a manner as to be wholly incapable of administration. It has no knowledge of strategy or statistics, or recruiting of any kind; it is formed for the sole purpose of negotiating, and that is the only
  658
  thing which it understands, though people go so far as to say that it does not even understand that. But it is impregnated with the spirit of nations, and it is selected upon a knowledge of international Law. It knows the particular language in which to state to a friendly Foreign country those things which it would scarcely venture to put down upon a State Paper. But in the whole of the Foreign Office there is no one who is competent to command a company of infantry or conduct a campaign, or perform any like acts, and for the Foreign Office first to conquer a country and then administer it is to conceive for it a purpose for which it was never intended. I was struck by the fact that the right honourable Baronet was very much more in favour of the Foreign Office as an administrator than the right honourable Gentleman the Under Secretary himself, because he gave up the whole case on the point of administration.
  *MR. BRODRICK: No, no; I did not say so. I said I did not find a single case in which the country had lost by their doing it.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: It seems to me it has done it illegally. Uganda is another matter, and I do not presume to enter upon that now, but I do seriously assert that it is not fair for the Foreign Office to do these things. There is a War Office and an Administration Office, and this office is not organised for that. With regard to the Colonial Office, we have been told it was absolutely necessary for the Foreign Office to take part in the administration in certain cases as a matter of fact. The Colonies are entitled to enter into difficult negotiations with France and West Africa, as everybody knows, and, if the Colonial Office is not able to superintend these matters, then the Colonial Office ought to be turned out and the Foreign Office put in its place; but no attempt being made to do so shows that there is no necessity for a Foreign Office to administer these countries merely because you are likely to have questions arising with Foreign Powers. What about Canada and the United States? Is the Foreign Office to administer Canada because questions may or may not arise with the United States? Certainly not;

  659
  the tiling is absurd. I am perfectly confident that nothing but disaster and mistakes can arise by setting one office to do that which it is not organised to do, and which it is not capable of doing. I can no more trust in your belief that the Foreign Office is capable of conducting administration and war than that the War Office is capable of undertaking negotiations, and I hope that the right honourable Gentleman the Under Secretary will be brought to a better frame of mind in that matter.
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: Of course, whenever a territory is coterminous with a foreign country, until a Protectorate has become, to a certain extent, settled, and its boundaries defined, and it has attained a certain position, it is inevitable that it should be in the first place administered by the Department which has to deal with foreign relations; because questions frequently arise respecting spheres of influence and so on with foreign Powers. My honourable Friend says the Foreign Office has no machinery for administration. I think he has forgotten what competent administrators have been employed by the Foreign Office in various places where our spheres of influence extend. I suppose Lord Cromer would be taken to be a very competent administrator; he is not only a Diplomatist, but a remarkably competent administrator, because there is no doubt that his direction of the affairs of Egypt has redounded greatly to the credit of his country. I take it that men like Sir Harry Johnston, who was employed originally as Vice-Consul in the Oil Rivers; Sir Claud Macdonald, now our Minister in China, who was employed to administer Zanzibar; the late Mr. Portal, and many other men have shown how competent the Foreign Office is to appoint men who become fitted to that kind of temporary and somewhat irregular administration. And as has been also said, the warlike operations which have been undertaken under the direction of the Foreign Office have certainly not been less successful than those conducted by the Colonial Office. The Colonial Office has no special gift for direct administration where civilisation has hardly begun and a regular Government has not been established. Anybody connected with the Foreign Office, I am
  660
  sure, would recognise how glad Ministers have always been to transfer to the Colonial Office regions which have, by settled government, been formed so as to be able to be administered as Colonies. I do not think there is any difference of opinion on this side as to what is desirable, but I do not think any case has been made out for concluding that the Foreign Office has caused any public inconvenience by the extent to which it has carried out this irregular administration.
  *MR. MCKENNA: I cannot but think that the right honourable Gentleman has misunderstood the first observation made by the honourable Member who spoke before him, and by the right honourable Baronet. There is no attempt to attack individuals in the Foreign Office. It is not suggested that they are not themselves perfectly competent administrators, but they have not got any system of control, any administrative system. It is true they are very good men, and have made up for the defects in their training, but they ought to have at their disposal such an office as the Colonial Office has now got. We have made no endeavour whatever to draw distinctions between the Colonial Office and the Foreign Office at the expense of the Foreign Office. We are only saying that we are not using advantages which we have got in the Colonial Office, while we are putting on the Foreign Office work for which it is decidedly unfitted. The right honourable Gentleman says the Foreign Office conducts the affairs of those Protectorates which, by their position and other circumstances, are brought into intimate relation with foreign countries. How does he apply that rule to the case of British Central Africa? What possible distinction is there between the British Protectorates north of the Zambesi under the Foreign Office and the British Protectorates south of the Zambesi under the Colonial Office? They are both in exactly the same relation to foreign countries. The troubles we have had in West Africa in connection with foreign countries have all been in the particular Protectorates under the control of the Colonial Office. The Niger Coast Protectorate has not one iota of communication or connection with foreign countries more than has

  661
  Lagos or the Gold Coast. His theory I will not hold water for a single moment. I My honourable Friend the Member for the Berwick Division also seemed to treat this Motion as if it were an attack upon the Foreign Office. What some of us feel in this matter is this—I certainly feel it myself—that by placing these Protectorates under the administration of the Foreign Office you are acting in a way which, in the long run, is the most disastrous in the interests of the natives. The Protectorates which are under the control of the Foreign Office have not got a sufficient force at their disposal. You encourage rebellions in these Protectorates—not willingly, of course, not intentionally, but by your weakness. We have seen what has taken place in Uganda and East Africa. Now, I cannot help feeling that it would be far less cruel to leave these natives in their barbarism than to attempt to civilise them by inadequate means. You send out capable individuals, and by the help of their powers of organisation and Maxim guns you manage to control the natives when they rise in rebellion against you, but you are not preparing any system of government in this new African Empire which you are undertaking. Such improvements as we can bring about without large cost, as by a transfer of the administrative powers from the Foreign Office to the Colonial Office, that we ought to do, at least. For my part, I do not think it would be anything like sufficient. I was astonished to hear from the right honourable Gentleman that the removal from the Foreign Office of the whole of the British Protectorates now under their control would not add more than £500 a year to the cost on the Estimates. That is what his statement amounts to.
  *MR. BRODRICK: I did not say that.
  *MR. MCKENNA: The right honourable Gentleman must mean that, or his statement was meaningless. He said, even if all the Protectorates were removed from the Foreign Office this Vote would still remain necessary. This {Vote is only for £500, and therefore the diminution of your establishment charges by £500 a year would more than cover, according to him, the extra cost that is put down.
  *MR. BRODRICK: I beg the honourable Gentleman's pardon. What I said was that the Foreign Office was so fully worked at this moment that it would not cause a reduction of the further charges if you were to take away the Protectorates.
  *MR. MCKENNA: It seems to me to be exactly the same thing. We are only discussing now the increase of £500 a year. If the right honourable Gentleman seriously thinks that that extra £500 a year is going to be sufficient in order to enable the Foreign Office to administer their new African Empire, I am afraid there will be further troubles in store for him in new countries like Unyoro, and Uganda, and East Africa. Your troubles will begin over and over again, and until you fairly and squarely face the difficulties which you have undertaken in Africa you will only become more cruel in the long run to the natives than if you had left them severely alone. By these half-hearted measures, by these attempts to govern Africa on the cheap, you are imitating what has been done in the Congo Free State. I know that our home resources will always in the long run enable us to avoid some of the difficulties into which the Belgians have fallen: nevertheless we shall be compelled by our economy to shoot down the best men among the natives, who have been encouraged to rise by our appearance of weakness, and we shall deprive the natives of their natural leaders and their only chance of independent life and action. I suppose that the right honourable Baronet will not go to a division in view of the statement of the right honourable Gentleman that we shall have on the Vote for Uganda a further opportunity of dividing upon this subject.
  *SIR C. DILKE: I do not propose to divide the House upon this subject. I think we shall have an opportunity again on the Uganda Vote, which will come on later.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Vote agreed to.

IRISH INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS.

  CLASS III.
  "2. £1,168, Supplementary, Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Ireland."
  MR. DILLON: This Vote raises a question of very great importance indeed, and I desire at the very earliest opportunity to bring the matter under the attention of the House. We in Ireland have a most serious grievance to complain of against the Executive Government on account of the action taken by them during the month of October last, by which they have undertaken to completely revolutionise, and I fear, if it is persevered in, to utterly destroy, the system of industrial schools in Ireland, which is one of the few institutions of that country which affords satisfaction to everybody, and does unquestionably an immense deal of good. The action to which I allude was carried out by a Circular issued by order of the Lord Lieutenant on the 1st October last. I shall first read the Circular, and I shall then explain what the effect of that Circular, if it is persevered in, will be on the whole of the industrial school system of Ireland. This is the text of the Circular issued on the 1st October last. It is signed "D. Harrel"—
  "I am directed by the Lord-Lieutenant to inform you that His Exellency's attention has been called to the fact that owing, perhaps chiefly, to a want of full information regarding the antecedents of children brought up for committal to Industrial Schools, numerous committals have from time to time been made of children belonging to a class for whom detention in an Industrial School was never intended.
  "His Excellency has instructed the inspector to intimate to the managers of the schools that the necessary steps will be taken for the discharge of any child in whose case there is not satisfactory evidence that he or she was a proper subject for committal.
  "His Excellency directs me to state that he considers this step necessary in the interests of the poor children for whose benefit the Act was really intended, but many of whose places in the schools are now tilled fey quite another class.
  "In order to remove any misunderstanding on the subject, His Excellency desires me to explain that he is advised that the Act was designed for the saving of children who, if not rescued from their surroundings, would grow up in vice, and add to the criminality of the country.
  664
  "Magistrates are only to make an order, 'if satisfied of the fact,' that the child comes within one of the descriptions, and that it is expedient to deal with the case under the Act."
  Now, that is the text of the Circular, but in order to understand the full effect of that Circular I must explain to the House what has been the working of the Act, and I shall, of course, bear out what I say in that regard by reference to the reports. What has been, the interpretation put upon the Circular by the magistrates, who have complete discretion in administering the Act in Ireland!The Industrial Schools Act in Ireland has been enforced for 30 years, and it is worked, as was stated before one Royal Commission of inquiry, on different principles from those enforced in this country. It has been worked by the magistrates from the outset—and with the full knowledge of the Executive Government in Ireland, who were perfectly aware of the interpretation which has been placed upon it—and, as I intend to maintain, a perfectly correct interpretation—as a preventive Measure; that is to say, in committing children to industrial schools they have considered absolute destitution as one of the circumstances calculated to expose a child to fall into vice and crime, and the industrial schools have been used largely as preventive institutions for the purpose of lessening crime by drying up the well-springs of crime, by taking up the unfortunate, destitute children who might be expected naturally to fall into the temptation of crime if they were allowed to wander about without any supervision at all, or under the control of careless parents. Now the Circular was issued on the 1st of October, and since that date, as I shall show presently, the whole administration of the Industrial Schools Act has been revolutionised by the Circular. The magistrates have taken the Circular—I fancy from the correspondence which followed between the Chief Secretary and Lord Meath, which I shall refer to in a moment—as a direction on the part of the Executive that they were no longer to administer the Industrial Schools Act as it has been administered within the last 30 years with such magnificent results, but that they must now, for the future, practically confine the advantages of the In-

  665
  dustrial Schools Act to a class who have been described in one of the documents in connection with this matter as associates of thieves—to children, in fact, who are actually in constant association with criminals; and that has been taken as the test. I say that is the interpretation placed on the Circular by the magistrates: I will endeavour to prove that. The consequence has been that the whole system of administration, the whole industrial school system in Ireland has been brought practically to a dead-lock; and the managers of the industrial schools, who, I assume, have not been consulted in that matter, are almost universally in revolt against the change in administration, and assure me that the whole system which has been so beneficial to Ireland is threatened with destruction in its best feature; and that the industrial schools, if this Circular is persevered in, will practically be turned into a set of criminal reformatories. Now, Sir, to show you the importance which is attached to that Circular, before I proceed to point out its effect on the system in practice, I will refer to a correspondence which took place immediately on the publication of the Circular between Lord Meath, who is President at Dublin of a philanthropic association which takes a special interest in the welfare of children, and the Chief Secretary for Ireland. Lord Meath wrote to the Chief Secretary on the 17th October, 1898, when he said—
  "I desire to bring this important question before the members of the Philanthropic Reform Association, but before doing so would respectfully ask for a more precise description of the class of children referred to in the Circular. It is the more necessary to know this with certainty, because otherwise it is impossible to consider or inquire what alternative method of treating the rejected class is proposed by the Government. Having regard to the general poverty of the country and the great benefits that have arisen from the operation of the reformatory and industrial schools, we consider that any diminution of State aid already granted in respect of destitute children should be carefully guarded against, and I may add that the conviction of the need of increased care for children was one of the principal causes of the formation of this Association."
  Now, here is the reply of the Chief Secretary. He says—
  "I beg to say that a definition of the children who are proper subjects for committal is contained in the Industrial Schools
  666
  (Ireland) Act, 1868, sections 11 and 13; the Industrial Schools Act Amendment Act, 1880, section 11; and the Prevention of Crimes Act, 1880, section 12."
  I may say I have looked at these two Acts. I cannot find the Statute for 1880. Perhaps there is some mistake with regard to the date. However, the chief definition is in the well-known Act of 1868. And then the Chief Secretary goes on to say—
  "Our Circular was intended to throw light upon the proper interpretation of those Acts. The class of children at present in industrial schools, but for whom industrial schools were not intended, are those falling outside the definitions of the above Acts as properly interpreted."
  That is, I submit, a most extraordinary letter to come from an Irish Chief Sec retary. Because what does it amount to? It amounts to stating that for 30 years the Executive Government in Ire land, under successive Ministers, had grossly misinterpreted this Act of Parliament, and that the whole system which has been in force, and under which large sums of money have been spent, and which, with great success, has been worked for these 30 years, has been based upon a misinterpretation of the Act, which was universal in Ireland until quite recently. Says the Chief Secretary—
  "I do not know that it is possible to define the class more precisely than in this negative way; but, speaking broadly, it comprises children who are merely destitute—"
  that is, the excluded class of children are those who are merely destitute—
  "without being in danger of being absorbed into the criminal population "—
  Now, the view taken by the Irish magistrates, and by the Executive in Ireland, who were perfectly well aware of the action of the magistrates in that regard, throughout the last 30 years was that destitute children, if they were proved to be really and bonâ fide destitute, were in danger of being absorbed into the criminal population, and I think that was the humane, intelligent, and natural view to take. But that is not the view of the Chief Secretary. He goes on—
  "by reason of their surroundings, and children who ought to be supported and looked after by their parents or proper guardians."

  667
  Now, that is the reply of the Chief Secretary, and that reply amounts to saying that the entire administration of the Act for the last 30 years has been founded upon a misinterpretation of the law. Before I proceed to consider that, and say in a few words what has been the administration, and the results that flowed from it, I will read out to the Committee, in order to prove the importance attached to the whole question in Ireland, the following Resolutions passed by the Standing Committee of the Irish Bishops on the 31st of January, 1899. The Standing Committee say—
  "That we, the members of the Standing Committee of the Irish Bishops, in our own name and in the name of our colleagues, deem it our duty to make a, strong remonstrance against the action of the Irish Executive in excluding from industrial schools, by their recent Circular, numbers of children who are eligible for admission under the terms of the Industrial Schools (Ireland) Act, as universally understood and acted upon up to the present."
  That is signed by Cardinal Logue and the two Secretaries of the Standing Committee. Now let me turn for a moment to the wording of this Industrial Schools Act, upon which the Chief Secretary has undertaken to put an entirely fresh interpretation. Sections 11 and 13 are the two sections which govern the admission of children into industrial schools. Section 11 says—
  "Any person may bring before two justices or a magistrate any child, apparently under 1he age of 14 years, that comes within any of the following descriptions:—'1. Found begging or receiving alms, whether actually or under the pretext of selling or offering for sale anything, or if in any public street for the purpose of receiving alms. 2. Found wandering in any public street or place without visible means of subsistence.'"
  Now, the Irish magistrates interpreted that to mean that, if they were satisfied in the case of any child brought before them that, while not a criminal, or actually proved to be in association of criminals, he was in a state of genuine destitution—that is to say, his parents were not in a position properly to support him, if it was a case of genuine destitution—then, with the consent of the parents, or if he had no parents, on the merits of the case, he might be committed to an industrial school, on the ground that there was danger of children
  668
  in that condition being absorbed into the criminal class, and becoming part of the criminal population of the country. Now, Sir, that is the interpretation on which the industrial school system of Ireland has been worked for 30 years, with, absolute satisfaction to all sections of the population—nay, Sir, I will go beyond that, and say, if you look back to the Debates in this House, and study the reports on the industrial school system, you will come to the conclusion that it has been one of the few institutions in Ireland which has been an unqualified success and blessing to the country, and which has received the support and the praise of every section of the community. And, Sir, if it be true, as I believe it is true—I am not very well acquainted with the system in this country—if it be true that the Irish magistrates and the Irish Executive did interpret the wording of the Act in a broader, more charitable, and more liberal sense than it has been interpreted in England, can anybody read the reports of the industrial schools of Ireland for the last 10 or 15 years and deny that such an interpretation has not been magnificently vindicated by the results which have been achieved? And that being so, with no complaint coming from anybody that I have heard of in Ireland, except a Gentleman to whom I shall allude in a few moments, that the new Chief Secretary should undertake, without consulting those who are responsible for the working of this system, and whose opinion certainly ought to have been taken and carefully weighed before a great change was made—that he should undertake, by the issue of a mere Circular from the Castle of Dublin, to turn upside down and utterly revolutionise the whole industrial school system of the country, appears to me to be one of the most monstrous and absurd proceedings that I have ever heard of. Here are some questions, on which I think we are entitled to demand an answer this evening. First of all, why was the Circular issued, and why was it judged necessary, after 30 years of successful experience, to reverse the whole policy which had worked so well and to such enormous advantage to the country? Then, again, I ask whether any of those engaged in the work of the industrial schools of the country were consulted before this great

  669
  change was made? And I think we are entitled further to ask for a clear definition—much clearer than anything given in the extraordinary letter of the Chief Secretary in reply to Lord Meath—of the class of children who are in the future to be excluded front the industrial schools. And then, finally, I ask: What are the intentions of the Irish Government with regard to the children Mho are now to be excluded from the industrial schools, and who, under the system enforced in the last 30 years, would have been committed to receive the benefits of these schools? I think these are serious questions, and questions which we are entitled to have an answer to. I must turn for a few moments to the working of the system of industrial schools which has been enforced in Ireland now for 30 years. Whether we judge that system by visiting the schools themselves and inspecting the children, or whether we judge it by the reports of the inspectors and by the recorded results as to juvenile crime in Ireland, which has flown from the work f that system, I say there never was a system more triumphantly justified. I assert with perfect confidence that there is no country in the world—perhaps I ought not to say I assert that, because I have not sufficiently travelled over the world to make such a statement of my own knowledge, but I feel confident that there is no country—in which the industrial school system, or what is equivalent to our industrial school system, has produced such good results as regards the happiness, the cheerfulness, and humane treatment of the children as does the system in Ireland. Every stranger who has visited Ireland gives the same account. That is due to various causes. It is due in one respect, I think, to the admirable religious bodies who volunteer for this most difficult work, and who introduce into it an element of homeliness and friendship with the children which is exceedingly difficult to bring into a State institution. I have myself gone into many of the industrial schools of Ireland; and, although it is generally rather a melancholy thing to go into an orphanage or industrial school, I can assure the Committee that in the industrial schools in Ireland the sensation is altogether different. When you go into a, school you find a body of as happy
  670
  and cheerful and bright-looking children as you would find in any school of the wealthy classes of this or any other country, and that is due partly to the causes I have mentioned; but it is also due to another cause, which this Circular will utterly and absolutely destroy, and that is that the industrial schools of Ireland have up to the present been worked as preventive institutions, and they have been recruited, not from children who were already contaminated with criminality, or from those who have been brought up amongst the very worst possible associations, but from children who have been unfortunately left destitute, and have been taken into the industrial schools, as a rule, in Ireland, before they have been hopelessly, or even to any extent at all, contaminated by their surroundings. One of the things which I denounce is that an endeavour is being made to force on the managers of the industrial schools in Ireland children whom they have hitherto declined to receive, because they are children of the criminal classes, children already contaminated by crime, and who would introduce an element into the schools which has, up to the issue of this Circular, been successfully kept out. I would refer for a moment to the results produced in Ireland by this system of conducting the industrial schools in Ireland previous to the issue of the Circular. In the Report on these schools for 1890, at page 16, Mr. George Plunkett O'Farrell, the then Chief Inspector of the schools, gives some most remarkable and most interesting statistics as to the decrease of juvenile crime in Iceland. In the year 1853 the number of young people—boys under 16 years of age—who were sentenced to imprisonment for terms ranging from 15 years' penal servitude down to imprisonment for 12 months—was 8,888; whereas in 1889, that terrible total had been reduced to 542. The number of girls under 16 years of age who were sentenced to imprisonment for various terms was in 1853, 3,350, and in 1889, 79. I frankly admit that there were other causes to account for this vast difference between 1853 and 1889. The population in 1853 was greater than it is now, and there was then great destitution and famine. But making full allowance for the operation of other causes, I say that the change

  671
  is an extraordinary testimony to the effect of the industrial school system, in rescuing children from temptations to crime, and from a career of crime, and I think the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary will require to make out a very strong case for justifying the action of the Executive Government in Ireland in spoiling, if not entirely destroying, that system. I could go on to show from other instances the extraordinary good which has been achieved by these schools, but I will content myself with the statistics which I have read out. I will turn for a moment to the effect which the Circular will have, and is bound to have, on the condition of the industrial schools of Ireland. The magistrates have interpreted the Circular to mean that in the view of the Executive they and their predecessors have given a far too generous interpretation to the Industrial Schools (Ireland) Act of 1868, and that in the future no child is to be admitted to the industrial schools of Ireland simply on account of destitution; that there must be some further proof that the children had been either in association with criminals, or that their circumstances are, in a very vague and misty way, of such a character as to endanger them falling into criminal ways. What will be the effect of that? I have been looking through the statistics of the committals to the industrial schools of Ireland, and I find that out of a total of 1,300 nearly 900 were committed for begging. That is an abuse against which the Circular, no doubt, is directed. I admit that the magistrates accepted begging as a necessary preliminary before committing the children for destitution. But the proper remedy to apply for that is to pass a short Act giving the magistrates a discretion to commit the children to the industrial schools without their having been found begging. No doubt, a great number of cases have occurred in which children were sent out begging for the very purpose of getting the children sent to an industrial school. But it is perfectly well known that before the Chief Secretary interfered the system had been working smoothly, and it enabled the magistrates to get these unfortunate, destitute children into industrial schools, instead of driving them into poor-houses, from which they were certain to be turned out utterly worthless members of
  672
  society. Now, even if it were true that there were abuses, and if the Chief Secretary, as a purist in administration, could not tolerate children being sent out begging for the purpose of being dispatched by the magistrates to the industrial schools, what would be easier than to pass a Bill of a single clause, giving the magistrates a discretion—I do not myself think it necessary under the wording of the Act—but if it were judged necessary, a single clause Bill might be passed, giving the magistrates a discretion to commit children to industrial schools in cases of genuine destitution, without the children having been found begging in the street. That would have been easy, and would have met the difficulty. But instead of reforming in that direction, the Chief Secretary attempts to effect a reform in an entirely different direction, which, so far as I can see, will only destroy the beneficial effects of those industrial schools altogether. Because now, under the interpretation that the magistrates have placed on the Circular, destitute children are to be driven into the poor-house, and denied the advantages of the industrial schools as they had been allowed in the past, and the schools are to be filled with vagrants, the associates of thieves, and more or less tainted with crime. Now I have here in my hand some communications made by the managers of the large industrial schools in Ireland, pointing out the way in which the Circular has worked. First of all, I will allude to a school for girls, founded in 1886, in the county Mayo. The school contains 90 children, and from the day it was founded till now no child has ever been committed for any offence. Only a very few out of all these children were committed to the school on other grounds than destitution. Now all these children would have been denied under the new system the advantages of the school. In another school in the county of Sligo there has not been one single admission since the Circular was issued. The fact is that the Circular has destroyed almost all the industrial schools in Ireland outside Belfast and Dublin, for, according to the Circular, there are practically no children in the country parts of Ireland who are qualified for admission to the schools. In one of the large industrial schools in the neighbourhood of Dublin, I am

  673
  informed that only four children were I committed since the Circular was issued, although there were 10 vacancies. Three children were committed to this school from the county of Kildare, but children were also entitled to be taken from the city of Dublin, because the Corporation of the city had some years ago contributed towards the support of that industrial school. In one case, before a child could be admitted to the school, the magistrate felt himself bound to send the father to a month's imprisonment for neglecting his children. In the case of two other children who were ultimately admitted to the same school, it was decided that they could not be admitted until after they had spent several nights in the refuge in Dublin. It is perfectly monstrous that children should be forced to spend several nights in a refuge in order that it might be held under this grand now Circular that they had associated with low characters, and had thus qualified for the school. This is the way the Circular is being worked. I do not blame the magistrates, because they must assume that there had been some great defect in the previous administration. Now what is the explanation; what is the cause of all this? All Ireland was satisfied with the old system; it had done an enormous amount of good. It was working smoothly, and nobody complained, as the reports year after year showed. And, undoubtedly, if these children had not been taken into the industrial schools under the old system, it would have cost the State for criminal prosecutions and maintenance in prison a great deal more than had been expended on the maintenance of the industrial schools. I can find no reason for the change except in the Report of 1898, which is signed by a gentleman who has apparently come recently on the scene, and who may be described as a new broom. This gentleman's name is John Fagan. He was not content to follow the humble role of his predecessors, who were held in very considerable respect in Ireland. They confined themselves to reporting on the condition of the industrial schools, and to making suggestions for their improvement. But this gentleman undertakes to survey the whole situation, and to sit in judgment on the whole policy of the Irish Government for the last 30 years in regard to these industrial schools, and he says that the
  674
  whole system of administration has been wrong, and ought to be altered. I confess I was utterly at a loss to understand the reasons which the Government had for the action they had taken until Mr. Fagan's report came into my hand, and then I found a good deal of light thrown on the whole question. At page 12 of his report Mr. Fagan says—
  "What concerns me most in the way of committals is the question of how to secure for our schools the class of children for whom the Act was mainly intended—the youthful waifs and strays of society, the associates of thieves, and other depraved characters, the hordes of little children in our large cities and towns who pass their day in the streets begging, or selling matches, ostensibly as a means of livelihood, but really as an aid to picking pockets—the children of vagrants and incorrigibly bad parents, in fact, all those whose demoralising environment and training are likely to drive them into vicious courses, and who in a few years will develop into union or gaol birds, corner boys, and accomplished criminals. A change will have to be made in the order of procedure, so as to secure the committal of such children."
  That is the class for whom the industrial schools of the future are to be reserved; but that was the class which the managers formerly had refused to receive. They worked their system as a preventative system, and I say that the magnificent success of the industrial schools for 30 years was just because they were worked on the preventative system. Then Mr. Fagan goes on to say that—
  "Where poverty exists and the means of earning are wanting, and where these conditions are accentuated by ignorance still painfully evident, crime and predisposition to crime must necessarily be present. I have no doubt this consideration influences magistrates when exercising their discretionary powers in regard to such cases, for they know that in many instances, outside the workhouse, there is no other means of providing for these children; while, at the same time, they are aware of the debasing, demoralising atmosphere of the place, and the rooted antipathy, almost to starvation point, of the decent poor to go there."
  And yet this gentleman, backed up by the Chief Secretary, proposes, without the sanction of Parliament, and without the slightest consultation with any of those who are responsible for the management of the industrial schools, to drive these unfortunate, destitute children, who, up to the present, were received into the industrial schools, into the workhouses of the country, by shut-

  675
  ting the doors of the industrial schools in their faces. This is the system which is to be forced down the throats of the Irish people, without their being even allowed an opportunity of stating their opinion on the matter. The whole thing was, in fact, settled in a back room in Dublin Castle, without the slightest opportunity being given to the Irish people of discussing it. Then Mr. Fagan goes on to say that—
  "Neglected children, in the sense of destitute children, are so in many cases not through their own or parents' fault, as much as their misfortune, and the outlook in life for those children on entering the workhouse is a sad one. Their character slowly but surely degenerates owing to the contaminating influences and unhealthy moral atmosphere surrounding them, and many pass into that degraded class of mischievous parasites that prey on the social body and are objects of reproach to our enlightened and philanthropic age."
  That is what the industrial schools of Ireland prevented in the case of hundreds of children during the last 30 years, and that is what they are to be exposed to under the new sustem. But there is an extraordinary ray of light thrown on the matter by this gentleman. He suggests what he calls the proper remedy.
  "When considering the general subject of neglected children, it occurred to me that the question might be seriously entertained of saving the workhouse child by transforming him into an industrial school child, the process to be accomplished subject to certain conditions satisfactory alike to the general and local taxpayer.…The Government, as heretofore, would contribute towards the maintenance of those proved to be actually or potentially criminal; the ratepayers would provide the rest.…This subject is a fitting one to engage the serious consideration of our new county councils."
  It turns out, then, that the whole scheme is a scheme to drive these wretched children of the street into the workhouse for the purpose of saving the British Treasury £30,000 or £40,000 a year, and to throw them on to the shoulders of the ratepayers of Ireland. It is quite true that the Government feel bound to drive these children—three-fourths of whom were up to the present day provided for in the industrial schools—into the workhouse, but the county councils may set tip a new system of industrial schools!Now, what is the whole expense of the industrial schools? At present it is
  676
  nearly £100,000 a year, and I venture to say, without raising any financial question as between Great Britain and Ireland, that there is no money, the expenditure of which has been more productive of good, than that money spent on the industrial schools of Ireland. It would be infinitely wiser for the Government to send over from England someone who would study the Irish industrial schools as they were administered during the past 30 years, for the purpose of introducing the system into England, than to send over a Scotch gentleman to destroy those industrial schools, which have been a blessing to Ireland. And what shall I say as to the gross injustice which it is proposed by this Circular to inflict on those private individuals and religious communities who have erected large school buildings all over the country on the faith of the continued working of the system on the principles which had been observed for the period of 30 years? For the Government now say to these private individuals and religious communities—
  "Unless you utterly alter the whole character of these institutions—unless you accept the class of children which up to the present you have rejected, the grants will be withdrawn, these schools will be starved, and you will be thrown with the schools on your hands without the revenue which you have been accustomed to receive."
  That is a gross injustice, and I am astonished that the Irish Secretary, without consulting Parliament, and without consulting those who have been working the system in Ireland so successfully for 30 years, should have sprung this mine on us, and revolutionised the whole system of Irish industrial schools. I trust we may have some statement from the Chief Secretary to-night which will be of a more satisfactory character. If not, I can only say that this subject will remain a burning question until a reversion is made to the old system, which worked so successfully for 30 years.
  MR. DALY: The industrial schools all over Ireland have been erected by the people of Ireland and by the nuns at great cost; and without any previous communication to the nuns and others who manage these schools, the Government, or, at least, the Chief Secretary, has issued orders that the magistrates shall have no power to send children to these

  677
  schools unless they are found begging in the streets. That seems to me a great injustice. The schools were built at great expense, in the expectation that the children would continue to be sent as before, on the ground that they were destitute. As the managers and nuns refuse to receive criminals or children tainted with crime, the buildings will be of no use to those who erected them. I think the honourable Gentleman who has spoken before me would have been well advised had he questioned the legality of the action of the Lord Lieutenant in refusing to allow merely destitute children to go into the industrial schools. I have known of merely destitute children who were sent into these schools, and who became respectable members of society, but who would probably have been lost had they not been sent there, but to the work house. I would appeal to the right honourable the Chief Secretary not to be so parsimonious, and not to carry out the new Order. The Bishops of Ireland have protested against this Order of the Lord Lieutenant. They have the interests of their Hocks at heart, and I am sure they would not have passed the resolution they did, condemning the Circular, unless they were convinced that the new Order was inflicting a great hardship on the managers of the industrial schools and on the thousands of poor children. I asked a question about the matter a few days ago, but the reply of the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary was not a very friendly one. The Chief Secretary knows well that a great number of children who were sent to these industrial schools have become good members of society afterwards. Some may consider this is a small matter, but it is not, and I would ask the Lord Lieutenant and I would ask the Chief Secretary not to proceed on the new Order as issued, for it will strike very hard on poor children in Ireland.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The honourable Member for East Mayo has only dealt with, one part of the question; but he has saved me from one part of the task I should have otherwise had to discharge. He has saved me from having to show that the abuses referred to in the Circular existed in Ireland, and that, too, on a large scale.
  678
  Now, what are these abuses? They are described in two of the paragraphs of the Circular to which the honourable Member referred. The Circular set forth that the Lord Lieutenant was advised that the Industrial Schools (Ireland) Act of 1868 was actually designed to save children who, if not rescued from their surroundings, would grow up in vice, and add to the criminality of the country.
  "His Excellency is further advised that the words 'begging' and 'receiving alms' in Section 11 of the Act are not satisfied by fictitious cases of begging or receiving alms. The practice of sending out children to beg or 'receive alms,' in order to bring them within the letter of Section 11, is calculated to defeat the intentions of the Act, and is an abuse of its provisions. The Section provides that magistrates are only to make an order 'if satisfied of the fact,' that the child comes within one of the descriptions, and that it is expedient to deal with the case under the Act, thus enabling them to refuse to make an order where the alleged 'begging' or 'receiving alms' is a colourable proceeding."
  These are the circumstances in which the Circular was drafted and issued to the magistrates. The honourable Member must know that this abuse was so widespread in Ireland that the effect would necessarily be to destroy, or almost destroy, the industrial schools in Ireland. Now, the honourable Member for East Mayo has been good enough to say that if the magistrates have hitherto misinterpreted the Act that was an interpretation universal in Ireland until a gentleman came over from Scotland to correct it. I do not myself agree with the honourable Gentleman, but, with regard to the interpretation of the intention and meaning of the Act, the Irish Government acted on the advice of its Law Officers. The honourable Member says that I, and I alone, am responsible for the interpretation put upon the Act in the Circular. I should have thought it was hardly necessary to remind him that when the Irish Government takes action of this kind it is taken on the advice of its Law Officers; it is not I, but the Law Officers who are responsible. At the same time, I must say I entirely agree with the interpretation given by them, and I am firmly convinced that it represents not only the spirit but also the letter of the Act. The Industrial Schools Act was intended to deal, not with children who were merely destitute, but with children verging on criminality.

  679
  That, in my judgment, is quite certain, and anyone who refers to the Debates which took place on the Second Beading of the Industrials Schools Bill will see that it is so. I will read one extract from the speech of The O'Conor Don, who was in fact the father of the Measure. Here are his reported words—
  "This Bill, it was said, will interfere with the national system of education in Ireland. In the name of common sense how? With what class of children did it deal? With those wandering and begging in the streets—those without any protectors, without any visible means of obtaining a livelihood—with the miserable little wretches at present growing up in ignorance, idleness and crime..... If this Bill be passed, in some isolated instances squabbles might arise as to the religious persuasion in which certain deserted children should be registered; therefore, the Bill should be rejected, and not only those children but all others who would come under its operation should be left neglected and deserted in the streets to grow up in vice, and add to the criminality of the country..... In an economic point of view he maintained that the Bill should be supported. By taking up unfortunate vagrant children, and rearing them in the habits of industry, you diminish the danger of having to support them afterwards as criminals."
  That quotation shows clearly, in my judgment, that the intention of the House in passing the Industrial Schools Act was not to provide for children who were merely destitute. The words of the Act were, in point of fact, the same as the words of the English Act, and the English Act was never declared to apply to children who were destitute but not verging on criminality. So much for the intention of the Act. Now I come to the statement of the honourable Member, that the interpretation of the Act, which has been given by the magistrates, practically allowed the benefits of the Act to a large number of children who were merely destitute. As early as 1873, a Circular was issued by the Irish Government calling the attention of magistrates "to the serious irregularities which have occurred in the administration of the Industrials Schools Act with respect to the children ordered to be detained," and it was pointed out that "no order for detention can be lawfully made unless the child strictly comes within one or more of the classes defined by law, and that before any order for detention magistrates ought to satisfy themselves by careful examination of the evidence
  680
  laid before them that the child is a fit object for an industrial school." That Circular proved insufficient to check the growing mischief. It was followed about 20 years later by a Royal Commission to inquire into the operation of the Industrial Schools Act. This Commission reported in 1884, and on page 50 of the Report is stated that—
  "It is certain that the certified industrial schools in Ireland are regarded as institutions for poor and deserted children rather than those of a semi-criminal class.…and that numbers of the children are sent to them who do not always come within the purview of the Acts, and who are sent mainly on the ground of destitution."
  The Report goes on to say that notwithstanding the check which the Treasury bad applied by fixing a limited number of children for each school—
  "There can be no doubt that many children are sent to the industrial schools in Ireland who would not be sent in England; whilst in consequence of it, it is to be apprehended that numbers of children who are proper subjects for these institutions are left on the streets as waifs and strays."
  I do not intend to detain the Committee at any great length, but I should like to refer to some of the evidence given before that Commission. The evidence taken by that Commission showed how generally the Act had been abused. Mr. O'Donnell, the Chief Magistrate of Dublin, was asked—
  "Do you think that children are ever sent out into the streets to beg in order to qualify themselves to be sent to an industrial school?"
  He replied—
  "I have no doubt of it. I know that it is constantly done in order to bring them under that section of the Industrial Schools Act."
  Then in Belfast, one of the leading magistrates, Mr. Robert L. Hamilton, expressed a similar opinion, and he gave one very remarkable example from his own experience—
  "I have seen in the Belfast Police Courts a child taken out of the Court with a whisper given to the man who was bringing him forward to say that he had given alms to the child. The child and the man went out to the passage, and he came in and got into the

  681
  box and swore that he gave alms to the child; but the money was only given in the passage, and it was given in order to qualify the child."
  Again, Mr. Patrick Kennedy, a magistrate and ex-Mayor of Cork, said—
  "As each ease had to be investigated by a Committee of the corporation of which I was a member, it came to my knowledge that the classes of children that were in the schools were not what I thought the Act was intended for; that is to say, under the proper conception of the spirit of the Act, which in my opinion was not for the purpose of making the industrial school a kind of upper workhouse. What I understand it to be is a kind of stepping-stone between the homes of those poor children and the reformatories. In other words, to rescue them from vice if they were on or approaching to the borders of it; and in that way it appeared to me that very few of that class of children came either before the magistrates or before the corporations, or, in fact, got inside the walls of these schools at all. My own opinion at the present moment is, that an extremely large proportion of the children in those schools are such as the Legislature never intended to be there, and that at this moment, so far as Cork is concerned, there are a great many children wandering on the streets, and probably being led into bad company and into vice from day to day, who are not in the schools, who ought to be there."
  Sir, these quotations show absolutely beyond the possibility of doubt that the Circular which has been so strongly condemned to-night puts forward what I maintain to be the true interpretation of the Act, which was also quite clearly stated by the Commission appointed in 1882, of which The O'Conor Don was a member, and also by the evidence of the witnesses before that Commission. The Report of the Commission of 1882 was, I am sorry to say, almost as inoperative as the Circular of 1873, and in May 1896 a further Circular was issued from Dublin Castle. That Circular was much more explicit than the Circular of 1873, and the interpretation of the Act which the Circular now under discussion points out was stated with the utmost clearness. The Circular stated that the Lord Lieutenant had reason to believe that children who were not pauper subjects were brought before magistrates at Petty Sessions with the object of having them admitted to industrial schools. The usual device was to send out such children to beg, and the magistrates were thus misled. That Circular clearly showed what were the proper
  682
  qualifications for admission to industrial schools.
  MR. DILLON: Nobody paid any attention to that Circular.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes, that's the pity of it. No one paid any attention to that Circular, but the honourable Member has no right to state that the Circular now under discussion is an exercise of my arbitrary way, and that it is I who have stated that this and no other must be the interpretation of the Act. That the honourable Member is not entitled to say. Now I think that I have shown the House quite clearly what was the intention of the Act. That intention is thoroughly understood by all who have studied the subject, and it is not true that it has not been consistently acted upon; but honourable Gentlemen argue, that, although this may be the case, it is naturally inexpedient to change the existing practice. The first question is, whether the existing practice is, or is not, in accordance with the law? Clearly it is not. Seeing that a departure from the intention of the Act is admitted, that it entails very great expense on the taxpayers of the country, because they are called upon to maintain children who are merely destitute, seeing also that, according to the abundant testimony of those who have investigated the results of the operation of the Act, the children whom the Act is intended to benefit have not received any benefit from it, I ask the Committee if the Government was not justified in taking steps to remove that practice? I have clearly shown that a warning was given by Circular in 1873, by a Royal Commission in 1882, and by another Circular in 1896, of what might be expected. The honourable Member says that the class who will really suffer if this change is made are the destitute children now provided for in industrial schools, but who will henceforth have to go to the workhouses. I cannot, of course, help reeling that the case of these children is a very hard one. I am perfectly ready to admit that the practice of sending the children of poor parents to industrial schools instead of to workhouses, has been to the benefit of these children, but it has been to the benefit of these children only at the expense of the semi-criminal class, for

  683
  whom the Act was intended. Therefore, while considering the benefits derived by the children of very poor parents in Ireland, I have also to consider that this Act was passed for a deliberate purpose, and that that purpose has been frustrated by the present practice. The Act was passed for children on the verge of criminality, but it has only provided for another class whom the law provides for by means of the workhouse. The honourable Member says that it is a very undesirable state of things, that the children of very poor parents should be compelled to go to the workhouses, and he states that the law should be changed to enable industrial schools to take in children whose only qualification is that they are destitute.
  MR. DILLON: It has been the practice for 30 years.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: There is something to be said for that contention, but it is directly against the principle recognised in the treatment of the poor in this country.
  MR. DILLON: That principle has never been recognised in Ireland, and never will be.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I beg the honourable Member's pardon. The existing practice has been regarded as an abuse of the law.
  MR. DILLON: You were the first man who ever attempted to stop the practice.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: If I am the first man who ever attempted to stop the practice, I can only say I am the first man who has attempted to remove a very great abuse of the law. If the policy of this Circular is carried out, and if it is proved that the case of destitute children in Ireland is one which calls for further legislation, why that is the time to consider legislation. I may remind honourable Members that last Session there was passed an Act which, to some extent, not perhaps fully, provides for such cases, because it enables boards of guardians in Ireland to send children to any school certified by the Local Government Board, and among the schools so certified, no doubt, will be industrial schools.
  684
  Under the existing law, therefore, it is in the power of boards of guardians to send pauper children to industrial schools recognised by the Local Government Board.
  MR. STUART WORTLEY: Will there be any Government grant in such cases?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Oh, no; no grant. The effect of this Circular will be that Government money will be used for the purposes of the Act, and not for purposes for which it was not intended.
  MR. DILLON: It has been used for 30 years.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: If a change of the law is required to cope with the case of destitute children in Ireland, then let the law be changed, but let us not in the meantime relieve the destitute at the expense of the State under cover of an Act of Parliament which was passed for an entirely different purpose.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: The question raised by my honourable Friend is one of very great importance indeed. It affects the lives of a large number of growing children in Ireland, and, in addition to that, it affects what I may call, in the highest sense of the word, a large number of philanthropic interests in Ireland. The right honourable Gentleman in his speech never got to the realities of the case. He has told us a great deal about the legalities, or what he believes to be the legalities, but he has not touched upon the realities of the case. Let me endeavour to bring before the Committee the realities. There are scattered over Ireland a number of institutions for the purpose of dealing with these children. These institutions are mainly, if not entirely, in the hands of religious bodies, and these religious bodies, influenced by the highest, noblest and most spiritual motives, have been able to erect a large number of buildings, maintain a large number of schools, and bring up one or two generations of children. They have done so by assistance received from two or three different sources. They have, it is quite true, a grant from the Imperial Government. The honourable Gentleman opposite asked a very awkward

  685
  question from the Chief Secretary. I think that such a firm supporter of the Government should have been more careful than to have asked such an awkward question. These institutions have been partially supported by a grant of 5s, per head, and by the use of certain loans, but the main body of the work has been done by the voluntary subscriptions of the co-religionists of these bodies. Take the case of the industrial school in the constituency of my honourable Friend. That school was erected at a cost of about £8,000, every penny of which came from the pockets of the co-religionists of the religious order which erected the school. Take the other case mentioned by my honourable Friend the Member for South Monaghan—that school was erected at an expense of £1,500, and every penny of it came from the co-religionists of the body who erected it. Here are institutions erected at the smallest possible cost to the State, from the best of motives, and at the expense of one of the poorest populations in the world. These schools all over Ireland have devoted themselves to the rescue of children from vice and crime. They have done so at immense cost to the religious orders and their co-religionists, and small cost to the State. What has been the result? In Ireland, which controverts almost everything, there is regarding the merits of these institutions, from Catholic and Protestant, from Unionist and Nationalist, from every section of opinion in the country, one uniform, unbroken chorus of praise for the good work of the industrial schools. I was only once in my life in an industrial school in Ireland, and although it was 27 or 28 years ago, the cheerful faces and the healthy frames of the children still remain in my memory. I come now from the popular sentiment to official opinion. A report was issued as far back as 1890, in which the remarkable statement was made by the Gentleman who drew it up that no fewer than 19,000 honest citizens had been given to Ireland by the action of these industrial schools, and that 90 per cent, of the children in these schools did well in after life. Now, I confess that it appears to me incredible—I find it hard to imagine—how any official finding that state of things before him, and especially a Conservative official, should consider it his duty to tear down the whole fabric of
  686
  such great benefit. The Chief Secretary talks of previous Circulars. Has one of them been ever acted on? They were issued from time to time; we are accustomed to them in Ireland, and no one pays any particular attention to them. But now we are face to face, for the first time, with the serious attempt made by the right honourable Gentleman, who I may say brings a certain amount of academic pedantry to the discharge of his duties, to destroy and break down this beneficent Act. The right honourable Gentleman's defence takes two forms. The first is, that he is trying to have the law carried out. Well, Sir, with regard to that defence, I will say that I think it is the meanest, stupidest pedantry in the political life of any country if you find a system working well and beneficently, as these industrial schools have been working, to break it down, although it has been established for 30 years, merely because it happens to be not exactly in accordance with the technical interpretation of an Act of Parliament. An honourable Member opposite smiles at that observation. Is there, Sir, to be no difference between the practical conduct of life, and the technical interpretations of legal experts? I do not care myself whether the law is carried out technically or not. I put against the technical interpretation of the law, the practically unbroken experience of 30 years, and if this system has proved beneficial, and the Chief Secretary cannot deny it, and if it has rescued 19,000 children from vice and given them back to honesty, why, Sir, it is the silliest nonsense to speak of it as one which should be broken down because someone, reading the law in Dublin Castle in the spirit of a criminal prosecutor, finds that this beneficent fabric of charity, philanthropy, and restoration to honesty ought to be torn down. Has the law been broken? I am very unwilling, not being a lawyer, to put my interpretation of the law in opposition to that of the very able Gentleman who at present holds the office of Attorney-General for Ireland; but I must read the section of the Act of Parliament in order to see whether or not the right honourable Gentleman's interpretation is borne out by the words of the Act. Those words are—
  "Any person may bring before the Justices any child apparently under the age of 14 years that comes within any of the following

  687
  descriptions, namely, that is found begging or receiving alms, whether actually or under the pretext of offering for sale anything, or being in any street or public place for the purpose of so begging or receiving alms."
  If a child is found begging, ipso facto, it comes under this Act, and I hold that the Attorney-General is going behind the words of the Act when he introduces the question whether or not the child has been sent out by its parents to beg. I do not speak on legal grounds; I do so on grounds of public policy and common sense. Secondly, the section says—
  "Not having any home or settled place of abode, or proper guardianship."
  Is the guardianship of a parent who sends out a child to beg in the streets a proper guardianship? Again, the section says—
  "Or visible means of subsistence."
  Does not that cover the whole case? The magistrates have held, and have held rightly, as I submit, from the still higher point of public utility, that mere destitution brings the child within the purview of the Act. If that is not so, what is the meaning of the words—
  "Without visible means of subsistence, or without proper guardianship or place of abode"?
  The case is quite clear, even on the narrow and technical ground of the language of the Act. But I come back to the point upon which I have already spoken, and that is the point of public policy. This Act was intended to rescue children from crime, and to bring them up good citizens under the guardianship of the State, instead of bad citizens under the guardianship of bad parents. It is said that the fact that a parent sends a child out to beg is a reason why that child should be excluded from the benefits of the Act. But can there be a worse parent for a child than that? Can there be a home more calculated to lead to criminality than a home from which a child is expelled for the purpose of going out to beg? Surely, these are exactly the children, with semi-quasi criminal surroundings, whom the Act is intended to rescue. I get back again to the point that must never be lost sight
  688
  of; that is, that we have had this system working for 30 years, not only beneficently, but to an extent which has never possibly been paralleled in any institution. And merely because the Attorney-General takes what I regard as a narrow and, if he will allow me to say so, a pedantic interpretation of the section, that splendid system is to be destroyed, and these buildings, every stone of which is a testimony to hours of prayer and suffering and appeal, are to lie idle, to give up the work they are doing, and to have the children expelled. Does the Chief Secretary see where his policy is leading? These children are to be sent to the workhouses, and that is what the right honourable Gentleman's policy means.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: They may be sent to school.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: By whom?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: By the board of guardians.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Yes, it is evident that you are thinking of the miserable 5s. which comes from the taxation of the country, and not of the good work of these schools or the future of the children. On the one side you have the school, with the monk or nun, or very often with the good Protestant man or woman, who is willing to bring the children up, it may be partly at the cost of the State, but purely as, their conception of their high services to the Divine; and on the other side is the workhouse, where the refuse of humanity is to be found, and where the very atmosphere is destructive of every high and noble motive for self-respect and religious duty, honesty, and self-help. And this beneficent Chief Secretary prefers that the child should be sent into the demoralising surroundings of the workhouse, rather than into the monastery or the convent, where the monk or the nun can take care of its education. The Chief Secretary says the taxpayers are to be saved something. Yes, Sir, but are we to regard all this work for the benefit of the children of Ireland merely from the point of view of saving something to the taxpayer of England? Are you to bring about the destruction of the Irish child for the

  689
  sake of a reduction of one millionth part of a farthing in the taxes paid by the English taxpayer? I believe that the judgment of every right-minded man, even in his own country, will be adverse to the action of the Chief Secretary. The final point which has been made is that a number of the children who ought properly to be sent to these schools are excluded under the present system. But not a word of proof has been given of that. It is a purely imaginary statement; it is a hypothesis which exists only in the imagination of some official. I hope that the right honourable Gentleman will not break down this system, that he will leave something standing in Ireland, and that, above all, he will leave standing that fabric which, for 30 years, before ever Ireland had the misfortune to be governed by him, had saved children from all the temptations of vice and crime.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEY: It appears to me, from the speech to which we have just listened, that the Irish industrial schools are not being used for the purposes for which they were originally intended, and that class of children for whom they were to provide do not find their way into them. It was intended undoubtedly to deal with the cases of children who were the associates of reputed thieves, and the history of these Acts shows that they were not intended for that class of children whose parents were so mean as to send them out to beg, and who obviously wished to shuffle their parental obligations from their own shoulders to the Exchequer. It is that class of children who are sent into the streets merely to qualify them for committal to the schools. And, certainly, the Act ought not to apply in such cases. If the Government were to try and seek to persuade this House to repeal those clauses of the Industrial Schools Act applying to the three kingdoms which refer to children merely found begging, I think they would obtain the hearty support of the most sincere philanthropists in the United Kingdom. No one means to question the excellence of the work done by these institutions. All that has been shown—and I am inclined to think that the clients of the honourable Member opposite will thank him very little for
  690
  showing it—is that these excellent and praiseworthy people have not done the work which really they are intended by Parliament to do. The good work done has been done among the less difficult class of pauper children, to the neglect of those little ones who, falling just short of needing reformatory treatment, are exactly those whom Parliament intended to benefit.
  MR. HEMPHILL: I had hoped that the right honourable Gentleman who last spoke, when he rose to address this House, would, as an English lawyer, have been able to satisfy us that no Circular similar to that which is now in question had been issued for the control of any English bench of magistrates, and that no decision had been arrived at by the Court of Queen's Bench in England putting this particular construction upon the Industrial Schools Act. It is quite true that the Irish Act is borrowed from the earlier English Act. This discussion, I think, affords a very striking illustration of the system of Castle government in Ireland, which has led to such discontent for centuries. I, as a lawyer, protest altogether against the authority assumed by the Chief Secretary in this Circular to dictate to the magistrates as to what construction they shall put upon an Act of Parliament. The law enables a decision to be taken on any doubtful section. I think, with my honourable Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool, that this section is abundantly clear. But, assuming for argument sake that there is some doubt as to the interpretation to be placed upon it, it is the duty of the magistrates to reserve a case for the Court of Queen's Bench, or it is the duty of the Irish Executive to bring in an Amending Act of Parliament. I protest altogether, as magistrates act as judges within their own jurisdiction and upon their own responsibility, against their being dictated to as to the construction to be placed on statute law, and being asked to reverse what has admittedly been the practice between 1868 and 1898. It is that species of dictation which has produced such discontent and dissatisfaction with the administration of the law in Ireland in years past. Some years ago there was, as the right honourable Gentleman will recollect, an officer in Dublin called the

  691
  Law Adviser, whose function it was to advise magistrates as to the construction to be placed on Acts of Parliament. But that was found to be unconstitutional, and so the office' was abolished. Yet, now that the office has been abolished, we have the Government sending out a letter which leads to either one of two things—it will be acted on, or it will be ignored. Independent magistrates may refuse to act upon it; and even if they were warranted in so doing it would require a good deal of courage, as the Lord Chancellor might call them over the coals. I should like to ask English magistrates in this House if they would like to act on the mere opinion of any lawyer, however eminent, when it became their duty to discharge judicial functions. The Act is express as to what magistrates are to do when a child coming under a given description comes before them. They are given judicial discretion, but are bound before sending a boy to an industrial school to be satisfied on the evidence whether it is a case of bonâ fide begging or not. We have had no such evidence produced, but I presume that the Chief Secretary is in possession of some to show that the industrial schools have been in the habit of receiving children who were bribed to go into the streets to beg. But it is for the magistrate to decide whether the child comes within any of the definitions of the section, and once the judicial conscience is satisfied that the child comes within the category, power is given to make an order for its detention. We have heard from the Chief Secretary a good deal about the intentions of the Legislature, and the right honourable Gentleman has read passages from the Debate which took place when the Act was passed. But we have nothing to do with these intentions except so far as they can be gathered from the words of the Act itself. The truth is, it is impossible to construe the meaning of the words of any Act by reference to the Debates, for we all know how loosely Members or, both sides of the House at times express themselves in the heat of argument. The right honourable Gentleman has referred to two Circulars—one issued in 1872, and the other in 1896. But neither of those Circulars purposed to dictate to the magistrates what construction they were to put on the Act of Parliament.
  692
  Both of the Circulars properly called the attention of the magistrates to their duty under the Act, and pointed out that they were not to make an order for detention unless the child before them came within the categories mentioned in the Act. Under the Petty Sessions Act, with which practically this Act is incorporated, power is given to the justices, if they have any doubt as to the construction of the Act, to reserve a case for the Court of Queen's Bench. I protest as a lawyer, and as one who is devotedly attached to the constitution of the country, that no law adviser to any Chief Secretary has a right to put a construction upon an Act of Parliament and to dictate to the magistrates that they shall follow that construction. The Court of Queen's Bench is there to set matters right if they go wrong. This is an attempt to shift from the Consolidated Fund on to the altogether over-burdened occupying taxpayer in Ireland the sum which the State has hitherto contributed to the support of these schools, and it is a significant fact that this Circular synchronises with the passing of the Local Government Act. The effect of this Circular must be to confine the operation of the Act to a very small class of children. I am happy to say that the number of children who may be described as the associates of criminals is in Ireland very small. It may be that in Dublin there are such children to be found; as to that we have the ipse dixit of a Dublin magistrate. It has been suggested that the great masses of children throughout the country would not be reached if this new construction of the Act were enforced, and that it would relieve the Exchequer of a largo portion of the sum it has now to contribute to the maintenance of the schools, while children who are really destitute and fit and proper subjects to be sent to these institutions would be left to starve outside, or would be taken into the workhouse, and ultimately sent to school at the expense of the ratepayers. I trust that on reconsideration my right honourable Friend, who acts, of course, on the advice of his proper legal adviser—which I will not presume to call in question here, although I have my own opinion, as I think that the functions of the executive are distinct from judicial functions—will now recall this Circular, and

  693
  let a system go on which, from my own experience, has worked so well. During the time I was in office it was never suggested, or thought for one moment, that there was any abuse by the magistrates in any part of the country of the intentions of the Legislature as embodied in this Act, and I trust we shall be relegated to the same state of things, and that my right honourable Friend, in that magnanimous spirit we all know he can display, will admit for once that he has been ill-advised.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): I should not have trespassed on the time of the Committee were it not for the speech which we have just heard from the right honourable Gentleman, who was himself at one time a, responsible legal adviser to the Government of Ireland. My right honourable Friend need have had no apprehension of any design or intention on the part of the present Government to dictate to the magistrates what they are to do. Such an effort, if it were made, would be absolutely futile, and no Circular sent out from the Castle could in any way circumscribe the jurisdiction which the magistrates have had conferred on them by statute, and neither could it in any way extend it. It is, therefore, a travesty to say that this Circular is an effort on the part of the Government to dictate to the magistrates. It was designed with an entirely different object. For years this statute, according to its plain and obvious meaning, has been misapplied: it has been administered for the benefit of a class for which it was never intended, by means of contrivances, or what might be called frauds, upon it, although no doubt those frauds were committed with a good purpose. All this Circular does is to tell the magistrates that they are not to be misled in such cases. The first sub-section of the statute deals with the case of children begging or receiving alms. The honourable Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool said that if the statute enacts that a, child who solicits alms is to be sent to an industrial school, it is monstrously pedantic to suggest that cases of fictitious begging do not come under it. All that the Circular has done is to call the attention of the magistrates to
  694
  the fact that the Act is abused, and diverted from its proper and primary purpose, by allowing certain children who are sent out to beg with the object of securing their committal—
  MR. DILLON: There is not a single word about begging in the Circular.
  MR. ATKINSON: The honourable Member should read the Circular. It states distinctly that His Excellency has been advised that the words "begging or receiving alms" under section 2 of the Act are not satisfied by fictitious cases of begging or receiving alms, and that the practice of sending out children to beg or receive alms, in order to bring them within the section, is calculated to defeat the intention of the Act and to abuse the provision.
  MR. DILLON: I have read out the Act of Parliament, which is intended also to cover the case of those who are found without visible means of subsistence.
  MR. ATKINSON: There is no such clause. But I will deal with the question of begging first. The Act of Parliament provides for that. I do not think any honourable Gentleman will suggest that, if a mother sends out her child, as is frequently done, to beg a penny from a relative or her next door neighbour, that that brings the child within the statute. The Circular is directed against cases of fictitious begging, and tells the magistrates what to do in regard to them. What is the next clause? It is that the child must first be found wandering, or having no place of abode, or proper guardianship. And the words "found wandering" qualify all that follows. The fact is, there is no class entitled to the provisions of this Act simply because they are destitute. Destitution is undoubtedly an element for consideration, but there are other conditions necessarily attached to it, such as "either being an orphan or having a, surviving parent undergoing penal servitude or imprisonment." Destitution alone does not entitle a child to committal under the Act. If the Act has been administered in any other way than this there has been a gigantic misuse of it for the benefit of a class for

  695
  whom it was never intended. The Reformatory Schools Act was passed in the same year as this Act, and it dealt with children of tender years who had committed crime. The Industrial Schools Act was intended to deal with children on the verge of crime, and to act as a preventive. Destitution alone was never intended to be dealt with by the Act, unless there was the accompanying condition that the child was an orphan or had a surviving parent undergoing penal servitude. I do not think I need go further into this matter. I will only say this. I cannot conceive that it is the duty of any Law Officer of the Crown to give what is called a benevolent interpretation to an Act. His duty is as best he can to advise those who call for his advice as to the legal meaning of the statute. I quite agree with my right honourable Friend opposite that it is not possible to get any assistance in this matter from the Debates. A Law Officer's duty is as best he can to come to a conclusion as to what the statute enacts, and what its authors intended or what was said during the discussion upon it is entirely beside the point. I think at the same time it is only just and right I should add that I do not believe that any person would consider that a statute of this kind, which was intended to rescue a particular class from the fate of becoming criminals, should be applied to another class, no doubt deserving, but of an entirely different kind, who were not verging on the paths of crime. The object of the Circular is not to prevent the administration of the Act, but it is to insure that the Act shall be applied to the class for which it is intended, and not to another class, which, I am quite free to admit, is deserving of great consideration, but which must be dealt with in another way.
  MR. POWER: I very much regret the attitude which the Irish Secretary has taken on this question. It will not redound to his own credit, and as far as Ireland is concerned it will work hardship not only to institutions which are admirably conducted, but to a large class of poor children. I do protest against the Government approaching this question from a pounds, shillings and pence point of view.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: We are not doing so.
  MR. POWER: One reason the right honourable Gentleman gave for his attitude was that the Act was being worked to the detriment of children whom it was intended to benefit. The right honourable Gentleman said that such children were placed at a disadvantage by the fact that other children are committed to the schools. He gave us no figures in support of that statement. As far as my experience goes I never knew of any deserving cases being brought forward for which room was not found in the industrial schools. I maintain that all such cases have been dealt with.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The explanation is very simple. The children for whom the Act was intended are not brought before the justices.
  MR. POWER: Whose fault is that? It is not the fault of the managers of the industrial schools. One would imagine from the arguments of the right honourable Gentleman that the whole cost of supporting these children falls upon the Imperial Exchequer. But it must not be forgotten that we in Ireland already pay too much to the Imperial Exchequer, and are entitled to have some of it back; and in addition to that we contribute by our rates and by our voluntary contributions to the support of these schools, and thus largely supplement the Imperial grant for the maintenance of these children. I believe that in England industrial schools are largely helped by the Imperial Exchequer, so far as the building of them is concerned, but in Ireland their erection is solely due to philanthropic effort. The present system is working well, and is preventing a great number of children falling into vicious habits. The statistics which have been quoted show that an enormous percentage of these children afterwards turn out to be useful citizens, and that fact alone should make the right honourable Gentleman hesitate before adopting a policy which will work disadvantage to the community in general, and in still greater degree to the people of Ireland.
  MR. DILLON: The Attorney-General has drawn a powerful picture of the extent to which the law has been set aside

  697
  during the time the Industrial Schools Act has been in force. But he must know perfectly well that the officials at Dublin Castle knew perfectly well what was going on. It was a matter of notoriety. Does the right honourable Gentleman pretend that the Government of Ireland were ignorant of the figures contained in the 30 successive reports of their inspectors? His position is that a law passed 30 years ago has been grossly abused, and that the schools have been mainly used for children for whom they were never intended, and he desires to put an end to this process of defeating the Act. I say that that is a fanciful and preposterous position. The Chief Secretary quoted two previous Circulars, and also the speech of The O'Conor Don, as showing the intentions of the Legislature. I do not think it is a profitable way of attempting to interpret an Act of Parliament, even by quoting from the speeches of Ministers, but it is really absurd to do so by quoting from the exceedingly vague speeches of private Members. In the two Circulars referred to by the Chief Secretary, there was no attempt to define the class of children which should be excluded from the industrial schools. Those Circulars were issued with the full knowledge of the Castle, and the general feeling throughout the country was that it was wiser to let things go on as they were, while if there were any doubt as to the interpretation of the law it should have been cleared up by the introduction of a short amending Act. I say that these two previous Circulars do not constitute a precedent for the recent action of the Irish Government. They have made an entirely new departure, and I tell the Chief Secretary that he has stirred up a hornet's-nest. We will not submit to this attack upon one of the best institutions of our country, and we will carry on the campaign against it until the right honourable Gentleman changes his policy. What is it he proposes to do? He admitted that a very grave and serious problem would probably arise as to what was to be done with these children against whom he is now closing the doors of the industrial schools, and for whom there is to be no refuge in the future but the workhouse. Probably some legislation will have to be passed to meet the case of these children, if, for years to come, you are
  698
  going to drive them at the rate of one thousand or two thousand per year into the workhouses of the country, knowing perfectly well what their fate will be. But what is to be done with them pending that legislation? The only object I can see in this extraordinary revolution of policy is a hope on the part of the right honourable Gentleman that, by the process of driving these children into the workhouses, he will succeed in compelling the ratepayers to take upon their own shoulders that portion of expenditure which is met now by the Imperial grant of five shillings. I say that that is a most mean and contemptible policy, and if the Government wished to make such a small saving, they might have chosen some means other than the ruin of thousands of poor children. I have not the smallest doubt that the effect of this Circular, if carried out in the spirit in which it has been framed, will be to ruin thousands of poor unfortunate children. I say it is not only a grotesque, but it is also a most cruel policy, and one which public feeling in Ireland will speedily and strongly condemn. It synchronises with the coming into operation of last year's Local Government Act, under which the poor rate is made payable by the occupier. As long as the landlords of Ireland had to pay half the poor rate, the Chief Secretary was afraid to introduce such a proposal, but the moment he succeeds in throwing the entire burden upon the occupier, he introduces this new policy. I hope that even now the Irish landlords will be found resisting a proposal so detrimental to institutions which have given such universal satisfaction. The right honourable Gentleman said it was plainly against the spirit of the Industrial Schools Act to admit children who were simply destitute, and he added that it was not the practice in England. So much the worse for England. It would be far more wise and more statesmanlike if the Minister responsible for the care of poor children, instead of attempting to destroy one of the most successful systems ever applied to the destitute children of any country, would send over someone to study that system, with the view of giving children of the same class in England an equally good chance. If the right honourable Gentleman will take my advice, he will withdraw the Circular, and tell the Home Secretary, or

  699
  whomsoever is responsible, that the system of dealing with destitute children in Ireland is far superior to that obtaining in England, and that he would be wise to send an experienced inspector to examine into the Irish system.
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: I wish to dissociate myself from the protest of honourable Gentlemen opposite. I think the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary has shown on this, as on many other occasions, an extreme desire, while endeavouring to carry out the law, to do so in the most satisfactory way. This is an attempt by honourable Gentlemen to place a charge which should rightly fall upon poor rate upon Imperial funds. While we are perfectly prepared to justify an Imperial grant for the reform of the criminal or semi-criminal class, I for one am not prepared to cast upon Imperial resources charges which should fall upon Irish poor rate. Unquestionably attempts are made in various parts of Ireland to send out children to beg in order to qualify them for becoming inmates of industrial schools. We have already had given us the opinion of a Dublin magistrate on that point, and the right honourable Gentleman has also referred to the view expressed by a late lamented friend of mine, Mr. R. Hamilton, who was well known in Belfast as a philanthropic magistrate. It has been shown from these statements that cases have occurred where, even within the precincts of the court itself, children have been given money in order to qualify them for committal. I should like to allude to the fact that, in some parts of Ireland, the object of sending these children to industrial schools managed by monks and nuns is to bring them under the influence of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. I wish to protest against this use being made of the Act. It ought not to be used to spread the Roman Catholic religion, and I therefore hope that the Chief Secretary and the Irish Government will remain firm in their determination to apply this Act solely for the purposes for which it was originally passed. The opinion of The O'Conor Don has been quoted. All who knew that gentleman had a great admiration for his intellect, and will feel this was the right interpretation of an Act for which he was partially responsible. I
  700
  hope that the Government will not be deterred from doing its duty, but will see that the Act is administered in the spirit of the Circulars recently issued, and will not allow its beneficent object of dealing with a semi-criminal class to be defeated by extending its benefits to those the cost of providing for whom should fall not upon Imperial resources, but upon local rates.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The honourable Member for East Mayo said the effect of the Circular was likely to be so far-reaching as to practically destroy the industrial school system in Ireland. If that is so, then, as I have pointed out, it must be taken as an indication of the extent to which the abuse of the law has been carried. I do not think, however, that that will be the effect of the Circular, and I am persuaded, in spite of the opinions expressed by honourable Members, that the result will be not to prevent the industrial schools in Ireland continuing in the future, as in the past, to do good work.
  Vote agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported.
  On the return of the CHAIRMAN, after the usual interval,

BRITISH PROTECTORATES IN AFRICA.

  CLASS V.
  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £256,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1899, for a Grant in Aid of the Expenses of the British Protectorates in Uganda and in Central and East Africa."
  Motion made—
  "That the Item A (Uganda, Grant in Aid), be reduced by £100:—(Sir Charles Dilke.)
  *SIR C. DILKE: I propose to move the reduction of the Vote of £197,000 as a grant in aid of Uganda by £100. A short time ago the honourable Baronet the Member for the Berwick Division and late Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs alluded to our connection with Uganda, and stated that within the last few years British influence had gone to Uganda and had turned that country upside down.

  701
  Now, certainly it is the fact that six years ago the British East Africa Company found peace in Uganda, and at the present moment the position is what may be described as a pandemonium, and four different wars are going on in Uganda at the same time. There is a war with the old King Mwanga, who has returned to British territory from German territory; there is a., war with a Roman Catholic Chief called Gabriel; then there is a war carried on against the revolted Soudanese troops; and lastly, there is a war raging with Kabrega, the King of Unyoro. At the present moment we are free to face with this extraordinary disturbed condition of things in Uganda, and the result is that there is a great increase in the monetary Vote which we see in the Supplemenary Estimates now before us. The Vote of last year was already a very large one. The normal Vote for Uganda would be very considerable apart from the railway loan, but the Vote of last year has not been found sufficient, and we are now presented with this Supplementary Estimate. Now, in regard to the Foreign Office administration the question is a grave one. It is in consequence of the errors committed in Uganda. It is in consequence of trying to govern Uganda without a Civil Service composed of persons who know the native languages of the country. The Foreign Office, in conducting the affairs of Uganda, has relied on odds and ends of administrators picked up anywhere, in no way trained to administer such a country. And we were only saved from absolute disaster by the pluck, the spirit, and the energy of the young British officers whose services had been lent by the War Office. During the course of last year Ave have seen the military successes secured by these young British officers, and the immense resources displayed by them, but we have not seen the smallest dawn on the horizon of any permanent peace in Uganda, or of any real settling down in the country. Now the state of things which still prevails in Uganda—and I speak from personal communications with a good many persons who have been there, and I have seen letters from many others who are there—the state of things in the Unyoro side of the protectorate is almost inconceivable. The government is so loose, and there is
  702
  so little order in administration, that practically the hordes of people that we are obliged to employ on our side are entirely beyond our control. The young British soldiers employed there have shown pluck and resource, and have pulled us through, so far as military success in the field is concerned, but there is no approach to order or civilisation. I will mention one incident as a type of the kind of raiding which is occurring on the Unyoro Frontier. The people of Uganda, as the Committee are aware, are divided into three sections—the protestant section, the Roman Catholic section, and the Mohammedan section. The Protestant, Katikiro, as he is called—the Prime Minister of the Protestant side— the other day took over and signed a receipt for a thousand Unyoro women who were captured in one of our last raids in that neighbourhood. This took place in the presence of British officers, and shows how impossible it is for us to control these people. The pretence is set up that all the people who are slaves in Unyoro were originally persons taken from Uganda. That, I believe, is not the fact. I believe there have been raids from one side and the other, and that there are a good many prisoners on each side, but in this particular case I am informed that these people were raided and handed over to the stronger side. I do not think it will be possible for the Under Secretary to contend that the state of things in Uganda is satisfactory, and I doubt whether the right honourable Gentleman will be able to inform the Committee that there is any speedy prospect of restoration to anything like settled government. In the capital of Uganda no doubt we have been able to maintain a certain semblance of order, but on the Unyoro side we are without any hold on the country, and if we are to gain hold in the future it will have to be bought by a large expenditure of money, and by military expeditions. At the present moment the Foreign Office are mainly relying in Uganda upon the Baluch Regiment. That regiment has been much overworked, and I cannot believe that the Foreign Office are likely to be able to restore order in the whole of Uganda and Unyoro without resorting to larger military preparations. Now. Sir, I

  703
  should like to ask if the Foreign Office propose that this House shall accept the present state of affairs in Uganda and Unyoro as satisfactory or likely to become so, or whether they will undertake that an independent inquiry shall be held into the origin and present condition of affairs in these countries. There was comparative peace in Uganda and Unyoro before we got there, and the state of constant war which has prevailed there of late is to some extent of our own creation. The Foreign Office admit themselves that the Soudanese troops were left for a long time with insufficient pay, and this has been a contributory cause of these disturbances. I want to know whether the Foreign Office propose that some independent inquiry should take place into the condition of things in Uganda at the present time, as only such an inquiry can, I think, be satisfactory to this House. I do not mean an inquiry of the kind held in connection with the former disturbances, after Colonel Lugard's leaving, a report of which was never presented. I mean an independent inquiry of a kind which would be satisfactory to this House and to the country, and the nature of which would be laid before the House. This Vote includes something more than the military expenditure and the cost of the four wars in which, during the last year, we have been engaged; it includes the whole cost in the present year of the Martyr Expedition, which is going down the Nile in the direction of the Soudan. This is, therefore, the proper time for the Committee to ask the Foreign Office for some statement as to the nature and the intention of that Expedition. The Foreign Office last year misled us—I think we may say misled the House—with regard to the Macdonald Expedition. There was a separate Vote for that expedition, and I should not be in order in discussing it on this Vote, but I am referring to the fact that many of us think we were misled with regard to that expedition, as showing that it is necessary for us to scrutinise with some care another expedition of a similar kind. I presume the Macdonald Expedition was paid for out of the money voted last year, but the cost of the Martyr Expedition down the Nile is to be defrayed entirely from this Vote. This,
  704
  then, is the right opportunity for us to ask for information from the Government with regard to that expedition. AS I understand, four companies of the Soudanese troops who have remained loyal in Uganda—who have not risen in revolt—have been taken with the Martyr Expedition, which has the whole of the boats that were on the lake. The expedition is to proceed down the Nile to Fashoda by water, with the exception of trans-shipment round the cataracts. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has described to us the intention of the Government as being to control the waterway of the Nile, and I presume we shall be told that the object of the Martyr Expedition is to establish that control. Some of us would be very glad if we could obtain more information as to the real intention of this expedition. We know that on one bank of the Nile the Belgians are in possession under a lease. We have been told that the Belgians have journeyed some distance beyond the tract leased to them, and statements have been made that they have been in the neighbourhood of two places further in the direction of Khartoum than the tract in respect of which they possess a lease. What orders have the Martyr Expedition with reference to both banks of the Nile beyond the point where the leased territory ends? Are the Martyr Expedition to control the opposite bank of the Nile to that which has been leased to the Belgians? These are matters possessing special importance, from the declaration of the honourable Baronet, the late Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir E. Grey), that control of all portions of the Nile is essential to the welfare of Egypt, and he said the progress of science had shown that irrigation in these districts which the Martyr Expedition is traversing would affect the supply of water in Egypt. There is no river in the world which has so slight a fall as the Nile and its tributaries in the district of the Bahr-el-Ghazal. The country is flat beyond belief, and is absolutely soaked with water. The whole country at all periods of the year is one vast morass. How is it conceivable that any interference with the Nile or its tributaries can take place in the thousands of miles of morass which the Martyr Expedition is now

  705
  traversing? At all events, I think the House has some right to ask for some distinct statement from the Government as to tile objects, the direction, and the scale of the Martyr Expedition. We have not had one word of explanation up to now. We are left entirely to private letters from officers who desire that their names shall not be made known. Not one single word has been said by the Government with regard to the Martyr Expedition. The information which was given us last year with regard to the Macdonald Expedition was misleading, and I think the Committee are entitled, before passing this Vote, to receive a clear explanation from the Government as to the Martyr Expedition. I have been informed that one of the main objects of the Martyr Expedition is to increase the number of our troops in Uganda by recruiting Dinkas and Shilluks. These men are the most warlike tribes in that country, and if this is the object of the expedition I should have no fault to find with it; but the House ought not to be left to mere conjecture on this subject. We ought to have a full explanation from the Government, not only as to whether they will grant an inquiry into the disastrous state of things existing in Uganda and Unyoro, but also as to the objects of the Martyr Expedition. I beg to move the reduction of the first item of the Vote in reference to Uganda by £100.
  COMMANDER BETHELL: The right honourable Baronet who has just sat down has expressed the opinion that the House was misled last year with reference to the Macdonald Expedition. That expedition was broken up early in its career, and what it was ultimately intended for has never been disclosed; but I see no reason for supposing that the House has been misled. I, like my honourable Friend, should be very glad to know what the precise object of the Martyr Expedition is. We have had very little information on the subject, and there is practically none contained in the Blue Book. I do not see what object is served by keeping the Committee of the House of Commons in darkness about these expeditions. It would be absurd to deny that the state of Uganda has become very unsatis-
  706
  factory during the last two or three years, whether owing to the nature of the administration or the peculiar nature of the circumstances which have recently arisen. As I understand my right honourable Friend, he is rather disposed to attribute it to the administration which has been set up by the Foreign Office, who have not, as he thinks, got the proper material for undertaking such administration. I am inclined to think that whatever office had the task of exercising administration, the state of things could not, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, have been very much better. They have selected, so far as I can make out, very skilful officers, if we may judge from the results of the campaigns, which have been held. The blot on the administration seems to me to be that the head of the whole administration, Sir Arthur Hardinge, has really been too far away from the scene of operations to have a complete grasp of them. I think the representative of Sir Arthur Hardinge—the Administrator," I think he is called—cannot have the same sense of acute responsibility as he would have if he were the person in communication with the Foreign Office. It seems to me that a great mistake is made in keeping the ultimate authority in the hands of Sir Arthur Hardinge, and putting in Uganda an Administrator more or less under him. I think the mistake we are making in our African Protectorates is in not putting what the Committee may call big enough men, with ample power, to be responsible for their government. We have never been able in the history of this country to administer Colonies and Protectorates from Downing Street. You cannot do it. You never have done it, and assuredly you never will do it with success. We ought to select an able man for such a task, give him complete responsibility, general instructions, and very large powers. I think if that were done, peace and good rule would speedily prevail in Uganda. During the last three or four years honourable Members have spoken in this sense, and I think we may fairly say that the sense of the Committee of the House of Commons is very strongly in favour of the suggestion I have made, and I would urge my right honourable Friend

  707
  the Under Secretary to use his influence in getting it adopted. It is becoming more or less of a scandal that in a place like Uganda this sort of administration should go on from year to year, and I hope the Foreign Office will now buckle to the task, reform their system of administration, and see if the Protectorate of Uganda cannot be made as peaceful and as satisfactory as the other Protectorates which we have under our care.
  SIR E. GREY: Perhaps I might shorten matters if I added to the questions which have been already raised, one or two, or rather emphasised one or two, to which I would ask the right honourable Gentleman opposite to reply presently. With regard to what the honourable and gallant Member has said about some change in the administration of Uganda, I think we must all admit that the results hitherto in Uganda have not been satisfactory. I will come to the question of responsibility or of how far they were avoidable presently, but anyhow the results have been in themselves unfavourable. I am not quite are that I gather what change exactly the honourable and gallant Member wanted to introduce, whether government as a Crown Colony, with a Governor with larger powers, and, if so, what the nature of the Governor's powers would be. That point I must leave to be dealt with by the right honourable Gentleman opposite. I should like to join the right honourable Baronet who opened this discussion in inviting the right honourable Gentleman opposite to give us the largest amount of information that he can with regard to the Martyr Expedition. It is a subject on which there must be a legitimate desire that we should have as much information as can be given. But I was surprised to hear the statement that anything I have said previously could lead to the supposition that the Martyr Expedition was to be justified by the danger of that part of the Nile being taken for irrigation purposes, and so preventing Egypt from getting all the water she required. It is quite true that I stated there was danger of the water of the Upper Nile being taken for irrigation purposes, and thus depriving Egypt of the volume of
  708
  water necessary for her. But I was using that language as an argument for the expedition to Omdurman, and I was using it with special reference to the country which had been traversed between Omdurman and Egypt. When I made that point about irrigation I was not thinking of the Martyr Expedition at all. I went on to say that the frontiers between Egypt and British territory on the Nile Valley must be coterminous: but I did not use the question of irrigation with reference to that point at all. I held to that point—I hold to it—purely on political grounds. I think that if Egypt is to be at Omdurman or in the Nile Valley at any point—take any point you like—it is impossible for political views and for reasons of general convenience in connection with the trade and the control of the country generally that any other Power should intervene on the Upper Nile between Omdurman and Uganda. That undoubtedly, I think, is the case, but I think from all that' has happened that any danger of that taking place has now been removed; and I think that though in the end the two frontiers must be coterminous, the pace at which you may proceed with the development and occupation of that territory is now very much more at the disposal of Her Majesty's Government than it was before. Now, with regard to the state of Uganda before we came there. British influence did not go there for the first time when the late Government came into office. We found Uganda in a very disturbed state, and though I do not know what the historical annals of Uganda, had been before any British influence was there, I gather that, if there were any authentic records, it would be found that the state of the country was not very happy. Certainly, I say, Mwanga was a bad neighbour before we got there. He has been a source of disturbance since, and the record I have read of him is one of the worst of records. Well, Sir, in coming down to later times, and in coming down to these last records—which I have admitted to be painful reading—there is one thing, of course, which strikes all of us who have read these recent Blue Books, and that is the great gallantry of the young British officers, who have had to contend with great difficulties. I do not want to insist upon that point, which I am sure will be readily admitted by the

  709
  Committee, but I should like to read one sentence from the Blue Book, Africa, No. 7, 1898. This is with reference to one of the crises which Major Macdonald had to face. Mr. Wilson says in his report that at the Lubwa's Hill Battle—and owing to various causes, the fact has scarcely been appreciated until recently—
  "To oppose nearly six hundred regular and discharged troops, Major Macdonald had in the field only 17 Indians and 341 recently-armed Sohali porters."
  Sir, that is tremendous odds against which to contend, and you have to add to that that during a great part of these operations, in the crisis which was forced upon our force in Uganda, they had to lead hastily-raised and partially-trained troops, and in order to get them to fight at all, to expose themselves in the most courageous manner. I think we ought not to let this discussion pass without paying a full tribute to the gallantry and courage which have been shown—that strikes us so much in reading these reports. Of course, there is another thing which one feels all through. How is it that this struggle came to be so necessary? How is it it could not be avoided? How is it that there has been so much loss of money and so much bloodshed? Sir, it was not expected by the authorities on the spot. We in this House had never been led to expect that the state of affairs in Uganda was so critical that we should have to face such a large Supplementary Estimate as this for such a painful cause. The mutiny came upon the authorities in Uganda by surprise; it came upon us as a painful surprise. Now, Sir, I admit that responsibility and blame are not the same thing, but when one looks back at what the previous record of the Soudanese had been, when one reads the account given of them by Sir Gerald Portal and by Major Lugard, and other people who had been in Uganda, one cannot help feeling that the causes of this mutiny do require the strictest investigation; that it was not what we should have expected to happen if the Soudanese had been handled as Sir Gerald Portal and Major Lugard thought, apparently, they could be safely handled. Now, what have the causes been? It is on that point that I wish the right honourable Gentleman opposite to give us information. Last year,
  710
  of course, we asked for information, and we were told that an inquiry was being made. Well, Sir, that inquiry has been made, and we are still anxious to have authoritative information from the Government, who have the best sources of information, as to what the causes of the mutiny were. There appear to me to have been mainly three causes: First of all, that the pay of these Soudanese was much too small. Upon that I should like to know whether any representation was made by the officers on the spot as to how the pay the Soudanese were receiving compared with the pay which was being received by men in similar employment in neighbouring territory. I admit that you cannot hold the Foreign Office primarily responsible for discontent which exists, unless that discontent has been brought to their knowledge by the authorities on the spot. I should like to know whether the Foreign Office were informed by the authorities on the spot that the Soudanese were discontented with their pay, and whether strong representation was made by the authorities in Uganda that the pay should be increased. Well, Sir, then there was the fact that the pay was in arrears. I gather that this is to be accounted for by the fact that the Soudanese had to be paid in trade goods, and that the transport of goods from the coast is difficult, and was exceptionally disturbed, owing to the troubles between Uganda and the coast. The third cause was this, that these particular companies of Soudanese who began the mutiny had been overworked. There have been various suggestions as to who was to blame for that, but the fact remains that Major Macdonald—whom it is certainly not fair to blame for the overwork of the Soudanese, because whatever overwork took place was before he got there—was sent with instructions to go on a long and hazardous expedition, and to take certain companies of Soudanese with him. When he arrived in Uganda he found that certain companies of Soudanese had been told off to go with him upon this expedition, and these companies had been so overworked already that they were ready to mutiny when they were told that there was before them a still harder task probably than they had yet undergone. Now, Sir, these companies which were told off to go with Major Macdonald were appa-

  711
  rently the very companies of Soudanese who had been so hardly worked, and I hope that the right honourable Gentleman will be able to enlighten us as to how it came to be that these three particular companies of Soudanese who had had harder work than any of the other companies were particularly selected to go on this expedition. Of course, that point has not escaped Mr. Berkeley in the report he has made. He says—
  "Major Turner's dispatches on the 9th July and subsequent dates indicate the difficult nature of the position he was in at this period, and there must necessarily have been various local considerations present to his mind in the difficulties he had to deal with, as to which I—
  that is, Mr. Berkeley—
  "could only speculate, that made it desirable to call to so considerable, an extent on the services of Companies 4, 9, and 11."
  Here is the thing which, if it was not primarily the cause of the mutiny, was, at any rate, the exciting cause which at last drove the troops into open mutiny: and as to what brought it about, Mr. Berkeley says that he himself can only speculate upon the reasons which led to the services of these three particular companies being called upon to such an extent. Well, Sir, I suppose the Foreign Office must have had some information upon that point, and I am sure we should like to hear what their information is, as to what part the overwork of these three particular companies played in causing the mutiny, and whether that overwork could not have been avoided. And, Sir, with regard to the future, we are, of course, anxious to be assured that such measures are being taken as will prevent anything of the kind occurring in Uganda again. All the forecasts hitherto of what was likely to take place in Uganda have been, I think, too sanguine. For instance, on page 55, of the Blue Book, Africa, No. 7, Mr. Berkeley writes—this is in April—
  "In these conditions it appears to me that no difficulty remains of a nature to prevent our devoting our main attention to domestic affairs, in so far as they have been disturbed by the recent crisis, with the reorganisation of the troops and their distribution to the best advantage, and to measures for the earliest possible relief of the forces belonging to the East Africa Protectorate."
  712
  Well, Sir, I think that was far too sanguine an estimate of the state of things at that time: all that has happened since shows that that estimate was far too sanguine. We should like to know from the right honourable Gentleman opposite what more information he can give us beyond what is contained in the last Blue Books, especially what he can tell us about the mutiny amongst the Sohalis, which, I think, is the latest occurrence I have seen; and we should want him to assure us, first of all, that the Foreign Office has thoroughly investigated the cause of the mutiny which has taken place, and to state what measures are being taken to guarantee the Committee against any recurrence of these Votes. At present we are left in this condition, that we feel that what his taken place is most unsatisfactory, that we hesitate as to where the responsibility should be placed for what has happened, and that all the Estimates which have been put before us hitherto of what was likely to take place have been over-sanguine, so that we have little confidence as to whether these troubles are at an end. I would ask the right honourable Gentleman to do all he can to reassure us as to the future, and he can best do that, I think, by proving to us that the Foreign Office has thoroughly investigated and come to a clear and definite opinion about the causes of the trouble in the past.
  MR. W. ALLEN: Almost every Session for the last six years, I believe, there has been a Debate on Uganda, and we have been every year assured that the causes of the disturbances there were merely momentary, and that everything would go on eventually in a satisfactory way. The Government proceeded to make a railway there, and we were told that such a railway was the only thing needed to develop that great empire and to bring a great trade into Central Africa. Well, the Government got their Vote for this railway on these grounds, and now they are asking for this Vote on exactly the same ground that in future we shall do a great trade with Central Africa. It, seems to me that they are very much out is estimate on this occasion, and I think that the Government must have been very badly informed when they prepared their Estimate last year, for the

  713
  Supplementary. Vote which they are now asking for is actually more than the whole total of their Estimate which was laid before the House last year. Now, what is the meaning of this? It seems to me that the reason is, as was urged in a previous Debate to-night, that the Foreign Office is not the proper Department for dealing with these undeveloped States in Central Africa. They have not the men there who are capable of properly administering these countries, and of stating accurately what the condition of them is. I think this is shown by the fact that they were not even able to pay their troops an amount that was satisfactory to them, and practically by their action in this respect they brought on the revolt that has caused us a great deal of the trouble, and a great deal of this extra expenditure that the House is now asked to vote for. The late Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said he did not know the state of affairs in Uganda, and he also said that the House did not know them; but surely it was the duty of the Government of the day, with their highly paid officials there, to have consulted them, for they are supposed to have a thorough knowledge of the administration in those districts. Surely it was their business to lay before this House a true representation of the state of affairs in Uganda and in Central Africa. They have failed to do so, and until they give some satisfactory answer to the questions that have been asked to-night by the right honourable Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, and by the right honourable Gentleman the late Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, it does seem to me that the House should not vote these large sums of money for these wild districts and swampy marshes in Central Africa which, at the very best, are only speculative investments for this country.
  *MR. BRODRICK: I am rather astonished in connection with this matter, which so naturally engages the attention of the House, that we have not had a speech from the honourable Member for Northampton. The honourable Member for Northampton has been good enough, in the weekly journal which he directs, to make a most serious and most vehement attack upon the conduct of affairs in Uganda, and especially on the administration of the Uganda Railway.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I rise to a point of order. Is the Uganda Railway included in this Vote? I should be delighted if it were, but I do not think it is.
  TUB CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I do not think that any remarks upon the Uganda Railway would be in order.
  *MR. BRODRICK: I am sorry that I am out of order. I will, however, absolve the honourable Gentleman from the castigation which I was prepared to give him. That enables me to come at once to the more pertinent and direct attacks made by honourable Members, and more especially by the right honourable Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean. Now, in respect of that, let me say at once that, considering the amount of the Supplementary Estimate and considering also the whole of the circumstances of the Uganda Protectorate, I am not in the least surprised the right honourable Gentleman should have put this question before the Committee. Sir there is no doubt that the administration of Uganda has given cause in many quarters of the House for anxiety, but, looking at it now from the point of view at which we have arrived, and under the circumstances in which we are placed, I do not think that there is much cause for anxiety as to the present position of affairs. The Uganda Protectorate was in itself an enormous territory. I do not think that in any experiment which this country has made in the government of wild and uncivilised countries that there has been one in which the Government had less information and less precedents to rely upon than in the occupation of Uganda. I have heard very much said this evening about the inefficiency of the Foreign Office in conducting its administration, its incompetence, and its want of knowledge both in its administration and in the carrying on of warlike operations in Uganda. But, really, when we look at all the circumstances of Uganda, and when we look at other efforts that have taken place in Africa of a similar description, I am sure that at the present moment Uganda does not bear a very unfavourable comparison. Now, what are the other experiments which lie nearest to hand? Ton have neither looked at what has been done by the

  715
  British Government acting in some sort of way in the shape of influence, nor what has been done by British subjects. But whichever way you look at it—whether you look at the original operations in the Soudan in 1884, of which the right honourable Gentleman opposite will remember something; or if you look at the experiment made by the Chartered Company in Rhodesia; or if you look at the Congo State—you will find in all these cases, and especially in the last two, which are the nearest by way of comparison with Uganda, that there have been military operations, there have been rebellions, that there has been very lame expenditure of money, and that events have stopped the development of these provinces for a very considerable time. Even at this moment the Congo State is dealing with a mutiny which has led to the loss of a very considerable number of men, and also a very considerable number of officers. Therefore, what has happened in Uganda is not at all out of the common in Africa, and the question is whether all or any of these events were avoidable. I do not mean to trouble the Committee with any recapitulation of what was dealt with in the Debate which took place last year and the year before. I will come at once to the question of this mutiny. The right honourable Baronet opposite has asked me a very pertinent question about this mutiny. Among the causes given for the mutiny are that the pay was small and was in arrear; that there were constant expeditions which separated the men from their families; and that there were various other causes which made them feel that their duties were less pleasant and agreeable than they otherwise would have been. But there were other causes which, in the view of the Foreign Office, were the principal causes of this trouble. Honourable Gentlemen will recollect that a good many of these men had actually come from over the border, where there had previously been a great mutiny which was surrounded by the greatest possible difficulties, and represented a sort of disaffection which spread over nearly the whole of the troops in the district, and especially among those who took service under European nations. The general idea as to the primary cause is that a successful attempt might be made to overpower the European officers to what-
  716
  ever nation they belong. With regard to question of pay, I do not think there is any doubt that the pay was too small. But you cannot expect people on the spot to deal instantly with questions of pay, or to see at once the effect which a general rise in the scale of living may have on the particular men who have been engaged. Since these men were engaged a considerable rise in the value of human labour has taken place in that part of Africa. The construction of railway works has been pushed on, and a very considerable number of men have been engaged, some of them on very good terms. Again, we were not the only nation who were employing troops, and I think that had matters gone on for a very short time longer, we should no doubt have received reports in the direction which the right honourable Baronet has indicated from our officers with regard to the pay of the troops. Well, as far as I can make cut, no representations of that character had reached us at the time. There had been representations and suggestions made as to the organisation of the troops, and there have been some suggestions made as to the desirability of increasing the number of officers, which have since been carried into effect. I cannot, however, trace any representations of the character alluded to. But what is a far more serious matter than this question of pay were three subjects, each of which, undoubtedly, influenced these men very much in their conduct. The first was that the pay was not receivable in the particular kind which they desired. It-was no use giving them a cheque or money. All they wanted was trade goods, which, however, could not be brought up, as the transport had broken down, because the loss of animals had been so enormous, and the contract had entirely broken down. I think it is very doubtful whether it would have been expected, under any Administration, that these difficulties could have been got over. Then there was another difficulty, and that was the separation of the troops from their families. These men have been in the habit, as many African troops are, of taking their families with them wherever they went, and this matter, looked at from a military point of view, was very inconvenient. I believe that some of them cared very little whether they were accompanied by a wife or some

  717
  member of the family to carry their household goods, but some of them who had wives preferred to have a camp follower. Well, now, I don't think these people had any cause to complain. Major Macdonald met them, and conferred with them. He asked them what they would desire, and whether it was their wish that their wives and families should proceed with them to a certain point, so long as they could be maintained with safety? Ho also offered that, if they came forward, he would keep them, which was no part of the contract. But, so far as I can judge, there was already a mutinous spirit abroad, and what was said by Major Macdonald to the officers and non-commissioned officers was not properly reported to the soldiers. Of course, this misunderstanding went a long way towards disturbing them. Then there is the question of overwork. I daresay the Committee will bear with me for a few moments upon this question of overwork. No doubt these men were overworked, and they were overworked for this reason, that, since the expedition of Major Macdonald had been ordered from home trouble had broken out in the district with which these very officers were connected. There is no doubt that these men were very hard worked, and if there had been a telegraph by which they could have communicated with the authorities at home, and if we had been told that these men had been engaged on other expeditions, it is extremely likely that different arrangements would have been made to deal with them. Rut having regard to the enormous distance at which these events have occurred, the only thing which we could do was to leave the matter in the hands of the local authorities. In this case, as throughout all these troubles in Uganda, I cannot speak too highly of the way in which the local authorities have done their best to endeavour to meet the necessities of the case, and in all these troubles, which were unforeseen, we have no ground whatever for casting am- blame on the local administration. I do not think that any of these men, troublesome as they have been, have, in any case, blamed the local administration for what took place. We cannot foresee these outbreaks, and we cannot foresee a mutiny. The only thing that has boon done is that, undoubtedly, a considerable sum of money
  718
  has been spent in quelling this mutiny. VV e have been asked by the right honourable Gentleman opposite if we can now look forward with certainty to a quieter state of things? It is very difficult to prophesy with regard to Uganda. We can only act on the advice of the officers there, who believe that the country is at this moment very largely quieted down. But, undoubtedly, until the remainder of these Soudanese troops—some of whom are still at large—are completely disbanded and broken up, we may expect to hear of such attacks as that which Lieutenant Hannington was subjected to, and which took place the other day. I think the war in which Lieutenant Hannington, himself desperately wounded, managed to pull the Indian troops through, and the way in which those troops behaved when suddenly attacked by a very much superior force, and exposed to a heavy fire, was extremely gratifying, and deserves the highest praise. Well now, Sir, with regard to the general position. I have been asked to make some statement with regard to Colonel Martyr's expedition. I do not quite understand what the honourable and gallant Member for Holderness means when he speaks of "keeping the House in the dark." There has been laid on the fable, in "Africa, No. 2," the exact orders and instructions which were given to Major Macdonald, as lie then was, as regards the expedition which he undertook. It was extremely desirable that we should know not only the source of the Juba, but also that we should know the attitude of the tribes in that district. But although Major Macdonald's expedition was hampered by the mutiny, it did some very useful work. This expedition was not permanent, and Colonel Macdonald's mission may be considered to be closed. On the other hand, Colonel Martyr has gone further north, and his expedition has a very definite object. It has to explore, and, if possible, plant posts on the right bank of the Nile, connecting Uganda with the territory to which Lord Kitchener's troops have either penetrated or have nearly penetrated. It is intended that he shall ultimately join hands with Lord Kitchener, and that he should ascertain and occupy the territory to which by treaty we are entitled, and which con-

  719
  nects Uganda and the source of the Nile with the valley of the Nile. Colonel Martyr has already made very considerable progress, and the last we heard from him was by a telegram on January 23rd. I do not think it is very likely that we shall advance much further for the present, although it is not probable that there is much distance between him and Lord Kitchener, lie has, however, made very considerable and useful progress, and was forced to cross to the left bank of the Nile for a short time. But this is simply owing to the fact that at that time of the year the right bank of the Nile is, to some extent* under water. But, Sir, apart from Colonel Martyr's expedition, the view of the Government with regard to Uganda and with regard to this East African Protectorate is that until the completion of the railway it is not desirable either to occupy or to attempt to administer territories not hitherto occupied or administered. We do not desire in any way to increase the responsibilities which we have incurred for the moment, although it is reasonable, of course, that we should secure those tribes over whom we have obtained administration from any attack; but we thoroughly realise that any attempt I o establish administrative rule over a part of Africa three times as large as France, and support it by an adequate military force, is one which must be a question of time and opportunity, and we do not intend at this moment to push outposts in every direction, but to rest, as it were, upon what has been acquired, and fortify, so to speak, our position. I say this, that in the course of last year we have undoubtedly had, both in the Eastern territory and also on the North and West, to put down very considerable and formidable risings, and we have had to establish our authority with a certain amount of military force, and partly in consequence we have to ask now for this Supplementary Vote of £197,000 in Uganda. We have spent £175,000 of this total in relief of the mutiny which has taken place. I think the House will recognise that we have not been backward in the efforts we have made in this part of Africa. One point on which the Committee should fix its mind is that, as far as I know, up to the present,
  720
  the whole expenditure which has been incurred in Uganda has not been anything in excess of what the House was led to expect at the time when Uganda was first occupied. Without attempting to prophesy, I may say that there is undoubtedly a strong conviction on the spot that the time is not far distant when Uganda will pay its way, for the revenue even within the last three months has risen considerably. The amount of goods that are now being sent along the line is some indication of what we may expect to see in the future. At the same time elements of danger in the future are certainly not uncommon, but what I do earnestly hope is that we may realise our expectations. It may be that by employing rather a larger force and by attempting rather less we might-have avoided some of the difficulties last year. If that had been so we should have been a great deal wiser than any of those who are now attempting to govern similar provinces. In almost every case there has been the same difficulty, and naturally there is a desire not to start these Protectorates with an enormous military force. My honourable Friend was under, I think, the misapprehension that the administration in Uganda was hampered by its dependence on home authority.
  COMMANDER BETHELL: I quoted from the last Blue Book.
  *MR. BRODRICK: It has been said that these administrators are very much tied by leading strings from Downing Street, but I should have thought, on the contrary, we should have had complaints from the opposite benches of the exaggerated powers given to those administrators. I think that, although in all matters of estimate as to the number of troops, and also as to the positions which we are to occupy, control must be exercised from home; I do not think honourable Members will be able to trace in all these questions, either

  721
  of rebellion or mutiny, that a single reference has been made at Downing Street as to what should be undertaken or as to what operations should next be made. I think, on the contrary, that the fullest responsibility has been given to those who administered those Protectorates, and I think that is a very salutary thing, and the only possible way of doing this work. You must trust the men on the spot, especially when it is a long way from the telegraph. I hope that the Committee will not suppose for a single moment that I am throwing on them the responsibility for any of these misfortunes. These seem to me to be incidental to African ventures, and, looking at the matter on general grounds, they could not have been averted. But I do not think that you can fix on any individual—at least, on these distinguished officers Mr. Berkeley and Major Macdonald—the responsibility for the mutiny which has occurred. I believe that all the officials in Uganda are thoroughly alive to the necessity of economising their forces, and also of acting with a due regard to the public purse. Although it is dangerous to prophesy, I cannot help thinking that we have turned the corner in Uganda, and experience has been gained by what has occurred in the past. As far as the military problem is concerned, we have acted, from first to last, in the closest possible touch with the War Office, who have advised on every single point, and who are responsible, to a large extent, for the action that has been taken, and the decisions which have been come to. If there is any other point on which the Committee desire information we are perfectly willing to give it. We have nothing whatever to conceal. We have gone on steadily forward from the first in the same direction, and, unless the results this year are very different from those which we anticipated, I think we shall have a very good report to make next year to the House of Commons. It will be a year of steady spreading out of our influence, of drawing together the various threads, of causing a subsi-
  722
  dence of all these difficulties. There are just now no disturbing elements. At the same time, our information is never full to the latest date, and if at times we are unable to give all the information which you should desire, it is not because tin Government is unwilling to give it, but because the circumstances of the case make it impossible to us.
  *MR. MCKENNA: The argument of the right honourable Gentleman appears to me to amount to this—he admits everything, he pleads extenuating circumstances, and says the Congo State is worse. We are not concerned to answer for the mistakes that have been made in the Congo. For my part, I think that the Government of the Congo is as bad as it can be, and it ought not to be held up to us as an example that should be followed. The right honourable Gentleman has not made any answer to the honourable Member for Holder-ness as to the desirability of sending out representatives with more considerable powers than they seem to have had, and with more adequate means. It is true that the honourable Gentleman said that more adequate means will add something to the cost. Well, we ought to know what the cost of Uganda has been. I believe it is not the administration which is so costly, but the defects in the administration. In 1895 the cost was £49,000, in 1896 it was £49,000, but in 1897–8 it rose to £89,000 on account of the first outbreak of the war, and in 1898–9 it has amounted to £339,000; so that we have from these figures, normal expenditure £49,000, war expenditure £290,000. My submission is that, if we had undertaken a proper administration of Uganda, we would not have been liable to the charges for these wars. I entirely agree that the fault does not lie with any individual soldier. Every man in Uganda acquitted himself to the utmost of his ability, and did his work remarkably well. But they have not had sufficient means placed at their disposal. If you read the correspondence, and listen to what our officers say, it will be found that they had not a sufficient force at their command, that there were

  723
  on proper means of obtaining information, and that there were no proper means of resistance when the outbreak took place. Again and again in the correspondence the phrase is used, "I do not anticipate any further trouble." But what were the means allowed to our representatives for putting down the rebellion and mutiny? We find that they were so inadequate that Major Macdonald had to press the missionaries into the service, not as hospital attendants and interpreters, but as soldiers, and one of them, Mr. Pilkington, met with a most lamentable death. Now, with all our resources and magnificent intentions regarding this new African Empire, surely it is our duty to send to our representatives there the means of carrying out a proper administration, and, if we did so, we should have less to pay in the long run.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I gather from the speech of the honourable Gentleman that he is not one of those who believe generally in the occupation of Uganda.
  *MR. McKENNA: No.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I am glad to hear it. No doubt mistakes have been made. And the principal mistake made is the mistake only too common in the initiation of great Imperial enterprises by this country—the mistake, namely, of underrating the work to be done, and of sending too small a force. But I do not see that you can charge that against the War Office or the Foreign Office more than against any other department. I do not believe tint the Colonial Office could have administered Uganda any better than the Foreign Office. I believe, with the honourable Gentleman behind me, that thy question of administration is really a question of the man whom you put in control. I think there has been a mistake at first in not putting a man of sufficient position and experience and strength in the conduct of affairs at the head of this great Protectorate. But, after all, I think that this possession, this country, will be regarded in the
  724
  future as well worth the sacrifices that have been made, because undoubtedly it is the key to Africa. We ought to remember that it is greatly to the credit of Lord Rosebery that this undertaking was due to him. A point which was exceedingly satisfactory in the course of the Debate is the spirit which permeated the speeches of honourable Members. In all, or almost all, at any rate,, there was a general recognition of the fact that the control of the Nile is absolutely necessary to the safety of Egypt, and, of course, that has a bearing on the Uganda question, because, as the honourable Baronet said earlier in the evening, the British dominion must be practically coterminous with the dominion of Egypt. As long as that policy remains the policy of this country, Egypt must be safe, and our dominion complete. It is only lately that this view has prevailed, for I remember that 14 years ago I vainly attempted to persuade Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House of its importance. I venture to say that Uganda is well worth all the sacrifices that have been made, and I agree with my right honourable Friend who represents the Foreign Office in this House that comparing the mistakes made in Uganda, and the sacrifices incurred, the net result of our administration in Uganda does not contrast unfavourably with our administration in other regions of Africa.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I had not the least intention of taking part in this Debate, but the right honourable Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, in the course of his speech, attacked me because I had not spoken. Well, I do not know that I am obliged to speak every time that there is a Debate on Uganda, but as the right honourable Gentleman insists on my speaking, I shall take the liberty of making a few remarks. At the same time, I apologise to the House, for as I have so often spoken in the House on the question silence might have been more sweet than talking. But the right honourable Gentleman speaks as the representative of the Bench opposite, and it

  725
  appears that the Front Bench insist on my speaking. Now, the right honourable Gentleman has attempted to defend the Foreign Office, but I believe that if the Foreign Office were composed of angels instead of clerks they would in all probability not be able to manage this difficult job. The real fault is that they have attempted to do the whole thing on the cheap. I have not the slightest doubt that when they wanted more money and went to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to get the money, he told them that he would have to present a very bad Budget to the House, and that they must do without the money, as he could not spare it. It is rather the habit of honourable Members on the Benches opposite to swagger about the world as to having laid hold of Uganda, and other parts of Africa and elsewhere, but when it comes to paying for it they know well that the English public, being a practical people, would sooner have a pot of beer all round than become possessed of the whole Empire of Socoto. Many reasons have been given for the conduct of the black troops which rebelled. The Soudanese rebelled because they are some of the most unmitigated scoundrels on the face of the globe. I have read Emin Pasha's book; and I see an honourable Gentleman opposite who knows more of that country than any other man, and I am sure he will bear me out that the Soudanese are a most thoroughly disreputable and unreliable set of men. In taking over these Soudanese we did a most foolish thing. When you are in a barbarous country, and want to give the inhabitants the benefits of civilisation, it is the worst thing possible to do that by means of Soudanese mercenaries. The right honourable Gentleman said that the reason why these Soudanese mutinied was that they did not get what they wanted; that they did not want cash as pay, but goods. But they wanted some thing besides goods; they wanted women. These people carry their women about with them, and that is the reason why their families are so large I am told that there are 60 Soudanese in a company, and that for every company there are 500 women and children, whom they insist on taking about with them
  726
  always. I regard the whole business of Uganda as an object lesson against our interfering in those tropical countries of Africa. The honourable Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean has pointed out how the Chartered Company shunted the whole business on to us. We took it over, and ever since that there has been a long succession of wars, and what we wanted now was to get possession of great possessions beyond Uganda. We defeated Kabarega, who was said to be a bad neighbour. You may depend upon it that go where you will in Central Africa you will have an exceedingly bad neighbour; and if you go on saying "because I have a bad neighbour I will take all his country that I possibly can get," then we must have expeditions right on to the head waters of the Nile, and use Soudanese troops in these expeditions. But I understand these Soudanese are family men and did not wish to be started off to look for the sources of the Juba River. Therefore, they decided not to go. The reason why we have rebellions in Uganda is because the Ugandese have patriotism which we think is confined to Englishmen. They like their independence, they have a Government—it may be a bad Government, but they want it. They want to be Ugandese, and to remain without our interfering with them. Then there was Mwanga, who had alternately been a Pagan, a Roman Catholic, a Mohamedan, and a Protestant. He boxed the compass in religions just as it suited' him. At one time Mwanga was put forward as one of the noblest of the human, race. That was when he was with us. But when he turned against us, he became the most perfect scoundrel in the world. You must remember when you are talking of this rebellion that you must not put it all on to the Soudanese. You have got besides big rebellions at Unyoro and other districts. Then, in regard to Major Macdonald's expedition, the right honourable Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs said the object of that expedition was to find the sources of the Juba River. Why should we, being in Uganda, go to find the sources: of the Juba River? What was the use of employing troops which we had for

  727
  the protection of Uganda in going on an exploratory expedition? It is not surprising that there should be a mutiny amongst the troops after they had started on this unknown exploration. But, says the right honourable Gentleman, we sent these men in search of the Juba River in order to fulfil an engagement with Italy. That I cannot understand.
  *MR. BRODRICK: What I said was that the Juba River was between our own and the Italian sphere of influence, and that it was extremely desirable that the sources should be properly mapped on that account.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Here you make a frontier; a river is to be the frontier, and you send an expedition to see whether such a river exists! That is the sort of thing I complain of. Then we have the Martyr Expedition, which went to occupy territory we did not know the value of. Nobody had ever been there, but we came to the conclusion that it was a desirable thing to seize the territory between Uganda and Sobat, and we sent Major Martyr with a number of these Soudanese and all their families in order to make a march through that unknown territory. Major Martyr had four companies with him of 60 men each, and yet he was to occupy the whole of that country, to annex it, to place posts, and come out at Sobat, hundreds of miles away, in order to aid Lord Kitchener! That is simply going mad. It is the most ridiculous proposal ever made in the whole world. But the right honourable Gentleman defends this most ridiculous proposal. He says we are not going to occupy or administer the country until the railroad is made. Well, if so, what in the name of Heaven are we doing there? We sent out a few men whom we admit are not sufficient to occupy the country and run up the expenditure from £49,000 a year to £339,000, and yet we are not to administer it until the railroad is made, which may not be for seven or eight years. Heaven knows what we are going to spend when we do occupy and administer the country if we are spending £339,000 while we are marking time.
  *MR. BRODRICK: We are doing more than marking time; we are occupying the territory which has already been taken up and establishing posts.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: The right honourable Gentleman has told us that the Soudanese are being sent to occupy new territory and establish new posts in the territory, and when I complain of this the right honourable Gentleman says, "We are only marking time till the railroad is completed." The right honourable Gentleman positively contradicts himself. The right honourable Gentleman tells us, "Let us hope that the thing will turn out well," and that a very great deal of merchandise is already going over that portion of the railroad which is made, and that the revenue is increasing. Would he have us believe that the Ugandese are paying for goods which have been carried 200 miles by railroad and the rest of the way on the backs of carriers? I want to see some return for this £339,000. Another curious statement was that when the conduct of the Foreign Office is complained of the right honourable Gentleman says, "We at the Foreign Office are not responsible, for we leave everything to the people in the country." Very well, but what then is the good of the Foreign Office? What authority have they over these men in Uganda? That is one of the things I complain of. We say that there ought to be an able man, but this able man ought to be under the control of the Foreign Office. And then the right honourable Gentleman shirks the responsibility of the Foreign Office by saying, "We don't meddle with them." The right honourable Gentleman threw out the hint that if we wanted to attack anybody in England we ought to attack the War Office. The War Office will be obliged to him, I am sure; but we find the Vote under the Foreign Office, and the Foreign Office cannot evade the responsibility. Things have gone exceedingly bad for them; money wasted and squandered in the most reckless way; and as it comes under the Foreign Office Vote it is the Foreign Office we ought to attack. The right honourable Gentleman hopes we have turned the corner.

  729
  How? You have got a few Soudanese there, but most of them are at the Juba River. You have got one Indian regiment, but I do not know whether you have any Sikhs there at present. I think they have returned to the coast. You have got some local levies and some Zanzibar porters, who are armed. Well, this is a country three times as large at France, and I ask, is it probable that these people, smarting under grievances, are to be held in check by Soudanese whom you cannot trust? And yet the Government deliberately go on in this way on the cheap. But still, if you do go there, and if you do spend our money, surely it is ridiculous to put yourself in a position in which there must be rebellions without having yourself the troops to quell them, and going on adding every year a vast sum of money to the taxes which is absolutely wasted, and might as well be thrown into the sea. What have you to show for this £339,000 which has been spent? Why, Uganda is in a worse state than it was before the money was expended. Therefore, I entirely concur with my right honourable Friend who has moved a reduction of this Vote by £100, but I should have been more contented if he had moved for the reduction of the whole amount. No doubt this Vote will be supported by a solid phalanx of Conservatives on the other side, but this protest we must make. I now apologise to you, Mr. Lowther, for detaining the Committee so long, but the responsibility for my doing so rests entirely with the right honourable Gentleman opposite.
  *MR. H. M. STANLEY: Mr. Lowther, I must admire your courtesy, and the way in which you have given such a large amount of latitude to almost everybody who has spoken about Uganda or about the railway. You have been so very courteous to the other honourable Members that I hope you will allow me just five seconds' time in order to explode that ridiculous statement which has been so often made here in regard to the Congo State. I will do it in one sentence, and say that there is not one word of truth, not one solid fact, to bear out the statement that the administration of the
  730
  Congo has been either disastrous or one of evil example. The Uganda expenses have been referred to, and the honourable Member opposite has stated that they' have at last come to a very large figure indeed. But the honourable Member opposite and the honourable Members behind him seem to have forgotten that it was their own Party that took over the control of British East Africa and Uganda from the Chartered Company, into whose hands Lord Salisbury had placed it. They seem also to have forgotten that it was their Party who first introduced the subject of the railway to Uganda. I myself do not blame them for the latter course, but I do blame them for the precipitation with which they took British East Africa and Uganda out of the hands of the Chartered Company.
  SIR E. GREY: The British East Africa. Company themselves gave notice that they would give them up.
  *MR. H. M. STANLEY: If the right honourable Baronet will permit mo to say so, I know a great deal more about this subject than per haps the right honourable Baronet thinks, for I was present when the letter from Lord Rosebery was delivered to the Chairman of the British East Africa Company; it was read to me first, of all men living, and I know that Lord Rose bery asked Sir W. Mackinnon how much' money he would require per annum to administer Uganda. Sir W. Mackinnon's answer was "£50,000." I waited till the second letter came from, the Foreign Office, and that was read to me as well, and it said, "I am sorry that I cannot give you £50,000." And now where are you? Why, you are ready to give half a million if necessary, and we knew that would come. It seems to me that Gentlemen opposite should bear in mind this part of their African policy. It has just been stated here that a country like ours, with all our magnificent resources, a country with our command of men cannot keep Uganda in order, and cannot make that railway as it ought to be made. Now, on this subject I would just like to say one little thing, and that is, that people who live in glass houses should not throw

  731
  stones. That little State just mentioned has finished its railway at a much more rapid rate than will be the ease with the Uganda Railway; in fact, I cannot congratulate the Government upon the way in which they are proceeding with this railway.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I have already ruled that the subject of this railway cannot be discussed here, because no money is being asked for it.
  *MR. H. M. STANLEY: I will not transgress your ruling further, but, as the railway leads to Uganda, I naturally inferred that I might be able to arrive at Uganda in an intelligent kind of way. My honourable Friend opposite, the Member for Northampton, says that Uganda is a question of money, and my honourable Friend down below me here says it is a question of men. Now, there are a few things to be taken into consideration in dealing with a country like Uganda, which is so far removed from the sea, and which is generally so inaccessible. No expedition goes to Africa without it takes a very large amount of supplies in order to feed its people for two or three years, as the case may be, or, at least, for a sufficient period of time to take them to some point where they can refresh themselves and renew their supplies. It seems to me that you have forgotten to take into consideration the fact that almost as fast as a certain number of porters can carry goods those goods would be consumed by the needs of the soldiers, and to supply the necessities of life you would require a very large reserve. Now, Sir, it is no wonder to me that the soldiers in Uganda became discontented. The country was warned at the time that the men who had been brought to Uganda were a very discontented set, and were a rebellious set, given to political agitation and disturbance, and fond of looting, and yet, notwithstanding this, they were taken to Uganda. But still, if some consideration had been given to the feelings of these people, they might have turned out good men. Unfortunately, circumstances prevented them
  732
  from being treated as we should like to see them treated. Their white commanders falling sick were advised to return home, and new officers unacquainted with the men were brought to the front. In the next place, when you should have given them some little liberality in the shape of increase of pay or increase in kind you found that you had not the means. Then, on account of the rebellion of Mwanga and others, a good deal of hard work was, imposed on the Soudanese, and the forced travelling, lasting for several months, brought on much illness and suffering. Finally they were sent to meet Major Macdonald, in order to be taken to some region which they had never heard of. I will not dwell on that, but say that there is no reason in the world why Uganda should remain long dissatisfied if you can only settle the question as regards these rebellious Soudanese. I think, at any rate, that most honourable Members in this House will agree with the right honourable Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs that we have now turned the corner as regards Uganda, and that in the future, if our highway of communication is again threatened, and necessity should arise, we shall be in a position to meet that necessity properly. In the meantime, I think the forces in Uganda should be kept in sufficiently large numbers to deal with such necessities as native risings in Uganda, mutinies, or interference from the neighbouring tribes—perhaps some flying body of dervishes trying to enter the country. If you had a real good force, such as the neighbouring State for instance has, you might very likely be able to keep Uganda in order, and satisfy honourable Gentlemen opposite that Uganda was advancing like other countries on the road towards prosperity My honourable Friend the Member for Northampton, after protesting against this expenditure in Uganda, has apologised for the frequency of his speeches. I quite agree with him that he rises too often to speak about a country of which he knows comparatively nothing, but for the satis-

  733
  faction of my honourable Friend I would just like to say that if I look into other parts of Africa, I find that certain countries are making a very good thing out of their trade with Africa, and I have no doubt that in time we also shall be able to do the same thing with Uganda. Commercial companies in the Congo State, and the Congo railway, are making immense profits, and I do not see why traders in Uganda should not find trading profitable. When I was in Australia some four years ago a very large deputation came to me to ask what were the prospects of trade in Uganda and East Africa, and what was the possibility of commerce there. This deputation represented some 1,500 squatters who desired to emigrate to that part of the world. I advised them not to think of moving at present, but that by-and-by, when things were more settled and the railway laid down, I should be able to advise them when it was time for them to start.
  Well, I think that before another Session is over we shall be able to tell those good people in Australia that they may go there, and possibly two or three Sessions later be able to show a good report of the progress that has been made in Uganda in the meantime, I think that by the exercise of a little patience and perseverance, and a little prudence in retaining a sufficient number of troops in Uganda, there need be no cause to fear the ultimate progress of the country. I am sorry that I was not courageous enough to rise to my feet on Friday night, because I had a very large amount of information to give to the right honourable Baronet over there, and also to the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Montrose, in regard to the Nile, but I hope I shall have an oportunity of doing so some other time.
  Question put—
  "That Item A (Uganda, Grant in Aid) be reduced by £100."—(Sir C. Dilke.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 66; Noes 185.—(Division List No. 22.)

  AYES.

  Allen, W.(Newc.-under-Lyme)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Allison, Robert Andrew

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Scott, C. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Atherldey-Jones, L.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Labouchere, Henry

  Souttar, Robinson

  Billson, Alfred

  Lambert, George

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Steadman, William Charles

  Burt, Thomas

  Leng, Sir John

  Strachey, Edward

  Caldwell, James

  Logan, John William

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Lough, Thomas

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Clough, Walter Owen

  MacNeill, J. Gordon Swift

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Colville, John

  M'Cartan, Michael

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Commins, Andrew

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Weir, James Galloway

  Daly, James

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Williams, J. Carvoll (Notts.)

  Davitt, Michael

  Morley, Chas. (Breconshire)

  Wills, Sir William Henry

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Wilson, Fredk. W. (Norfolk)

  Dillon, John

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf'

  Duckworth, James

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Mr. M'Kenna and Mr. Thomas Bayley

  Holland, W. H. (York, W.R.)

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  NOES.

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Barry, RtHnA.H.Smith-(Hunts)

  Bond, Edward

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Bowies, T. G. (King's Lynn)

  Baird, J. George Alexander

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

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Balcarres, Lord

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Butcher, John George

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

  Bethell, Commander

  Carlile, William Walter

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

  Bigwood, James

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

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Bill, Charles

  Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbysh.)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

  Gretton, John

  Penn, John

  Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Pollock, Harry Frederick

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edw.

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Purvis, Robert

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Pym, C. Guy

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Hatch, E. Frederick Geo.

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Heath, James

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Henderson, Alexander

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hermon-Hodge, R. Trotter

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

  Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.

  Cornwallis, Fiennes S. W.

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Round, James

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Howell, William Tudor

  Russell, Gen.F.S.(Cheltenham)

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Hozier, Hon. J. H. Cecil

  Rutherford, John

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Hubbard, Hon Evelyn

  Savory, Sir Joseph

  Curzon, Viscount

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Kemp, George

  Sidebottom, William (Derbysh.

  Davenport, W. Bromley-

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Denny, Colonel

  Kenyon, James

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Smith, J. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Donkin, Richard Sim

  Knowles, Lees

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

  Doughty, George

  Lafone, Alfred

  Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S.

  Lawrence,Sir E.Durning-(Corn

  Stock, James Henry

  Drage, Geoffrey

  Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks.)

  Strauss, Arthur

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Hart

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Strutt, Hon. Chas. Hedley

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Llewelyn,Sir Dillwyn-(Swansea

  Sturt, Hon. H. Napier

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Sutherland, Sir Thomas

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  Loder, G. Walter Erskine

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Finch, George H.

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool)

  Talbot,RtHn. J. G. (Oxf'dUniv.)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Lowe, Francis William

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Valentia, Viscount

  FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Ward, Hon. R. A. (Crewe)

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

  Flower, Ernest

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

  Webster,SirR.E. (I. of Wight)

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

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

  Fry, Lewis

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Wilson,J.W. (Worcestersh.N.)

  Garfit, William

  Monk, Charles James

  Wyndham, George

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Wyndham-Quinn, Major W. H.

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Young, Commander (Berks,E.)

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

  Muntz, Philip A.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Goschen, Rt.Hn.G. J.(St, Geo's

  Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Orr-Ewing, C. Lindsay

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

  Original Question again proposed.

CASE OF MR. LLOYD, OF MOMBASA.
Motion made—
"That Item C (British East Africa, Grant in Aid), be reduced by £100."—(Sir G. Dilke.)
*SIR C. DILKE: The item I wish to call attention to is that for British East Africa, and I will make my remarks as short as I can, on account of the late hour of the night. There was a deputation to the Under Secretary of State not long ago in which a question arose which
736
does not come under this Vote—I mean the question of slavery in Zanzibar. But there is a question which does come under this Vote, and that is the fact that the replies given on Fugitive Slaves were unsatisfactory. This item C makes up the deficiency in the revenue of the British East Africa Protectorate, and it is with regard to the Question asked about the officers who administer the government of that Protectorate of British East Africa that I desire to allude. Now, on the 5th of August last year a challenge was directed and addressed to some of us across the floor

737
of the House in regard to similar items in the amount voted by the late Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. He challenged us to produce to the Committee any case in which a British officer has violated the law with regard to slavery as laid down by the Attorney-General. I am glad to see the Attorney-General in his place, and I may say that we have nothing but satisfaction to express with regard to the view of the law stated to this House upon this subject on several occasions which were contained in Foreign Office dispatches addressed to the officers administering the government of British East Africa, and which was resisted very much by them. Now, on the 5th of August last it was admitted, in regard to the difference of opinion between the officers and the Government in reference to this slavery question, what their course should be. It was admitted that they had argued against the law as given by the Attorney-General, and took issue on the fact that they had not power to carry out the views expressed by the Attorney-General in this House, which was the promise given by Her Majesty's Government. Now, I wish to call the attention of the Committee to the case of Mr. Lloyd, of Mombasa, which is the principal part in British East Africa. Now, that was in June previous to that date, and probably without the knowledge of the Government in this House, at the time at which the question was addressed to us. Mr. Lloyd had his way, and he directly violated the law as laid down by the Attorney-General, that is, the law with regard to fugitive slaves. Now, what occurred with regard to Mombasa? Why, Mr. Lloyd actually-sent back to slavery three persons who had been sheltered at a mission station of the United Methodist Free Church. One of these persons was a baptised Christian, and the other two were her father and mother. Now, these three persons were surrendered who had been ten years at the station of the United Methodist Free Church. This case occurred in June last year, and it appears to show on the facts which have been put before us, which have not been contradicted, that it is exactly one of those cases which we were challenged to produce in August last. I do not think, Sir, con-
738
sidering the time which has elapsed since last June, that the Government ought now to be in the position of merely asking for information with regard to this case, from their officers on the spot. Surely, if there is any real intention on the part of the officers to carry out the law, the Government should have been aware of the facts by this time. The Government have been made aware of the facts by the action of the people who complained, and who stated that those three persons were taken from them and restored to slavery, and surely this is a case in which the Government ought to be informed. As I understand it, the officials on the spot have never really recognised and understood the view of the law which was laid down by the Attorney-General in this House. Sir A. Hardinge, who is the principal official on the spot, has explained to the Government his view of the law, and he says that the Indian Penal Code was only made applicable to British East Africa so far as the circumstances permitted; but the Attorney-General's view of the law was never based upon the Indian Penal Code at all, but it was based upon the general law of this country, as applied to British subjects engaged in connection with the slave trade, in words which I will presently give to the House. Sir A. Hardinge's case appears to be that it is practically impossible to take any other course or to abolish the legal status of slavery in British East Africa, which is a Mahomedan country. I should like very briefly to call the attention of the House to the most weighty evidence given on this subject by Sir Bartle Frere, who is a very high authority on Mahomedan countries and on Zanzibar and British East Africa. This subject was inquired into by the Royal Commission on Fugitive Slaves in 1876. And on this point I should like to bring forward the evidence of Sir Bartle Frere. He pointed out, by reference to India, how absolutely safe and easy it was in Mahomedan countries to abolish the legal status of slavery. There were sixty millions of Mahomedans, and not one single slave amongst them was recognised by law. What their own customs might be or what was recognised by themselves was nothing. But the point is that there is no legal enforcing of slave conditions, and there is no recognition of any court of slavery in Mahomedan countries. Now, what did Sir Bartle

739
Frere say in support of that view? He said tliat—
"In Cairo, where slavery is the law of the land, and where we have no right whatever to interfere between master and servant, during the whole time that Mr. Rogers was Vice-Consul—and I have no doubt before and since—it was the habit of any slave who was ill-treated to come to the British Consul, and the Consul conferred with the Chief of the police, and, unless there was some very good reason to the contrary, if any sort of ill-treatment was proved, the Chief of Police generally made, out the man's papers for freedom, and the man was free, and in some cases women did the same; and yet, although there was all that facility, I think that between 40 and 50 cases were the whole that occurred during several years. It was well known in Cairo, and it used to be a common thing with a slave if he was discontented, to say, 'I shall go to the English Consul,' but he rarely did."
These facts were adduced by Sir Bartle Frere to show that it was perfectly safe, without interfering with domestic customs, to refuse to give up fugitive slaves and to refuse to recognise the legal status of slavery in British East Africa. The opinion given by the Attorney-General was not based upon the Indian Penal Code at all, and my own impression is that it rested upon the Slave Trade Acts of 1834 and upon the Slave Trade Act of 1843. By the Slave Trade Act of 1834 it is provided that—
"If any person shall remove persons as, or in order to their being dealt with as slaves, the persons so offending shall be subject to a penalty of £100 for each offence, and by section 10 may be felons subject to transportation."
The Slave Trade Act of 1843, section 1, brings within the mischief of the other Act "British subjects wheresoever residing or being," and even in "any foreign country." Now, Sir, I cannot think that our officials in British East Africa really understood the law as laid down here or understood its application. In face of the facts I have quoted their language is extraordinary, and I am convinced that the officials in British East Africa, in such a case as the Mombasa case, in restoring these three slaves, are thoroughly within the mischief of these Acts. Now, Sir, I have promised the House to be as brief
740
as it is possible to be in stating this case, and I believe I have succeeded in putting this case clearly to the House. We were challenged to produce a case in which this view of the law had not prevailed, although the officers were known to be hostile to that view. We have produced a case which occurred last year, and I contend the Government are not justified now, after all this time has passed, in telling us that they have no information with regard to the details of the case. I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £100.
*MR. BRODRICK: I am sorry to see that the right honourable Baronet has thought it necessary to raise this question again. I have explained before that the difficulty is one only of time and distance in getting the requisite information. Mr. Lloyd, who is the magistrate involved, went up the country, and, although communications have been addressed to Sir Arthur Hardinge, we have not yet been able to obtain the answer, although we have pressed for it more than once. Pending its arrival, it is impossible for me to give the explanation, because I have not got the facts. When the information comes I shall have the greatest possible pleasure in making the House acquainted with it. In reply to a question I stated that it was understood that these particular persons were in distress, and there had been an arrangement by which their master had agreed to take them back, but, of course, we do not know the facts. But as regards the main question, the important point is whether British subjects should or should not assist in restoring slaves to their masters. Now, instructions have been laid down and have been issued that they should not, and it has been laid down that British officials in East Africa, should not take part in restoring people to slavery. That is a point which has been decided, and that is the point in which the Committee are really interested. In the case of Mr. Lloyd, that is really an academic question, and we not only wrote for the information, but we also telegraphed for it, and as soon as it comes I shall be glad to place it before the Committee.
MR. BUXTON: I quite agree that we cannot discuss the merits of this case which has been referred to until we get the facts. But I think the Foreign Office-has been rather lax in this matter, and their officials on the spot have not done their best to carry out the intention of the House of Commons in regard to it. It has been laid down by the Attorney-General last year that no British officer, and no British subject, ought to take any part or lot in returning these fugitive slaves to their masters. The former Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs also gave his absolute pledge, a pledge which was also repeated by the Leader of the House, that this view laid down by the Attorney-General would be carried out, and I am quite sure that the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and every Member of this House, desires that that pledge should be properly and fully carried out. We find that when the Blue Book was published every possible objection was made by the Foreign Office official on the spot, and every argument was used against carrying out this proposition, because that official said it was impossible to carry it out, or if he wished to do so that there were great difficulties in the way. That does not seem to me a position that an officer of the Government ought to take in regard to this question, because we know quite well that he has unfortunately—and I am not complaining of him individually—taken the line that these matters ought to be much more tardily dealt with. Therefore, we have a very just cause to com plain with regard to this particular case, namely, that it is now eight months since this event took place, and the Government had been left by their officers on the spot entirely ignorant with regard to this matter, which has been carried out by them totally contrary to the law laid down by the Attorney-General, and contrary to the pledge given us by the Government. I am not blaming the present Under Secretary or the Government as such, but I do blame them to this extent, that they do not seem to have made it clear to these officers that the House of Commons is determined that, as far as it possibly can, slavery, and the giving back of fugitive slaves, shall be brought to an end. What the Government ought to do is to give strict instructions to
742
their officers that the law of this country, and the feeling of the House of Commons, shall be respected in regard to this matter, and that such an occurrence as this shall not be allowed to happen again. Therefore, while this is a case in which we cannot discuss the actual merits, I hope it is a case in which the Foreign Office will give more general instructions to their officers to see that such a scandal does not occur again in the future.
*MR. BRODRICK: I am sure the honourable Gentleman is in error in supposing that there has been any laxity or scandal in this matter. I quite admit that the officers on the spot have had to consider a very serious state of affairs in East Africa, on which this House has already spent two hours' Debate. In this particular instance the officials may have been right or may have been wrong, but we cannot look at the matter without some degree of concern as to the position of affairs to which they have been reduced among a very large population, and amongst which a very sudden change has been made. But as regards the feelings of this House in reference to the instructions given to Sir Arthur Hardinge, and as to whether those instructions have been carried out, except in these one or two instances, everywhere there has been a most absolute faith and the most absolute stringency. I think if honourable Gentlemen would read the reports they would find that there has been no laxity on the part of the Foreign Office. The honourable Member spoke of laxity, but I think that the results which I venture to point out have shown that all the cases of hardship and of cruelty have been swept away to a largo extent. I hope, therefore, that the House will take it from me that there is the fullest determination on the part of the Government to inquire into this matter.
MR. BAYLEY: The facts of this case, the right honourable Gentleman has told us, he cannot get until he receives the report from Mr. Lloyd, and he is up in the country. But there are other officers on the spot. In reply to the question the right honourable Gentleman said that certain cases in which this was pre-

743
arranged between the slaves and the masters themselves. There is Mr. Craufurd, an official there, whom this case came before on 21st June. Writing to Mr. Howe, who is the missionary there, he says—
"There is a judge—a British subject, holding a commission directly from Her Majesty the Queen—sitting in a court-house, over which the British flag is flying; the whole process of the Court is carried on in the name of Her Majesty, the depositions even being taken on paper embossed with the Royal Arms."
Clearly, therefore, according to Mr. Craufurd's own admission, this is contrary to the wish of the people themselves. Surely the Foreign Office, from 24th June of last year, should know something of what has been going on there. You could telegraph to-night or any time to that magistrate to know whether this thing is going on still. You don't want to be depending on one servant like Mr. Lloyd, who has perhaps been sent up the country to avoid giving a reply. This is a question upon which we desire to know the real facts, and the Government ought not to give us the reply that "they have heard from inquiries made locally." We don't want to have inquiries made locally, but we want inquiries made from your Government servants there, and we don't want replies from local men. Have you made those inquiries from your own Government servants? Are these facts correctly stated, or are they not? These are questions which the House and the country will very soon want answers upon, and upon which they will require more information than we have just received from the front Bench. Has the Government determined to put down in British territory the legal status of slavery, or has it not? That is a question which will have to be put seriously in this country, and I hope the right honourable Gentleman will not deal with this subject with the levity with which I think he has dealt with it.
*MR. BRODRICK: I have not dealt with it lightly.
MR. BAYLEY: Well, I will read this extract to show whether this is not dealing with a serious subject with levity. He says, "from inquiries made locally." Why did he not make the inquiries from the proper official, who was the chief
744
magistrate and the representative of the Government?
*MB. BBODRICK: I have made inquiries from Sir Arthur Hardinge, who is responsible. He replied that he had made immediate inquiries, but could not get the information, because one magistrate had gone up country, and he was unable to communicate with him. Evidently what the honourable Member wants is that they should give a verdict first, and make the inquiries afterwards.
MB. DALZIEL: I think this question is one as to the action of the Government with regard to slavery. This is an old question in Committee, which does not appeal very much to the sentiments of honourable Members opposite. Then, Sir, there is the other point as to the conduct of our officer out there with reference to the giving up of these particular slaves. The whole point of this Debate turns upon the suspicion which is entertained with regard to the activity of the Government upon this matter, because we were challenged last year to give a single case where a British officer had misinterpreted the law as laid down by the Attorney-General. Now, how is it that we have to have this inquiry? The right honourable Gentleman replies that the magistrate is up country, but in such a vital matter as this, why has the magistrate not been communicated with? No one seems able to give us an idea officially as to the accuracy of the allegation made. The whole point turns upon the suspicion which is entertained in this matter at the Foreign Office that their representatives are not quite so active in this matter as they might be. The ground upon which I entertain that suspicion myself is the general attitude of Sir Arthur Hardinge. Take every one of his dispatches in which for years every difficulty has been presented in regard to the carrying out of the wishes of the House of Commons. Well, it is, of course, quite within his office to present to the Government the difficulties that arise, but I say that this Gentleman has been resisting the Government in carrying out what they wish to carry out, instead of assisting them, and, for some reason of his own, he has raised every possible difficulty. I think

745
this Debate has been useful in getting an assurance that another telegram will be sent. Let us have a little more activity on the part of the Government, and I think that will meet the difficulty.
*MR. JAMES DUCKWORTH: I happen to be personally acquainted with Mr. Howe. He was a young man in our Sunday School, and I knew him well. He is in charge of our missionary station, and I have served on our Missionary Committee, and I have had to do with that station at Ribe for a number of years. For a long number of years we have had the greatest difficulty on this matter of slavery in connection with this station, and again and again our missionaries have written to say that they have come into collision with the authorities there, and have had their premises searched by order of the authorities, and have, against
their will, had to give up slaves who ran up to the station as a kind of refuge. I have known our missionaries feed those poor people, and for fear that they should be given up, they have given them food and shelter. Therefore, I can testify, from personal knowledge of the communications which have come to us again and again, that the missionaries have been compelled to deliver up slaves who have run into the mission station for refuge in various ways, and on repeated occasions they have come into collision with the authorities for finding them a refuge on the mission station.
Question put—
"That Item C (British East Africa, Grant in Aid), be reduced by £100."—[Sir Charles Dilke.)
The House divided:—Ayes, 55; Noes, 145.—(Division List No. 23.)

AYES.

Allison, Robert Andrew

Holland, W. H. (York, W.R.)

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Billson, Alfred

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Kearley, Hudson E.

Soames, Arthur Wellesle
y

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

Souttar, Robinson

Caldwell, James

Labouchere, Henry

Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

Causton, Richard Knight

Lambert, George

Strachey, Edward

Channing, Francis Allston

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

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

Logan, John William

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Colville, John

Lough, Thomas

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Daly, James

Macaleese, Daniel

Wedderburn, Sir William

Dalziel, James Henry

M'Arthur, W. (Cornwall)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Davies, M.Vaughan-(Cardigan)

M'Dermott, Patrick

Williams, J. Carvell (Notts.)

Davitt, Michael

M'Ghee, Richard

Wilson, Fredk. W. (Norfolk)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

M'Kenna, Reginald

Wilson, J.W.(Worcestersh.N.)

Dillon, John

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

Woodhouse,SirJ.T (Huddrsfd.)

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. H. John

Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

Power, Patrick Joseph

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Hazell, Walter

Provand, A. Dryburgh

Mr. Thomas Bayley and Mr. Duckworth.

Hedderwick, T. C. H.

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

NOES.

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Butcher, John George

Davenport, W. Bromley-

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Carlile, William Walter

Denny, Colonel

Atkinson, Right Hon. John

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

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Bagot, Captain J. FitzRoy

Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbysh.)

Doughty, George

Baird, John George Alex.

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Balcarres, Lord

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S.

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

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Drage, Geoffrey

Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald (Leeds

Chamberlain, J. Aust. (Worc'r

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Banbury, Frederick George

Chaplin, Right Hon. Henry

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

Charrington, Spencer

Fardell, Sir T. George

Bartley, George C. T.

Chelsea, Viscount

Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Finch, George H.

Beach, Rt.Hn.Sir M.H.(Brstl

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Beckett, Ernest William

Collings, Right Hon. Jesse

Firbank, Joseph Thom s

Bethell, Commander

Cornwallis,FiennesStanley W.

Fisher, William Hayes

Bill, Charles

Cross, Herbert S. (Bolton)

FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Curzon, Viscount

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Bond, Edward

Dalbiac, Colonel Philip H.

Folkestone, Viscount

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Galloway, William Johnston

Godson, Sir Augustus Fred.

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Swsea)

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walt.

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Russell, Gen. F.S. (Cheltenham

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (L'pool

Rutherford, John

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir Jn. Eldon

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone)

Goschen, Rt.Hn.G.J.(St. Grg's

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Goschen, Geo. T. (Sussex)

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Sidebottom, W. (Derbysh.)

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Macdona, John Cumming

Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

Green, Walford D. (Wednsbry

Maclure, Sir John William

Smith, J. Parker (Lanarks.)

Gretton, John

Middlemore, John Throgmrtn.

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

Gull, Sir Cameron

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Hall, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles

Monckton, Edward Philip

Stock, James Henry

Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo.

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Rbt. Wm.

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropsh.

Sturt, Hon. Humphrey Napier

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Morrell, George Herbert

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Heath, James

Muntz, Philip A.

Talbot, Rt.Hn.J.G.(Oxf'd Uni.

Henderson, Alexander

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute

Thornton, Percy M.

Hermon-Hodge, Rbt. Trotter

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Tollemache, Henry James

Hoare, Edw. B. (Hampstead)

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Valentia, Viscount

Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

Ward, Hon. Robt. A. (Crewe)

Hozier, Hon. James H. Cecil

Penn, John

Webster, SirR.E.(I. of Wight)

Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

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

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Pollock, Harry Frederick

Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm.

Kenyon-Slaney, Colonel Wm.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Wyndham, George

Knowles, Lees

Purvis, Robert

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Lafone, Alfred

Pym, C. Guy

Young, Commander (Berks, E.

Laurie, Lieutenant-General

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Lawrence,SirE.Durning-(Corn)

Rentoul, James Alexander

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Richardson,Sir Thos.(Hartlepl.

Sir W. Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

Ritchie, Rt.Hn.Chas.Thomson

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Resolutions agreed to.

Original Question again proposed. Debate arising;
And, it being after Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Resolutions to be reported this day; Committee also report Progress; to sit again upon Wednesday.
House resumed.

COLONIAL LOANS FUND BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
INEBRIATES ACT (1898) AMENDMENT BILL.
Second Reading deferred till this day.
IMPROVEMENT OF LAND BILL.
Second Reading deferred till this day.
UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
Second Reading deferred till this day.
LICENSING EXEMPTION (HOUSES OF PABLIAMENT) BILL.
Adjourned Debate on Second Reading (23rd February) further adjourned till Thursday.
METROPOLITAN STREETS ACT (1867) AMENDMENT BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Monday 13th March.
METROPOLITAN WATER COMPANIES BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
RFPORT OF SUPPLY.
  SUPPLY (24TH FEBRUARY).
  Resolutions reported;

  ARMY (SUPPLEMENTARY).
  "1. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding£885,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1899, for Additional Expenditure in respect to the following Army Services, viz.:—

  £

  Vote

  5.

  Volunteer Corps, Pay and Allowances

  261,000

  Vote

  6.

  Transport and Remounts

  169,000

  Vote

  8.

  Clothing Establishments and Services

  208,000

  Vote

  9.

  Warlike and other Stores

  630,000

  Vote

  10.

  Works, &c

  97,000

  Total

  1,365,000

  Appropriations-in-Aid (Votes 1, 9, 10)

  480,000

  Total

  £885,000"

  ORDNANCE FACTORIES (SUPPLEMENTARY).
  "2. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Ordnance Factories (the cost of the Productions of which will be charged to the Army, Navy, and Indian and Colonial Governments), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1899."
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES).

    CLASS I.
    "3. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1899, for Expenditure in respect of Royal Palaces."
    "4. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding£2,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1899, for Expenditure in respect of Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain."
    "5. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding£17,100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1899, for Expenditure in respect of Diplomatic and Consular Buildings."
    "6. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding£926, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1899, for maintaining certain Harbours under the Board of Trade."

    CLASS II.
    "7. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding£50, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1899, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Mint, including the Expenses of Coinage."
    "8. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding£891, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1899, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Public Record Office."
    "9. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding£5, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1899, for the Salaries and Expenses of the General Valuation and Boundary Survey of Ireland."

    CLASS III.
    "10. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding£4,100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1899, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Land Registry."
    "11. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding£10, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1899, for the Salaries and Expenses connected with the County Courts."
    "12. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding£1,300, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1899, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices in Her Majesty's General Register House, Edinburgh."

    CLASS IV.
    "13. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding£11,800, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1899, for a Grant in Aid for the purchase of pictures for the National Gallery."
    CLASS V.
    "14. That a sum, not exceeding£12,114, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1899, to make good the net loss on transactions connected with the raising of money for the various Treasury Chests Abroad in the year 1897–8."

    CLASS VI.
    "15. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding£5,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1899, for Superannuation, Retired, Compensation, and Compassionate Allowances."
    "16. That a sum, not exceeding£58,516, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1899, to make good the sum by which the Interest accrued in the year ended 20th November 1898, from Securities held by the National Debt Commissioners, on account of 'The Fund for the Banks for Savings' and 'The Fund for Friendly Societies' was insufficient to meet the Interest which the said Commissioners are obliged by Statute to Pay and Credit to Trustees of Savings Banks and to Friendly Societies; and also the sum by which the Interest accrued in the year ended 31st December 1898, from Securities held by the National Debt Commissioners on account of 'The Post Office Savings Bank Fund,' was insufficient to meet the Interest which the said Commissioners are obliged by Statute to Pay and Credit to Depositors and the Expenses incurred during that year in the execution of the Acts relating thereto."
    MR. BARTLEY: I do not wish, at this hour of the night to raise a discussion on this question, but it is a little unfortunate that the Estimate came on quite unexpectedly on Friday evening just before Twelve. The question of the granting of money out of taxation to such a large amount as this, which is over£50,000, to make up the loss on Savings Banks is serious, but there is a far more serious matter involved, namely, the enormous liability of the country to pay at call some£120,000,000 which is held in those banks. This amount is increasing each year by some£8,000,000 or £10,000,000 sterling. Further, the gravity of the case is increased by the incident of last autumn when we were within measurable distance of a war, and even the fear of war made Consols fall to 105 or 106; and had war been declared they would have gone very much lower and far below par. At the same time the country would have had to borrow, and we should have seen the anomaly of persons withdrawing from the Post Office in large amounts at great loss to the Post Office in order to take up a better paying security in the shape of a new loan. The leading financiers of London are fully alive to the danger of the present system, and I
    752
    trust that the Government will have the courage to face facts and to grant a Committee or a Commission to inquire into this subject in all its important and even vital bearings on the financial stability of the country in case of emergency such as war.

    CLASS VII.
    "17. That a sum, not exceeding£1,692, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1899, for making good certain sums written off from the Assets of the Local Loans Fund."

    REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
    "18. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding£96,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1899, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Post Office Services, the Expenses of the Post Office Savings Banks and Government Annuities and Insurances, and the Collection of the Post Office Revenue."
    "19. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding£5,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1899, for the Salaries and Working Expenses of the Post Office Telegraph Service."

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Committee deferred till Wednesday.
  SEATS FOR SHOP ASSISTANTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till this day.
  COLONIAL SOLICITORS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till this day.
  CORONERS' INQUESTS (RAILWAY FATALITIES) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till this day.

  PARISH COUNCILLORS (TENURE OF OFFICE) BILL.
  Committee deferred till this day.
  House adjourned at Fifteen minutes after Twelve of the Clock.

Preamble
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack at twenty minutes after Four of the clock.
PEER SAT FIRST.
The Earl of LATHOM The Earl of LATHOM—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:
Oystermouth Railway or Tramroad [H.L.]
Furness Railway [H.L.]
Liverpool Overhead Railway [H.L.]
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

MILFORD DOCKS BILL [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees informed the House, That the promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bill: Ordered that the Rill be not further proceeded with.
MUIRKIRK, MAUCHLINE AND DALMELLINGTON RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
To be read a second time on Thursday next.
LONDON HOSPITAL BILL [H.L.]
Second Reading (which stands appointed for To-morrow) put off to Friday next.

WOLVERHAMPTON TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
To be read a second time on Monday next.
Aberdeen Harbour Bill [H.L.]
Arbroath Corporation Gas Bi11 [H.L.]
Bristol Floods Prevention Bill [H.L.]
Coalville Urban District Gas Bill [H.L.]
Colonial and Foreign Banks Guarantee Fund Bill [H.L.]
Fylde Water Board Bill [H.L.]
Hampstead Church (Emmanuel West End) Bill [H.L.]
Hastings Harbour Bill [H.L.]
Infant Orphan Asylum Bill [H.L.]
Inverness Harbour Bill [H.L.]
Kew Bridge Bill [H.L.]
Mersey Docks and Harbour Board (Finance) Bill [H.L.]
Committed.
Aberdeen Corporation Bill [H.L.]
Barton-on-Sea Water Bill [H.L.]
Birkenhead Corporation Bill [H.L.]
Bognor Urban District Water Bill [H.L.]
Bury Corporation Bill [H.L.]
Bury Corporation Water Bill [H.L.]
Church Stretton Water Bill [H.L.]
Clyde Navigation Bill [H.L.]
Cobham Gas Bill [H.L.]
Cromer Protection Bill [H.L.]
Dumbarton Burgh Bill [H.L.]
Dundee Gas, Tramways, and Extension Bill [H.L.]
Gainsborough Urban District Council (Gas) Bill [H.L.]
Glasgow Corporation (Tramways, etc.) Bill [H.L.]
Glasgow Corporation (Gas and Water) Bill [H.L.]
Glastonbury Water Bill [H.L.]
Great Yarmouth Corporation Bill [H.L.]
Great Yarmouth Pier Bill [H.L.]
Grosvenor Chapel (London) Bill [H L.]
Hastings Corporation Tramways Bill [H.L.]
Humber Conservancy Bill [H.L.]
Kirkcaldy Corporation and Tramways Bill [H.L.]
Lanarkshire (Middle Ward District) Water Bill [H.L.]
Leigh-on-Sea Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]
Llanelly Harbour and Pontardulais Railway Bill [H.L.]
Loughborough Corporation Bill [H.L.]
Manchester Corporation Tramways Bill [H.L.]
Mersey Docks and Harbour Board (Pilotage) Bill [H.L.]
Mid-Kent Gas Bill [H.L.]
Moss Side Urban District Council (Tramways) Bill [H.L.]
Nene Valley Water Bill [H.L.]
Oldham Corporation Bill [H.L.]
Perth Water, Police, and Gas Bill [H.L.]
Portsmouth Corporation Bill [H.L.]
Queen's Ferry Bridge Bill [H.L.]
Rawenstall Corporation Water Bill [H.L.]
Renfrew Burgh and Harbour Extension Bill [H.L.]
Salford Corporation Bill [H.L.]
Skipton Urban District Gas Bill [H.L.]
Southampton Corporation Water Bill[H.L.]
Stockton and Middlesbrough Water Bill [H.L.]
Stretford Urban District Council (Tramways) Bill [H.L.]
Sunderland Corporation Bill [H.L.]
Wakefield Corporation Bill [H.L.]
Wallasey Tramways and Improvements Bill [H.L.]
Whitehaven Corporation Bill [H.L.]
Wick and Pulteney Harbours Bill [H.L.]
Wishaw Water Bill [H.L.]
Withington Urban District Council (Tramways) Bill [H.L.]
Wolverhampton Corporation Bill [H.L.]
Workington Corporation Water Bill [H.L.]
Committed: the Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Newhaven and Seaford Water Board Bill [H.L.]
Southport and Lytham Tramroad Bill [H.L.]
Skipton Gas Bill [H.L.]
Caledonian Railway (General Powers) Bill [H.L.]
Glasgow and South-Western Railway Bill [H.L.]
Herne Bay Water Bill [H.L.]
North Staffordshire Railway Bill [H.L.]
Paisley and Barrhead District Railway Bill [H.L.]
Stretford Gas Bill [H.L.]
Walton-on-Thames and Weybridge Gas Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  SCIENCE AND ART DEPARTMENT.
  Forty-sixth annual report, for 1898; with supplement: Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  SCIENCE AND ART DEPARTMENT.
  Minute of Committee of Council sanctioning subjects to be taught under clause 8 of the Technical Instruction Act, 1889, for the county borough of Limerick (fifth minute).
  MILITIA ACT, 1882 (DEPUTY LIEUTENANTS).
  Return of descriptions of qualifications of deputy lieutenants lodged during 1898, as furnished to the Chief Secretary for Ireland.

  PIERS AND HARBOURS ACTS (PROVISIONAL ORDERS, SESSION 1899).
  Report by the Board of Trade of their proceedings under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, and the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, Amendment Act.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

PETITION.
  VACCINATION ACT, 1898.
  Petition for repeal of; of Guardians of the Poor of the Ellesmere Union; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  METROPOLIS MANAGEMENT ACTS AMENDMENT (BY-LAWS) BILL.
  LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill. It is a short Bill to enable the London County Council to make bylaws requiring persons about to construct, reconstruct, or alter drains in connection with buildings, to deposit with the sanitary authority of the district such plans, sections, and particulars as may be necessary for the purpose of ascertaining whether such construction, reconstruction, or alteration is in accor-

  585
  dance with the statutory provisions relative thereto, and with any by-laws made under the said section. This Bill was passed by your Lordships' House last year. It was to some extent discussed in this House and before the Standing Committee. An Amendment was made at the instance, I think, of the noble Marquess, the Prime Minister, and a further Amendment was introduced on behalf of the Government. By inadvertence, my Lords, I have had this Bill printed in the form in which I introduced it last year, but if your Lordships will give it a Second Reading, I will undertake, on the Third Reading, to make the Bill precisely similar to the one your Lordships passed last year. I am sure that under the circumstances your Lordships will hardly think it necessary that the Bill should again go before the Standing Committee, or that it should go through the Report stage. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): My Lords, I do not desire to say anything in opposition to this Bill until I know more about it, but I am a little jealous of giving the County Council power to compel persons to deposit plans when only slight alterations are proposed to be made. I have had a complaint, made to me that in one case, where the mere reconstruction of one of the necessary articles of the household connected with the drain was involved, the cost, which need not have been more than 5s. was run up to £450 by reason of the requirements which were placed on the individual who owned the necessary article in question. Under these circumstances I should like to have some knowledge of the powers which are intended to be given under this Bill.
  LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, I should like to call the attention of the House to the fact that it is not proposed that these plans shall be laid before the County Council, but that they shall be laid before the local authorities, and I imagine that the local authorities will exercise this by-law with discrimination. I quite admit that as the Bill now stands it will require amendment in the direction pointed out last year by the noble Marquess at the head of the Government. The noble Marquess said
  586
  it might possibly be necessary to make some small alterations in drains as matters of emergency, and he held that no such by-law ought to apply in a case of that kind. I propose to insert a provision that in all cases of emergency the by-law should not apply. I think that, subject to that amendment, the Bill will be found to be workable.
  Question put.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House tomorrow.

  POST OFFICE BUILDINGS.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, I rise to ask Her Majesty's Government, to explain why it is necessary that the General Post Office should be, in respect of the erection of Post Office buildings, under the control of the Board of Works as well as of the Treasury; and whether the Postmaster-General might not be allowed some discretion as to a portion of the Post Office revenue for Post Office improvements. It is hardly necessary, I think, that I should assure the Members of Her Majesty's Government on the Front Bench that the noble Duke, the Postmaster-General, has no part in the question which I am now asking. I am informed that when a new Post Office is needed at places of the size and importance of Holyhead, the rule is to consult the Board of Works as to the best course to be pursued, and on the receipt of their report the case is laid before the Postmaster-General for his directions, and then submitted to the Treasury for authority for the cost involved. I have heard it denied at the Board of Works that it caused delay, but I think it can be proved to the contrary. There was great delay last year in selecting a site for a Post Office at Holyhead, and in February of this year, after the negotiations had been in hand for 11 months, the matter was allowed to drop. I do not complain of the action of the Post Office or the Postmaster-General, because the delay throughout was caused by the Board of Works. I want to ask why the Postmaster-General should not be trusted in these matters as much a3 the First Commissioner of Works. Generally, the Postmaster-General is a Cabinet Minister, but the First Com-

  587
  missioner of Works is not always so. The noble Duke, the Postmaster-General, has large experience in the management of business matters, and there are other reasons why he ought to be allowed some discretion. It has been proposed to allot the Admiralty a certain sum for three or five years for shipbuilding so that it should not be necessary to discuss these matters each Session. Surely similar power might be given to the Postmaster-General without compelling him in every case to consult the Treasury.
  *THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (The Duke of NORFOLK): My Lords, I am rather embarrassed at the extent of the Question asked by the noble Lord, and I am quite unable to solve the problem as to why the Postmaster-General is not trusted as much as other people. The noble Lord is under a misapprehension in saying that the Board of Works have control over the Post Office. They have no such control. The Hoard of Works is the architect and builder to the Government, and deals with the Post Office buildings in the same way as with other Government buildings. The selection of a site for a new Post Office, and the character of the building to be put up, are subject, of course, to the usual regulations of the Treasury in the same way as other Government buildings. The delay which the noble Lord has referred to may be due to the Board of Works, but I am afraid delay occurs in the execution of most building operations. This is the only answer I can give to my noble Friend.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OP STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, It does not seem to me to require any special distrust of my noble Friend the noble Duke that he is submitted to the same rules that apply to all other Departments of the Government. It is a very horrible burden that we should have to go to the Treasury for sanction, but so it is, and the House of Commons insists in maintaining that régime. They have exaggerated views of the merits of the Treasury. The particular régime which the noble Lord desires to introduce has already been tried, and has been given up. It used
  588
  to be the rule that the Post Office always paid its own expenses out of the gross receipts; that is to say, it was allowed to build anything it wanted, and in the use of that power it built St. Martin's-le-Grand. This was such a shock to the financiers of that day that nothing of the kind has been allowed since.

  SOLICITORS BILL [H.L.]
  Read the third time (according to order), passed, and sent to the Commons.
  PALATINE COURT OF DURHAM BILL [H.L.]
  Read the third time (according to order), passed, and sent to the Commons.

  HOUSE OF LORDS AND COMMONS PERMANENT STAFF.
  Moved That a Committee of Five Lords be appointed to join with a Committee of the House of Commons to consider and report upon the subject of the House of Lords and Commons Permanent Staff (The Chairman of Committees); agreed to.
  The Lords following were named of the Committee:

  M. Salisbury.

  M. Ripon.

  E. Morley.

  E. Camperdown.

  V. Knutsford.

  Ordered, That such Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the House of Commons in the appointment of a Chairman.
  Then a Message was ordered to be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint them therewith, and to request them to appoint Five Members of that House to be joined with the said Committee pursuant to the Resolution of this House of the 17th instant and to the Message of the House of Commons of Tuesday last signifying their concurrence in the said Resolution.

NEW BILLS.
  TELEGRAPH (CHANNEL ISLANDS) BILL [H.I,].
  A Bill to amend the Telegraph Acts, 1863 to 1897, and the post Office Acts In relation to the Channel Islands—was presented by the Duke of Norfolk; read the first time; and to be printed; and to be read a second time on Thursday next. (No. 12.)

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (SWANSEA) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Education Department under the Elementary Education Acts, 1870 to 1893, to enable the School Board for the United School District of Swansea to put in force the Lands Clauses Acts—Was presented by the Lord President (D. Devonshire); read the first time; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 13.)
  House adjourned at forty-five minutes after Four of the clock, till Tomorrow, half-past Ten of the clock.