asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he could give a Return of the number of Destitute Aliens who arrived in the ports of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in the year 1886?

said: The Board of Trade are unable to give the number of destitute aliens who arrived in the ports of the United Kingdom in 1886, as the Passenger Acts, 1854 and 1863, under which the Immigration Returns are made to the Board of Trade, do not require the condition of the immigrants to be stated, and do not require Returns to be made of persons coming from places in Europe or on the Coasts of the Mediterranean.

asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether any inquiry will be made into the cases of nine persons, said to be foreigners, who, with others, have been recently sent back to the United Kingdom by the United States as destitute aliens, in order to ascertain their respective nationalities, and with a view to their being returned by the United Kingdom to their own countries respectively?

Of the nine foreigners referred to by the hon. and gallant Member, eight were said to be of German nationality, and one was said to be of Swedish nationality. The Board of Trade have no machinery at their disposal for making the inquiry suggested, or funds at their disposal for dealing with such cases.

asked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether the scheme under which. St. Paul's School, now situated at Fulham and Hammersmith, can be so modified as to give effect to the recommendation of the Endowed Schools Committee in favour of local control and sympathy being introduced into the management of such schools by allowing the Vestries of Fulham and Hammersmith to be represented on the Governing Body; and, if so, what steps are necessary to secure-this object?

Proceedings for the modification of a scheme made—as is that for St. Paul's School—under the provisions of the Endowed Schools Acts, may be taken by the Commissioners either on their own initiative or upon application of the Governors. In view of the fact that the scheme has been recently settled as the result of much deliberation and of full publicity, and that the locality in which the school happens to have been placed upon its removal from St. Paul's Churchyard has no special claim upon the endowment, it is improbable that proceedings will be taken by the Charity Commissioners for the suggested modification of the scheme.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, What is the number of acting sergeants (i.e. constables performing the duties of sergeants) in the Metropolitan Police Force, and of these how many either are over 35 years of age, or have had more than 10 years' service?

I am informed by the Chief Commissioner of Police that there are 97 acting sergeants in the Metropolitan Police Force, exclusively of the Dockyard Divisions; and of these 90 are either over 35 years of age or have more than 10 years' service,

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Why the Court of the Revising Barrister for the Polling District of Great Sanghall is held at Chester, outside the Parliamentary Division of which Great Sanghall forms a part, which results in claimants, overseers, and agents having to walk 10, and in some cases 14, miles; and, whether this inconvenience can be removed?

said: I am informed by the Clerk of the Peace that Chester was appointed by the Court of Quarter Sessions as on the whole the most convenient place at which to hold the Revising Barrister's Court, it being the market town of the inhabitants of Great Sanghall and the other townships included in the district,; and also the place where the Petty Sessions for the district are held. Any alteration cannot now be made by Quarter Sessions in time for this year's revision; but the question will be brought j forward and considered by the Justices previously to the revision in 1888.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether a representation, under the Labourers (Ireland); Acts, 1883 and 1885, was made to the Board of Guardians of the Lurgan Union on the 9th June last, suggesting the erection of additional house accommodation in Soldierstown, Aghalee; whether the attention of the Local Government Board has been directed to the action of the said Board in reference to this matter; and, whether the Local Government Board took any steps to ascertain whether there was sufficient house accommodation within the meaning of the Labourers' Acts in the said district?

said: The Board of Guardians of Lurgan Union had before them the application referred to, but decided it was not one which could be entertained. The attention of the Local Government Board was called to this case by the applicant. They communicated with the Guardians, who stated that they had refused the application on the ground that in no part of the Union was there any difficulty in obtaining this class of house accommodation, vacant cottier houses being of late years the rule, and not the exception, in the rural portion of the Union. The Local Government Board did not consider it necessary to interfere further in the matter.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, as President of the Local Government Board, Whether it is a fact that the Earl of Wicklow got several schemes for cottages in the Kilbride Division of Rathmines Union thrown out, by undertaking to erect whatever cottages might be required in that Division himself; and, whether he is aware that no cottages have been built by the Earl of Wicklow, in accordance with that undertaking, and that a number of labourers in the Division are consequently unable to obtain house accommodation?

said: The Clerk of Rathdrum Union reports that no scheme was made by the Guardians in regard to building labourers' cottages in the Kilbride Division. Representations had been made for the building of seven cottages in the Division; but an undertaking having been given on behalf of the Earl of Wicklow that he would build whatever cottages were found to be required, the Guardians did not proceed further. The Clerk is aware that the Earl of Wicklow has built a number of labourers' cottages in the Division; but he does not know whether any of them were built subsequent to the undertaking. He is not aware of a number of labourers being unable to obtain house accommodation in the Division. If the hon. Gentleman who puts this Question has any definite information on the subject of the alleged absence of accommoda- tion, and if he will be good enough to communicate it to me, I shall be happy to make further inquiry.

asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether he is aware that two more fatal accidents have occurred in the last fortnight at the Bromley Level Crossing on the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway, making three within a month; and, whether the Government have any power to compel the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway to construct a foot bridge, without delay, at this most dangerous level crossing?

Yes, Sir; the Board of Trade have been informed of the accidents referred to by the hon. Member. An inquiry into the circumstances attending them has been made by one of the Inspecting Officers of the Board of Trade; and when his Report has been received I shall be in a position to state what steps will be taken to prevent the recurrence of similar accidents.

asked the Postmaster General, What mails are being, and have been, sent by the Cork and Macroom Railway Company, and whether there is any contract between the Company and the Post Office for the carriage of mails; whether it is a fact that they are booked as parcels; whether the Carriers Act protects all Railway Companies for any loss of parcel above £10, unless the same is insured, and, accordingly, what security is given to the public for the safe transmission and delivery of valuable letters; and, for what reason do the authorities endeavour to avoid paying this Company the legitimate revenue which other lines receive for the carriage of mails; and, if so, can he explain why this Company is not paid by the Post Office in the same manner as other Railway Companies?

A few small day mail bags are carried over the Cork and Macroom Railway, and there is no contract for the carriage of mails on this line. In 1885 the Department endeavoured to come to an agreement with the Company for a yearly payment for the conveyance of these mails; but the Company declined the offer made, and the mails are now carried under the provisions of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1873. A charge at ordinary parcel rates is made by the company and paid by the Department. This practice will continue, unless the Company prefer to go to arbitration. The payments made as above amount to slightly less than the sum the Department offered, and appear to be fair and reasonable. The liability of the Railway Company as regards the safe transmission of these bags is the same which attaches to all Railway Companies in respect to the conveyance of mails. It is true that for a short time parcels were sent in the letter bags; but the practice has been discontinued since March, 1886, and the parcel mails are now sent separately. While it lasted, however, no injury was done to the Company, as the parcels, whether sent separately or otherwise, were duly accounted for to the London Railway Clearing Committee under the Post Office (Parcels) Act. Payments equivalent to parcel rates are accepted voluntarily for similar services in many other cases.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, If his attention has been called to the following Resolution, passed by the Metropolitan Asylums Board on Saturday, 27th August: —

"That, should the Ambulance Committee find it necessary, they be empowered to open the South Western Hospital (Stockwell) for the reception of fever patients; "

and, that, considering that this Hospital is surrounded by 400 or 500 houses, mostly inhabited by two families, and that there is an isolated hospital at Winchmore Hill quite empty, he will recommend that the latter be used, in- stead of opening the Stockwell Hospital for fever patients?

inquired, whether it was not the fact that the hospital at Winchmore Hill was entirely unfurnished, and that it would cost several thousand pounds to prepare it for the reception of patients?

The fact suggested by the hon. Member (Mr. Isaacs is undoubtedly correct. My attention has been called to the Resolution referred to. The question whether the South Western Hospital or that at Winchmore Hill should be opened was considered by the managers, who determined by a considerable majority in favour of opening the former. The Winchmore Hill Hospital is not furnished; and it would, therefore, have taken longer than the other hospital to prepare for patients. The matter, however, was one of urgency; and the Committee have already found it necessary to act upon the resolution of the managers and to open the South Western Hospital. No evidence has been adduced to show that during the 17 years which have elapsed since this Hospital was first opened fever has spread from it to the surrounding houses; and, under all the circumstances, I have not thought it necessary to interfere with the decision of the managers on the subject.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that the tenants on the estate of Mr. Shirley, in the neighbourhood of Carrickmacross, County Monaghan, who were evicted last March, and who retook possession of their houses pending the hearing of their applications to the Land Court to have a fair rent fixed, have been recently visited by the police, and by them threatened that unless they quitted their homes within two days they would be proceeded against under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act; whether he can state upon whose authority and under what statute the police so acted; whether it was open to Mr. Shirley to remove these people under the ordinary law; and, whether, in view of the fact that their applications to have a fair rent fixed are listed for hearing at the next sitting of the Land Court in County Monaghan, he will order the police to suspend their action?

said: The Constabulary Authorities report that 14 tenants on the Shirley estate evicted last September, December, and March have been noticed by the police to leave their houses and farms, where possession has been unlawfully re-taken, within the last few days, and in some cases, when found in the houses, they were informed that if they did not leave, they would be prosecuted under the Statute quoted. These instructions were carried out by order of the Divisional Magistrate. Mr. Shirley might have taken proceedings to recover the premises otherwise than by means of the recent Statute. None of these tenants have served notice to have a fair rent fixed; and in the case of seven of them the statutable period for doing so appears to have expired.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, in the year 1881, the contract for the supply of sponges to the Army was put up to competition, and the price of sponges was, under that contract, 11d. and 6d. each for Cavalry and Infantry respectively for three years; whether, on the termination of this contract by the contractors, the same contract was in 1882 given, without competition, at the price of 2s. 3d. and 9d. respectively, and for the unusual term of six years; whether it is the fact that the present contractors have received intimation that their contract will be renewed for a further period; whether the sealed patterns, according to which sponges are supplied under the present contract, are the same, and bear the same numbers, as those which supplied the standard for preceding contracts, including that of 1881; and, what is the justification for placing this and other contracts without allowing competition?

said: The case of the sponge contract is peculiar. The facts are substantially as stated in the hon. Member's Question; but I should say that the contractor of 1881 was a heavy loser by his contract—although the War Department only partially enforced it— and he terminated his contract at the end of the first year. In 1882 competition was deliberately dispensed with, with the full consent of the then Secretary of State, as a means of breaking down a ring which practically constituted a monopoly against the War Office and deprived competition of all real value. The price agreed upon with Messrs. Cohen in 1882 was somewhat below the average paid to the one firm which had held the contract for 14 years, from 1860 to 1880.

asked, whether it was not a fact that this contract, which was originally granted for the unusual period of six years without any competition whatever, was about to be renewed for a further term, also without any competition?

Yes; I told my hon. Friend that the facts quoted by him in his Question were substantially correct. The contracts have been renewed on the responsibility of the Director of Contracts.

For how long?

I cannot tell my hon. Friend the exact period; but I will let him know.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether Edwin Duniam, Chief Officer of the steamship City of Bristol was, at Belfast, on the 1st of June last, sentenced to a month's imprisonment, with the option of a fine, in consequence of the discovery by the Customs officers, in a chain looker of the fore-peak hatch of the ship, of about 20 lbs. of tobacco and cigars; whether the ground of the conviction was that Duniam had the key of the fore-peak hatch; whether it is the fact that the crew had continual access to the hatch, which was used as an ordinary store or lumber room, and whether anyone could enter, without touching the lock, by merely removing a bolt; whether, although Duniam pleaded this state of facts before the Collector of Customs and the magistrate, his request to have certain members of the crew examined on oath was not complied with; whether, protesting his innocence and refusing to pay the tine, he was committed to prison, but released next day, the fine having been paid on his behalf without his consent or knowledge; whether, in consequence of a refusal to refund the sum of £20, paid by the owners of the City of Bristol to clear the ship at Belfast on 31st May, except on condition of the dismissal of Duniam, the owners have dismissed him from their employment, after 20 years of service, though satisfied of his innocence; and, whether the case will be made the subject of inquiry?

The facts of the case are substantially as stated in the Question, with some exceptions, and the Commissioners of Customs have directed a further inquiry to he made.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Petty Sessions clerk of the districts of Skreen, Dromore West, and Easky (County Sligo), has been suspended from office; whether his books have been signed by the local Constabulary; what is the nature of the charge against him; and, whether an investigation has been held; and, if so, by whom, and in what manner, and with what result?

said: The Petty Sessions Clerk referred to was suspended and his official books taken possession of by the Constabulary. The charge against the clerk was that he had failed to duly account for the public moneysreceived by him. The Registrar of Potty Sessions Clerks detailed a member of his staff to inquire into the case, who examined the clerk's books, cash balances, and the mode in which his general duties were discharged. The inspection showed that the duties of the clerk were, with the exception of the default which led to his suspension, well discharged, and that his books and cash balances were correct. As the result of this investigation the clerk was severely reprimanded for his default, and warned against a repetition of it. The suspension was then, removed.

said, the failure of the clerk to pay public money was a failure to pay the money due for the financial quarter ending 31st July, and to furnish an account to the Quarter Sessions. The clerk did not do this until he received notice of suspension. He explained that this was inconsequence of a previous illness; and on going through his books, as he had said, the cash balance was found to be perfectly correct.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that a protest against the removal of the headquarter station of the Royal Irish Constabulary from Ballymote, County Sligo, has been extensively signed by gentry, merchants, and traders of Ballymote and district; whether Ballymote is by much the most populous town in the district, is centrally situate at the junction of four baronies, has 12 important fairs in the year, is the place where the Quarter Sessions, Petty Sessions, and Land Sessions are held, and has been a head-quarter Constabulary station since the formation of this force, now some 50 years ago; and, why the head-quarters have been removed?

said, the Government had no knowledge of the protest referred to in the Question having been received; but the facts were substantially as stated in the second part of the Question. The head-quarters of the Constabulary had been removed from Ballymote owing to the difficulty experienced in getting a suitable building, or a site for a building, at a reasonable rate. He would make further inquiries as to the protest from the residents.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, If any Report has been received by the Government from the Director of the National Gallery respecting certain successful experiments made by Mr. W. E. Jones, of Melbourne Grove, East Dulwich, in removing, by a new method, the varnishes of pictures at the Gallery; whether it appears by such Report that certain injurious chemicals usually employed in this work have been superseded by Mr. Jones's method, and whether the varnishes of valuable pictures at the Gallery have been thereby removed without the least detriment to the paint, and without the slightest "skinning" of the pictures; whether the Director has expressed his great satisfaction with these experiments; and, whether the Government will recommend the Trustees of the National Gallery to ascertain the secret of the discovery referred to, in order that the National Collection of valuable pictures there may be protected and preserved?

I understand that some experiments were made by Mr. Jones in the presence of the Director of the National Gallery, and that they were successful; but the Director does not think it necessary to adopt Mr. Jones's process in lieu of that already in use in the Gallery.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he is aware that the Italian Chamber of Deputies has passed a Bill imposing a duty of 8s. per ton upon pig iron, and proposing to levy very heavy duties on manufactured iron; whether the German and Italian Treaty is to be continued, notice of its termination being required by 1st August, 1887; and, whether Great Britain will enjoy the most favoured nation treatment by Convention, and without a Treaty?

The Italian Parliament has passed a Tariff Bill having effects such as are described in the hon. Member's Question. Her Majesty's Government are not informed if the German-Italian Commercial Treaty has been denounced; but it is probable that it has, as certain Articles in the Tariff Act are inconsistent with it. Great Britain will enjoy the most favoured Nation treatment under its Commercial Treaty with Italy, which continues in force.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the report is true that the British Ambassador in Constantinople, acting in concert with the Austrian and Italian Ambassadors, have protested in the names of their respective Governments against the Mission of General Ernroth to Sofia; whether the case has been submitted to Germany for arbitration; and, whether that Power has consented to undertake the office?

I am not able to give the hon. Member any information on the subject of his Question.

May I ask the right Gentleman what reason he can allege for not answering the Question, or is there any reason—[" Order ! "]

It is extremely inexpedient to give any information on the subject.

When may I expect to get an answer?

Order, order !

I expect to get an answer, and I shall put the Question down again.

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, How many men altogether were summoned for taking part in the eviction at Tang on the 17th August; whether all of them will be prosecuted on the double charge preferred in the summonses; whether, since Friday last, additional summonses have been taken out and served; and, whether, in these cases also, it is intended to proceed on two distinct charges arising out of the same transaction?

in reply, said, that altogether 17 summonses were issued, and were issued the same night. No summonses were taken out after Friday. With re- gard to the latter part of the Question, he had to repeat the answer he made on Friday morning—that answer was that he could not make any statement with regard to the pending prosecutions, further than that if it appeared on the face of the evidence that only one offence had been committed, only one sentence would be imposed.

said, that the summons was not served on some of the defendants who lived a great distance from Mullingar until Saturday; and he wished to know, considering the gravity of the charges and the novelty of the proceedings, whether these men would get more than two days to prepare their defence, the cases coming on for hearing to-morrow?

said, the defence of one defendant would be the same for all the others.

The defence will involve the summoning of a number of witnesses.

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether the report in the Edinburgh Evening News is correct, describing the eviction of John Middleton, farmer, of Cairns Aberlour, by a force of labourers and policemen, who, without notice, turned him and his family out, tore off the roof, and demolished the farm house, or left it in flames; whether it is true that Middleton was not in arrears of rent, but the rent had been paid up till the last term; and, whether the Government will consider the desirability of bringing in a measure regulating evictions in Scotland?

My attention was only called to this matter last night, and I am not prepared to give an answer at present.

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether it is the fact that the large number of crofters disfranchised for non-payment of rates in the Western Highlands and Islands are under £4 a-year rental, and have been disfranchised in consequence of the land- lords not having paid the compounded rates within the appointed time?

I have no information in amplification of the answer I gave on the 2nd of September.

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether his attention had been called to the allegation that there is no church or place of worship at Lochmaddy, the principal town of Uist, and that the landlord of the district refuses to grant a site to the Free Church; and, whether the Government will introduce a measure next Session to compel land to be granted for places of worship where such are required?

I have no information on this matter, and it will take some time to obtain it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to a public meeting convened on Thursday last by the Chairman of the Sutton (Surrey) Local Board, on the requisition of 293 of the principal tradesmen, medical men, and other ratepayers of the town, and to the following Resolution adopted by an overwhelming majority at such meeting—

" That, in the opinion of this meeting, the offer of the Battersea Burial Board as to Rose Hill Cemetery should he accepted, with the conditions suggested by the Local Board deputation; "

and, whether, having regard thereto, and to the urgent public necessity of the case to a large Metropolitan constituency, and also to the parish of Sutton, he is now prepared to accede to the application of the Battersea Burial Board for permission to use the Rose Hill site for burial purposes?

My attention has been called to the fact that a meeting was held on Thursday last. I was not informed by whom the requisi- tion was signed. I daily received conflicting statements on this subject, which I am still considering.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether an Order has been recently issued from the Horse Guards to prevent regimental bands from playing in districts other than those in which the regiments to which they belong is located; whether he is aware that this new Order has prevented the bands of the Guards' regiments from playing in several places where they had undertaken to play; whether this new Regulation has been the subject of complaint from various towns where the Guards' bands had been engaged to play; and, whether the Regulation had his approval?

An Order was issued on the 2nd of August under which regimental bands were forbidden to play out of the military district in which their head-quarters were situated, without special permission from the War Office. I believe that the Guards' bands were prevented by this Rule from fulfilling some of their engagements. One case—that of Brighton —has already been brought to my notice by the Judge Advocate General. In others local complaints have been made; and I am bound to say that I think it would have been better if longer notice had been given of the change of practice intended. As regards the last part of the hon. Member's Question, the Commander-in-Chief has informed me that he considers the Order advisable on military grounds.

asked, whether the same Rule applied to the Royal Artillery Woolwich band?

The Rule applies to all bands.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether three farmers were recently sum- moned before the Listowel Petty Sessions, County Kerry, under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, for intimidating and preventing the collection of rent; whether, previous to the cases being heard, the three farmers charged waited upon the landlord's agent, and made an ample apology, offering to pay all costs; and, whether, in consequence of this acknowledgment of wrong-doing, all proceedings against them were dropped?

said: In reply to my hon. and gallant Friend, I am glad to be able to answer the entire of the Question in the affirmative.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether an executive officer of the Medical Staff in India, who officiated for less than one month as Deputy Surgeon General in the absence of the Deputy Surgeon General on sick leave or furlough, receives no allowances for the period, although he performed the duties in addition to his other duties; whether, in such an instance, the "half-staff" of the appointment reverted to the State; whether the acting officer would be held pecuniarily liable in the event of loss of stores or other mistakes; and, whether officers officiating on the Military (combatant) Staff in a similar way would draw the "half-staff" for broken periods; and, why the difference is made in the case of medical officers?

said: In accordance with the undertaking given by me on the 17th of June, when this Question was first put, a Despatch on the subject was addressed to the Government of India; but no reply has yet been received.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, on the morning of Sunday the 22 ultimo, Major Lid well, of Dromard House, County Tipperary, went, accompanied by other persons, to the farm of one of his tenants, Patrick Stapleton, and, by the use of an explosive, blew up a bridge connecting the farm with the public road; whether, in consequence of the explosion, a woman named Kennedy was struck on the temple by a stone; whether Major Lidwell returned to the place after dark the same evening, and, by another explosion, completed the destruction of the bridge; whether he then proceeded to the house occupied by Mrs. Stapleton and her children, threatened to "blow them and their house into the elements," and also threatened some neighbours who came to the assistance of Mrs. Stapleton, that he would make them suffer; whether Mrs. Stapleton immediately reported the case to the local police, and has been since informed by them that they are awaiting "instructions from the authorities; "whether Major Lidwell adjudicates as a magistrate in the Templemore District; and, what determination has been come to upon the case?

said, he regretted he had received no further information on the subject.

I must take every opportunity that occurs to get an answer to this Question.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am doing all I can to get the particulars, and I intend to take further steps.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he is aware that an opinion has been universally expressed by Boards of Guardians in Ireland that the cost of remunerating clerks of Unions employed in connection with the work of Parliamentary registration should be defrayed out of Imperial funds, instead of, as present, out of local rates; and, whether similar representations have reached him from England; and, if so, whether he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation dealing with the subject?

I understand that the Irish Government has received from Boards of Guardians expressions of opinion in the direction indicated by the hon. Member. No similar representations have been made to the Local Government Board in England; and I am not aware of any intention on the part of the Government of initiating legislation on the subject.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in. reference to the Return giving 21 cases of Boycotting in the Queen's County, Whether he will state the locality in which each of the alleged cases has occurred, with a view to enabling the Representatives of the county to test the accuracy of the Return by personal inquiry?

said: The Government have already stated to the House that they cannot undertake to give the names of the persons Boycotted, or the particular locality in which they preside.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether his attention has been directed to the imperfect way in which the duty of re-directing the letters of Members which are sent, in the first instance, to the House of Commons is at present performed; and, whether he will give instructions that this work shall be more efficiently discharged during the Recess?

The short Notice which the hon. Member has given has prevented me from making so full an inquiry into the matter as I should have desired; but I may, nevertheless, state with confidence that I have no reason to think that the duty of re-directing Members' letters from the House is imperfectly or carelessly performed, but that the contrary is the case. In order to prevent delay, letters which have to be re-directed are not sent to the House, but are dealt with, in the District Post Office by the postal staff of the House, with such assistance as may be necessary; and I am informed that, on an average, 3,000 letters a-day are thus re-directed, the number sometimes exceeding 5,000. The work appears to be done so carefully that I am assured that no written complaint of an error in re-directing has been received during the present Session, and only one personal complaint. This was from the hon. Member himself about a month ago. He was then requested to furnish the covers of the letters stated to have been incorrectly treated, with a view to inquiry; but this he has not done. I may remind the House that there are three other Members whose names are similar to that of the hon. Member, although two of them are not spelt in the same way; and it is, of course, possible that an obscurely-addressed letter may have been sent to the wrong person; but there is no evidence of this.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that two letters addressed to Mr. W. M. M'Arthur, M.P., have been received by me recently, and that I frequently receive letters intended for the Lord Advocate, while he receives letters intended for me; also, that two letters received for me at the House of Commons were sent to the Constitutional Club? Perhaps my experience in this respect may be peculiar.

stated that on more than one occasion his letters had been re-directed to the Members whose names were next to his above and below in Vacher's Parliamentary Guide.

I think it is possible that the letters referred to may have been re-directed at some other office, and not by the staff in the House.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Can he now give the information promised in reference to the places to which the winners of the prizes for sires at the recent Royal Dublin Society's Show will be stationed?

said: An authorized statement on the part of the Royal Dublin Society appeared some time ago in the public Press giving full particulars as to the sires and the head-quarters at which they will be stationed.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether Drumsna is a sorting office for Kilmore and Hillotree; whether the day mails from Drumsna for Dublin are forwarded direct from that station; whether the night mails are first sent into Carrick-on-Shannon, passing by the Drumsna Railway Station to Dublin four hours after; and, whether he will so arrange that the night mails will be forwarded direct as the day mails now are, and thus give the people of the three districts named a much longer time within which to write their correspondence?

I undertook, on the 1st instant, to have inquiry made in Ireland on the several points embraced in the hon. Member's Question; but there has not been time for a Report to be furnished, or to give to the matter, which involves detail, the consideration which must precede a decision. There shall be no unnecessary delay.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether, having reference to the number of men in the Devonport Dockyard being reduced to about the proportion assigned to it of the 18,000 at which the Dockyard establishments are to be maintained, he can now say that preference will be given to the re-employment of those discharged in filling up vacancies as they may arise from deaths, superannuation, or other causes?

In the event of any re-entries, preference will be given to such discharged hands as may present themselves for re-employment, provided their qualifications are suitable.

asked, what was the average number of reentries per annum owing to the cause mentioned in the Question?

said, he did not know that there had been any hitherto, because the tendency in past years had been to increase rather than diminish establishments.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the Admiralty declined to take over the Australia on account of defective work; whether the extra cost is to be made good by the contractors or by the Admiralty; whether more than one Survey or Report has been made, in which it is stated that the ship was not built according to specification in many particulars; that the torpedo arrangements were faulty; that the racers had not been fitted with the care necessary for the safe working of the guns; and that the quick firing guns had not been placed on hard wood, in the manner such work is done in the Dockyards, and so forth; whether the Dockyard officials have recommended the retention of a large sum out of the balance remaining unpaid to the contractors; whether the Phaeton and Galatea, the Archer, and other contract-built ships have required alterations and repairs, at heavy cost to the Admiralty; and, whether he will grant a Return of the cost of alterations and repairs of ships built by private firms during the last five or six years, and also lay upon the Table of the House the various Reports made by the officials of the Admiralty or Dockyards on the Australia and other ships handed over by the shipbuilders?

The Admiralty have not delined to take over the Australia. The Report of Survey is satisfactory; but some few minor items have been left incomplete, or will require adjustment. The cost of completing these in accordance with the contract will be paid by the contractors. The racers to her guns and the sills to torpedo ports require slight adjustment. The stands for the quick-firing guns have been laid on hard wood; but there is a mistake of about five-eighths of an inch as to the height required. In accordance with the usual practice and with the provisions of the contract, a sum of money has been kept back to cover the cost of any defects or deficiencies that may be discovered. With regard to other contract-built ships, some defects have occurred in the boilers of three of the vessels of the Archer class, which are being made good by the contractors. The defects in the machinery of the Phaeton occurred after the expiration of her 12 months' guarantee from contractors, and were consequently made good at the cost of the Admiralty. The hulls of these ships have been built satisfactorily. The Galatea is still in the contractors' hands at Glasgow. There will be no objection to give the Return relating to the cost of alterations and repairs of ships built by contract. The Reports of Admiralty and Dockyard officers are, however, made for the information of the Admiralty, and are confidential.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether any Report has been received with reference to the sergeant in charge of the police station at Pike, County of Tipperary, having been drunk on the evening of the 30th June last when absent on duty at Lorrha Petty Sessions; and, if not, will he cause inquiry to be made into the fact?

said: No Report of such an occurrence has been received by the County Inspector.

Whose duty would it be to report to the County Inspector?

The District Inspector.

And who would report to the District Inspector? Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. inquire whether this occurrence took place?

Inquiries are being made.

I will repeat the Question on Thursday.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, under the Acts for the Commutation of Tithes, the contributions towards compulsory redemption are payable by the occupier, or persons in possession of the land, whether as freeholders, lessees under a beneficial lease, or mortgagee; whether he is aware that tithes are subject to local rates, and that their commutation will deprive Local Authorities of the moans of recovering that source of income; and, whether, if the facts be as stated, Her Majesty's Government will introduce a measure to prevent injustice being done to leaseholders and the ratepayers generally, by the present mode of compulsory tithe redemption?

Contributions towards the compulsory redemption of tithe rent-charge are, under the Acts for the commutation of tithes, payable by the owners of the lands chargeable therewith—that is, the persons in actual receipt of the rents or profits of the land, whether as freeholders or mortgagees, in possession. In the case of a beneficial lease (on which a rent less than two-thirds the value of the premises is reserved, and of which the term exceeds 14 years) the lessee and lossor are jointly liable according to their respective interests. In regard to the second part of the Question of the hon. Member, a rent-charge has been substituted for tithes, and this rent-charge is subject to local rates under 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 71, ss. 69 and 70. When the rent-charge is redeemed the Local Authorities lose the rates upon it; but the rateable value of the property which was subject to the rent-charge is increased when freed from the charge; and, consequently, the rates lost in respect of the rent-charge are practically recouped by the increased sum received from rates on the property. I am not prepared, therefore, to accept the view of the hon. Member that injustice is done either to leaseholders or ratepayers.

said: In the event of Supply being closed on Wednesday, the Indian Budget will be taken on Thursday; and in the event of Supply not being closed until Thursday the Indian Budget will be taken on Friday. I hope I may rely on it that the days I have mentioned will be the last days of Supply.

asked, whether the Indian Budget, when taken, would be the first Order of the Day?

I should be exceedingly happy to meet the hon. and gallant Gentleman's views in the matter; but he must be aware that I cannot enter into any engagement of the kind. At this period of the Session I must make the arrangements which are best calculated, in my judgment, to promote the convenience of the House.

rose to put a Question arising out of an answer which had been given with reference to the reduction of men in the Dockyards. He wished to ask, was it not a fact that some 1,200 or 1,300 men a-year were retired by deaths or super annuation—

interposing, said: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not go back on Questions which have been answered long before. The practice is very inconvenient, and I have already expressed a hope that the House would not sanction it.

I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has any information whatever which has not been published, relating to the terrible catastrophe which took place at Exeter Theatre last night; and whether, also, considering that this was a new theatre, having been built but very recently, any official surrey was deemed necessary by the Home Office?

No official survey was held by the Home Office, because the Home Office has no authority to hold any survey in the Provinces. This jurisdiction rests entirely with the Justices in Special Session, who may require, as a condition of granting a licence, that a survey of the building shall be made, and certain structural conditions be complied with. With regard to the accident itself, I regret to say that I am informed by telegraph received a few minutes ago that as many as 119 persons are dead; but I am glad to say, as a set-off against that, I am also informed that those who are injured are progressing favourably.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State a Question of which I have given him private Notice, Whether, in consequence of the frequently-recurring disasters and loss of life in theatres, and other places of public meeting and amusement, steps will be immediately taken to appoint Inspectors by and under the Home Department, whose duty it shall be to inspect all such places of amusement and meeting in Great Britain and Ireland, and who might have immediate power to prevent any performance in such theatres and places as shall not be adequately provided with commodious exit for use in all cases of sudden emergency; and also, whether, bearing in mind the fact that most of the fires in theatres—and notably the calamitous fire which occurred last night in the City of Exeter— originate on the stage, an iron drop-screen shall in future be deemed a necessary appurtenance in every theatre?

I regret to say that it would not be possible to act on the suggestion of the hon. Member without legislation. Outside the Metropolitan area there is no power in any Government Department, or in any Local Authority, to inspect theatres, or to insist on structural alterations, except as a condition of licensing a theatre in the first instance, and possibly under local Acts of Parliament. Within the Metropolitan area the Metropolitan. Board of Works have sufficient powers to enforce the precautions which they may deem necessary; and they have largely acted on those powers. The dreadful calamity which has occurred at Exeter shows the necessity of legislation for Provincial theatres, and the Government will give their attention to the subject.

I wish to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can give any information as to the truth or falsehood of the statement in The Daily News of this day, as to the outrage by a constable on Mr. Lewis Ward. The statement is: —

" A despatch from Ballinasloe states that, on Saturday night, a man named Patrick Barratt was being conveyed to the train en route for Galway, bail having been refused in his case, and a large crowd of the leading inhabitants of the town assembled to escort the prisoner to the station. Barratt a short time ago was evicted. On the departure of the train loud cheers were given for Barratt and the Plan of Campaign, and this appeared to provoke the police, who proceeded to baton every person on the railway platform indiscriminately. The police, in passing through the town subsequently, were hooted by the crowd who had assembled in the streets. Mr. Lewis Ward, a son of Mr. Lewis Ward, builder and contractor, was set upon by Constable Nolan, and his skull was fractured, and his ear almost severed from his head. The young gentleman was borne to his father's house in an insensible condition, and he has had to be left downstairs, as the doctor advised his friends that his removal upstairs might prove fatal. The constable ran away after perpetrating this outrage; but was identified by Mr. Harris, jun. Several gentlemen witnessed the assault, including Messrs. J. S. Smith and Knox, of the National Bank, and Mr. R. F. Walker of The Western News. Mr. Ward, who is in a most precarious condition, is under the care of Dr. Delahunt, who is in constant attendance upon him."

Can the right hon. Gentleman give me any information as to this statement? The parties concerned are friends of mine, and I shall be very glad to receive any information.

I am afraid I have no information to give the hon. Gentleman. He only gave me his Notice as I was entering the House. I have heard nothing of the matter; but if he will put a Notice on the Paper I will inquire about it.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give me the information to- morrow, or will he be likely to have it?

I may be able, but I cannot guarantee it.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, considering the gravity of this case and also the number of these unprovoked attacks by the police at evictions, and other incidents, and what may happen during the winter, whether he will consider the necessity of issuing instructions to the police to abstain from violence, except in cases where actual violence or obstruction is offered?

I have no reason to believe that the police have used violence, except in cases in which actual violence has been used against them.

Well, I can read a letter which I have got on the subject, and which leaves no doubt that the Constabulary do so.

Order, order ! If the hon. Gentleman puts his Question down, on the Paper, it will, no doubt, receive attention.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, seeing that the Superannuation Acts Amendment Bill was only introduced on the 4th of August, and that it dealt with a very important subject, the Government would withdraw it this Session and re-introduce it early next year?

I regret that it is not in my power to respond to the appeal of the hon. Member. The Bill is necessary in order to validate certain arrangements which have been made, and will be made from time to time, by the Treasury in the interests of the Civil servants themselves, and which have been called in question by the Public Accounts Committee. The Bill has, according to the hon. Gentleman's own statement, been before the House five weeks, and has been brought to the notice of almost everyone chiefly concerned, and the Government feel it necessary to press it on the consideration of the House and pass it into law, if we can, in the course of the present Session.

I beg, Sir, to ask a Question of the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Gedge) concerning an important Notice which he has put down on the Order Book—

"To call the attention of the House to the conduct of the Government and of certain Members of the House with respect to the proclaimed meeting in the County of Glare, on Sunday the 4th of September; and to move a Resolution."

I wish to ask the hon. Member for Stock-port whether he will give the House any intimation of the time when he intends to bring that Resolution forward?

Well, as I cannot get any answer from the hon. Member, I will ask a Question of the Government. I beg to ask, whether the Government have made up their minds— as it appears we are not to be allowed to discuss this question—whether they have made up their minds to prosecute the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. P. Stanhope) for taking part in a proclaimed meeting in Ireland last Sunday?

I must say that I am taken by surprise. It is not in my power to give an answer to such a question; and even if it were in my power I should not give an answer to such a Question as that which the hon. Baronet has addressed to me. I have no knowledge whatever of the circumstances. It is not within my Department; and, therefore, I am not aware whether the hon. Member for Wednesbury has brought himself within the law or not.

May I ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether it is intended to prosecute any persons who took part in the meeting?

It is not the practice, as far as I am aware, for Questions to be asked and Questions to be answered as to the action of the Crown in instituting prosecutions.

I beg to ask, whether the Government will give us the instructions which were. issued to the officers in command of the military and police as to the circumstances under which they were or were not to interfere with the meeting?

The request which has been made to the Government is not one which I think is usually addressed to the Government, or one which I think it would be in the public interest to answer.

Allow me to state my reason for asking the Question. It is obviously illegal to disperse a meeting if that meeting be of a peaceable character, and my object is to learn from the right hon. Gentlemen whether the military and police are commissioned to interfere with peaceable meetings in Ireland, or only when they became otherwise than peaceable?

In order to get some information, I intend to move the reduction of the Vote by several items which it includes. I shall first move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £1,500, being the amount under Sub-Head A for half charge for the steamer on the West Coast of Africa, because it is the only way in which we can get to know what is going on in that part of the world. I want some information as to the nature of our proceedings on the West Coast of Africa. We have had a number of Blue Books which, in one sense, give too much information, and in another sense too little; but it is rather hard to get at the true gist of our proceedings in Africa. We have had statements made in the press and by the Chamber of Commerce in London and elsewhere, complaining very much that we do not annex the interior districts of Africa, or bring them under control so that our trade there may be extended. It is noticeable that those who impress on Her Majesty's Government the necessity of undertaking this work, do so, not so much for the purpose of keeping alive the Natives as for the purpose of trading with them. It is for this reason that Her Majesty's Government have been strongly pressed to establish dominion on the West Coast of Africa. I should like to know what operations are in contemplation by Her Majesty's Government, and whether they have in view the protection of the lives of the Natives or the promotion of trade by bringing under control large tracts in the interior of Africa. I should, also, like to be told something of the position of the Royal Niger Company to which a charter has been granted for the purpose of enabling them to establish large dominions in the interior of the Continent. I know it would be out of Order to go into this subject in detail; but the Vote being for the West African Steamer, I think we may ask to be told, in the fewest possible words, whether we are establishing dominions in Africa by means of a Chartered Company or otherwise?

I understand that the hon. Gentleman opposite has moved the reduction of this Vote, not as really desiring to reduce the charge on account of the West Coast Steamer, but simply for the purpose of raising the question of the proceedings of Her Majesty's Government in Africa. I am very glad to be able to give some comfort to the mind of the hon. Gentleman. I, myself, although I think I should have heard of these rumours if there had been any foundation for them, have not heard anything of the kind, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is nothing in contemplation by Her Majesty's Government in the nature of extension of dominion on the West Coast of Africa. The Government sufficiently appreciate the responsibilities which this country has already undertaken in so many parts of the world and are not at all inclined to increase them. The only matter going on at Lagos now, which I hope will receive a peaceful and friendly termination, is a discussion as to the boundaries between some of the Native tribes, ourselves, and the French; but there is no reason to apprehend any serious difficulty on the point. With regard to the last question raised by the hon. Gentleman, I can only repeat that we have no intention of in any way extending our power on the West Coast of Africa.

I rise for the purpose of moving the reduction of this Vote by the sum of £1,000, being the amount charged in connection with the salary of the Governor of the Island of Heligoland and other matters. This Island seems to me a sort of bathing machine, situated in the Gorman Ocean; and it would be well if it were a bathing machine and nothing more. But it is more than that. It is understood by the German people merely as a menace to their trade and Mercantile Marine sailing out of the port of Hamburg. We have heard in past years that there was an intention on the part of Her Majesty's Government, in the belief that it would be desirable to conciliate Germany, to give up this island to the great country to whose shores it is contiguous. The Governor of the Island, whose name is O'Brien, states in the Report that the prosperity of the island is increasing, for the bathing season has been an exceptionally good one. But who is most interested in this Island; is it Great Britain or is it Germany? We are told in the Report that the majority of the visitors come from Hamburg and Bremen. The Government say that business men can run over from these places, and that the comparative success of the Island may be due to the completion of the railway to Cuxhaven. The Report, which is most amusing, is a curiosity in itself, and it tells us that the only event of political importance during the year was the visit paid to the island by their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Connaught. On this occasion the Government House was repaired, and the furniture, which is more than 24 years old, has been re-covered—an example of economy to Her Majesty's Government. The Governor has been also obliged to supply glass, plate, and crockery, so that the post of this unfortunate gentleman is really no sinecure. I think if we look into these matters we shall see that, although the cost is not large, it would be well to cut it down still farther; and, having regard to the fact that the German people do not like the English occupation, I think it would be better if the island were once for all handed over to the Power off whose shores it lies. You tell us that the fishery is a success; but there is another point to which I wish to call attention. In dealing with the Postal Savings Banks, the Government tells us that it is very difficult to expect to get anything like progress out of Heligoland. The place does not appear to have been of any advantage whatever, and, moreover, England is placed in a false position by holding the Island. It is all very well to pass this Vote, as has been the case in years gone by; but I think that the time has come —seeing that you are asking the assistance and intervention of Germany in foreign affairs, and that you are constantly appealing to Germany as arbitrator in European matters when you want to secure a technical advantage— when you should give to Germany this little island. She wants to get it, and certainly I do not think that Great Britain cares very much about it. No one can land there; the island, as the Governor states, is merely a bathing place; you cannot get any shelter under the island, and therefore what is the use of keeping the cost of this small but typical White Elephant on the Estimates? I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies will give us some explanation of the cause why Heligoland is still an appurtenance of the British Crown, otherwise I shall feel it my painful duty to divide the Committee against this Vote.

The reason why this Vote is put upon the Estimates, and why we still hold Heligoland, is that this country is not prepared or desirous to part with it. I would remind the hon. Member that more than once the question of handing the island over to Germany has been raised in this House; and every time the hon. Member who made the proposal has met with a very decided rebuff. I must add that I have no information, and do not believe that Germany is very anxious to take Heligoland. I am not aware of any past negotiations or proposals for its surrender, at all events of any recent date. But without going into the question whether Heligoland is of use to the British Empire for defensive purposes, upon which, for reasons which the Committee will appreciate, it will not be desirable to enter, I must state that it is not the intention nor the desire of Her Majesty's Government to part with Heligoland to Germany. I have some difficulty in dealing with the speech of the hon. Member for Mid Cork, for the hon. Gentleman seemed to dislike the prosperity of what he called a mere bathing machine. I am glad to recognize that prosperity, and to be able to state that notwithstanding the small-ness of the Island and the shortness of the bathing season, there is a distinct and increasing improvement in tike financial condition of the Island. This year there is a decrease of £2,500 on the Vote of last year, and £800 of the amount now asked for is for the salary of the Governor, which is to be reduced when the present Governor leaves his post. Considering the importance of the place, it is not too much to ask the Imperial Government to pay £1,275. I really cannot assent to one of the reasons assigned by the hon. Member for handing over the Island to Germany—namely, because it is mainly kept up by people who cross over from Cuxhaven and Bremen to bathe. To sum up the matter, I may state that the Government are not prepared to hand Heligoland over to Germany, and that they have kept the expense to the Imperial taxpayer down to the very smallest amount. Great credit is due to the Governor for his care in closely watching the expenditure, and improving the resources of the Island.

I think the right hon. Baronet has proved too much in saying that we have reduced the expenditure on account of Heligoland. Last year we paid off an amount of original debt, and that is a fact which seems to me to emphasize the contention of the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner), that this is an unnecessary charge on the British taxpayer. I believe that on the whole face of the earth there is not a possession more absolutely useless to us than this Island; or an occupation more unjustifiable than the retention of Heligoland.

Of course, if the right hon. Gentleman desires it, I shall be happy to withdraw my Motion. At the same time, I cannot help repeating the remark that this island is simply held as a threat and menace to a country which it is incumbent on us to treat in a fair, proper, and judicious manner.

We have never received from Germany any complaint of that kind, and there is not the slightest foundation for such a statement.

I must now move the reduction under Sub-head M of £250, part of the salary of the Deputy Commissioner of New Guinea. With regard to the last reduction which I moved, I am glad that the Secretary of State for the Colonies was able to give me very satisfactory assurances. I am afraid, however, that with regard to the question which I now bring forward, it will not be in the right hon. Baronet's power to give assurances equally satisfactory. I have placed this Notice on the Paper in order to bring to the notice of the House the policy which is being pursued by Her Majesty's Government in connection with Now Guinea. I am very much afraid that Her Majesty's Government have committed themselves to annex this enormous territory and hand it over to Queensland. That is a course which I very much object to— first, on the ground that it is an unjustifiable extension of the Empire; and, secondly, on the ground of risk and cost. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) has told us how dangerous it will be to extend too rapidly our Empire, and go beyond our resources; and although I admit that the right hon. Gentleman has found occasion to make considerable exceptions to his rule, yet this proposal for extension has been steadily opposed by successive Governments. The Secretary of State for the Colonies, I know, disputes the fact that the British Settlements Bill which has been put before the House is really one intended to facilitate annexations. But I altogether dissent from that view, and confidently assert that in certain cases there is an enormous extension of powers which will enable Her Majesty's Government to annex new territories. I will not go further into that point now, but will refer presently to the case of extension with regard to which I have placed a Notice on the Paper. One measure of Her Majesty's Government is that the High Commissioner shall register claims for land over which Her Majesty has no dominion. Up to the present time Her Majesty's Governments had steadily resisted that proposal. I am quite aware that the registration of claims to land beyond the Dominions of Her Majesty would not constitute title; but, on the other hand, it seems to me to be a great encouragement to men to get marketable claims improperly, and to involve considerable danger. My second objection to the Vote is that the Government propose practically to hand the territory over to Queensland. Sir, I hold a very strong opinion upon that matter, and I object to handing over in this way the government of Native races. I hold strongly that if we will take territory containing Native races we have certain responsibilities to assume. I hold that it would be most wrong, most base, and cowardly to shirk these responsibilities. We have taken under our dominion these Native tribes, and I say it would be base to shirk the responsibilities we have thereby incurred, and to hand them over to any Colony that may want to take them. I think that a course of that kind is not only wrong on our part, but is also bad for the Colonies themselves. I believe it will be an evil day for the Australian Colonies if, in addition to their wide Dominions, they have attached to them a kind of Black Southern States, which we know imperilled the position of the United States of America. We are often told when we raise objections of this kind— "Well, but these Colonists whom you seem to distrust are our own flesh and blood." No doubt they are our own flesh and blood; but it must be borne in mind that the Australian Colonists are situated very differently from ourselves. They are a very sparse population, and are distributed over an enormous tract of country; they are not a solid population like ourselves, They are a population made up of enterprizing and ambitious men—men in these days largely given to speculation, anxious to make rapid fortunes, and very desirous of accumulating these fortunes by means of speculations in land. An eminent authority upon these matters, who lately visited that country—namely, Baron Hubner— noticed this circumstance. He says, re- ferring to the constant cry amongst our Colonists in that part of the world for annexation in the Western Pacific—

"The cry for annexation in the Western Pacific and elsewhere is a craze which is accounted for by the wants of speculators continually in quest of lands to buy and sell."

My view is that if we must take possession of these Native territories we are bound to protect the Natives, and the dictum of a very eminent statesman in years not very long gone by was this—

" Where large numbers of Natives and a small number of Whites are brought together under one Government, their control should be entrusted to an authority directly responsible to the Imperial Government, and able to bear itself impartially between conflicting interests."

In this case of New Guinea it seems to me we are altogether transgressing the most wholesome rules of the great statesmen who have gone before us. I think that the proposed annexation of New Guinea, -which involves the handing over of it to Queensland, is altogether an unjustifiable proceeding. This territory to be annexed in New Guinea is an enormous one, probably as large as France and Germany put together. It is a territory utterly unknown to us. We know it is inhabited by an interesting and comparatively civilized people. Let me quote a few words from a most attentive observer, Captain Bridge, R.N., who says with regard to the character of the people of New Guinea—

" Throughout the parts of New Guinea with which I am acquainted the inhabitants are ingenious and industrious agriculturists, and carefully fence their plantations. Their houses are large and well built. They make very fine fishing nets. Their canoes are of an enormous size, and the trees are procured a long way off. Pottery is made in large quantities for export."

I might read many more extracts; but I will not at this time of day trouble the Committee with more. I think that extract is quite sufficient to show what kind of people they are in New Guinea, and I say to annex these people without in any degree attempting to obtain their consent in a most unjustifiable proceeding. I am aware that we do not make a bare and simple present of New Guinea to Queensland; but I am also aware of the fact that indignation meetings have been held in that Colony in order to force the hands of the Government in regard to the annexation of New Guinea, and the Colonists have forced the hands of Her Majesty's Government. Now under a very thin veil of reservation we are yielding to their demands, and are practically handing over this great Island to the Colonists of Queensland, who, by their persistency, have succeeded in getting their way. I admit that the Colonists are our own flesh and blood. Speaking as a Scotchman, I may say that they are specially my own Scotch flesh and blood; but still they are enterprizing and ambitious speculators, as I have said. I must speak plainly in regard to this Colony of Queensland, and I must say that it is specially unfortunate that this territory of New Guinea should be handed over to this particular Colony, and for two reasons. The first is, that Queensland is deeply dyed in that horrible Slave Trade in the Pacific— in that horrible system of kidnapping of which we have had the amplest evidence in the Papers produced before us. I say that New Guinea is deeply dyed in that very criminal Slave Trade which has taken place for years past in the Pacific; and if it were necessary I could read many extracts to show how barbarous that trade is, and how terribly it is disfigured by crime. All who have taken an interest in this matter—and I should think everyone in this House has—must know very well how bad that trade has been. Therefore I say that this Colony is not one which should be entrusted with this great extent of territory, and with the government of this interesting and pacific people. Another reason I will give in support of my view is, that Queensland has attempted to force our hands in regard to the annexation of this territory in spite of the prohibition of Her Majesty's Government, and that the Colony practically proceeded to bully us into giving them their own way. The Colony has got its own way in spite of the remonstrances of this country; it has got the control and the administration of New Guinea in spite of the deliberate opinion expressed by successive Governments of this country. This transaction has taken place without giving Parliament any opportunity of expressing an opinion on the subject except this miserable opportunity which we have tonight. Practically Her Majesty's Government have surrendered it to Queensland. There is to be an Administrator of New Guinea; but he is to be under the Governor of Queensland and under the Executive Council of that Colony. I do say without reservation that with the exception of the thin veil of protection afforded by this country the control of this territory is to be handed over to Queensland, which I think is a most unjustifiable proceeding. I will once more quote Baron Hubner, who, speaking of our relations with the Colonies and our habit of yielding to them, says —

" Recent requests for the annexation of New Guinea made again and again were at first categorically refused by Lord Derby, then gently put aside and ultimately admitted in principle."

Baron Hubner said that in the very early stages of these proceedings; and, that being so, I wonder what he would have said after the Government have adopted the action they have in regard to New Guinea. The terms agreed upon are practically a surrender to Queensland. They were proposed by Queensland— even the reservations were proposed by her. The plan adopted is altogether Queensland's plan, and I say again that it is one taken against the better judgment of Her Majesty's Government. I think the present Secretary of State for War (Mr. E. Stanhope) was formerly Secretary of State for the Colonies. I wish to quote what he said on the subject a very short time ago. I find that the Secretary of State for the Colonies has expressed himself distinctly upon this subject so lately as December last. He said—

" Her Majesty's Government have very carefully considered the New Guinea Corres pondence, and desire to state frankly their opinion on the Colonies' proposal. The establishment of sovereignty over New Guinea involves the possibility of very heavy expenditure, and is not necessary for the defence of Australia from foreign aggression."

That extract will be found in the Blue Book—Proceedings of Colonial Conference, vol. 2, page 200. It is a telegram of the 3rd December, 1886. Well, Queensland was not satisfied. They were determined to have New Guinea, and now it appears they are going to get it with a small reservation which I think will be soon swept away when this country happens to come into collision with the self-governed Colony. We dare not attempt to hold our own against them. Queensland and the other Australian Colonies are very cautious in this matter as people who know they will get all their own way are very apt to be when they make a bargain. They have made one of the character of "Heads I win, tails you lose." They have carefully limited the amount they are to contribute towards the expenses of the new territory. They have undertaken to expend £15,000 a-year on the Government of the territory; but they have been careful to limit the sum to that amount, and to make it clear that if the £15,000 is not sufficient, and any financial difficulty is encountered, the British taxpayer will have to supply the deficit, and bear all the necessary burden. From the same publication from which I have already quoted the present Secretary of State for War, when Colonial Secretary, said—

" The Gold Coast and Lagos expenditure is £150,000 a-year, and New Guinea might cost more.''

If New Guinea did cost more than £150,000 the Colony of Queensland would contribute £15,000, and we should have to contribute all the rest. I hold that the bargain we have made with the Colony of Queensland is one under which they get all they desire, and we run the risk of incurring a loss. I stoutly maintain that, as the British Settlements Bill is not passed into law, under the present law we have no power to annex this territory and turn it over to Queensland. I hold that under the existing law we cannot do this thing.

The Law Officers whom we have consulted are of opinion that there is not the least doubt about New Guinea being a British Settlement when sovereignty was declared.

I beg very humbly to differ from the right hon. Baronet. Her Majesty's Law Advisers gave the opinion that the territory when, annexed must be taken to have been acquired as distinguished from conquest or cession.

Their opinion was that Her Majesty's Government must be taken to have the power they have exercised in the matter.

Then read the passage from the Blue Book.

There is no passage in the Blue Book on this point. The opinion I am referring to is not a published opinion.

I can only go on the opinion that has been published, and in this passage to which I refer the Law Advisers of Her Majesty advise that under the present law we can only treat the territory as a British Settlement, as distinguished from a territory obtained by conquest or cession. You cannot say that this country has been conquered, because it has not been conquered; and you cannot say it has been ceded, because it has not been ceded; and, therefore, you cannot treat it from any of those points of view. If Her Majesty's Law Advisers say that we are already entitled to treat this as a British Settlement, why did you place such an unnatural definition in your British Settlements Bill at present before Parliament?

Order, order !

I admit, Sir, that I shall not be in Order in going into the question of the British Settlements Bill; but the right hon. Baronet, by his interruption, rendered it almost necessary for me to say a word or two on that subject. The opinion which the right hon. Baronet says the Law Advisers have given him is not before the House; and I trust he will permit me to say that I hope Her Majesty's Government will in the Bill propose a clause for the purpose of —

I must rise to Order, Sir. I must protest against the hon. Member going into these matters, because I shall be unable to follow him. I think, Sir, it is quite irregular, and I may add that his statement is altogether incorrect.

I will merely say that, in my view, Her Majesty's Government are not entitled under the existing law to treat New Guinea as a British Settlement, to annex it, and to deal with it under that title. I deny that anyone who reads the present Falkland Islands Law regarding British Settlements can come to any other conclusion than that the British Settlements therein referred to are bonâ fide British Settlements, and not constructive unnatural British Settlements, I have not got the Falkland Islands Law by me just at this moment, because I did not expect that we should have this clashing of opinion. There are two laws on the subject—one of which recites that Her Majesty's subjects have resided on the Falkland Islands and certain portions of the West Coast of Africa, and it is necessary to make laws for such subjects; and they, therefore, recite that Her Majesty has a right to make laws in those Settlements. Then you have another law, which professes to amend the Falkland Islands Law, and says that the same laws shall apply to British Settlements in every other part of the world. In any common-sense point of view, can you say that this great unknown and unexplored territory is really a British Settlement? It is a Settlement that is really not settled at all. You have half-a-dozen settlers, probably in different parts of an enormous territory; but it is a fiction and a perversion of the plain meaning of the Statute to which I have referred to treat New Guinea as a British Settlement. I am free to say at once that, whether it be legal or illegal to treat this territory as a British Settlement, as a matter of expediency, I, for one, should not object to what I may call a nominal annexation which shall enable us to assume jurisdiction along the coast in order to keep off marauding foreigners and to protect the Native tribes in the interior. If we are prepared to do that—if we are prepared to assume responsibility—if the British Crown and the British nation are to be responsible in a matter of this kind, though I may think it illegal to treat the territory as a British Settlement, I should not say that it was altogether inexpedient. I do not object to a nominal annexation of this kind, provided we are prepared to act on the doctrine that the Imperial Government shall be bound to bear the responsibility of conducting the government of the territory and to hold the balance between the Colonists and the Natives. But I hold that you are departing from that principle; and I say that by so doing you are inflicting the greatest injustice on the Natives. In handing over the control of the territory to the Colony of Queensland you are guilty of a most unjust proceeding. The proper course to pursue is to follow the advice that your own Commissioner—Sir Peter Scratchley—gave, when he said—"New Guinea must be governed for the Natives and by the Natives."

Hear, hear!

I am delighted to hear the right hon. Baronet say "Hear, hear !" and one might assume from that that he is going to adopt that policy, I say, however, advisedly and deliberately, that, in my opinion, the right hon. Baronet is doing nothing of the kind. He is going to basely surrender the Natives, whom he ought to protect and to enable to govern themselves, to the Government of Queensland. He is going to appoint an Administrator, who is to be under the orders of the Executive Government of Queensland; and I repeat again that whenever we come into collision with these self-governing Colonies in these days, the tendency is for the Mother Country to go to the wall, and for the Colony to have its own way. I believe the Government has departed from the principle of governing New Guinea on the system I so much desire to see adopted, and which the Colonial Secretary seemed to approve—namely, by the Natives for the Natives. I protest against the course which the Government are about to adopt; and, in that view, I beg to move the reduction of the Vote.

The hon. Member has repeated over and over again that the Government are going to hand over New Guinea to Queensland; indeed, the whole of the hon. Gentleman's argument was based on that assumption. That assumption is entirely incorrect; and it follows that the whole of the hon. Gentleman's argument, from beginning to end, so far as it was based upon that assumption, is incorrect. The Government are not going to hand over New Guinea to Queensland. Anyone who takes the trouble to read the discussion upon the question of New Guinea at the Colonial Conference, and who studies the Schedule of the Queensland Bill, which provides for the expenses of the government of British New Guinea and the mode in which the territory is to be administered, must see that this country keeps New Guinea entirely in its own hands. I will not detain the Committee by quoting these passages, but only refer them to the Colonial Conference Papers (Vol. 2, p. 210). There is really no foundation for the contention of the hon. Member that we are practically going to hand over New Guinea to Queensland. It would not be unnatural that—looking to the trade through Torres Straits—the Australasian Colonies should desire to see in British hands the land on the other side of the Straits; and the feeling is not confined to Queensland as to the desirability of claiming Sovereignty over New Guinea. The feeling is universal throughout the Colonies of Australia; and, with the exception of South Australia, they are all ready to subscribe towards the expenses of the government of New Guinea. Therefore the hon. Member is wrong when he assumes that Queensland alone is interested in New Guinea. It is by no means clear that the other Australasian Colonies would be prepared, even if Queensland desired it, to see New Guinea handed over to Queensland. The hon. Member has thought fit to go back to the old complaint of the ill-treatment of Polynesians in Queensland. The hon. Member must be aware that a Commission was appointed, at the instigation of the Queensland Government, to examine into the charges, and that the whole system has been changed. Many Natives have been returned to their own Islands, and everything has been done by the Queensland Government within the past year or two to conduct the system on a proper footing. I am the more surprised at the hon. Member bringing this question forward now, because I read, a short time ago, a book entitled The British Empire, written by a Sir George Campbell. The writer of that book admitted that Queensland had turned over a new leaf, and that practically the Colony was now free from those charges. Of course, I do not wish to put too much weight on the authority of that writer as against the views of the hon. Member; but still I think it right to quote his opinion. The hon. Member seems to think that Her Majesty's Government have made no provision for the Natives of New Guinea. But I would refer the hon. Gentleman to page 210 of the 2nd volume of the discussions at the Colonial Conference. He will see there that paragraphs 9, 10, and 11 most carefully protect the Natives in regard to the buying of land by private persons; the prohibition of the deportation of Natives except under Ordinances, reserved for Her Majesty's assent; and trading with Natives in arms, intoxicants, &c., was absolutely prohibited except under Ordinance reserved for Her Majesty's assent. In short, every protection was given to the Natives, and I am convinced that this measure will be one of undoubted benefit to them. The hon. Member also seems to think that the Government have pursued a different policy from that of their Predecessors. This is not the case. In 1881 the assistance of the Imperial Government to support the Protectorate was recognized by Lord Derby. My immediate Predecessor, the present Secretary of State for War, was of the same opinion, as was shown by his telegram of August 14, 1885, in which he said Her Majesty's Government were willing to proclaim a Sovereignty upon certain conditions therein specified. There was considerable discussion as to those conditions both before and at the Colonial Conference; but in the end there was no material variation between the proposal approved by my Predecessor and the present arrangement. I do not know that there is anything more to answer, because the whole point of the hon. Member's speech is that we are handing New Guinea over to Queensland, and that I have denied. I will not now enter upon a discussion of the British Settlements Bill, although I must say that the hon. Member's statement of it is profoundly incorrect. I say now, as I have said before, that New Guinea does not come under the head of conquest or cession, and that it is a Settlement; and I would point out that parts of it along the sea shore have been for some time past inhabited by some British settlers. It is a British Settlement, and subject to the Act of 23 & 24 Vict.c. 121. With regard to the point as to registration of land purchases in the Western Pacific Islands, that subject was also brought before the Colonial Conference. All other countries are allowing registration of purchases of land by their people— Germans, Dutch, and French—and why we alone, of all countries, should not allow our subjects to settle in these Islands, and have their titles registered, does seem to me unaccountable. That change has been made, and I have to assure the hon. Member that if it had been done long ago we should have been saved a great deal of trouble in Samoa and other places.

I entirely dissent from almost every view of the hon. Member behind me (Sir George Campbell). I happen to have been born in Australia, and to know something about the Australian Colonies. I know very well the extreme difficulties which surround our dealings with the Western Pacific Islands. I know, especially with regard to the last point mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman—that is to say, the registration of claims to land in the Western Pacific —that the want of such registration has for years stood in the way of the settlement of the Islands there. I know that the want of such a system as this has for years past driven away legitimate English business from the Pacific, and I think that the arrangement which has been brought about is one of the greatest boons which could have been given to the mercantile community of Australia. I differ also from my hon. Friend in his estimate of the treatment the Natives are likely to receive under the authority of the Queensland Government. Only so lately as last year I was all through the Northern part of Queensland, and I saw a good deal of the Black labour there, and I must say that I never saw a more cheerful, contented, and hardy-looking lot of men in my life. During the last four or five years these men have been taught that they are under the protection of the Government of this country. They are aware of the fact that they have absolute protection against their masters. No foreman upon any one of the estates upon which Black labour is used can give any one of his labourers half-an-ounce of tobacco less than his proper weekly ration without having a complaint made and the whole thing thrashed out. These men are now thoroughly independent of their masters—more so, in fact, than are the men in trades unions here—and they are better looked after than our ordinary English workman. Then I also entirely differ from the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy on the whole question of annexation in the Western Pacific. The only regret I feel with regard to our Possessions in New Guinea is that they do not extend over the whole Island. I think it is out of the question that we could ever contemplate the possibility of the Australians remaining content to have around them a large territory which may be taken at any time by any other Power without making some attempt themselves to become possessed of such territory. I think that the extension contemplated by Her Majesty's Government is good for the Natives, for Australia, and for the British Empire; and I sincerely hope that, so far from the Colonial Office being discouraged in the policy they are pursuing, they will do their best to extend as far as possible the authority of England over the Western Pacific.

I should like to make one or two remarks upon this important question; but as it is very late in the Session it is my intention to make these observations of a very brief character. With regard to the subject of the New Hebrides —

There is a Motion before the Committee for the reduction of an item relating to New Guinea.

Unless the hon. Member (Mr. Webster) intends to deal with the question of New Guinea he is not now in Order.

Will the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Colonies state to the Committee the nature of the titles he refers to for the registration of which facilities have been granted?

As a rule the land is bought from the Natives, and up to the present time there has been no means of registering titles to land so bought by British subjects. It is of extreme importance that when land is bought there should at once be a registration of title, otherwise difficulties arise. At the present moment in Samoa there is trouble arising between German and British subjects from want of this registration.

The right hon. Gentleman, in the speech he addressed to the Committee, narrowed the points upon which I spoke very much. He has brought it to this issue— Is this a surrender to Queensland, or is it not? He says it is not, but I say it is. If the right hon. Baronet will refer to the documentary evidence bearing upon this matter he will find that the Go- vernor of Queensland is directed to consult the Executive Council on all matters relating to New Guinea. The case that the right hon. Baronet referred to, of the Governor of South Africa being also the Governor of Bechuanaland, is an entirely different matter. I quite admit that all the Australian Colonies are anxious that we should take some step in regard to the annexation of New Guinea, because they are anxious to keep the Germans out. That I admit, and I do not object to the assumption of a Protectorate over New Guinea; but what I do object to is the turning this territory over to the administration of Queensland, which, in spite of what the right hon. Baronet has said, I do respectfully urge upon the Committee is not the right authority. The right hon. Baronet must have a very short memory with regard to this Polynesian, labour traffic; he speaks of it as raking up an old story. If he will allow me to say so, it is a very recent story. I admit that when public opinion was directed to the matter, a great change took place in the condition of things which had previously been a great scandal. A Commission was appointed to inquire into the scandal, and I rely for what I said on the horrible nature of that traffic on the Report of this very Commission. The Report of that Commission showed that most abominable and hateful practices existed. I am not consoled by the assurances we have received from the hon. Member below the Gangway (Mr. W. A. M'Arthur), who represents the Spreadeagleism of Australia. He tells us that not only New Guinea, but the whole of the Islands of the Pacific, should be annexed by this country. I am not so satisfied as he is that the people he would thus place under allegiance to Her Majesty would be so satisfied with the arrangement as he would be. I am not so satisfied with the capacity of Queensland for treating Native races with consideration as is the hon. Member. The man who has committed a serious offence may repent and may be reclaimed, but you would not on that account make him your son's tutor. The Commission to which I have referred exposed great and terrible iniquities; but even now I almost doubt whether full justice has been done to the Natives. There were most terrible and horrible crimes. There was a crime as horrible as any which ever disgraced humanity. I refer to that of a slave dealer who ran down a vessel of Natives, and caused those who were endeavouring to save themselves to be shot. The perpetrator of this crime was tried for murder, and convicted; but I do not know that he has been executed. I trust that these iniquities and crimes do not exist now; but still I cannot accept the doctrine that a Colony reformed in these respects is one to which you ought to entrust the care of Natives, as in the case of the inhabitants of New Guinea. I admit the reservation of the right hon. Baronet; but my argument is that when you have these enterprizing gentlemen in North Queensland—the gentlemen who hold indignation meetings, and who desire to speculate in land in New Guinea—when you have these gentlemen pressing Her Majesty's Government bit by bit you will find your reservations disappear, and bit by bit you will find that the dominion will fall into the hands of Queensland. I think that such a thing would be very bad for the Natives, for the Colony of Queensland, and for the Empire. The right hon. Gentleman says that we are protected for a period of years by the undertaking of the Colonies to pay £15,000 a-year towards the expenses of New Guinea. I deny that that guarantee is any protection at all, for in the event of Native wars £1,500,000 might have to be spent in place of £15,000, and for every penny of that the Home Government would have to be responsible.

I referred to the expenses of administration.

Yes; but if you go beyond this £15,000 for wars or any other purpose, we, the taxpayers of this country, will have to pay, and not the Colonies. And now just one word about the subject of the registration of titles. It is all very well to say that these lands, the title to which is acquired, are bought from the Natives. But the question is, how is it bought, and who are the Natives from whom it is bought? I have had a great deal of experience in connection with matters of this sort, and I know there are very frequently questions to be gone into as to the outs and ins of the titles of the Natives themselves. There are many Natives whose titles are repudiated by their own people, and these are the people who try to bring in the strangers. I do not care what the French or Germans or Americans or any other people do; but I contend that we are bound to look after the honour and justice of Her Majesty's Government. I say that it is a most serious thing for this country to arrange for the registration of these titles, which, in nine cases out of ten, are, in all probability, of a most rotten description. I will not withdraw my Motion, as I think it is a right one; but as I do not wish to put the Committee to the trouble of a Division I will allow it to be negatived. I am not convinced —I am of the same opinion still.

I wish to say a word in support of the views of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, but on somewhat different grounds from those taken up by the hon. Member. My opposition to the proceeding to which the hon. Member has called attention is, that I am very much afraid that it is one of the greatest dangers to our Empire. In my opinion one of the greatest dangers which we have to face is this constant extension of the Empire. Nothing tends more greatly to weaken an Empire than unwieldy development in distant parts. All these extensions mean expense—mean drafting soldiers into the new territories to take care of them. I think the whole thing is dangerous, and therefore I protest against these continual extensions. Especially do I protest against our having one code of morals in the East, at the Cape, and another in the West. That which we are ashamed to do at the Cape we should also be ashamed to do elsewhere. I must say I think that the course we have taken in connection with New Guinea will lead us eventually, as a similar course in other parts of the world has done, into great trouble, and involve in serious difficulties those who come after us.

I have seen something of this "blackbirding" in the Pacific, and I know something about Queensland's connection with it, and I frankly admit that in the past there was a good deal of murder and piracy and crime of the deepest dye. I know that it was the rule that where Natives died before a certain period their wages died with them, and that while this practice prevailed it was remarkable what a large number of Natives succumbed before the time arrived for them to draw their wages. I have known schooners go down with crowds of Black men on board. I know something about the Kanaka races, and I like them very well—indeed, I think they are amongst the best peoples in the world. Whatever the law may have been in the past, it is now modified, and the planters are now glad to treat the Natives who work for them much better than the Irish tenantry are treated, or than the Scotch crofters are treated, or than the workpeople in large cities in this country are treated by their employers. Queensland stands very free from blame in this matter now, and. I do not think we have a right to throw stones at her at the present time. Of course, we must be ashamed of what took place there; but we must not lose sight of the fact that a great many of the ruffians who were guilty of the worst atrocities were Germans, and were not Englishmen or Britishers. As to the argument of the right hon. Baronet, it is thoroughly illogical. I am thoroughly opposed to extensions of territory under the Colonial Office; but I have no objection to extensions under Colonial Governments. I have no objection to Queensland, at its own expense, annexing New Guinea; but I object to annexation being carried out, and the administration of New Guinea being undertaken at the expense of this country, seeing that Queensland will get all the benefit. In cases of this kind, whether you make these territories Crown Colonies or self - governing Colonies, the feeling of the Colonists is carried out; and, that being so, how can anyone complain? If a Colony is dependent on the Mother Country for assistance in time of need, it is to some extent careless with regard to the difficulties it gets into, and the expenses it incurs; but when it is thrown on its own resources it thinks twice before it does anything that will bring about Native wars or anything of that kind. Remember the history of New Zealand. As long as the New Zealand Colonists had the Colonial Office to fall back upon they had never done with Maori wars, and this country spent hundreds of thousands of pounds upon them; but as soon as New Zealand was made responsible for its own affairs it is remarkable to observe how it has abolished the necessity for wars. Wars are expensive, and the Colony cannot afford them. Government is not carried on so stupidly by those who have to pay for it as by those who have nothing to do but reap the profit, the expense being paid by somebody else. The hon. Gentleman (Sir George Campbell) seems to have a notion that all the Colonists are bad. Well, I myself have had very often to attack Colonists; but I must say that if the hon. Member had come into contact with savage or semi-savage races, he would probably have shown as much bias as many of the Colonists have shown in their dealings with these peoples.

With regard to this territory of New Guinea, I think that the Government of this country has in the past been somewhat neglectful of the interests of the Colonists. In my opinion, when Queensland took the step that it did, it was absolutely required, in the interests of the Australian Colonies, that New Guinea should become a part of the British Empire. New Guinea is situated so near to Queensland that to have admitted any European Power there—as I am sorry to say we have done to a certain extent—was nothing less than a great misfortune to Australia. The Dutch were there originally, and they are not an offending people; and I suppose that the portion of New Guinea they claimed they were entitled to claim, and I do not think we could have objected. But it was well known a few years ago that both France and Germany were casting covetous eyes on New Guinea, when the Queensland Government took prompt action by hoisting the British Flag over aportion of the Island. Unfortunately for this country, and for Australia, Germany had anticipated so far the action of Queensland, or rather of the British Government, as to have planted their Flag upon a portion of the territory. That was a great misfortune, in my opinion, to the Australian people; Germany is there on their frontier, and it may prove a source of difficulty to these Colonies, although I believe that Australia has a great future before her. Possibly European troubles may arise out of Germany having got a footing in that part of the world—a footing which they ought never to have had a chance of securing. In my view, the Govern- ment would act wisely in asserting their position, so far as they possibly can, not only with regard to the British territory in New Guinea, but in taking care that Germany shall have no more of the Island than is absolutely required, and that energetic measures will be taken in support of the Australian Colonies with regard to the New Hebrides, which is a very serious matter just now. I know from personal experience of these Colonies the great inconvenience that Australia is put to through the scum of Europe being sent out to the New Hebrides from France. A great deal of annoyance is caused to the inhabitants, and I trust that Her Majesty's Government will be energetic in saying that the Queensland people shall be sustained in their efforts to prevent any more land than is absolutely necessary being acquired by foreigners in order to keep our European neighbours from Australian waters. I trust Her Majesty's Government will always be prepared to assert their position on behalf of the Australian Colonies.

On the Item for the office of the High Commissioner, I should like to refer to a matter which falls within the cognizance of the Western Pacific High Commissioner. He appears to have vested in him a Protectorate of the Natives, and, amongst others, of the Natives of the New Hebrides. Now, in 1878 there was a mutual agreement come to between Her Britannic Majesty and the Government of France that these Islands were to form a neutral territory which neither France nor England should occupy. This agreement was ratified in the year 1883, and yet I find that so lately as 1886 the Governor of New Caledonia despatched a frigate to the New Hebrides with troops and stores on board, in direct violation of the agreement between Great Britain and France. Now, Sir, this violation of Treaty —

I must say I fail to see the relevancy of the hon. Member's observations to this Vote.

The object for which these Islands were so occupied, Sir, will form my reason for mentioning the subject. The occupation of these islands is, in the opinion of the Australian Colonies, for the purpose of forming a syndicate to allow on these Islands a convict or récidivist settlement. Further than that, in the opinion of the Australian Colonies, the Presbyterian ministers who are at work amongst the Natives at the present moment will be very greatly injured and very greatly damnified if this project is carried out. As I said at the commencement of my remarks, the High Commissioner has power over these Natives, and I venture to urge that in no respect should his power be affected by the Government of France taking or usurping his position —

The High Commissioner has no jurisdiction in this matter.

I venture to point out that if he has no jurisdiction, he is responsible for the Natives in districts where there are British interests.

The Islands the hon. Member is referring to are not under his control at all.

I should like to put a question to the right hon. Baronet with regard to the affairs of Tonga and the doings of the ex-missionary, Mr. Baker, who, acting through old King George, who is merely his tool, is inflicting great cruelties and injuries on the Wesleyans in that island. This is not the first time that Mr. Baker has been creating all this disturbance down there. When the Wesleyans dismissed him from his position as missionary five or six years ago, he had a warning; and now, after the murder of these unfortunate people, to which attention has already been called in this House, merely because they were Wesleyans, he again received a warning at the hands of Her Majesty's Government. Surely we ought to go further than that. This man, acting ostensibly in the name of old King George, who is a man of about 90 and who is merely his tool, is carrying on depredations with impunity. I think he ought to be tried for murder, and deported either to this country or to Australia.

I fully admit the great importance of the subject which has been brought under the notice of the Committee by the hon. Member; but, at the same time, I must remark that Her Majesty's Government have given it very grave consideration. Sir Charles Mitchell was specially appointed to inquire into the whole subject, and went, accompanied by his Legal Adviser, Mr. Clarke, the Chief Justice of Fiji, to examine into the whole question. Sir Charles Mitchell, who has throughout acted in a spirit of absolute impartiality, and with great tact and judgment, examined a large number of witnesses on both sides, besides hearing Mr. Baker himself, as well as King George. Having thoroughly investigated the matter, Sir Charles Mitchell recommended that Mr. Baker should not be deported, but should be warned, together with the King, that they must take means to preserve peace. That Report has been presented to Parliament, and I will, therefore, content myself with reading one paragraph— namely, 68—

" The conclusion to which I have arrived is not favourable to Mr. Baker, although great allowances must be made for the difficulties of his position.… I should undoubtedly have exercised the power vested in me of prohibiting Mr. Baker from remaining in Tonga for a period, had it not been that I felt that his presence with the King would, after the warning which my visit to Tonga had given, be the best moans of preserving peace."

In these circumstances, I do not think that I should be justified in overruling Sir Charles Mitchell's opinion until a strong case is established on the other side. I have caused Mr. Baker to be informed that Her Majesty's Government strongly disapprove the course which he is shown to have pursued of late years in Tonga; that he must remember that, as a British subject, he is under the jurisdiction of the High Commissioner; and that in the event of any further ill-treatment of the people of Tonga being found to be traceable to his influence, it may become the duty of the High Commissioner, without further delay, to put in force the powers under the Western Pacific Orders of Council. A similar warning has been conveyed to King George. I trust, therefore, that the hon. Member will see that Her Majesty's Government have carefully considered this matter.

What the right hon. Baronet states happened some years ago —that is to say, the same warning was conveyed to Mr. Baker; but nothing came of it.

I can only say that Mr. Baker has now had a final warning.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Sir Henry Holland) a question which I hope he will see his way to answer. It is whether any further Papers will be submitted to Parliament in connection with the recent events in the Island of Mauritius? I am sure he will agree with me that events of a very grave character have taken place recently in that Island, and that the Government have come a very important decision there.

I have given very full and grave consideration to this matter, and have arrived at the conclusion not to present any further Papers on the question to Parliament. I am extremely grateful to the House for the confidence which it has placed in me in regard to this subject, and to hon. Members for not pressing me to present Papers. Since arriving at the decision I have mentioned, I have again carefully considered this matter, and am absolutely satisfied that it is not desirable to lay any of these Papers on the Table. Grave charges and counter-charges were bandied about during the proceedings. Many of these were collateral to the issues which I had to try, difficult and important as they were; many were based upon hearsay evidence; and the persons who have been charged have not had an opportunity of either explaining away the evidence or defending themselves against it. The Committee will, I think, under the circumstances, consider it unfair that these charges should be published in a Parliamentary Paper without any statement from those who are affected by them being appended. In the interests of peace and order in the Colony, I am satisfied that I have adopted the proper course. It is in the highest degree desirable not in any way to diminish the chance of removing any ill-feeling which exists between the opposing parties. The best course to adopt is to give the Governor a fair chance of restoring the confidence of the people in his administration, and if I presented the Papers to Parliament that chance would, I believe, be greatly diminished.

With reference to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Henry Holland) I have only one question to ask. I should like him to tell us how he is going to dispose of Mr. Clifford Lloyd?

Order, order !

I desire, in reference to Sub-Head A, to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies for some information with respect to the allowance in consequence of giving up the Orange River Territory. If my historical memory does not fail me, I think the territory was given up 40 years ago. I should have thought that if we had given up territory we ought not to be called upon to pay anything for doing so. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how long this payment is going to last?

The British sovereignty over the Orange River Territory was proclaimed in 1848, but was revoked and abandoned in 1854 for reasons which I need not enter into. But I may say that an enormous cost to this country was incurred by maintaining dominion over this territory, and there was constant liability to frontier contests. When it was abandoned, compensation was given to various persons who suffered in consequence of the abandonment. The annuities, which amounted to £48,316 have been reduced to the present sum.

I have given Notice to move the reduction of the Vote by £2,099, being the compensation for the abolition of office in the Transvaal, merely in order to enable me to ask the question what these compensations are? Possibly the right hon. Gentleman may be able to afford us some satisfactory explanation.