said, he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Plunket) would not press this Vote at present, in the absence of a large number of Members who took great interest in the question. He thought it was desirable that the House of Commons should carefully consider the course upon which it was now asked to embark. Last year the House resolved that a Select Committee should be appointed to reconsider the plans and proposals for an Admiralty and War Office, and it was ordered—

"That it be an Instruction to the Committee to report whether some or all of the existing buildings of the Admiralty may with advantage be retained."—(3 Hansard, [311] 1361.)

That Resolution of the House of Commons was referred to a Committee consisting of 17 Members, and that Committee had now made an extremely lame Report. What did the Report say? It said, in the first place—

"That the want of sufficient space in the Admiralty and War Office, respectively, for all their Departments, has long been a source of inconvenience to the Public Service, and the practice, which has been already frequently condemned by Parliamentary Committees of hiring houses for the purpose of providing the additional accommodation required, is shown to be most unsatisfactory on grounds both of efficiency and economy."

With the exception of the right hon. Gentleman the present First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith), there had hardly been any difference of opinion upon this point among successive First Lords of the Admiralty. It was almost universally agreed that it would be desirable, if possible, to unite under one roof the War Office and the Admiralty Departments, not only for purposes of communication, but also because this contiguity would lead to many economies. That opinion was shared by persons who had had considerable experience in the Public Service. The Committee recommended—

"With a view to remedying these evils, the Government in 1882 acquired a site to the west of Charing Cross and Parliament Street—known as the Spring Gardens site—for the purpose of erecting there a new Admiralty and War Office; and in 1884 designs for the proposed buildings, prepared by Messrs. Leeming and, Leeming, architects, of Halifax, were, as the result of public competition, selected. The execution of those designs involved the demolition of the present Admiralty, and all the other offices and houses standing on the Spring Gardens site. Upon the land thus cleared Messrs. Leeming and Leeming proposed to erect a lofty stone structure, capable of containing under one roof all the Departments both of the Admiralty and War Office. The edifice was to be of an elaborate and ornate character, and was estimated to cost £700,000. It was further proposed to divide the building into two blocks, one of which should be finished in four years, and the whole within 10 years."

Nevertheless, in paragraph 5 of the Report it would be seen that the Committee came to an entirely different decision, although they did not state the reasons which had induced them to come to a different conclusion. They said—

"It is not necessary for us to express any opinion upon these controversies, because we have come to the conclusion that, apart from any question of architectural merit or demerit, the scheme should be abandoned. We are satisfied that, by making additions to the present Admiralty, all the requirements of that Department may be suitably provided for; that this work, including some repairs and improvements to the existing building, can be done at a moderate cost, and may be completed within two or, at most, three years; that a very large reduction of expense for buildings would thus be secured, and to this must be added, as against the cost of erecting a new War Office, the value, estimated at £266,000, of the portions of the Spring Gardens site which would be preserved, after providing for the suggested additions to the Admiralty, and for the opening of the Mall into Charing Cross. We, therefore, recommend that the entire official staff of the Admiralty and War Office respectively should each, as soon as possible, be placed under one roof; and that the two buildings should be situated at no great distance from each other."

If they were to be under one roof, it was hardly possible that the two buildings could be situated at a distance from each other. It would be necessary that there should be a separate building for each Department, and he failed to see how two separate buildings could be under one roof. That, however, was a matter for the right hon. Gentleman to explain. The Committee went on to say—

"But we are of opinion that these recommendations can be carried out, and that a great saving of money and time can be secured, by adopting other plans instead of those which have been referred to us for consideration; and we find that the main buildings of the Admiralty may, with advantage, be retained. We further recommend that steps should be at once taken to insure greater economy and efficiency by bringing the clerks of each Department to work together in greater numbers, and in fewer rooms, and that the estimate of accommodation required for the staffs of the two Offices should be based upon such rearrangements."

That was the substance of the Report, and he (Sir Julian Goldsmid) had read all the material points contained in it. He thought hon. Members would see that the information supplied to Parliament was very bald. It was now proposed that the existing Admiralty building should be left standing and that an addition should be built; but this addition would be larger than the existing building. No information was given by the Committee in regard to the War Office. The Admiralty contained, for the purposes of the Department, a space of 28,000 superficial feet, and the addition it was proposed to make to it would cover 70,000 superficial feet. Was there any advantage, from a public point of view, in arriving at this decision? Every First Lord of the Admiralty and every public official had told them, over and over again, that the existing building was entirely unsuited for the purposes to which it was put. The rooms were dark, and the ventilation extremely bad, and altogether the building was wholly unlit for the work of the Department. The result was that Parliament was asked to retain this unsuitable building, which would require very great alteration, and to erect another and a larger building as well. He now came to the point whether the existing building was capable of alteration, and what would be the result of altering it. The late Sir James Pennethorne, in 1855, presented a Report on the main building of the Admiralty with reference to the proposed construction of an attic storey upon it. Sir James Pennethorne was a high authority, and his opinion could be entirely relied upon. In his Report he said—

"The building may be described as resting altogether upon a timber platform or raft; the first layer consists of 4-inch oak planks, 3 feet wider than the brickwork above, upon which rest oak sleepers about 9 inches by 9 inches. The planks under the external walls are about 5 feet 6 inches below the basement floor, and those under the interior walls about 4 feet by 6 inches, except one of the main cross walls from west to east, near the south end of the building (in the line of an old main sewer), where they are about 11 feet deep. All these timbers that have been seen are sound. All the walls are unusually strong, the external being 4 feet 6 inches thick above the footings, and the work extremely well done. The whole building, therefore, would have been perfectly sound and substantial; but, unfortunately, the timber platform appears to rest upon a bed of river deposit 6 or 7 feet thick, which is soft and full of water, the consequence of which is that it has settled more or less in every part, except the cross wall from west to east before referred to."

It was perfectly obvious that any attempt to alter a building raised on such a platform was likely to cause subsidence in a very short time and other structural disturbance. He had recently consulted one high authority as to whether it would be necessary to excavate far below the present building for the purpose of making the very large addition to the Admiralty which the Committee recommended, and he was told that it would, and that the excavation would cause the water to escape into the hole thus made, and that a considerable quantity of water would be removed from beneath the platform on which the Admiralty was built. If that were so—and he was assured on all hands that it would be the case—the result might be dangerous. The consequence was that for the purpose of keeping a building which only contained 28,000 superficial feet, it would be necessary to make arrangements which were admitted by everyone to be of the most unsatisfactory character. It was said that if the proposal were carried out there would be an economy effected to the amount of £200,000. Now he had always found that calculations in regard to economy were very erroneous. In the first place, the amount of economy must depend greatly on the value of the surplus land. In this case he did not believe that the Government would be able to sell the surplus land—for two reasons. In the first place, a great part of it would consist of back land removed from the main thorough fares; and, in the second place, the Government would hardly be justified in selling land which they would probably have to repurchase later at advanced terms. That was a still larger question. The Committee told them—in the Report to which he referred—that it was desirable that these two Offices, the Admiralty and the War Office, should be under one roof, or contained in a contiguous building. But in this case there seemed to be a possibility of having the War Office on the other side of Whitehall. Now, it was perfectly obvious that the area on the Admiralty site, as it was called, was amply sufficient for the purposes of both Departments, and it would not be an economy, but an extravagance, to take two sites where only one was necessary. If they were to build a War Office on the other side, instead of effecting an economy to the extent of £160,000, he was afraid that it would be found that the account would stand entirely the other way, and that they would be guilty of the most extravagant and wasteful expenditure which had taken place for a long time. It must not be supposed that in the remarks he was making he was addressing the Committee in support of the plan of Messrs. Leeming. His only desire was to secure the proper utilization of the area already in the possession of the Government. It would be extravagant to utilize it simply for the purposes of the Admiralty, and he believed there were architects in England who were able to prepare a plan by which the site would be devoted to provide suitable accommodation for the two Departments of the Government that were concerned. Of course, the figures submitted by Messrs. Leeming and other architects were erroneous, because they were all based on the assumption that the building would be erected on the existing site. At the time their plans were prepared it was not deemed probable that any attempt would be made to commit the extravagance of covering the site with a building which was only to be used by the Admiralty. The noble Lord at the head of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton) was well aware of the requirements of the Service, and must know that great economy in regard to space could be effected by placing a certain number of clerks in the same room, as was done largely in other Departments. He was of opinion that that principle might be extended much further. All the facts went to show that it was not desirable for the requirements of one Public Department only to cover so large an extent of ground. He could only assume that the object the Committee had in view was to save the old building, which, however, was worth very little for the Public Service. Its retention was hardly desirable, as it probably would not last long. He, therefore, hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works would reconsider the matter and submit some new proposal to Parliament. This might be done by the appointment of a Departmental Committee, or in any other way that was deemed desirable. All such a Committee would have to do would be to consider whether it would not be advantageous to do what was originally intended—namely, to utilize the existing site for the purposes of these two great Public Departments. He was satisfied that it would be the most economical course, and he asked the right hon. Gentleman to exercise his ability in accomplishing that object. He had only risen for the purpose of drawing attention to one or two salient points in the matter, because, after this sum of £5,000 had been voted, the Committee would be precluded from raising the question. He, therefore, trusted that, at any rate, the Government would see their way to postponing the matter, and, in order to insure discussion, he would move the rejection of the Vote.

said, he had listened attentively to the speech of the hon, Baronet the Member for South St. Pancras (Sir Julian Goldsmid), and, having carefully examined the plans of the proposed buildings, he felt bound to say that he could not concur with the views expressed by the hon. Baronet. On the contrary, he congratulated the Government upon having for once, in the matter of public buildings, done a very wise and prudent thing. The hon. Baronet said that calculations, even of economy, often proved erroneous. That was quite true, especially in the case of public buildings; but it would be very easy indeed to show that the course suggested by the hon. Baronet would not promote economy, because, apparently, his object was to secure that the present Admiralty building should be entirely pulled down. That Admiralty building the hon. Baronet described as paltry and poor; but that was not the opinion of most of those who had been accustomed to see it.

The remark applied to the interior of the building.

said, he had been inside the edifice, and, as far as he knew and could judge, it was a very good building inside. Designed by Adams, it was a building which anybody who looked at it would describe as simple, stately, and effective. They were told that it covered 28,000 square feet, and to threaten with destruction a building which was sufficient for the purposes of the Admiralty, and, looked at from outside, was one of the features of London architecture, would not be true economy. It was proposed to add to the existing building, and anybody who looked at the plans would see that they were simple and effective as far as elevation was concerned. It seemed, however, that there was a natural desire in the Architectural Profession to make a clean sweep of the whole thing, and erect one of those great buildings, such as the Law Courts, of which he had had considerable experience, and of which there were already too many in London. It was suggested that the Government might not be able to sell the surplus land, seeing that it was back land. He was very glad to hear that that was likely to be the case; and he was sure most hon. Members would agree with him when he said that it was very much to the advantage of the public to preserve every open space and piece of surplus land which could be obtained in this particular locality. Instead of being a disadvantage, that was one of the points which, to his mind, told in favour of the new design. It was not desirable to have one of those enormous buildings which they saw about St. James's Park; and what struck him most in favour of the new designs was that they presented a handsome and pleasing elevation which, while not crushing the Horse Guards, admitted some air and some light to get into St. James's Park. It was impossible to look at the space now covered by other Public Offices in the neighbourhood of Whitehall without seeing that it would have been much better to have erected the buildings under some such design as that which was now submitted. He certainly saw no reason why they should pull down the existing Admiralty so long as it was a good and effective building, fully adequate to the performance of the services for which it was required. He would not suggest for a moment that the plans now submitted to the House were opposed to the interests of any particular architect; but, for his own part, he supported them because he objected to the idea of continuing the erection of large, enormous, and often most inconvenient buildings.

said, that in rising to enter his protest against the scheme now before the House, he could assure the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Plunket), who had proposed it, that it was with great regret he found himself unable to support him in any scheme for the improvement of London which he might propose. He had never thought it worth while to make a Party question of any matters affecting the Department. When he held the post of First Commissioner of Works he knew the great danger which arose from treating matters of this kind in a Party spirit, and he believed that that was the reason why so many defects had found their way into our public buildings. He had always endeavoured to obtain the co-operation of those who sat opposite in the many schemes which it fell to him to propose, and he would willingly co-operate with the right hon. Gentleman in any scheme for the improvement of our public buildings. He would also assure the right hon. Gentleman that he was not actuated by any feeling of retrospective regret for the scheme for which he was responsible for dealing with the Admiralty and War Office—a scheme which had the approval of the last Parliament, but which was rejected by the Committee appointed last year. He did not think it necessary to enter into the merits of that scheme. If it were at all necessary, he should be prepared to defend it; but he must admit that it was dead. It was killed by a combination of opponents, some of whom thought it too expensive, while others considered it not expensive enough, and others also objected to the style of architecture of Messrs. Leeming's original building. As he had said, he thought it a good scheme, and he was quite prepared to defend it; but he admitted that it was now dead. He did not think the scheme received quite a fair consideration from the Committee, especially in its financial aspects; but that was past and gone, and it was of no use to revive past controversies. They had now to consider another scheme, and whether the plan now before them was on its own merits a good one, and one which would be a credit to the Government and the Metropolis. Upon that point he had been obliged to come to an adverse opinion. In the first place, he might observe that it came before them without any professional authority whatever. It did not appear to him that there was any professional opinion in favour of it. He challenged the right hon. Gentleman opposite to say whether he could produce a single professional man of high repute who had expressed himself in favour of the scheme. His impression was that the right hon. Gentleman would not find it possible to produce a single authority on architectural questions who would approve of it. There was no one who would say that the scheme was a good one, architecturally or financially, and one that ought to be carried out. It had been condemned by the Institute of Architects, he believed, unanimously, and he had received communications personally from several distinguished architects who declared that the scheme was a thoroughly bad one from every point of view. In the Office of Works there were several gentlemen called surveyors, but really most efficient architects, to whom they owed the post offices which had been erected throughout the country in such places as Birmingham, Manchester, Bradford, and, particularly, the General Post Office in London. Those buildings gave great satisfaction. Among these gentlemen was Mr. Taylor, who had recently erected the addition to the National Gallery, which had given such great satisfaction to the Metropolis. Mr. Taylor was also responsible for remodelling the Royal Mint, which saved the country at least £250,000. He know better than anyone the requirements of the Departments, and he would sooner take Mr. Taylor's opinion than that of any other professional man. He asked the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner whether Mr. Taylor or any other of his staff approved of this scheme, or were responsible for it, and whether it was not a fact that they all united in condemning the proposed extension of the Admiralty as most unwise from a professional point of view? He would go further, and ask whether it was not a fact that the architects themselves, the Messrs. Leeming, who were directed to prepare plans for the extension of the Admiralty, had recommended the adoption of this scheme? Turning to the evidence given before the Committee of last year, he found that Mr. Leming said—

"I must emphasize the objection which Mr. Taylor raised to extending the building on the lines of the existing Admiralty. It is not wise to add in the same style to a building already admittedly deficient."

As he had said, Messrs. Leeming were afterwards invited to prepare plans for carrying out the new design; and when young architects were asked to undertake works of that kind it was not natural that they would refuse to do so. But he was satisfied that if Messrs. Leeming were asked whether they considered the scheme one that ought to be carried out, they would reply that it was not one they should recommend. Then, again, he should like to know the opinion of his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works himself, and whether he thought, on the whole, that the scheme he was now proposing was one which would add dignity to the Metropolis and was a work which ought to be carried out? For his own part, he was always unwilling to obtrude on matters of taste, and he had always submitted the schemes he had laid be- fore the House upon the authority of professional men. He had certainly never obtruded his own views in regard to architectural matters or matters of taste. He would, however, in this instance go further than usual, and express the objections which he entertained to the scheme. He objected to it on three grounds—first, upon administrative grounds; secondly, upon financial grounds; and, thirdly, upon architectural grounds. In regard to the administrative grounds, he objected to the scheme because it precluded from all time to come the possibility of bringing together the Admiralty and the War Office; he objected to it on financial grounds, because he believed it to involve a most wasteful use of the site which the Government had bought at considerable expense in Spring Gardens, and because he felt that, under the plea of economy, it would result in much greater expenditure of public money than if a single building were erected for both Departments. In the third place, he objected to it on architectural grounds, because the addition to the existing Admiralty works, costing nearly £200,000, and adding them to a building which was certainly not worth more than £60,000 or £70,000, was an unwise expenditure of money, inasmuch as it would be a miserable bit of patchwork, perpetuating all the defects of an existing building, and would result in a building which, according to all the best authorities, would be a discredit to the State and to the Metropolis. On the first of these points he might observe that in the last 30 or 40 years it had been the object of nearly everyone concerned with the Admiralty and the War Office to bring these two great Departments together.

No.

The noble Lord said "No;" but he adhered to the opinion he had expressed. That was certainly the view of the Duke of Somerset, Mr. Corry, Sir John Pakington, Lord Northbrook, and his right hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers). His right hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh was undoubtedly a high authority upon the matter, because he had acquired experience in this respect during a very important naval and military operation—namely, the Egyptian Expedition, and he gave the strongest evidence upon the point before the Committee. He said—

"In time of peace it is important, officially convenient, and economic that the two Departments should be close together, but in time of war it is absolutely necessary; and the keeping of the two Departments asunder is the cause of weakness, and may be the cause of disaster."

He (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) could confirm that from his own experience, although he was not at the Admiralty when any such important expedition as that to Egypt was being carried out. Bat he was at the Admiralty when a smaller expedition was undertaken, and he was satisfied that the separation of the two Departments, and the want of communication between them, was the cause of wasteful expenditure and want of harmony. He had no hesitation in saying that it was of the utmost importance to bring the two Departments together. The only two Heads of Departments who were of a contrary opinion were the right hon. Gentleman the present First Lord of the Treasury and the noble Lord who sat beside him—the First Lord of the Admiralty. No doubt, the right hon. Gentleman the first Lord of the Treasury was a high authority, because he had been employed both at the Admiralty and the War Office; but he was not connected with either of those Departments when an important expedition or military or naval operation was being undertaken. However hon. Members might differ from that point of view, they would, at all events, be of opinion that it was desirable to secure the advantage of the juxtaposition of the two Departments, if it could be obtained without any great expenditure. It was most desirable to accomplish that object, both for administrative and financial purposes. He now came to the financial part of his argument. Without reverting to the scheme of last year, it was absolutely certain that the site which had been purchased by the Government already was amply sufficient for the Admiralty and War Office. It was now certain that the requirements of the two Departments were not so great as they were two years ago, on account of the reduction of staff and the wise plan adopted by the present Government of requiring that the clerks should be collected together in large rooms, instead of being dispersed in smaller rooms. He had endeavoured to persuade the two Departments to adopt that suggestion three years ago, but without success. He was glad to find that the requirements of the two Departments were not what they were three or four years ago, and that a smaller building would suffice for all purposes. There could not be a doubt that for a sum of £600,000 a building could be erected on the present site, without the towers and other defects in Messrs. Leemings' original building, and that the building so erected would be large enough to accommodate both the Admiralty and War Office. He would ask the Committee to look at the financial alternative in the present proposal. They were asked to spend £200,000 or thereabouts in adding to the existing Admiralty; but by doing so the site could not be made available for the War Office also. The surplus land could only be of small amount, and the scheme would necessitate another site being found for the War Office, seeing that it was wholly impossible that the War Office could remain where it was. He thought the Government were quite right in saying that they had not contemplated leaving the War Office where it was. Everybody admitted that it must be moved. It was impossible to retain it on the present site; and, on the other hand, it was necessary to bring together all the Departments that were connected with it. The only alternative site which had been suggested for the War Office was a site in Whitehall, immediately opposite the Admiralty, and it was said in evidence before the Committee last year that to purchase that site would cost about £400,000. He did not believe it would be possible to obtain any site for a War Office at Whitehall lower down at a lower cost than that. He assumed, therefore, that the cost of the site would be £400,000, and it then became necessary to erect the building, which he put down at £340,000. They had thus an ex-expenditure of £200,000 for the extension of the existing Admiralty, £400,000 for the purchase of a site for the War Office, and £340,000 for the erection of the building, making £940,000, as against £600,000, the cost of a single building on the Spring Gardens site—a difference of £340,000. Against this it was hoped to set off the value of the surplus land, if the present proposal were adopted, and this was valued at £160,000. He much doubted whether that sum would ever be realized, either by selling the land or using it for other public buildings; but, even if it were realized, there was still a very considerable margin against the expenditure the Government now proposed. Therefore, it appeared to him that the present scheme fell through, from a financial point of view; and it was absolutely certain, if they assumed that a new site was to be found for the War Office, that the scheme would result in a much greater expenditure than if they utilized the Spring Gardens site for both Departments. He was perfectly convinced that, before long, the Government would come down to Parliament, and ask for additional money; and the total expenditure would be very much greater than if the scheme were restricted to the erection of a single building on the existing site. Of the two alternatives, he was satisfied that the scheme of the Government would land the country in a very large and unnecessary expenditure of money. Where, he thought, the Committee of last year made a great mistake was not so much in rejecting Messrs. Leemings' first plans, as in not considering in what other way the Admiralty site might be utilized for both the Admiralty and War Office. He came now to the architectural question. The Government asked the House to vote a sum of £192,000 for the purpose of adding to a building the true value of which, if new, could not be more than £80,000 or £90,000. It was valued by Mr. Taylor, in his evidence before the Committee last year, at £90,000 if new; but if they took into account the whole superficial base it contained, it would not be worth so much. A new building could be erected if estimated in proportion to its area, and would give the same accommodation for office purposes for the sum of £70,000. Therefore, they were asked to spend £192,000 for a building which would only be worth, if new, £70,000. The present building was a very old one—130 years old, he believed. It had almost all the defects which old buildings possessed; it was badly lighted, it was necessary to burn gas in the passages, and it was ill- ventilated. They were also told by high authority that the foundations of the building were so bad that it was impossible to add another storey to it; any disturbance of the foundations was likely to bring it down to the ground. Apart from that question, it appeared to him most unwise to add to a building admittedly so defective to the great extent now proposed. By adding to the Admiralty in this matter, they would perpetuate all the defects of the existing building, and would practically extend them to the building they were proposing to erect. The attic storey of the Admiralty was useless, and it was proposed to throw it into the upper storey, which was also very low. The Whitehall front of the building was confessedly one of the most hideous and unsightly in London. The Park front was plain, and without any architectural merit. To expend £200,000 in adding to this building and in perpetuating all its defects, was, according to the view of every architect of eminence, an act of the greatest folly, and such as no private person in his senses would perpetrate. It would also, in their view, result in a building of exceedingly bad proportions and very unsightly—one quite unworthy of the site, which was one of the most august and conspicuous in the Metropolis. Among the architects who had been authorized to speak for them in this sense were Mr. Pearson, Mr. Christian, Mr. Blomfield, and Mr. Hardwick—men of high position and eminence in the architectural world. They were united in condemning the proposal of the Government, both from an architectural and from a financial point of view. The hon. secretary of the Institute of Architects had written to say that that Body also condemned the scheme from a financial and architectural point of view. For all these reasons, it appeared to him that it would be most unwise for the Government to go further with the scheme, and he would ask the Committee to pause before committing the country irrevocably to so bad a plan. What he would suggest was, that a small Commission of experts, including some architects of eminence and some financial authorities from the Treasury, should be appointed, who should examine the whole question from a financial and architectural point of view, espe- cially in connection with the War Office. For his own part, he felt confident that when this scheme was thoroughly examined, it would be found that it was as financially unsound as it was architecturally bad, and, if carried out, it would be a discredit to the House as well as to the Metropolis.

said, he had listened carefully to the remarks which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, and by his hon. Friend the Member for South St. Pancras (Sir Julian Goldsmid), and he had nothing to complain of in the spirit which the subject had been discussed, while he was much obliged for the flattering manner in which he had been referred to personally. What he was asked to do was to drop the Vote altogether and to postpone the settlement of the question until, in the opinion of the hon. Member for South St. Pancras, a small number of experts had been consulted on the matter, or, in the opinion of the right hon. Member for Central Bradford (Mr Shaw Lefevre), until a small Commission had reported what was best to be done. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that no one could have greater respect for anything that fell from him upon this subject than he had, and he was placed in an extremely difficult position in having to oppose any suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman, considering his great experience in such matters. But he would ask the House to bear in mind that this controversy with regard to what was to be done with the great Public Departments had been going on, in an acute sense as to the War Office and the Admiralty, for 20 years or more, and, as regarded public buildings generally, for more than half-a-century. He would ask the House, further, to remember that the subject had been considered by one Commission and Committee after another, and that it had been debated over and over again in the House itself. There was one point, however, upon which all Commissions, and all the opinions expressed by hon. Members who had taken part in the debates, were agreed, and it was that the present state of the accommodation in the War Office and the Admiralty was really scandalous, and that for the purposes of adminis- trative efficiency, as well as of economy, it was absolutely necessary that the various scattered departments of the Admiralty and the War Office respectively should be brought together, while some went so far as to say that all should be under one roof. The hon. Member for South St. Pancras commented upon one passage in the Report of last year in which the Committee recommended that the official staff of the Admiralty and War Office should each, as soon as possible, be placed under one roof, and that the two buildings should be situated at no great distance from each other. There was no mistake in that passage, and if the hon. Baronet would read it attentively he would see that the grammar was perfectly correct. It was only recommended that the official staff of each Department should, as soon as possible, be placed under one roof. The use of the word "respectively" showed that it was each Department that was to be placed under its own roof and not that the two were to be under one roof, although they were to be as near to each other as could be conveniently arranged. What was proposed was to bring all the separate departments of each into one building. He could not go with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford in the sweeping statement he had made that all high authorities had been in favour of placing both Departments under the same roof. The Committee of last year thoroughly threshed out that question by the careful examination and cross-examination of witnesses, and what the evidence came to was this—that whereas some of the authorities were in favour of bringing both Departments under one roof, and others were directly opposed to that suggestion, all were agreed that the two should not be placed at an inconvenient distance from each other. That was the effect of the Report of the Committee of last year. Both the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for South St. Pancras asked—"Why on earth do you propose to make this addition to the existing Admiralty, if it is not merely for the purpose of retaining the old building?" and they argued that that would be a very costly and expensive indulgence in one's fancy. Now, hon. Members must not suppose for a moment that the Report of the Committee was founded on any such reason as that. No doubt there was a strong feeling in favour of maintaining the architectural features of the old Admiralty, but that was not the ground on which the recommendation was made at all. He would remind hon. Members why the Committee of last year was appointed, of whom it consisted, and for what purpose it was appointed. A controversy had been going on for many years as to how a new Admiralty and a now War Office were to be provided. It was sufficient, however, to say that in 1885 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford obtained a Vote of £10,000 in the House of Commons as the commencement of the much larger sum of £700,000 which he proposed to apply to the purpose of building a War Office and Admiralty, and bringing them under one roof, on what was known as the Spring Gardens site. The proposed expenditure staggered a great many people. The right hon. Gentleman the present Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. W. H. Smith), being then in Opposition, asked the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), whether he would agree to the appointment of a Committee to reconsider the plans involving so large an expenditure? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby willingly agreed to the appointment in 1886; but the Dissolution soon followed, and prevented the appointment of the Committee until 1887. In that year a Committee was appointed to reconsider the plans for the proposed Admiralty and War Office, and they were further instructed to inquire whether all, or some part, of the existing Admiralty might not with advantage be retained. Who were the Members appointed to serve on that Committee? He found that the names were these—Sir William Harcourt, Lord George Hamilton, Mr. Henry H. Fowler, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Sclater-Booth, Mr. Shaw Lefevre, Colonel Malcolm, Mr. Howell, Mr. Isaacs, Mr. Dillwyn, Mr. Edward Hardcastle, Mr. William Bright, Mr. Seager Hunt, Mr. William Crossman, Mr. Patrick Joseph Power, Mr. Byrne, and Mr. David Plunket. He thought it might be fairly said that that was a Committee of some authority. He quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford that nothing could be more fatal to arriving at a sound conclusion than that the matter should be dealt with as a Party question. It had not been in any sense dealt with by the Committee as a Party question, as was evidenced by the fact that two of the strongest supporters of the present First Lord of the Admiralty were the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler). Therefore, hon. Members would fully understand that the matter was not dealt with as a Party question, but in the Committee an honest endeavour was made to see whether there was some more economical and satisfactory way of treating the question than that to which the House was supposed at the time to be committed—namely, the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford. In fact, the ground upon which the Committee rejected that proposal and made a more modest suggestion was that they found that a great saving of time and expense would be effected by the suggested alternative. The original scheme was to cost £700,000, and it was to take 10 years before it was completed.

The War Office part of it.

said, the scheme which combined the War Office and the Admiralty was, he thought, to take four years for the Admiralty and the remainder of the time for the War Office.

remarked that the time was afterwards reduced to three years.

said, it was found that the wants of the Admiralty could be met by additions to the existing building, which could be made for £192,000, and which could be completed within three years. He was advised by Messrs. Leeming, to whom it was his intention to entrust the work, that they would be able to complete the additions to the existing Admiralty within two and a-half years, and the sum it would cost would be £5,000 less than the sum named in the Estimates, or for something like £188,000. Of course they did not mean to set off this sum of £188,000 or £192,000 against the sum of £700,000 for providing both a War Office and Admiralty. But of the £700,000, the proportion allocated to the Admiralty was £380,000, and the new proposal, therefore, involved the saving of £188,000. The right hon. Gentleman had now expressed his belief that his original idea of combining the two offices of the Admiralty and the War Office under one roof on the Spring Gardens site could be carried out for £600,000. He knew that when the matter was before the Committee the right hon. Gentleman made a suggestion of that kind, but the right hon. Gentleman had not been able to put his revised estimates before the Committee in such a way as to induce them to accept them, and seeing that so large a sum had been knocked off the original estimate the Committee were unwilling to rely confidently upon the revised estimate. The right hon. Gentleman said that they would have to build a War Office by-and-bye at a cost of £400,000 for a site, and £340,000 for the building, or £740,000 altogether; but he was prepared to admit that a new War Office could not be provided for a much smaller sum than the right hon. Gentleman named. The view taken by the Committee on this question was, he thought, that given by the First Lord of the Treasury in answer to a question by the right hon. Member for Derby as to whether a very great expense would be incurred in providing a new office upon a new site. The First Lord of the Treasury was asked in Question 1,289—

"It is proposed upon this space to find room for the War Office as well as the Admiralty, and the most important question I have to ask you is this. Whether you think, having regard to the expediency of utilizing the present Admiralty buildings, there would be any insuperable objection to postponing for further consideration the making of the new War Office?—Answer; No, I do not think there would be any insuperable objection. In the first place, as I understand it, the scheme will only provide for a completed War Office in about 10 years from the present time, whilst it would be practicable, I think, after full consideration, to provide a new War Office, I hope economically, without utilizing this site, or adopting this scheme, even in less time than 10 years, taking a different and distinct site as a place on which the building should be erected if it is found to be absolutely necessary that a new War Office should be erected."

That was, he believed, the view ultimately taken by the Committee, so that when there was an Amendment proposed on the consideration of the Re- port of the Committee in these words—

"We think that no commencement should be made with the proposed addition to the Admiralty until the Government has laid before Parliament its proposals for dealing with the War Office."

And when, upon that Amendment, there was a Division, the Amendment itself was supported only by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Swansea Town (Mr. Dillwyn), while among those—eight in number—who voted against it were the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for North East Bethnal Green (Mr. Howell). Therefore all these matters came before the Committee before they adopted their Report, and upon the Main Question as between the views of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford and those who differed from him, when the Division was taken, the numbers were 9 to 3 against the right hon. Gentleman. He (Mr. Plunket) had been challenged to say whether any architect of eminence had approved of the present proposal now submitted to the house, but he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford whether he could call any eminent architect who was altogether in favour of his scheme. Something had been said about the opinion which had been expressed by the Royal Institute of Architects; but, speaking of them with great and sincere respect, he must say that he would not go to them for a favourable or encouraging opinion upon any scheme which might be proposed for this purpose. No doubt they took a high-toned view as to what a public building should be; but they were not likely to approve of any proposal that could have been made. Here was what the Institute of British Architects said on the 2nd of March, 1866, according to The Times, as to the scheme of the right hon. Member for Bradford:—

"A deputation from the Royal Institute of British Architects was received by the First Commissioner of Works (the Earl of Morley). Mr. McVicar Anderson, Hon. Secretary, read a Memorial in which the objections of the Institute to the proposed treatment of the Spring Gardens site were stated, and having dwelt on the inadequacy of the Whitehall thoroughfare at Charing Cross, they went on, apart however from the necessity of thus providing for the exigencies of the traffic, the widening of Whitehall and Charing Cross is essential in view of the erection of a monumental edifice on the western frontage. The unsatisfactory effect of placing lofty structures on the frontages of even wide thoroughfares is strikingly illustrated in Northumberland Avenue, and it is much to be desired that in the present instance a like result should not have to be deplored. To erect a building of great magnitude on the site in question without sufficiently providing, by the widening of Whitehall and Charing Cross, the space which is absolutely essential to the attainment of a satisfactory result—a national monument moreover the principal frontage of which according to the official scheme will remain partially occupied by buildings of an inferior nature, such as shops and a tavern, is in our judgment unworthy of the country."

His (Mr. Plunket's) scheme was not, therefore, to be deemed unsatisfactory merely because it was criticized by architects who had schemes of their own. The name of Mr. Taylor had been mentioned, and he (Mr. Plunket) would gladly join in and emphasize everything that had been said in his commendation; but all the evidence given by that gentleman before the Committee had reference to a comparison between the two schemes—namely, that of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, which was to cost £700,000, and that which was submitted at the present moment; and it must be borne in mind that he and other witnesses were already committed to the former of those schemes, although, no doubt, they gave their evidence honestly. The Government had submitted to the House an elevation which, as far as the exterior decorations were concerned, was not ambitious or pretentious; but everyone would agree that it was satisfactory and agreeable to the eye, and in sympathy and harmony with the surrounding buildings. The Vote he was now asking for was not merely to make an addition to the existing Admiralty, but also to improve it. It was proposed to take out the attic floor, and to use a portion of the space in the roof; and he was assured by eminent architects that when so altered the upper storey would be well adapted for the purposes of the Admiralty. It was said that the scheme of the Government would perpetuate in the now buildings all the defects of the old. That was absolutely inaccurate and not the fact. The architects had undertaken to give a considerable increased height to each of the floors in the new buildings, and not only so, but they had adopted, or would adopt in it, if the Committee agreed to the proposal, every improvement which modern science had invented as to light and air and ventilation and drainage, so that a new building would be supplied in these matters on the best pattern science could now devise. The system of ventilation would in one respect be even a better system than that proposed by the right hon. Member for Central Bradford, because, the height of the building being less in proportion to the size of the Court yards, the ventilation would be better. It was said, and he had seen the statement repeated in the newspapers that morning, that if they did any excavating work, and interfered with the foundations of the existing building, they would bring down the old edifice. It would, however, have been necessary to make excavations even under the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman, because he proposed to preserve all the staff of the Admiralty in the old building for three or four years while providing the foundations for the new building. That, however, was a matter for architects to decide. He did not venture any opinion of his own; but he had that day been assured by Messrs. Leeming that there was no ground whatever for any of the fears that had been expressed. He thought he had now dealt with all the objections which had been raised, and he must apologize to the Committee for the length to which his remarks had extended. He believed that if they were to wait until they had a plan to which they could get all the architects to agree, they would have to wait a very long time, and the scandalous state of things which now existed in some parts of the Admiralty buildings and also in some parts of the War Office would continue; not only so, but they would have to go on paying a sum of no less than £4,400 a-year, which they now paid for the hire of premises for those officials of the Admiralty for whom accommodation could not be found in the existing building, while the Service would still suffer great administrative inconvenience. If the Committee adopted this estimate the work would be commenced at once, and within two and a-half years—he was informed by Messrs. Leeming that it would take about two years and four months—they would be able to complete the building. He trusted that under these circumstances the Committee would agree to the Vote.

said, he looked with a considerable degree of alarm at the proposal now before the House. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Plunket), and other hon. Gentlemen who were Members of the Committee would remember that he had expressed his ideas in the same sense when it came before the Committee of last year. He regarded the present scheme as an absolute perpetuation of the present system under which the affairs of the Admiralty were managed. The Committee last year were at some disadvantage in having no definite set of alternate plans before them, and they found it difficult, therefore, to arrive at a decision. Nevertheless, the Members of the Committee were impressed with the absolute necessity for making some sweeping change in the position in which the clerks and other officials at the Board of Admiralty were placed. Leaving out of view the War Office altogether and dealing with the Admiralty alone, they were asked to give a sum of money nearly equal to one-third of the total amount that would have had to be provided to carry out the designs that were rejected by the Committee last year. He could only say, as a Member of the Committee, that he had gone over the present Admiralty building, and he had had to go there since on matters of public business, and he must say that the difficulty first of finding his way into the place, and, secondly, of finding his way out again, owing to the peculiar arrangement of the different staircases and passages, was something marvellous. It was impossible, without making large structural alterations in the present Admiralty buildings, to make them suitable and convenient for the proper supervision of the staff of clerks employed in them and the economical performance of the work they had to do there. The right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works had said that a large amount of money was expended every year in order to supply the clerks and other officials with suitable accommodation outside the present Admiralty buildings; but if the designs which were rejected by the Committee last year had been adopted, all the clerks would have been brought under one roof, where they would have been properly supervised, and would have been able to do their duty satisfactorily and economically for the benefit of the country. He spoke with some knowledge upon the matter, having had a long acquaintance with structural alterations, and however lightly architects might think of underpinning, builders did not think lightly of it; at any rate, it was a work which entailed large extra expenditure. There was always danger unless the foundations, in the first place, were absolutely good; and, so far as the foundations of the Admiralty were concerned, they were not only not good, but bad. When once they commenced to touch the foundations they would never know where they were going to end. He had no wish to prolong the debate; but he had expressed these views and the fears he entertained before the Committee upstairs. He still entertained the same fears. They were now asked to vote the sum of £192,000; but if they could get out of it with £250,000 at the end of three years they might consider themselves exceedingly well off. Even then they would simply have perpetuated in a milder degree the scandalous state of things which now existed in regard to the accommodation at the Admiralty Office. He was thoroughly opposed to anything like wasteful expenditure, and he was earnest in his desire to secure economy. He maintained, however, that the best economy, when they found anything structurally bad in a building of this description, was to sweep it away and to erect a new building adequate and suitable to the requirements of the nation. He had no objection to the erection of a grand building—that was to say, grand, not in the sense of external decoration, but in the sense of the useful purpose it was to serve. The plans rejected last year were doubtless grand designs, and the decorative work would, in some respects, be superb. Probably all the decorations involved were not needed for all public offices; but even admitting that the ornamentation was more than necessary, he ventured to assert that it would have been wiser economy in the long run to have adopted those plans with all their accessories than to vote money for a scheme which would have to be supplemented hereafter by other large sums of money. Even when the work was complete, the complaint which had been made from time to time would not be removed. The officials would not be gathered together in large rooms; but one man would be in one room, while another engaged in the same kind of work would be in another room. It was necessary that they should be closely associated together if they were to make the building useful and efficient for its purpose. He supposed that the Vote under discussion would be agreed to; but they might depend upon it that the sum of £192,000 would not be sufficient to cover the whole of the alterations, and they would find, when the building was ready to be handed over, the cost would inevitably have to be supplemented by other large sums, and they would find, in the long run, that it would have been more economical to have provided a new building.

said, he would ask for the indulgence of the Committee while, as a Member of the Committee to which the question was referred last year, he ventured to state the views which he entertained on the subject. The question really resolved itself into this—Were the designs which had been placed in the Tea Room of the House, or the designs which were first submitted to the Committee, to be carried into effect? As far as his personal predilections were concerned, he went into the Committee with a perfectly open mind. If he had any bias, it was rather in favour of the designs of Messrs. Leeming, which he had seen before, and could not fail to admire. But after the evidence adduced before the Committee day by day, he had come to the conclusion that it would not have been advisable to have adopted the designs which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) advocated. It was pointed out that, coming next to the Horse Guards, the proposed new building would have dwarfed that structure, and the first thing which the right hon. Member for Bradford did was to eliminate the South-Eastern wing of the building in deference to the adverse criticisms made upon it; and thus, at one stroke, to save a sum of no less than £30,000 in the cost of the work. But that was not a sufficient saving, and it was necessary to do more. It was proposed to eliminate the whole of the features of the design above the roof, as also the columns and pilasters of the several facades, and by that means the main features of the design were sacrificed. The cost of the building was thus reduced to £561,000, of which sum £261,000 was allocated to the Admiralty buildings, and the remaining £300,000 to the War Office. But he ventured to say that the whole of the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman opposite founded on that Estimate of £561,000 were absolutely fallacious. The building to which the right hon. Gentleman referred was what might be described as a "bogus" building, because the great charm of Messrs. Leeming's design consisted very much in the features above the roof, its domes, cupolas, and other matters; but it was now proposed to cut down these features as well as the columns and pilasters, and very much of the ornamentation, so that the building would entirely lose its character. Apart, however, from the question of the style of architecture, there were grave doubts on the part of the Committee as to whether the internal corridors would be sufficiently lighted, and whether the other arrangements were quite of the character suited for a large assembly of clerks. On the whole, the Committee failed to be impressed with the opinion that the building would do the work for which it was intended, from an economical and practical point of view. Thereupon the Committee took an early opportunity of viewing the existing Admiralty buildings, in order to ascertain whether it was possible to adapt and retain any portion of the existing structure. He was sorry to find himself at issue on this point with the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Howell), because he believed the hon. Member to be a practical man, who had claims to be considered an authority in these matters. But he went carefully over the building, and after paying great attention to the whole of the internal arrangements, he came to an exactly opposite conclusion to that of the hon. Member. He thought it would be possible to alter the internal arrangements of the existing Admiralty in such a way as to render it unnecessary to make any great structural alteration; and it would be possible to put together several rooms so as to facilitate the concentration of clerks without any danger to the existing building. Of course, he was prepared to admit, that when they came to deal with foundations like those of the existing Admiralty buildings it would be necessary to proceed with the utmost caution. He knew what it was to deal with large volumes of water in the foundations of buildings. He had had experience of water in foundations, and he knew the expense the getting rid of that water entailed; but he ventured to tell the hon. Member for Bethnal Green that in these days work of that kind was not regarded by practical men as one which ought to appal them or deter them from pushing forward with it. Within the last three or four years the foundations of so important a structure as Waterloo Bridge had been dealt with without any serious difficulty. The old piles on which the Bridge stood were removed while the public were continually using the structure, and absolutely ignorant of the nature of the work in progress. That structure at present stood without the slightest sign of subsidence being shown. If it were possible to deal with such a bridge as that it would be infinitely more easy to overcome any difficulties connected with the foundations of the Admiralty. In Committee they had the evidence of experts as to the cost of carrying out the building designed by Messrs. Leeming, and he ventured to say that the figures given were too low, and that instead of 1s. per cubic foot in one case, 1s. 2d. would be nearer the mark, and in another, instead of 1s. 6d., 1s. 8d. per cubic foot. When they came to consider the case of the alternative scheme they had figures given to them from which it would appear that the cost of the proposed addition to the Admiralty would not be more than 11d. per cubic foot. The right hon. Member for Bradford, in the Report he had submitted to the Committee, said that he had cut down the estimates of Messrs. Leeming for the alternative scheme from £700,000 to £561,000, of which £261,000 was the amount allocated to the Admiralty, and £300,000 to the War Office. Taking the alternative scheme of Messrs. Leeming at 11d. per cubic foot, they reached a total of £185,000, and adding £7,500 for under-pinning the existing Admiralty structure they arrived at £192,500. Taking this figure as £192,000, he would ask the Committee to bear with him while he gave another set of figures which he would desire them to accept instead of those of the right hon. Gentleman. The cost of the Admiralty and War Office, instead of being £700,000, on the assumption that the work could be done for 1s. 2d. a cubic foot instead of 1s., would be enlarged to £820,000. He thought, on the other hand, that it would be possible to proceed with the alternative scheme of the Admiralty extension for 10d. per foot cube. One ounce of fact was worth a whole ton of argument, and he had been so staggered by the figures submitted to the Committee that he ventured to ask permission to put himself in the box to give evidence in connection with the Railway Clearing House building in Euston Square, which accommodated 1,400 clerks, as large a number as the Admiralty and War Office combined. Those 1,400 clerks were housed in a building of excellent design, built by Messrs. Cubitt, who were among the first of builders. The right hon. Gentleman added to the item of £192,000 £440,000 for the new War Office site, and £300,000 for the building. To-day the right hon. Gentleman favoured the Committee with another figure—namely, £340,000 for the building. Why he did so he (Mr. Isaacs) did not know, but he failed to find that figure in the draft Report submitted to the Committee. Taking those three items—£192,000 for the extension of the existing Admiralty, £440,000 for the purchase of a new site for the War Office, and £300,000 for the new War Office itself, there would be a total of £932,000. From that total they must take two items representing the value of surplus land—namely, £161,000 for the land in Spring Gardens, and £42,000 for land on the War Office site, making a total of £203,000, and bringing down the estimated cost to £729,000. For that sum they would get, according to the amended plans of Messrs. Leeming, what he called a "bogus" building, and they would land the country in an excess of expenditure amounting to £160,000. He (Mr. Isaacs) read to the Committee a letter he had received from the Architect of the Railway Clearing House Building, intimating that the cost of that structure amounted only to 6d. per foot cube. He submitted, therefore, that if it was possible to do this in the case of the Railway Clearing House, it was only reasonable to assume that a suitable building could be erected for the Admiralty extension at 10d. per foot cube. The estimate, therefore, would have to be reduced by one-eleventh, and instead of £185,000 it would be brought down to £168,000. The total cost of the two establishments, if they were proceeded with on the basis he had sketched out, would be £705,000, and deducting £705,000 from £820,000, the saving to the country would be £115,000. He had thought it fair to put these considerations before the Committee, inasmuch as he felt particular interest in the subject, and having endeavoured to thrash out the whole of the figures, he thought he was entitled to ask the attention of the Committee for a few minutes while he submitted his views to hon. Members.

said, that in estimating the cost of the Admiralty and War Offices at £600,000 for the purpose of his argument, he had made no reference to the scheme of Messrs. Leeming.

said, he objected to this Vote, not on the ground of the cost of the building, but because it did not provide for the War Office and the Admiralty being under one roof. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Commissioner of Works (Mr. Plunket) had said that that question did not come before the Committee, but since the Committee sat, the country had been assured that the Army was not properly organized. They knew that the work of both the Army and the Navy would be greatly facilitated by being under one roof. He was prepared to vote against the estimate if a Division was challenged, because in his opinion, expenditure that did not tend to efficiency was only money thrown away. It was not a question of what the buildings cost, in the first instance. They would save money by having efficiency, because efficiency was really true economy.

said, he did not wish to prolong the discussion, indeed, he should not have taken part in the debate at all but for the remark of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Plunket) that he (Mr. Dillwyn) had proposed an Amendment to the Report last submitted. He did propose an Amendment. He was actuated very much by the argument just addressed to them by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Hammersmith (General Goldsworthy)—namely, that it was very desirable that the work of the two Services of the Army and Navy should be transacted under one roof. He believed that the work of the country would be greatly facilitated thereby, and that the arrangement would prove an economical one. The hon. Baronet the Member for South St. Pancras (Sir Julian Goldsmid) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Mr. Howell) had given good reasons why the Government plan should be rejected. They objected to the inconvenience which would result from it, and they objected to it on account of the danger of making the alterations upon insecure and had foundations. The foundations of the present building had been found to be very bad; indeed, the evidence given before the Committee went to show that there were no solid foundations. He had seen something of building and of altering old houses, and he thought that when they began to alter old houses they ran a great danger of pulling the houses down altogether. Generally speaking, it was far more satisfactory to pull a building down altogether than to put up new erections on the old foundations. He had only to say further that the challenge which was thrown out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had not been met at all. The right hon. Gentleman challenged the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works to show a single architectural authority for the plan they now had before them. He (Mr. Dillwyn) had heard very many objections to the plan, and he hoped they might still hear a little more of the plan from an architect's point of view.

said, that as one who had spent many years in the Public Service, he wished to press very earnestly upon the Government one point, which he considered of great im- portance. He was glad to see that in this building it was proposed to make very large rooms in which a large number of clerks could be employed. He was fully persuaded there would never be efficiency or economy in the Public Service until the system of large rooms was greatly extended. In the plan of rooms, but he thought the system could be extended a little more. He trusted that the Admiralty and War Office would bear in mind the importance of employing in large rooms all except those few who were obliged from their position to have private rooms.

said, he rose to ascertain from the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works whether it was a definite part of the present scheme that the Mall should be extended and opened out to Charing Cross. The point was not clear in the designs, though it was one to which considerable importance was attached by all who took an interest in the amenity of London. He earnestly hoped that this opening would now be made.

said, that before they went to a Division there were two or three points he desired to refer to. The hon. Member for the Walworth Division of Newington (Mr. Isaacs) had given convincing proof that the Government were absolutely wrong. The hon. Gentleman had shown that the Railway Clearing House, a large building capable of accommodating 1,400 clerks, had been put up very economically upon a site less than the site of the Admiralty and the proposed additions, and yet he approved of this piece of extravagance. They would have to go elsewhere and obtain a site for the War Office. The proposal amounted to the greatest piece of extravagance he ever heard of, and he quite understood why his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Plunket) took no notice of it; it was absolutely indefensible. There were some persons who were anxious to have economy at the expense of efficiency, and he ventured to say that the argument which the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works used in support of this proposal—namely, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) was in favour of it, was a little in that direction, because the right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt), as Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his zeal for economy, sent orders to the Departments as to the amount they were to spend, leaving them to settle how that amount was to be utilized. True economy would prompt them to spend a proper sum for putting the War Office and the Admiralty upon one site. They had the site, but the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works proposed to use it for the Admiralty only. He (Sir Julian Goldsmid) maintained that the proposal was an extravagant one, because the right hon. Gentleman would have to purchase another site whenever he built the War Office. Under these circumstances, he had thought it right to bring this matter before the House of Commons. The hon. Member for the Walworth Division of Newington tried to draw a red herring across the path by telling them a good deal about Messrs. Leeming's building. Probably the hon. Gentleman did not do him the honour to listen to the remarks he made earlier in the debate; but, if he did, he must know he said he knew nothing of Messrs. Leeming, and that he was not speaking in any particular interest. Upon the hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Isaacs') own showing, a suitable building for both War Office and Admiralty could be put up upon this site at a moderate cost, and, therefore, it must be bad economy to use the site for the Admiralty only. He claimed the hon. Member's vote.

said, that, in answer to his hon. Friend the Member for North Islington (Mr. Bartley), he was able to say that they had already in these plans gone far in the direction of having large rooms in which the work could be carried on under proper supervision. But they had not yet had the final Report of the Admiralty as to the reorganization of their staff. If the Board suggested that the system of large rooms should be carried further, he had no doubt the system would be extended. He entirely agreed with the hon. Gentleman as to the advisability of adopting the system as far as possible. With regard to the question of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Whitmore), he could answer, if the proposal now submitted to the Committee were carried out, there would be an opening provided from the Mall to Charing Cross, in the same way as an opening would have been provided if the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had been adopted. The present was really a test Vote. The Department, therefore, now only asked for £5,000; but if the Committee agreed to the Vote, he hoped they would be able to spend and ask for a little more before the end of the year. He earnestly begged the Committee not to prevent them proceeding as soon as possible with the remedy of a defective and almost scandalous state of things.

asked, whether the plans for the War Office were being proceeded with?

said, that nothing had been proposed on that subject. The Vote which was now proposed was based on the Report of the Committee of last year.

said, it was an important item in the consideration of the whole matter what was to be done with the War Office. If the War Office was to be left where it was, the scheme was not a bad one—it would result in economy—but if the War Office was to be removed, which he believed was an essential part of the scheme, then the scheme was financially bad and unsound.

said, that if the House of Commons were of opinion that the Government should at once undertake further expense in building a War Office, he would lose no time in making the necessary inquiries.

said, he desired to move the reduction of this Vote by £500, with the view of eliciting something with regard to the policy of the Government in the Soudan. He wanted to know whether we had really and truly abandoned the Soudan. If we had, why was there an officer at Suakin calling himself Governor General? He found that the Governor General there treated the tribes in the vicinity as rebels. He did not see how they could be rebels if we had abandoned the Soudan. He was one of those who by no means asserted that the case for the abandonment of the Soudan was made clear. There was a great deal to be said in favour of either retaining the Soudan, or in making it over to the Italians; though there was also a great deal to be said on general grounds for the abandonment of the Soudan. As a matter of fact, the Egyptian Government had proclaimed that the country had been abandoned. There were many reasons why it should be abandoned. He only hoped it was abandoned for deliberate reasons. He was bound to confess that the measure had been successful, that it had not exposed us to as very great danger as was prophesied, that the defence of the Egyptian frontier was easy as compared with the defence, for instance, of the North-West frontier of India. If we would only avoid those irritating little wars outside Suakin, the abandonment of the Soudan, however much some might regret it, might be regarded as successful; the measure had been fairly successful up to this, and would be successful altogether if we could only make up our minds to keep our hands off the tribes over the frontier. He did not desire, at this moment, to go into the policy of retaining Suakin. There might be reasons—he did not quite see them himself—connected with the Slave Trade why that town and port should be retained; but he did question the policy of involving ourselves in little wars beyond the town. It was patent to all the world that, for the last few months, the Governor General of Suakin had attacked the tribes outside the town, and got the worst of it, putting us in a very ignominous position. There could be no doubt that the Governor General of Suakin had been subsidizing and egging on the tribes—called friendly—to attack other tribes who were treated as unfriendly. The result was that the "unfriendlies" had called Osman Digna to their assistance, and he had attacked us and beaten us. He (Sir George Campbell) could not help thinking that the Governor General had brought these defeats upon himself. The tone in which the Governor General talked of rebels and "friendlies" was not the tone of a man who had made up his mind to confine himself to his own proper dominion of Suakin. His hankering after dominion had brought about the present state of things, and he (Sir George Campbell) wanted to know what the policy of the Government really was with regard to the matter. It was no use saying this was a question for the Egyptian Government. It was patent that we it was who forced the abandonment of the Soudan upon the Egyptians against their will. The Governor General was a distinguished English officer—Colonel Kitchener—and, speaking of those who served under him, that officer had said they were English officers nominated by the English Government. On several late occasions, too, the troops at Suakin had been assisted by the British Fleet. Suakin was held for us; whatever went on, there was our policy, and therefore he might fairly ask the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir James Fergusson) to explain what that policy was. He knew that the Foreign Secretary had in "another place" said that Suakin was held to prevent the Slave Trade. But what was the policy with regard to the fighting outside Suakin. How far had we encouraged the raids and petty wars which had gone on for months past? There was another subject which was indirectly connected with this matter, also a subject of great importance. It seemed to him very strange indeed that when we had abandoned that which he might call the natural highway into the interior of Africa—the highway of the great rivers—we should seek to enter the country by another route. We were apparently doing that by means of a new Company called the East African Company. No information whatever had been vouchsafed to Parliament in regard to the formation of that Company. He had seen a newspaper paragraph which stated what had been done, but nothing was known to the general public or to the House of Commons. He wanted to know what were the circumstances under which, and what were the objects for which, a new territorial Company had been established for East Africa? It seemed to him it was very dangerous that the country should be led into these great annexations silently, quietly, without competition, and in the ignorance of the public and of the House of Commons. He understood this East African Company had been established to exercise the rights of dominion. The idea was that the Company was to establish dominion over the great territory which led to the great lakes of Central Africa. It was but fair that hon. Members should demand that the right hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State should give them some information on this matter. Surely these territories should not be parcelled out without competition. No Department of the Government could give a contract for 100 pairs of boots, without first subjecting it to competition. Yet these great territories were given away quietly, and without the House knowing anything about the matter. He did not desire, at that moment, to question the policy of extending British dominion; he only wished to ascertain what were the facts, and what were the views of Her Majesty's Government, in regard to this matter. Having paid a good deal of attention to the politics of Africa, he would say that a great deal of evil resulted from the haphazard way in which annexation was carried out. Africa was being sandwiched, as it were, amongst the different European States. Germany got a slice, then France got a slice, then we had a slice, then the Portugese got a slice, and then someone else got a slice, and so annexation was going on all through Africa. He could not help thinking it would be much more politic and dignified on the part of this country, if it was to take part in the scramble for Africa, to do so upon some system, that we should come to some arrangement with other countries by which our possessions should be gathered together and be made more compact. By the present accidental sandwiching out of Africa, the basis of very great complications in the future was being laid. At any rate, he hoped the Government would tell them that the policy of chartering this new Company was a deliberate one, and not one forced upon the Government by the pertinacity of the Company. He was aware that up to the present the right hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had firmly refused to recognize the territorial possessions of what he might call the fighting missionaries and traders, who had established a kind of dominion in the Lake District of South Eastern Africa. He desired to know whether the Government would hold out in this firm course? He hoped the right hon. Baronet would be able to tell the Committee that the Government were not following in the wake of the Commercial Companies—Companies which established dominion over the natives for commercial gain—or even of the missionary enterprizes. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would tell them that the Government had some fixed and decided policy in this matter; that they had resolved whether they were to go forward and take a large share of Africa or not; whether, if they were to take a large share of Africa, they intended to do so deliberately; and whether they themselves were determined to decide what was to be done, and not allow Companies or missionaries to decide for them. In the hope of eliciting some information on this subject, he begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £500.

said, his hon. Friend (Sir George Campbell) said he did not complain of the policy of retaining Suakin.

I said I did not express an opinion upon the subject.

said, that he did express an opinion upon it; he thought it was a very absurd policy on our part. It would be remembered that we went there because we entered into an engagement with the Egyptian Government to maintain the remnant of rule on the border of the Red Sea. At that time it was said, as an excuse, that we also went there in order to prevent the Slave Trade. There was nothing more certain than that we had in no sort of way hindered the Slave Trade by retaining Suakin, for the reason that it was very easy to go across the Red Sea in a few hours from Africa to Asia. The dhows could put in along the coast; they did not require to put in at any particular port; they took the slaves sent down to them, and in the course of the night they crossed to Arabia. That had not been controverted. The Government of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) fell back on the fact that whether right or wrong, we were pledged to retain Suakin, because we had entered into a promise with the Egytian Government, but he (Mr. Labouchere) would like to know how long this promise was to continue. Were we to retain Suakin for ever? Surely there must be some limit. When the promise was made, Egypt was practically at war with the Soudanese. It was said that now Egypt was at peace with the Soudan. We ought, therefore to come to some understanding with Egypt with regard to the retention of our garrison at Suakin. His hon. Friend said—"While I do not express an opinion upon the retention of Suakin, I do protest against the little wars that go on with the tribes in the neighbourhood." The occurrence of these little wars was one of the reasons why he (Mr. Labouchere) was opposed to the retention of Suakin. In the present state of matters, it must necessarily follow that there would be little wars. One tribe came under our protection, another tribe further off attacked it, and then we sallied forth in order to defend the tribe under our protection, and so, as it always happened in the case of these military frontiers, we found ourselves perpetually engaged in little wars, slaughtering people who, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian said, "are rightly struggling to be free." Then his hon. Friend complained of the establishment of the East African Companies. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman that the Committee ought to know what the Charters to these Companies were. The Charters ought to be laid before the House of Commons before they were granted. Take the case of the Borneo Charter. That was granted, he believed, by a Conservative Ministry; anyhow, a Conservative Ministry had pledged itself so strongly to grant it, that the Liberal Ministry which followed it felt it its duty to fulfil the pledge. At last the matter came up for the consideration of the House. The hon. Gentleman (Sir John Gorst) who was now Under Secretary of State for India raised the question, and he pointed out that by the Charter we did our very best to encourage the Slave Trade. By one of the conditions of the Charter we engaged to return to their masters slaves who took refuge in the offices of the Company. A more monstrous thing was never done, and yet because Parliament had not been permitted to look into the Charter, and because no one in the Public Offices had looked closely into the matter, the Charter existed. Therefore he did most strongly demand that before any pledge or assurance was given on the part of the Government to grant Charters to Companies, the House should have an opportunity of seeing what the Charter was. His hon. Friend (Sir George Campbell) said he was opposed to the system of sandwiching out Africa, but then he proposed what seemed a monstrous proceeding—he proposed that we should take over a large portion of the country as our share. [Sir GEORGE CAMPBELL: No.] What the hon. Gentleman said certainly amounted to that. He (Mr. Labouchere) objected to this parcelling out of Africa. The hon. Gentleman suggested that our parcel should be in the South. Heaven knew what it would cost. He earnestly hoped we would not give Charters to East African Companies, or to West African Companies, or to North African Companies, or to South African Companies, and that we would give up the policy of either parcelling out Africa between the European Powers or of taking a very large slice for ourselves. This Vote covered the whole policy of Her Majesty's Government in all parts of the world outside of England. They had not had during the present Session an opportunity of discussing the foreign policy of Her Majesty's Government. Some people had said this ought to be an Irish Session, some had said it ought to be an English Session, but, in the meantime, the Marquess of Salisbury had had absolutely his own way as Minister for Foreign Affairs. No one had had an opportunity of calling the noble Marquess over the coals, and yet——

Order, order! An Amendment has been proposed to reduce the Vote in respect of certain proceedings in Africa, and the discussion should be confined to Africa.

Then I will postpone my remarks upon the general foreign policy of the Government.

said that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) did not find fault with the action of Her Majesty's Government with respect to Suakin, but wished to know on what ground it was retained. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), on the other hand, objected altogether to the retention of Suakin, and thought we ought to have retired from Suakin as we had retired from the Upper Nile. There was a certain misapprehension in the minds of the hon. Gentlemen. The British Government did not hold Suakin: it was held by the Egyptian Government, and although it had been said that that was the same thing, there was a very important difference. What Her Majesty's Government were doing was to aid the Government of Egypt to improve the government of that country, and he believed very great success had attended those efforts. Very great praise was due to the Khedive and his Ministers for the policy they were pursuing, and for the reforms they had carried out. Suakin was the only point in the Soudan now held by Egyptian troops, and it was very important it should be so held. It was very important that piratical expeditions should not be made from that point of departure, and it was extremely desirable, both from the point of view of the Egyptian and British Governments, that Suakin should not be made the great nest or chief seat of the Slave Trade. There could be no doubt it would be a great centre and rallying point of the Slave Trade unless it was kept by the Egyptians, and he was sorry to say he believed that at this moment many of the Slave Trade operations were directed from Suakin. The Egyptian officers at Suakin were often able to get intelligence of intended Slave Trade expeditions and to frustrate them. No doubt a good deal went on in spite of our endeavours, but were it not for these endeavours there was every reason to believe that the Slave Trade would flourish much more actively than it did at present. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) asked what we were doing at Suakin. The Egyptians were doing as little as possible. They were obliged, unfortunately, to defend Suakin against the followers of the False Prophet and the Dervishes who came down to the immediate neighbourhood of Suakin. It was very necessary that the place should be both resolutely and economically defended, and owing to the admirable dispositions of Colonel Kitchener, the Governor General, it could now be defended by a very small force. The forts were strong, but it had been necessary to afford the place the assistance of some of Her Majesty's ships. It was quite evident that the Slave Trade could not be prevented in the Red Sea without the assistance of Her Majesty's ships. Ships had been employed in that duty, and advantage had been taken of their presence there to render assistance to the Egyptian troops in the defence of Suakin. It was very desirable that trade should establish itself as freely as possible, and with as little interference as possible. Great steps had been taken in that direction, but the peaceful traders were very much interfered with by the bodies of Dervishes under Osman Digna, who rendered the trade routes exceedingly dangerous, and who rendered the peaceful occupations of the country somewhat perilous. But there were signs of considerable improvement, and he thought that if the present policy pursued at Suakin could be only let alone for a little longer a better state of things might soon be expected in that region. The hon. Member (Sir George Campbell) said, that we had abandoned the great highway of the Nile, but we were trying to open up a new route to the lakes from the Zanzibar Coast. It was easy to talk of the lakes as if they were one small tract, but the Committee would surely not forget that the distances were enormous from the portion of the Nile which was occupied by the Egyptians, and the lake district which might be approached from the Zanzibar Coast. It was quite evident that any commercial or colonizing undertaking on the Zanzibar Coast was a very different matter from the extension of Egyptian rule southwards. The deliberate policy pursued had been to confine the Government of Egypt to the Northern portion of Africa. But there was no reason why the whole of the rest of Africa should be closed to European enterprize. Other nations were not insensible of the value of African markets, and there was no nation in Europe that had not made great exertions to establish its influence in Africa and to extend the trade with that country. He thought there was little hope for the trade of this country except by opening up new markets, and English merchants would justly reproach the Government if they were to refuse to give such encouragement as they could to the multiplication of markets in the great continent of Africa. The portion of Eastern Africa in which the enterprize of certain people was now seeking to push English trade was, perhaps, the most hopeful district North of the Equator with which we were acquainted. It was healthy, suitable for European settlement, and inhabited by tribes immensely superior, intellectually and in point of civilization, to those on the West Coast and those further towards the South. This enterprize had been well considered, and it was hoped that it was destined to open up new fields for English commerce, and that it would be possible to join hands with Emin Pasha, who was so gallantly maintaining himself in the interior. The hon. Gentleman opposite said he did not see why we, the Germans, Belgians, and other nations, should all be carving out slices of Africa for ourselves; but surely it was better that we should make arrangements with other European nations than that we should come into rivalry and possible collision with them; it was better that the spheres of influence in Africa should be directed from different points, and he could not but think that the policy now being pursued was not only convenient and prudent in itself, but one that was most likely to colonize Africa in the best way. The hon. Gentleman had also spoken of the Consul in the Lake District as having been engaged in hostilities. He had, on the second day before the Recess, been asked and replied to a Question on this point—namely, whether the action of the Consul was taken with the consent of Her Majesty's Government or with their encouragement? With regard to the present question, he said it was inaccurate to say that the Consuls in their present positions were engaged in hostilities. They were there without any such intention. They were there to afford such assistance to British interests as they could afford by British authority; but it was only when a European Settlement was being attacked by Arabs, and was in considerable danger, that other action took place. Undoubtedly, it was not the duty of the Consuls to lend themselves to any hostile movement with armed forces. It was not for him to defend the missionaries from the imputation of being militant persons. He believed, however, that there were men carrying on a good work with great courage and at considerable risk, and that they only took up arms in self defence. But there was a great difference between missionaries and the Trading Bodies in that part of Africa, who united in their own defence; and if these had engaged in attacking an Arab stronghold, it might, to some extent, no doubt, have been in retaliation, but it ought to be remembered that it was sometimes necessary for the purpose of defence to anticipate the action of those who threatened attack. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had talked about our slaughtering people who were rightly struggling to be free. He could not consent to be led into a discussion on the old Egyptian controversy, which he had hoped had long been laid at rest. The defence of Suakin by Her Majesty's ships could hardly be called the slaughter of people struggling to be free; and such language was wholly inappropriate to the defence of a garrison attacked by dervishes. He (Sir James Fergusson) said that we were not interfering with any matters in the Soudan; we sanctioned the holding of Suakin for reasons which Parliament had fully approved—namely, the prevention of the Slave Trade on the Red Sea, which would increase and become much more active were it not for the resistance offered by England. As to the remark that it was inexpedient to encourage Trading Companies to settle in Africa, he believed this to be a legitimate form of procedure and well calculated to further the best interests of the country. It was not necessary that British responsibilities should be unduly extended; but he thought it was eminently desirable that where enterprizing merchants were willing to push British trade in Africa, Her Majesty's Government should give them all proper assistance. He did not think that a case had been made out for the reduction of the Vote.

said, he hoped the case of Mr. Thomas Wilkinson, who had received unfair treatment from the Consular Authorities in Madagascar, whose action had been condemned by the Law Courts of the Mauritius, would not be passed over in silence.

said, that he must almost be regarded as an ignoramus on questions of this kind; but he could not keep silence under the enunciation of such doctrines as they had just heard from the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir James Fergusson). The right hon. Baronet had said that the object of the Foreign Office was to allow the Egyptians to govern Egypt. That, he (Mr. Picton) thought, was a very simple matter, and one which could be arranged without a heavy expense for the Foreign Office. But then it was urged that the Egyptians would govern Egypt not exactly in the manner we desired, and that a state of things entirely foreign to our interests would arise; to allow the Egyptians to govern Egypt would be to allow them to have whatsoever Governor they pleased, even that violent Patriot whom we had expatriated to Ceylon. But it was expressly to prevent the Egyptians from governing Egypt, except in accordance with our ideas, that our forces were kept in that country. That was a state of things which was entirely unsatisfactory; and he was not inclined to keep up an expensive Foreign Office for the purpose of obtaining such a result. Then they were told that the Egyptians must defend Suakin against the False Prophet; but they were not told against what false prophet. Who was he? There were a large number of false prophets in the world—a good many on the other side of the House as well as on that side, He did not know whether Osman Digna was or was not a false prophet; but they understood that the Mahdi was destroyed, and he did not know whether he had any successor. But if the Egyptians wanted to defend Suakin, by all means let them do so. Why should we be called upon to do it for them? And hon. Members were told that it was necessary to have British vessels at Suakin to protect our trade. He did not know what trade we did at Suakin; and it was quite possible that if this policy was to be pursued we might be compelled to have more vessels than were really necessary, whatever that trade might be. Violence would never open the country to trade. Missionaries had done far more than soldiers to open up African trade. However that might be, he did not think that Africa would be opened up to trade by our extravagant expenditure on military forces in that country. It appeared to him that there had been an utterly reckless waste of human life in this work, and that an unnecessary claim had been made upon the taxpayers of the country in consequence, for which reasons, if the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy went to a Division, he should heartily support him.

said, he did not think the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had given the Committee as much information as they were entitled to claim. The right hon. Baronet had dealt altogether in generalities. His (Sir George Campbell's) own opinion was that the best course would be to hand over Suakin to the Italians; but, at any rate, he hoped that fighting outside the place would be discouraged. He thought the authorities in Suakin were a good deal to blame for what had occurred there, because they had drawn down upon themselves Osman Digna by that abominable practice of subsidizing one Native Tribe for the purpose of attacking another. He thought that the term False Prophet was entirely misapplied by the right hon. Gentleman, although he rather approved the plan of coming to arrangements with other European nations as to trade stations in Africa. He was unfavourable to our taking a large share of Africa, because he thought we had already enough on our hands; but he thought that, under any circumstances, we should confine ourselves as much as possible to one part of the country. The right hon. Gentleman told them that the only hope for the trade of this country was to conquer new markets. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had said that in order to extend British trade it was necessary to acquire new countries.

I beg the hon. Baronet's pardon. I am sure I did not use the words or anything like them.

said, he admitted the right hon. Gentleman did not use the words, but he had justified the policy by assuming that it was only by opening up new markets that we could hope to maintain our trade at its present level. He would not, however, pursue that matter further, but he repeated that the Committee was entitled to ask whether a Charter had been granted to the East African Company; and, if so, what powers and conditions were conferred on the Company, and what territory had been handed over?

said, the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) had returned after the Whitsuntide Holiday with some extraordinary notions; he now proposed that we should hand over Suakin to the Italians. But that would be worse than giving it to the Egyptians. He (Mr. Labouchere) said, whatever might be done, let us have nothing whatever to do with it. The right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had said that Suakin was retained on account of the Slave Trade. He (Mr. Labouchere) thought Lord Palmerston was the inventor of that system of defending aggression, on the ground that it was necessary for the purpose of preventing the Slave Trade; he kept up a large Squadron on the Coast of Africa, which occasionally picked up a Slavetrader, but the Slave Trade was only a pretext for keeping up the Naval Force in that part of the world. The question, however, was, did we, by aiding and abetting the Egyptians in maintaining themselves in Suakin, really in any sort of way diminish the Slave Trade? [Sir JAMES FERGUSSON: Yes.] The right hon. Gentleman said they did. But had there been a single Slaver taken at Suakin. [Sir JAMES FERGUSSON: Ships have been caught in the neighbourhood.] Exactly; they must have ships cruising about the Red Sea, if they wanted to look after the Slave Trade. But were there no slaves at Cairo and Alexandria? While the Egyptians bought slaves in their own markets, we were to go down to Suakin for the purpose of stopping the Slave Trade there. He said that the whole thing was absurd, and that the fact was we had got into a mess, and did not know how to get out of it. The Military Commander out there was a brave man, and liked to bring his bravery before the British public; lie engaged in these little skirmishes, and when the people came down to the seaside, they were immediately fired upon by the ships outside. As he had said, the whole thing was a great piece of absurdity, a gross waste of money, and an outrage upon the country; because our presence at Suakin did not directly or indirectly tend to put down the Slave Traffic. But the right hon. Gentleman read really surprised him by his statement with regard to the Chartered Companies in Africa. The right hon. Gentleman said the noble mission of the Government was to aid and abet merchants in establishing forms of British government in different parts of Africa. What did the right hon. Gentleman mean by that—what were those forms of British government? Did he mean that the merchants were to go out to Africa, and that we were to aid them in establishing there a House of Lords and a House of Commons? It meant that we were to back up these men when they wished not only to trade, but to establish themselves in some dominating position which would compromise us. King Theodore said—"I know all about you. You send missionaries, then you send merchants, and then an army, and when you send an army where is the African King?" Let merchants go into Central Africa by all means; but let them go at their own risk and peril. If they wished to become martyrs, it was their own business; but they must not ask us to support them in establishing some sort of quasi-right over the Treads of the people of the country. Most assuredly the Committee had a right to know whether this Charter had been given, and, if so, what was the nature of that Charter—if not, whether there was any intention of giving a Charter? He asked the right hon. Gentleman just now whether he would pledge himself to lay any of these Charters before the House of Commons, or make them thoroughly public, so as to give the House an opportunity of expressing its opinion upon them, before the English nation was pledged to maintain them in the form in which they were made by the Foreign Office?

said, in dealing first with the remarks of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), he thought he might take up a line directly in opposition to him on the question of the Slave Trade. It was the duty of this country to use its best efforts in the suppression of the Slave Trade, and anything like lukewarmness on the part of the Government would be justly considered by the House and the country as a departure from the established policy of the country. Again, he did not think that the case with regard to Lord Palmerston had been correctly stated by the hon. Gentleman. The House was well aware that a large sum of money was annually expended by the country in maintaining a Naval Force for the suppression of the Slave Trade on the West and East Coasts of Africa, the Persian Gulf, and elsewhere, and if it had not been for that Force, the Slave Trade would have very considerably increased. The hon. Gentleman asked if any slave vesselshad been taken in the Red Sea. [Mr. LABOUCHERE: At Suakin?] Certainly not. It was hardly likely that any attempts would be made to carry on the trade at that place, when it was occupied by an Egyptian Governor, with a British vessel lying in the harbour; but vessels had been caught coming out of places along the coast in the neighbourhood of Suakin. It was the opinion of naval officers, and of all those best qualified to judge, that the maintenance of Suakin was absolutely necessary for the prevention of the Slave Trade in the Red Sea, and on that ground he trusted that no considerable section of the Committee would vote for the reduction of the Estimate on that account. With regard to the Charters granted to Companies, the hon. Member spoke as if the position was not within the knowledge of the House. The House was in possession of the terms of the Charter of the Royal Niger Company; it knew the powers with which the Company had been entrusted by Her Majesty's Government; and what he had stated was that the companies had been authorized to make Treaties with the Native Chiefs in Africa, and to carry on trade operations on a large scale, and to carry out the principles of British law and order. He had already told the Committee that they had made something like 200 Treaties with Native Chiefs, and he believed that they had introduced good order and government to the countries over which their Charter extended, and that there was every prospect that in due time they would do great good in that part of the world. It had been said that the Companies imported rum; but, as a matter of fact, the importation of that article was now only a quarter of what it was four years ago. He was asked to state distinctly whether a Charter had been granted to the East African Company. It had not been granted. The Company was only in process of formation, and if a Charter should be granted it would be no less binding than that which had been granted to the Royal Niger Company. It would provide that law and order, as the Government understood it—[Opposition cheers]—and he hoped they understood the best form of law and order—should be maintained; the proceedings of the Company, wherever its influence might extend, would be constantly under the direction and review of Her Majesty's Government, so that nothing should be done which would not be creditable to this country.

said, he was afraid he had put his question with regard to the case of Mr. Wilkinson at Madagascar too briefly, as it appeared to have escaped the right hon. Baronet's attention.

said, he must ask the hon. Member's pardon for his question having escaped from his memory. He was unable to give any answer upon the case of Mr. Wilkinson without referring to the Papers; but if the hon. Member would repeat his question to-morrow, he would be glad to give him all the information he had upon the subject.

said, the Committee would now allow him to pass from Africa to Europe. Now that we knew what our policy was in Africa, he considered that there was nothing more important than that they should know precisely what was the policy of Her Majesty's Government in Europe. When the Conservatives were last in Office the policy of Lord Salisbury was to support the Turkish Empire, and to expend vast sums of money in aiding and abetting the Turk to remain in Europe. At that time the country was said to be entirely permeated by Jingoism; but at the General Election it was shown that Lord Salisbury was going entirely in opposition to the views of the country, and the result was that he was ejected from Office. It was well known that there were Gentlemen on that side of the House who were ready to sacrifice everything to retain Lord Salisbury in Office, and therefore it became the duty of hon. Members who did not share his Lordship's opinion with regard to Ireland and other parts to keep special watch, so that the country might thoroughly understand, at least, what he was doing in Europe. Last year, Lord Salisbury had done his very best to involve us in war, in order to maintain Prince Alexander of Bulgaria on his throne. It appeared from the Blue Book on the subject that Lord Salisbury had sent despatches to almost every Government in Europe imploring those Governments to join with him in alliance against Russia, and it was only because those Governments were wiser than Lord Salisbury, that we were not involved in a dangerous and costly war. This year there had been a most suspicious interchange of views between Her Majesty's Government and those Governments calling themselves the Triple Alliance. Europe was divided into three camps, and the three Powers had come to an agreement that if one of them should be attacked by Russia they would prevent France from joining that country. He (Mr. Labouchere) did not ask whether that was right or wrong, but he asked what business was it of ours? With those vast armies maintained on the Continent war was always imminent, and there was always a probability of war some day breaking out. A British Minister's duty was to keep his country free from every pledge that might entangle it in such a war. He remembered about two months ago having brought this question forward; he did not then receive a satisfactory assurance from the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The right hon. Gentleman, it was true, said that the Government had given no assurance to Italy that if she were to join the Triple Alliance we would come to her aid; but when he (Mr. Labouchere) asked that what had been done should be presented to Parliament the right hon. Gentleman spoke of negotiation still going on, and he declined to state to Parliament what Lord Salisbury and the Foreign Office were doing. Why did the right hon. Gentleman do that? Certainly it was not on account of Austria, Germany, or Italy, because the negotiations took place between them and the English Government. Was it for the House of Commons that this silence was preserved? He could not conceive that it was so. It was then on account of France and Russia that the right hon. Gentleman was afraid to make public what was being done. Now he objected to our entering into negotiations with two or three Foreign Governments which we were afraid to show to other Governments. Let our policy be open, and let it be clearly a policy of peace, and let us say that if those countries were so foolish as to go to war, we should not join with any of them. We had no business directly or indirectly in an alliance which was practically aimed at France; as was well known, she had lost Alsace and Lorraine, and it was not probable that she would always maintain peace. For his own part, he thought that France had a perfect right, whenever she was strong enough to do so, to seek to reacquire those Provinces. [Mr. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne): No, no!] His hon. Friend who said "No, no" came from Cornwall, and he (Mr. Labouchere) ventured to say that if we were at war with France, and if France seized Cornwall, the hon. Member would call upon the Government to re-acquire it. One of the great evils of annexation of foreign territory by any rower was that the aggrieved country, unless thoroughly crushed and incapable of making an effort, would seize every opportunity that presented itself to regain the territory it had lost. For his own part, he should be sorry if there were an European war; but he said if they were to take sides at all, if they were to have sympathy with one or other of the Continental Powers, his sympathy would not be with Germany or Austria; it would be on the side of France, because Alsace and Lorraine belonged to France de jure, if not de facto, and not to Germany. Now that the negotiations had ceased, he thought the Committee ought to Dave a distinct and specific understanding of what the negotiations really had been before they passed the Vote. He held that no pledges, if there were pledges, ought to be entered into directly or indirectly with Foreign Governments without as soon as possible submitting them to the House of Commons in order that the House of Commons might form an opinion upon them and accept or protest against them at once. The people of the country were now paying the interest on an immense Debt for having been participators in wars on the Continent, not one of which remotely concerned us. He wanted to understand whether the Prime Minister and his Colleagues were in favour of a system of absolute abnegation with regard to Continental politics; were they in favour of simple non-intervention? The country had always been in favour of non-intervention, and the electors of the country did not understand this reckless interference in foreign affairs, the cost of which they had to bear. They had been told that England must play a great part in Europe. He protested entirely against that doctrine, and maintained that they ought to adopt a policy of non-intervention. Let us always be on the defensive, but do not let us mix ourselves up with the melancholy disputes which rage in Europe every few years. The British Empire did not alone consist of these Islands; it consisted of immense Colonies in Australia, America, and other parts of the world. Did the House suppose that those Colonies would maintain their allegiance and love for this country, because they found that we had made some pledge to go to the aid of Italy if she were attacked? We must be, and we were, a great Power spread over the whole world; and whereas we ought to have an army for defence, if we were attacked we ought to be especially careful not to make pledges with regard to Continental affairs, not only in the interests of the inhabitants of these islands, but of those Colonies which, together with them, constitute the British Empire. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give the Committee some specific information as to what had been done with regard to the Triple Alliance, and that he would say that no pledge had been given on our part, either directly or indirectly, in any war which might arise on the Continent. If the right hon. Gentleman could do that without any arrière pensée, and not merely as a diplomatic mode of expression, he, for his part, should be satisfied. He remembered, however, that Lord Salisbury pledged himself on a former occasion that no Treaty had been entered into, but it was entered into; his confidence would be extremely qualified therefore, but he would like to hear what was our precise position with regard to Continental Powers at the present moment.

said, he did not always agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere); but he was entirely in accord with him when he said that if we were to maintain a close and intimate connection for purposes of defence between the Colonies and England, it must be made clear by English Members that our policy was to be one of peace. He agreed that there was no more loyal community in the world than the English speaking Colonists, and, he believed, there were none who would more willingly respond to a call for aid if England were attacked; but they would be quick to see the folly of allowing themselves to be mixed up with quarrels with which they had no concern. So far as the Colonies were concerned, they did not care one button about any dynasty or country in Europe, except so far as it affected themselves. While it would be found that in case of a defensive war, they would be ready to help us to the last farthing, he was quite sure that our relations with them would be imperilled unless it was laid down once for all that our Minisers should not act as if they were merely the Ministers of this particular part of the dominions of the Queen, but that the policy of England was adopted in the interests of the whole Empire. If we did not pay adequate regard to the interests of the whole Empire, we should run a great risk of the ultimate separation of many English speaking communities of the British Empire. The principal point to which he desired to direct the attention of the Committee was the action of Her Majesty's Government in the Pacific, and especially with regard to Samoa. There was considerable confusion in the minds of all parties interested as to the position we had taken up with regard to Samoan affairs, during the last six or seven years. The Samoan Islands were in the direct track of mail communication between Canada and the United States and New Zealand, and they were the centre of a large English trade in the Pacific. But English interests in Samoa ought not to be measured only by money or the amount of trade with those islands. To begin with, we discovered the islands, and the officers of our men-of-war made the charts which made it safe for ships of all nations to trade with them, and the London Missionary Society had been there 50 years and had established a Training College from which missionaries were sent to all parts of the Pacific. The domestic affairs of the islands were some seven or eight years ago in confusion, and at that time Sir Arthur Gordon established the late King Malietoa on the Throne. As Her Majesty's Commissioner in the Western Pacific he issued a proclamation in which occurred these words—

"We have accordingly resolved to resume official relations with the party which has for the last three months held undisputed possession of the seat of Government, and is supported by an overwhelming and increasing majority of the people of Samoa."

That was in 1879, and it was followed by a treaty made with the King and signed by him on the 28th of August of that year. It was denied that the King had signed as King of Samoa. But he (Mr. M'Arthur) said that the first treaty was signed by Sir Arthur Gordon on behalf of the English Government, and by Malietoa on behalf of the Samoan Government. Then followed a convention in September, 1879, between Great Britain, Germany, the United States, and Samoa, which was also signed by Sir Arthur Gordon and King Malietoa, and it would be therefore plain that both the treaty and the convention were entered into by Her Majesty's Govern- ment with the King as the de facto head of the Samoan Government. In 1884 King Malietoa made a treaty with the German Government under protest, and he (Mr. M'Arthur) would point out that for the last ten years persistent attempts had been made by the German Government to obtain domination over the island. On the 29th of December, 1884, Malietoa wrote a pitiful protest to the German Emperor in the following terms:—

said, he had not stated that we had given the German Government the Mandatory Power. He had said that it was proposed in the Conference that one of the Powers should exercise influence on behalf of the rest, but that that proposal was not carried out.

said, if that proposal was not carried out, it made the case very much the worse. He had understood that Her Majesty's Government had not interfered with Germany because it was agreed at the Conference that Germany was to occupy the position of Mandatory Power in Samoa. If, however, that was not the case, and no such agreement was ever entered into, surely it was a monstrous thing for the English Government to allow this outrage upon the King of Samoa to take place without a word of remonstrance. He did not care a straw whether Germany was a Mandatory power or not. If she was the Mandatory Power, notice of what she intended to do ought to have been given to the British Consul in time to prevent him signing a declaration which was issued by the Representatives of the United States and Great Britian; and which was afterwards repudiated by the Government of England; and if she was not the Mandatory Power, the outrage committed by her should not have been passed without remonstrance. Our Consul in Samoa seemed to be of the same mind as the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Fergusson), because he also thought that Germany had no Mandatory Power, and he, therefore, was a party to the following Proclamation, to which he (Mr. W. A. M'Arthur) had just referred:—

said, that as the hon. Member was referring to an answer he (Sir James Fergusson) had given to him in the House, it would perhaps be convenient if, at this point, he were to remind the hon. Member of what that answer was. He had said that instructions had been given to Her Majesty's Representative in Samoa to observe neutrality between the German Government and Malietoa, but as it was necessary that the telegraphic message had to be forwarded by vessel from New Zealand, it did not reach him in time. He had acted on his own responsibility, and did not receive his instructions till afterwards.

said, he again thought the explanation made the case still worse. If Germany had made up her mind to make an attack on Samoa, did the right hon. Baronet mean to say that she only gave the English Government so short notice that they had no time to notify our Consul on the subject, and give him his instructions in time to prevent his taking action on his responsibility? The German squadron must have left the last port it touched at before arriving at Samoa with instructions to make war upon King Malietoa, and surely there should have been an opportunity given for an English vessel to leave simultaneously bearing information as to the exact position of affairs to the British Consul. Either Germany had acted in defiance of the feelings of England, or she had refused to give our Government notice in time to inform our Consul of what had taken place, and in either case Germany had acted in disregard of our rights and with great disrespect to this country, with whom she was supposed to be on friendly terms. To continue the narrative of what happened in Samoa. After the force of 700 men had been landed, and after the protest he had read had been written and published by the English and American Consuls, King Malietoa wrote a letter. He had fled to the bush, and information was conveyed to him that if he did not surrender himself the capital would be destroyed and his followers would be attacked. Well, he then wrote the following letter to the English and American Consuls:—

said, he had no intention of following the hon. Member for the St. Austell Division of Cornwall (Mr. W. A. M'Arthur) into the case of the Native Potentate he had brought before the Committee. He had listened carefully to the hon. Member's lucid and forcible speech, as, no doubt, the right hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had done, and he had no doubt that the right hon. Baronet would find in that statement material that required an answer. He had been much interested in the forcible remarks that fell from the hon. Member, at the outset of his speech, as to the feelings of the Colonies on this subject, and the Government might depend upon it that the hon. Member for the St. Austell Division, in his remarks as to the feelings of the Australian Colonies, was representing a vast body of feeling, not only in the Colonies, but also in this country. Those who knew the hon. Member were aware of his close connection with Australia, and it must be obvious to all that his observations, as expressive of the sentiments of Her Majesty's Colonial subjects, were worthy of the most careful consideration. But his (Mr. J. E. Ellis's) purpose in rising this evening was rather to say a few words in endorsement of the observations which had fallen from the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), and also in endorsement of the observations which had fallen the evening before the Whitsuntide Recess from the hon. Member for West Bradford (Mr. Illingworth), as to the general question of our foreign policy. He thought the Government could have no reason to complain of their desiring to have a clear and explicit declaration of their policy in regard to foreign affairs. During the debate on the Address, the subject was very lightly touched upon, and with that exception, and during the discussion on the Vote on Account, which the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) had attempted so peremptorily to close, the House had had absolutely no opportunity this Session of learning from the Government their views on the question of foreign policy. He (Mr. J. E. Ellis) was one of those who was free to confess that he could not forget that the present Prime Minister was Foreign Secretary during a large part of that disastrous period from 1874 to 1880, when a Conservative Administration was in Office and commanding a majority in the House. He was willing to hope, and he believed from some murmurs which reached his ears at that moment, that some occupants of the Benches opposite looked upon the period to which he referred as a disastrous one from the point of view of foreign policy. [Cries of "No, no!"] He noticed that the hon. Baronet the Member for London (Sir Robert Fowler) dissented from this view; but he commended to his notice the words of truth and wisdom which had lately been uttered from the Mansion House by the present Lord Mayor of London. He (Mr. J. E. Ellis) was willing to believe that the policy of Her Majesty's Government was now not such as it had been between the years 1874 and 1880 He was free to confess, though sitting on those (the Opposition) Benches, that he was not particularly proud of some of the policy pursued by the Liberal Government between the years 1880 and 1885. He did not believe that their policy in South Africa and Egypt, and still more recently in Burmah, redounded to the credit of this country. One of the earliest votes he had given in Parliament was against what had taken place in Burmah, and he should be quite willing to repeat that vote if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) were in power at this moment and were pursuing a similar policy. He maintained that not only was it necessary to ascertain from Her Majesty's Government a clear and explicit declaration of their policy with regard to foreign affairs, because the noble Marquess the present Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister (the Marquess of Salisbury) was the person who was Foreign Secretary from 1874 to 1880, but there was a special reason for this necessity just now. They had before them at the present time several Bills of a very serious character relating to the National Defences. One of them was set down for discussion on Monday next, and he did venture to assert, without for a moment going into the merits of these Bills, that it was impossible to discuss them or enter into the general discussion which they had had more than once in the House on the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot); it was impossible for them to deal with these matters except as the outcome and result of the declared foreign policy of Her Majesty's Government. They wanted to know what view the Government took of the means of carrying out their policy. He had listened with great pleasure to some words which had fallen from the right hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir James Fergusson) a short time ago, when he had assured them that the Government had not entered into any engagement pledging the action of this country, which was not known to the House, and that the Government were free to deal with events as they arose and as the interests of the country might require. Those, he doubted not, were well-considered words spoken by the right hon. Baronet on behalf of Her Majesty's Government; but he ventured to press the right hon. Baronet a little further, and to ask what was the key-note of their policy with regard to intervention or non-intervention in European affairs? Of course, they were all aware that this great Empire was a member of the European family of nations, and they had no desire to shirk the responsibilities attached to that position. But he ventured to deny emphatically that we ought to consider ourselves situated like the Continental States. That was the distinction he drew. Geographically, and upon other grounds, we occupied a distinct and insular position in the great federation of nations in Europe, and the question he wished to address to the right hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was whether he agreed with that view? Did the right hon. Baronet consider that though we were a member of the European family, we were not so in the same sense as other European Powers on the Continent? Such a position carried with it grave consequences, and if they had due regard to that fact they would always find themselves upon pretty safe ground. He (Mr. J. E. Ellis) wished to recall to the House some words which were used by the noble Lord the Member for the Rossendale Division of Lancashire (the Marquess of Hartington) when he issued his Election address in 1880. The noble Lord had used some very striking language. Speaking of the power and influence of this country in March, 1880, the noble Lord had said—

"They are the result of a gradual but constant progress in the moral and material condition of the people, and consequent progress in the moral and material resources of the country. Every advance in the direction of civil and religious liberty, of self-government, of the freedom of the Press, of trade, and of popular education, has been a step in the growth of the true power of the Empire."

Those were wise words, he ventured to say. He, for one, should stand by the words of the noble Lord which he had just quoted; and he hoped Her Majesty's Government would approve of them, and base their policy on the ideas expressed in them. He looked upon this question of foreign policy as to some extent irrespective of Party. He believed that both Parties in the past in regard to foreign policy had been sinners, and he was quite ready to support the present Government in any efforts they might make to restrain some of their more ardent followers from dangerous proposals and evil courses. He hoped, therefore, they might hear from the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a more distinct and clear note on this subject before the Vote was taken. He thought he might say that the progress the Government would make with some Bills which would come before the House, and to which he had alluded, would be, in some degree, dependent upon the assurance the right hon. Baronet gave the Committee that the Government adhered to a policy of strict peace and non-intervention in Europe.

said, that since the Papers relating to King Ja Ja, of Opobo, had been laid upon the Table of the House and presented to Members—he thought at the end of April—he had hoped to find them made matter of discussion; but there had been no opportunity up to the present for discussing the subject and bringing it before the attention of the House and the country, although it affected, as he believed, the honour of this country very deeply. It was only during the last hour or two that he had discovered that he would be in Order in raising the question of King Ja Ja, of Opobo, and especially to bring before the notice of the House the conduct of Consul Johnston on the West Coast of Africa; and, therefore, it was that he desired, to some extent, to claim the indulgence of the Committee whilst he endeavoured to bring the case of the African potentate Ja Ja before the notice of the Committee. He thought he might state, as a preliminary, that for many years past British merchants trading at Opobo and the West Coast of Africa, and having factories near to the State over which King Ja Ja ruled, had complained that that African potentate excluded white men from trading with the interior. From the correspondence that appeared in the Papers laid before the House, it was quite clear that Ja Ja admitted that he had endeavoured to prevent white men from trading without the interference of a middleman with the Natives of the interior. Ja Ja admitted, but, at the same time, it appeared that he had Treaty rights on his side, and he also pleaded that the necessities of the case obliged him to levy duties on exports from the interior, and which passed through the hands of British traders. Ja Ja's plea of necessity amounted to this—that be ruled over a poor country where there was little or no land susceptible of cultivation, and that he existed as a State chiefly by the profits which he, as a middleman, could obtain by selling products from the interior to British merchants on the coast. But Ja Ja had still stronger claims to the position which he held, and they were the Treaties which, from time to time, had been entered into with him by the Representatives of this country; and if the Committee would excuse his quoting from the Papers for a few moments, he should like to allude to some of these Treaties and negotiations entered into by this country with King Ja Ja. On January 4th, 1873, a Commercial Treaty was signed with King Ja Ja. In the first article of that Treaty were the words—

"In the name of Her Britannic Majesty's Government, we hereby acknowledge Ja Ja King of Opobo, and fully entitled to consideration as such.''

In the third article of the Treaty the King undertook to prevent any trading establishment or hulk being set up in or off the Town of Opobo and prevent

"Any trading vessel to come higher up the river than the White Man's Beach, opposite Hippopotamus Creek."

The Article went on to say—

"If any trading ship or steamer proceeds further up the river than the creek above mentioned, after having been duly warned to the contrary, the said trading ship or steamer may be seized by King Ja Ja and detained until a fine of a hundred puncheons be paid by the owner to King Ja Ja."

Now, this Treaty was signed by King Ja Ja, John E. Commerell (Commodore), and Charles Livingstone, who was then Consul. He believed that if Sir John Commerell had been in the House at this time, he would, to some extent, at any rate, have sympathised with the view which he (Mr. A. E. Pease) took on this matter, and which he believed was not confined to hon. Members sitting on that (the Opposition) side of the House. Now, at a later date, in 1884, another Treaty was entered into with King Ja Ja, and amongst the articles of that Treaty, which was submitted to King Ja Ja for his signature, was one enumerated No. 6, which contained the following provisions:—

"The subjects and citizens of all countries may freely carry on trade in every part of the territories of the King and chiefs parties hereto, and may have houses and factories therein."

Now, Ja Ja all through had protested against the principle of Free Trade being carried into his country, and had refused to be a signatory to the Treaty if that clause were included, and it was only when that clause in the Treaty was struck out that he consented to sign the document. That Article was deleted and it then obtained the signature of Ja Ja. Further than that, he (Mr. A. E. Pease) might allude to a letter which appeared on page 29 of these Papers from Consul Hewett to King Ja Ja. In this letter the Consul says—

"I write, as you request, with reference to the word 'protection' as used in the proposed Treaty, that the Queen does not want to take your country or your markets."

And he went on to say—

"She undertakes to extend her Gracious favour and protection which will still leave your country under your Government. She has no wish to disturb your rule."

Further on, at a later stage of the correspondence reported here, on instructions being given at the Admiralty to hold an inquiry, the position of King Ja Ja was still further recognized in a letter written to the Admiralty in September of last year. The Foreign Office, writing to the Admiralty, says—

"It must, however, be borne in mind that Ja Ja refused to agree to Article 6 of this Treaty when it was negotiated, and it may be consequently inferred that he is within his rights in denying free trade to British subjects within his actual territory. That privilege, however, does not warrant him in barring the trade to the inland districts beyond his own jurisdiction, such as Ohombela. To this point the inquiry should be specially addressed."

Well, he (Mr. A. E. Pease) thought the principal point to which the attention of the Committee should be directed was the action of Consul Johnston in connection with this difficulty with the King of Opobo. It was in January, 1886, that Consul Johnston first undertook his duties on that coast, and it was quite evident from the correspondence which had been submitted to the House that this gentleman undertook his duties with a decided animus against the King, because, if they turned to page 34 of the Papers, they would find Consul Johnston writing to the Marquess of Salisbury on January the 15th, the first day he arrived at Bonny on the West Coast of Africa, as follows:—

"I need not recapitulate the antecedents of Ja Ja; once a slave, then a trader, and lastly, a powerful chief; but I might remind your Lordship that for the last three years the arrogance of this man, who solely owes his existence and wealth to the protection of the British Government, has been sensibly increasing, so that he now affects an independence and an arbitrary rule quite at variance with the several treaties and agreements he has signed with British authorities."

Vice Consul Johnston made that assertion before he had been at the place a day, and when he could not have ascertained by personal observation any of the facts of the case. It was alleged—though of this he (Mr. A. E. Pease) could not speak of his own knowledge—that Vice Consul Johnston boasted, on board the steamship Calabar, that on his arrival in this part of the world he would deport King Ja Ja. He (Mr. A. E. Pease) would not allude to the long recriminatory correspondence reported in the Papers submitted to the House, but he wished to refer to the circumstances under which King Ja Ja was deported, first to the Gold Coast and then, he believed, to an Island in the West Indies. After Vice Consul Johnston arrived on the West Coast of Africa, Ja Ja found his position worse than it had ever been under previous Vice Consuls there, through whom he had correspondence with British traders with regard to having uninterrupted concourse with the interior, so that he, King Ja Ja, undertook to send envoys to England to lay his case before Lord Salisbury. The envoys arrived in England on the 26th August, and on the 27th the deputation from Opobo wrote rather a long letter impressing the chief points of the grievances they had come to represent to Lord Salisbury. No notice apparently was taken of that correspondence for some time. The letter was written on August 27; on September 12 Vice Consul Johnston telegraphed to the Foreign Office the telegram which appeared on page 54, which was as follows:—

"Ask immediate permission remove Ja Ja temporarily Gold Coast. Organizes armed attacks, obstructs water ways markets. Intrigues render this course imperative. Dispatch following explanations. Ask Admiralty telegraph assistance."

This telegram was received on September 12, at 3.55 p.m. Apparently no answer was sent—at any rate there was nothing to show in the Papers submitted to the House that any answer was sent to this telegram asking leave to seize King Ja Ja—but on the same afternoon, although some time had elapsed since the King of Opobo's envoys had arrived in London, a telegram was despatched from the Foreign Office to the deputation as follows:—

"Sir James Fergusson, on behalf of Lord Salisbury, will receive deputation at Foreign Office to-morrow at 2.30."

Now, what he (Mr. A. E. Pease) wanted to impress upon the attention of the Committee was this—that Vice Consul Johnston acted on his own authority in the first instance in seizing King Ja Ja. He did not apparently at any time receive the required sanction of the Foreign Office——

was understood to dissent from the statement of the hon. Member.

said, if he was incorrect he desired to withdraw the statement, and would go straight to the case of Vice Consul Johnston's action in the matter, and he thought that it was betrayed in his despatches, which were to be found at page 51 and page 53, that he was prejudiced against King Ja Ja. He said, in a despatch to the Marquess of Salisbury, received on the 1st of December, 1887—

"Their trade is stopped by the machinations of one of the most grasping, unscrupulous, and overbearing of mushrooms, who ever attempted to throttle the growing commerce of white men with the rich interior."

The despatch, after describing the rich interior, said—

"Here is the country where white men may hope to settle and enjoy good health, and it is from lands like these that runaway slaves and upstart Kings like Ja Ja are trying to keep us from penetrating lest their ill-gotten gains should be diminished. I can understand the complaints that the merchants make of the lukewarm way in which the British Government support British traders who are no longer content to sit down on the unhealthy fringe of the swampy coast, and trade in a peddling way through middlemen, but who desire to plant their establishments in the rich interior, and avoid the tax on the produce which the middlemen have hitherto imposed. I can understand these complaints; but, at the same time, I feel sure that they are unfounded; that Her Majesty's Government, so far from desiring to support Native Chiefs or usurping middlemen in their claims to close their markets to the white men, will insist uniformly on freedom of trade in all districts under Her Majesty's protection, or within the provisions agreed to at the Berlin Conference."

The most humiliating incident in the conduct of the British Government or their Representatives in dealing with King Ja Ja was the arrest of his Ambassadors on their way home at the instance of the Vice Consul Johnston. He saw with regret that the sanction of the Foreign Office was given to that proceeding, which he was sure would not have been sanctioned in the case of the Ambassadors of any other Power, and was only sanctioned in this case because Ja Ja happened to be a black King. He now came to the most disgraceful of all these proceedings—namely, the seizure and deportation of King Ja Ja himself at a time when he was under the supposed protection of a safe-conduct given to him by our Vice Consul. On page 81 of the Blue Book would be found Vice Consul Johnston's own account of this transaction. The despatch, which was dated the 24th of September, said—

"When I returned to Opobo I took counsel with Lieutenant and Commander Pelly of H.M.S. Goshawk, and then I wrote to Ja Ja inviting him to a meeting on Monday, the 19th September."

When the King was invited to meet the Vice Consul, his suspicions appear to have been aroused as to the treatment he was likely to receive, and he asked for a white man to be sent as a hostage for his safety. The despatch continued—

"I refused to do this: but advised Ja Ja strongly, and in his own interest, to attend the meeting, at the same time pledging myself that, whether he accepted or rejected my terms, no force should be put upon him to prevent his having the Court if he refused to submit to my proposal."

He did not know what Mr. Johnston's idea of "no force" might be, or of an honourable pledge given to a Native; but he would quote his own account of the proceeding by which he entrapped the King. He said—

"Punctually, at 11, I entered the Court with the Commander and officers of H.M.S. Goshawk, and read aloud to Ja Ja an Ultimatum, of which a copy is inclosed. I gave him one hour for consideration; but before 10 minutes were over he sent to say he accepted my terms. In half-an-hour he had surrendered himself to Captain Pelly, and by noon he was placed safely on board H.M.S. Goshawk. His large following of people was simply stupified at their King's surrender, and, for a short time, refused to disperse. When, however, they saw him proceeding quietly on board the Goshawk, under the escort of Captain Pelly, they began to realize the situation, and all of them quietly entered their canoes and paddled back to the town. Throughout all these transactions no force whatever was used, although it was made patent to all present that the Goshawk was ready for action, and would instantly bring her guns into play if the crowd of Natives attempted any violent intervention."

He (Mr. A. E. Pease) must now trouble the Committee with a few words from the Ultimatum, which, in his opinion, was a monstrous and wicked document. The Vice Consul said—

"I have been instructed by Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to inform you that the Government of Her Majesty the Queen has decided that you are to leave Opobo immediately, and accompany me to Accra in the British Colony of the Gold Coast."

Now, the Vice Consul had not the slightest authority for such a statement as that, which was practically untrue, and the word "falsehood" was not too strong to apply to it. Let the Committee recollect the pledge given to the King that there should be no force used, and compare it with the following paragraph of the Ultimatum:—

"In the hope that you will see the absolute necessity of complying with the orders of the British Government, I have been instructed to invite you to surrender yourself to me in a peaceable manner, as, indeed, you would naturally do, if you were confident of your innocence of having in any way wronged British subjects or committed breaches of Treaty obligations. But should you be so misguided as to refuse to submit to the orders of the British Government it will be taken as an admission that you are guilty of the charges brought against you. I shall then proceed to use an armed force, which will mercilessly crush any resistance you may offer. You will be deposed, and tried for your misdeeds, as a common malefactor; your property will be confiscated, and your country brought to ruin by the stoppage of trade. Should you attempt to evade me by escaping into the interior you will be declared an outlaw, a reward will be offered for your capture, which will be sufficiently large to tempt the greed of your treacherous followers, and your bitter enemies among the surrounding tribes, hitherto held in restraint by the British Government, will be free to avenge on you old grievances. No man ever stood in a more critical position than you are in at the present moment, King Ja Ja. But you are still able to choose. Surrender to Accra, and you may count on receiving every consideration at my hands, and of being justly dealt with. But refuse to do so, and you leave this Court a ruined man for ever, cut off from your people and your children. I give you one hour to consider, and you will give me your answer here. If you consent to accompany me to Accra, you will be placed on board H.M.S. Goshawk, and I will give you 24 hours to make your preparations."

He thought such proceedings as this towards a black King on the West Coast of Africa did not redound to the credit of the country or those at the head of affairs. He looked upon the whole of them as concerning the national honour and discreditable to the country; and, considering the manner in which the King had been entrapped—an example which ought not to have been set by the English nation—he had felt it his duty to bring these scandalous proceedings before the attention of the Committee and the country also.

said, before other hon. Members addressed the Committee he thought that he ought to reply to the various remarks that had been made on this portion of the Estimate. The Committee would, he believed, feel that he had some slight reason for complaint that matters of such importance should be introduced at a moment's notice, because his experience of the House of Commons at the present time, and in days gone by, was that really important cases should be brought forward upon Notice, especially when they were raised upon Estimates to which they did not properly belong. He believed the Committee would recognize that the question of the conduct of a Consul would properly arise upon the Consular Vote; and one hon. Member who desired to call attention to an incident relating to the Consular Service had, on his (Sir James Fergusson's) pointing out that fact, said that he would deal with it when the Consular Vote came forward. Therefore, if he should deal with the case brought forward by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. A. E. Pease) in an imperfect manner, he hoped that it would be in the mind of the Committee that he was replying at a moment's notice. It was, of course, his duty to have knowledge of the proceedings at the Foreign Office for the last two or three years, and he hoped he should be able to satisfy the Committee that the conduct of the Consul in question had not been so bad as the hon. Gentleman had stated, and that Her Majesty's Government had had reason for supporting him in the certainly extreme course he had adopted with regard to King Ja Ja. The hon. Member had begun by saying that he would admit at once that King Ja Ja had stopped European trade in the interior of his dominions, and he said he had the excuse of poverty for doing so. But Rob Roy had, he believed, the same excuse for levying contributions on the highway at one time, although, when the country began to be regularly governed, that excuse was not admitted. [An hon. MEMBER: No, no!] At all events, poverty had not been admitted as an excuse for unlawful transactions at any time. He could not go into all the particulars of the case, but believed he should be able to give the Committee a sufficient account of it. The hon. Member had quoted a Treaty made with King Ja Ja by Consul Livingstone and Admiral (then Commodore) Commerell, whose absence they all regretted. By that Treaty, undoubtedly, Ja Ja gave free access to the Opobo markets, and probably the arrangement was the best that could be made at the time. The Committee would remember that they were endeavouring to win over the tribes to legitimate trading; and it was therefore expedient, in the early stages of such an effort, that certain Chiefs should be selected as middlemen, through whom the trade with the interior should be conducted. Ja Ja was permitted to make certain charges upon goods passing through by the Treaty of 1873; but he had not limited himself to those charges, and he had made others which he had no right to make. Those charges were declared by Lord Rosebery to amount to a violation of the Treaty, and he also decided that the King had forfeited his rights. Lord Rosebery accordingly considered that our relations with Ja Ja were limited to the Treaty of 1884, which bound him to act under the advice of Her Majesty's Consul. That was quite sufficient for the purposes of Her Majesty's Government, whose intention was to establish free trade in the interior. He might remind the Committee that the British Government were under considerable liabilities to other nations with regard to maintaining freedom of commerce with the interior. They were bound at the Congress at Berlin to establish free commerce for all nations; and he would like to ask the hon. Gentleman if he supposed that if we had permitted Ja Ja to bar the trade of British merchants the French and the Germans would have submitted to his interference? Would they have paid any regard to his pleading that he was a poor man, and had to make money as he could? He rather thought they would not admit that as a reason for denying them freedom of trade with the interior. It was quite true that Consul Livingstone and Commodore Commerell had made an arrangement with the King; but it was absolutely absurd to suppose that a Native would be allowed for all time to cut off communication with the interior; such a claim would be monstrous. Why, if we made a Treaty with a great Power, we could terminate it on giving six or twelve months' notice, and was it reasonable to suppose that we could not terminate a Treaty with King Ja Ja? The Treaty, then, had been terminated by Lord Rosebery by reason of the conditions having been broken; and that, he (Sir James Fergusson) ventured to think, was an answer to the question of the hon. Gentleman opposite. The hon. Gentleman said that if Admiral Commerell were present, he would, no doubt, sympathize with Ja Ja. He believed that many naval officers who had been on the coast would sympathize with him as a man who had been misled, and got himself into serious difficulties. He was a savage with qualities which made him popular, and probably if he had not listened to bad advice he would have remained undisturbed. Unfortunately, he received such advice; he would not listen to the warnings given by the Consul and by Her Majesty's Government, and he had declared his intention of not allowing trade with inland markets, unless it passed through his hands. Was not Ja Ja fairly warned? Could he be allowed to act in defiance of a Treaty and the Protectorate which we had established? Had he not entered into an agreement on board one of Her Majesty's ships to give free access to the upper markets, and did he not repudiate that agreement afterwards? As to the suggestion that the agreement was made under pressure, undoubtedly Her Majesty's Government would not have permitted him to stop the trade up the river; but when he had made the agreement he was bound to allow free trade up the river, and when Consul Johnston went up to open the markets he was resisted by Ja Ja's men, pelted, and threatened with sticks and firearms, and he was forced to return. The hon. Member had referred to a mission from the King; but when the son of Ja Ja was received at the Foreign Office, there was no knowledge at that Office of the out- rage which had been committed upon our Representative, and had it been known Ja Ja's messengers would not have been received in the manner in which they were received. But when the facts were known, what would have been said in this country if we had submitted to having our Consul insulted and driven back? It would have been said that the Government had shown disregard of British trade, and British prestige would have gone down on the coast of Africa. The hon. Member had said that the action of Consul Johnston was treacherous. But what treachery was there in telling Ja Ja that he was required to go on board a British ship to answer for his offences? On board he was told that on account of his failure to fulfil his engagement, and on account of the attack made upon the Consul by his orders, he was to be removed to Accra to meet an inquiry; he was told that he was free to go away; but that if he went, and if there were any attempt to resist the authority of the Consul, undoubtedly hostilities would be resorted to. What should have been the conduct of Her Majesty's Representative when he received orders, not only from Lord Salisbury alone, but also from Lord Rosebery, that he was to open up free trade by the river? Was it not the duty of the British Consul to assert the dignity and authority of the Power which he represented? Well, having summoned Ja Ja on board ship, the Consul told him that he would have to go to Accra to answer the charge against him, and that if he failed to do so he would be treated as an enemy. That was what the hon. Member called treachery; but he (Sir James Fergusson) called it plain dealing. The Consul had not promised one thing and done another. The hon. Member said also that Consul Johnston told a falsehood in saying that he had been instructed by the Secretary of State to inform the King that Her Majesty's Government had decided that he was to leave Opobo, and accompany him to Accra in the British Colony on the Gold Coast. It was true that he had not received such instructions; but he thought that he had—[Ironical cheers.]—and he had some ground for that supposition, for his instructions might well be supposed to have given him such power. Hon. Members would see that a telegram of the 12th of September contained the words—"Your proposals are approved." That message really referred to another matter; but it had crossed on the way another message from the Consul. The hon. Member had read the Papers very carefully; but he had not been able to see that the despatch might very well be considered by Mr. Johnston to be a sanction on the part of Her Majesty's Government of his direction to the King to accompany him to Accra. But the act of Consul Johnston was in full accord with the well-understood practice in these matters, as it would be seen by a despatch from Lord Salisbury of the 24th of November, in which he reviewed the whole transaction, and formally ratified his acts. The hon. Member said that Ja Ja would not have been treated in this way if he were not black. No doubt, Ja Ja was black; and if he had not been a savage and in a savage country he would have been in different circumstances; but there were also other black people in Africa. Ja Ja had not been particularly gentle in his dealings with coloured people, and in these Papers it would be seen that a case of great atrocity was recorded against him soon after he was established by Admiral Commerell. He thought he had said enough to show the Committee that Her Majesty's Government, in sanctioning the act of Consul Johnston, had done so because he had shown a strong regard for British interests and asserted British authority in a not unbecoming manner. Successive-Governments had warned Ja Ja that he was acting contrary to the Treaty which had been made with him, and that the British Government could not permit him to interfere permanently with free trade to the interior. The carrying out of the agreement that there should be free trade was resisted, the Consul being threatened and driven back by Ja Ja's Chiefs and men.

said, there was no evidence in the Papers that Ja Ja was responsible for the acts of these men.

said, he did not know what evidence the hon. Member wanted. There was not the slightest doubt that the men some of whose names were given were Ja Ja's men, and the action was only in conformity with his previous conduct in having first made an agreement and then repudiated it. Consul Johnston, following up the declaration of Lord Rosebery, and acting in conformity with the views of Her Majesty's Government, insisted on free trade with the interior. The hon. Member had not gone into the later stages of the affair; but he (Sir James Fergusson) wished to say that Lord Salisbury had decided that the inquiry into Ja Ja's conduct should take place, not before any Consular officer; who might be supposed to be committed to a definite line hostile to Ja Ja, but that it should be undertaken by a high naval authority—namely, the Naval Commander on the coast, who had always been supposed to hold the balance between the Consular officers, the traders, and the Natives. Admiral Sir Walter Hunt-Grubbe was considered likely to be more impartial and trusted by all parties, including the Natives than any other officer on the coast. The Committee would not, of course, suppose that the inquiry was conducted with all the forms of the Court of Queen's Bench in London; but it was conducted in a fair manner by the Admiral, who was satisfied that the main charge against Ja Ja had been proved, and, indeed, it was admitted by himself. It was, therefore, deemed advisable that Ja Ja should be removed for a time, at any rate, from the coast of Africa, where his influence was extraordinary, because it was one of those curious superstitious influences occasionally exercised by a negro over his fellows. The place where Ja Ja was to reside was St. Vincent, where the old Government House had been prepared for his reception; he would be treated with consideration, and not like a criminal, and when a settled form of government had been established in this region—he hoped before long—there would be no reason why he should not be permitted to return. If the British authority was not to be despised on the coast of Africa, it was absolutely necessary that such breaches of Treaty and such insults as had been offered to the Consul by Ja Ja should not be passed over. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had expressed great distrust of Lord Salisbury's foreign policy, and was very anxious to elicit a specific declaration that the Government would not interfere in Continental af- fairs. As the hon. Member had stated that he should in no circumstances have confidence in the present Government, he was afraid, whatever declaration he (Sir James Fergusson) might be authorized to make, that he could hardly hope to secure the approval or confidence of the hon. Member. But these were grave matters, and he wished he could say that the hon. Member had dealt with them with adequate seriousness. They had often doubts of the hon. Member's motives. He (Sir James Fergusson) did not ascribe motives; but he thought that those who heard the speech of the hon. Gentleman must think that he had treated these grave matters in a tone of great levity. The hon. Gentleman went so far as to say that if there were a war between France and Germany, his sympathies would be with the Power that wished to regain Alsace and Lorraine. Those who had seriously to consider these matters looked upon a breach of the peace and a state of war between Powers of stupendous strength and enormous resources as an evil to themselves and to all other nations—an evil so terrible that they could not bring themselves lightly to talk of a breach of the peace and all the horrors of war on the Continent of Europe, and the consequent disturbance of credit and commerce all over the world. He was not going to fall into the temptation of lightly making declarations on important subjects. The hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division of Nottingham (Mr. J. E. Ellis) had quoted a declaration which he made in the earlier part of the Session on the subject, to the effect that he (Sir James Fergusson) had told the House that Her Majesty's Government had contracted no engagement for material action that was not known to Parliament. But he had also told the Committee, in the present month, that Her Majesty's Government had made no fresh engagement since the previous declaration, and that their policy remained the same. He thought that those assurances, which were accepted by the House earlier in the Session, might suffice now, unless the hon. Member's object was not so much to elicit information as to place the Government in a difficulty. It might be a small thing for the hon. Member to place the Government in a difficulty; but it would be a very serious thing to impair the influence which the Government might possess for good in the world. [Cries of "Oh!"] Yes; he hoped that the peace of the world counted for something with hon. Gentlemen opposite. We were a great Power, and he hoped that we were respected, and that some confidence was placed in the Government by other Powers. But respect could not be felt, and confidence could not be placed in them, if they made rash declarations in reference to subjects of importance with regard to the great affairs of the world, to which affairs this country could not be indifferent, inasmuch as they were solemnly pledged to them by Treaties. In the beginning of the Session he (Sir James Fergusson) told the House that the engagements and the purposes of Her Majesty's Government were within the scope of the Treaties with other nations that were known to Parliament. He thought the House knew that there were solemn engagements to which they were parties, and therefore it could not be said that we were not concerned in the affairs of Europe. The hon. Member, and an hon. Member who followed him, had talked about the interest which Her Majesty's Government possessed in other parts of the world, and said that they ought not to be limited by Europe in their sympathies and interests. He apprehended it was the sense of the world-wide interests which the country possessed which ought to make Her Majesty's Government very careful not to make rash declarations, and that ought to make them not indifferent to the peace of the world. He would like to know how long they would retain their Colonial Empire if they had not friends in the world? An isolated position could only be maintained by an enormous expenditure on material forces. The hon. Member for the St. Austell Division of Cornwall (Mr. W. A. M'Arthur), in referring to the Samoan question, had said that the Ministry of the country should not concern themselves with European dynasties, but consider the interests of the whole of the Empire. The Colonies and our Indian Empire must naturally be of the first consideration to Her Majesty's Government; but certainly, although their affairs ought to be more prominently in their minds than those of any dynasty of Europe, it would not be for them to dictate to this country as to what its policy should be. He could well believe that there were British subjects in Samoa of the highest standing and respectability who might have suffered by what had occurred, and as far as Her Majesty's Government could control events their interests should not be neglected, and our representations to any friendly Power allied with us he was sure would command attention. He might say that the Treaty rights of this country and of British subjects were intended to be, and would be, protected. The hon. Member had referred to a guarantee which he said had been given to Malietoa. Her Majesty's Government never guaranteed any rights to that King. The hon. Gentleman said they had broken their Treaty with Samoa. They had recognized that King, and he had bound himself to govern in conformity with the usual principles of good government; but he (Sir James Fergusson) utterly denied that there was any agreement entered into with him in any way by Her Majesty's Government which bound them to offer to interfere or defend him against any Foreign Power. There were Treaties entered into with Germany, the United States, and France; but in none of these was this country bound to protect Malietoa against any other country. He was sure the House would recognize that it was not proper for us—for Her Majesty's Government at least—to comment here upon the conduct of another Government. All Governments were subject to criticism—Her Majesty's Government had been subject to criticism themselves. The German Government had a quarrel with Malietoa. They considered they had been insulted on a certain occasion—he believed on the birthday of the Emperor—by the subjects of Malietoa, and they demanded a complete apology and redress in the form of compensation for outrages committed on German subjects; and, not receiving the reparation they considered necessary, they deported Malietoa. Now there was nothing in the Agreements or the Treaties entered into by Her Majesty's Government with Malietoa which made it incumbent upon them to protect him against Germany.

said, the right hon. Baronet would forgive him for interrupting him; but it might have the effect of rendering it unnecessary for him (Mr. W. A. M'Arthur) to make a speech afterwards. He desired to say that his complaint was this—that the English Government had entered into a Convention not only with Malietoa, but with the United States and Germany also, and that that Convention was broken, because Malietoa could not do an impossibility and find a large sum of money at a few hours' notice, the result being that he was deported without a word of remonstrance from Her Majesty's Government.

said, that that Convention and the Treaties which were entered into were for the good government of Samoa, and for the safety of Europeans in that country. It must be remembered that the following of the two rival Chiefs claiming Sovereignty in Samoa were about equal in numbers, and it certainly was not incumbent upon Her Majesty's Government to guarantee the maintenance of the Sovereignty of Malietoa against Germany. When the hon. Member (Mr. W. A. M'Arthur) asserted now, as he had done on previous occasions, that there was some sort of derogation from the dignity of Her Majesty's Government in their not receiving an intimation of the intention of the German Government to require reparation from Malietoa in time to communicate with their Consuls, the Committee should consider how impossible it was for a Power, which thought it necessary to demand reparation from a Native Chief, to wait until directions bearing upon the matter were sent in course of post by Foreign Governments to their Agents abroad before taking action. It must be manifest to the Committee that if acts of war were justifiable, it was impossible for a Government who contemplated them to wait until they had warned all their friends that they found it necessary to undertake them before they commenced operations. He denied that in the removal of Malietoa from Samoa there was any breach of agreement, or any departure from engagements contracted by Her Majesty's Government. He thought that this country would have to take a great deal on its hands if it were to declare that it would protect against all the consequences of foreign war every Native State, or every State in the world with which it had a Treaty. Her Majesty's Government, he trusted, would always be faithful to their engagements. They would never shrink from any duty which they had undertaken; and, while in this case he held that they would have gone considerably beyond their duty if they had asserted any such right as the hon. Member had seemed to attribute to them, he trusted that they would never be slow to fulfil their engagements in any part of the world, where they really existed, in a manner befitting the Government of a great Power.

said, it was not easy to take part briefly in a debate of this kind, on account of its wide range; but he wished to say a few words on one or two of the points raised. With regard to the most important point, that of the general relation of the European Powers to one another at this time, and the action of Her Majesty's Government therein, he thought the Committee would receive with satisfaction the assurance which he had taken down from the right hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, when he said—

"The engagements and liabilities of Her Majesty's Government amongst European Powers at large were strictly limited to engagements already known to Parliament."

He (Mr. Bryce) thought they were justified by the manner of the Under Secretary in taking those words in the full and liberal sense in which they seemed to have been used; and, taking them in that sense, he thought they must be a cause of considerable satisfaction to the Committee, and that the evening had not been misspent in eliciting such a declaration.

I beg to say that the words I used to-night are precisely the same I used on two previous occasions.

said, that although the right hon. Baronet had used some similar words on former occasions, he had qualified his words on those occasions by contexts, which contexts had, to a considerable extent, impaired the breadth, and therefore the value, of his declaration. He (Mr. Bryce) thought that he had to-night a stronger and more explicit declaration than they had ever before had from the right hon. Gentleman. The discussion had wan- dered from Europe to the West African case of Opobo, and from Opobo to Samoa and the affairs of King Malietoa. He did not propose to enter at length into these matters. They were not matters brought before the Committee with formal Notice; therefore the right hon. Baronet opposite might fairly say that he was not able to give as complete an answer as he might have done if he had had Notice of the intention of hon. Members to raise these questions in the usual way. But, taking the statement of the hon. Member for the St. Austell Division of Cornwall and the answer given by the right hon. Baronet opposite, it did not appear that Her Majesty's Government had played an altogether satisfactory part in this matter. It was perfectly true that no Treaty could be pointed to under which Her Majesty's Government were bound to protect King Malietoa against Germany; but it was plain that Treaties were entered into by this country, Germany, and the United States with Malietoa, the effect of which was destroyed by the single action of Germany. As had been stated in the course of the discussion, without that being contradicted by the right hon. Baronet the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, King Malietoa had relied upon our support, and had been, to a large extent, guided in the course he had taken by the assurances of support which he had received from our Representative in Samoa. It could not be supposed that Malietoa was a practised diplomatist and scrutinized Treaties with the carefulness which would be displayed by the right hon. Baronet himself; and, no doubt, he thought from our attitude that whilst he did not do anything to infringe the Treaties with two other Powers we would intercede for him in any difficulties he experienced, and protect him from harsh treatment. That expectation had, however, been ruthlessly disappointed. It seemed to him (Mr. Bryce) that Malietoa had been harshly treated, and that, to no small extent, because of the reliance he placed in the benevolent intentions of Her Majesty's Government; and he could not help thinking that, under these circumstances, we had played no very dignified part in allowing this unhappy King to be deported, absolutely addressing no remonstrance whatever to the Ger- man Government in regard to what had taken place. No doubt, there was a reason why the Government should not remonstrate with Germany, even if they thought the action of that country somewhat harsh. The hands of Her Majesty's Government were not clean. It would be easy for Germany to retort that Her Majesty's Government had given equally harsh and probably more unjust treatment to King Ja Ja. We had not heard Germany's side of the Samoa case, so he did not wish to speak very positively regarding it. We had heard the case made by the Under Secretary in justification of the deposition and deportation of Ja Ja; and a lame case it was. He would not go into earlier matters relating to Opobo; but he thought the story of Ja Ja's deposition was one which was not to the credit of England. He would not consider the terms of the Treaty, nor how far Ja Ja had kept those terms—although a good case might be made out on that point, because the one person in England who might be taken as thoroughly knowing the facts, and who, unfortunately, had lately ceased to be a Member of the House, was of opinion that Ja Ja had been hardly dealt with; but he submitted that unless some better defence could be made of the treatment of King Ja Ja than that which they had heard from the right hon. Baronet the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, the Committee must conclude that the fairness and consideration in dealing with Native races which ought to characterize this country had not, on this occasion, been observed, and that the great power which the British Navy exercised had been misused and the reputation of Britons for honest dealing lowered. He could not help speaking with some warmth of a matter of this kind, because it seemed to him that the stronger a country like England was, the more anxious she should be to deal in a straightforward and fair way with such weak races as those of the African Coast; and, for that reason, he could not help hoping that the opinion of the Committee would be strongly expressed, and expressed in such a way as to induce the Government to reconsider the case of King Ja Ja, and give him justice.

said, that if he had been astonished at the conduct of Consul Johnston, he was much more astonished to hear the statement made on behalf of the Government to-night. What he wished to point out, however, was the unfair way in which the right hon. Baronet the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs had misrepresented the facts of the case. First, in reference to the Treaty made by Commodore Commerell and Mr. Livingstone with King Ja Ja. In that Treaty King Ja Ja's right to the whole of the Opobo River markets was acknowledged, and he was permitted to prevent any trading establishment or hulk in or off the town of Opobo, or any trading vessel to come higher up the river than the White Man's Beach or Hippopotamus Creek. If any ship proceeded higher up the river than the Creek, after having been duly warned to the contrary, it was to be seized by King Ja Ja, and detained until a fine of 100 puncheons was paid by the owners. The right hon. Baronet seemed to think that the Treaty of 1884 opened up the Opobo River to all commerce; but that was a complete misunderstanding of the case. Possibly that was the intention of Consul Hewett, when he made the Treaty with King Ja Ja. King Ja Ja, however, although a black, seemed to have some knowledge of the way in which Treaties were made and kept, for he seemed to have demanded from the Consul a definition of the word "protection" contained in the Treaty. Consul Hewett, in reply, said—

"I write, as you request, with reference to the word 'protection,' as used in the proposed Treaty with the Queen. The Queen does not want to take your country or your markets, but at the same time is anxious that no other Natives should take them. She has no wish to disturb your rule, although she is anxious to see your country get up as well as the countries of the other tribes with whom her people have been for so long trading."

That was giving Ja Ja to understand that his country was to be left to him, and that the markets and the whole condition of things was to remain as before, but that, to prevent France or Germany coning and taking the country, this country took Opobo under her protection. The right hon. Baronet the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs said it had been proved over and over again that King Ja Ja had broken his Treaties; but when he (Dr. Clark) had asked the right hon. Baronet to point out an instance in which this had occurred, the right hon. Baronet said that they would be found in the Blue Book.

I beg pardon. I said I would not go behind the late Secretary of State, who said that King Ja Ja had broken the Treaties. That will be found in the Correspondence with Lord Rosebery on the 16th of June, 1886.

said, he was not referring to two years ago, but to last year. He was referring to a charge made by the right hon. Baronet against Ja Ja, when he said that Consul Johnston had stones and sticks and mud thrown at him, and was prevented from going up the river. Did the right hon. Baronet hold Ja Ja responsible for that? If he would refer to Consul Johnston's Correspondence, he would find that King Ja Ja had no hand in it. The decision of the Judge that the Government themselves appointed falsified the statement of the Government made in the House to-night. The words of the authority to whom the subject was referred were these—

"It is distinctly proved, your flat denial to the contrary notwithstanding, that on the occasion of Acting Consul Johnston's visit to Azumena Creek, when his progress was barred by a boom placed across the Creek, that your men were there at the time, and, although they took no active part in obstructing the Consul, they were the reverse of friendly, jeering and laughing at him and those with him. Those who had assaulted Consul Johnston and his party shouted out that they did so by your orders. Your canoes were passing through an opening left apparently for your purposes only."

That was one of the paragraphs of the decision sent to King Ja Ja. King Ja Ja denied the truth of the statements contained in this paragraph—there were two tribes of Natives quarrelling and fighting in the interior, and the difficulties encountered were owing to that circumstance, King Ja Ja's men having nothing to do with them. The Admiral who gave the decision said that Ja Ja's men were not throwing stones, although they were laughing and jeering. That was what King Ja Ja was found guilty of—of having subjects who laughed and jeered at the Consul, and of the fact that the party who assaulted the Consul shouted out that they did so by his orders. Then those who assaulted the Consul were not Ja Ja's men, and he (Dr. Clark) thought it unfair that, when their own Judge brought in Ja Ja not guilty of this outrage, the Under Secretary should charge him with it in debate in that House. The facts of the case were that half-a-dozen English merchants wanted to bull the trade, and give a low price to Ja Ja. One man refused to bull, and worked the market alone with Ja Ja, and got all the trade, and Consul Johnston became the tool of the other five firms and went to force the boom. It was not true that the Natives refused to trade. Why should they? They were all glad to trade. There was any amount of competition, and all that was wanted was that a few English firms should not be allowed to swindle Ja Ja. Ja Ja was opposed to these firms, and the Acting Consul took their part, and invited the unfortunate King to come and talk to him in a friendly fashion—he invited him to come on board a British vessel, and then informed him that if he did not agree to the terms submitted to him he would be shot down with his people. They had deported this unfortunate Monarch and sent him to the West Indian Islands. This matter would be returned to again when the salary of Acting Consul Johnston was under consideration. With regard to the case of King Malietoa, there was one thing the right hon. Baronet had forgotten, and that was the Proclamation issued by the British and American Consuls. He did not know whether the right hon. Baronet had seen it; but, according to the official action of the British as well as the American Consul, this country still looked upon Malietoa as King of Samoa. The Proclamation issued, and signed by our own Consul and the Consul of the United States, was in these terms—

said, he did not wish to detain the Committee, but he wished to say just one word in regard to King Ja Ja. He could not but think that King Ja Ja had received from Consul Johnston very harsh treatment. He was glad to see the right hon. and learned Member for East Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan) in his place, because he thought he was a Member of the Government of 1880, and would, perhaps, be able to say something with regard to their action in the matter, although he himself was not officially connected with this subject in that Government. The right hon. and learned Gentleman would correct him if he (Sir Robert Fowler) was wrong; but he was rather inclined to believe that the Government of 1880 had not a very favourable opinion of King Ja Ja, and there could be no doubt, as his right hon. Friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs had said, that Lord Rosebery, in the last Government, had written a very strong despatch on the affairs of King Ja Ja, and therefore he thought the present Government had only been acting on the views of those who went before them. It was only natural that Consul Johnston should think, in the course he was taking, that he was supported by successive Governments on both sides of the House. In spite of that, however, he (Sir Robert Fowler) could not but think that the course Consul Johnston had taken had been a very harsh one—it was a very harsh course towards one who had been for many years an Ally of the British Government, and whose security had been guaranteed by British officers who had been in command on the coast. Consul Johnston's conduct would be open to investigation later on, when they came to consider the Consuls' salaries; and, although that question was not now before them, he must say that he thought it might be a harsh thing to cut down the salary of a gentleman representing British interests in a distant and one of the most pestilential parts of the world it was possible to conceive, in consequence of what had been done; but the matter was one for discussion. All he (Sir Robert Fowler) wished to say was, that Consul Johnston was guilty of a very harsh measure, and to express a hope that in any course the Government took in the future they would give every consideration to the case of the unfortunate Potentate Ja Ja.

said, he did not intend to delay the Estimate for any length of time, but merely wished to bear testimony to the impartial and moderate statement of the case of Malietoa, set forth by the hon. Member for the St. Austell Division of Cornwall (Mr. W. A. M'Arthur). He (Mr. Henniker Heaton) was in Australia when this occurrence took place, and he, therefore, was in a position to state that the hon. Member's account set forth accurately the facts of the case. But it should be borne in mind that there was a scramble going on at that time for the various Islands of the Pacific. Seeing how badly Samoa had been treated by Germany, the British Government might with wisdom have taken a different course from that which they had adopted; and when history came to deal with the scramble for these Pacific Islands, the action of England with regard to Samoa, as in the case of New Guinea—in connection with which Germany also played an important part—would not appear in a very favourable light. The point on which he (Mr. Henniker Heaton) wished more particularly to confirm the statement of the hon. Member for the St. Austell Division of Cornwall was as to the way in which the Australian Colonies had been treated. Every step which we had taken in regard to these Islands had been taken without consulting these Colonies in the way in which he thought they ought to be consulted when important matters of this kind arose. He would have an opportunity later on, under the Colonial Office Vote, of referring to these matters, and he would content himself now with merely saying that the present position of this country in relation to the Australian Colonies on subjects of this kind was one which deserved immediate consideration. He protested against great annexations being permitted in the Pacific without consulting the Australian Colonies, and must declare that, unless a different course of action was pursued than that to which attention had been called to-night, we should very soon part company with the Australian Colonies, although he very much regretted that he should have to make any such announcement. He had nothing to add to what had already been said, and would only again repeat his belief that a large portion of the inhabitants of Australia were of opinion that this country had acted very badly towards King Malietoa in this matter.

said, he felt it necessary to make some reply to the challenge which had been thrown out by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Henniker Heaton). He could only say that during the time Earl Granville was at the Colonial Office and he (Mr. Osborne Morgan) was acting under him, on every question in which any of the Australian Colonies were in the slightest degree interested, they made a point of consulting the wishes of that Colony. He defied the hon. Member to point to a single instance where they had failed to do so.

Might I point out——

Order, order! The subject is not appropriate to this Vote.

said, he should like to take the sense of the Committee upon the course taken by the Government in relation to King Ja Ja. He did not think a more important question had been brought before the Committee or the House for some time. He did not wish to occupy the time of the Committee by going into the Consular question, as that would be discussed fully when it arose; but he desired to treat of the course taken by Her Majesty's Government in regard to King Ja Ja. What the right hon. Baronet had said, as he understood it, was this—that King Ja Ja was a kind of Rob Roy, that was to say a freebooter; but the right hon. Baronet forgot that this King had a solemnly signed Treaty with Her Majesty's Government. This poor man's only offence was that he desired to abide by that Treaty. He was not allowed to do that, however. The right hon. Baronet said that King Ja Ja had committed breaches of the Treaty, and it was said that Lord Rosebery had admitted that. Well, suppose Lord Rosebery had admitted it, did the King by that course deserve the treatment which he had received? Was it for a moment to be tolerated that a King—a petty King if they liked, but still a King—because he had committed a breach of Treaty, was to be taken out of the country and banished to some wretched island a long way from his friends? That was what he desired to emphasize by taking a Division upon this question, and he thought it his duty to do this in order to give those hon. Members who desired to do so an opportunity of expressing their dissent from such a course as that being pursued. He looked upon the course which the Government had adopted with great aversion, as he knew it to be one which they would never have adopted with regard to any Power which could assert itself. When a Treaty was broken by any first or second-rate Power no such course as this was adopted. The King broke a Treaty, was entrapped on board a man-of-war, and was compelled to sign an abrogation of a Treaty under pressure, and was then taken out of the country altogether. He was sorry to hear that any English Government attempted to justify such a course of action as that. So far from the right hon. Baronet the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs being taken by surprise in this matter, he (Mr. Anderson) did not think any such thing had happened. Strong representations as to the action of the Government had come, not only from the Opposition, but also from the other side of the House. He had heard with some pleasure the statement of the hon. Baronet the Member for London (Sir Robert Fowler), who evidently disapproved of the course which had been taken; and he (Mr. Anderson) had every reason to believe that they would have heard similar expressions of disapproval from the gallant Admiral whose name had been very frequently mentioned in the course of this debate (Admiral Commerell) if he had been any longer in the House. They all regretted the absence of the gallant Admiral at this moment—the Government had the very keenest reason for regretting his absence. He (Mr. Anderson) could not help thinking that the gallant Admiral would think that the Treaty he had signed on behalf of Her Majesty's Government had been broken, and that it had been followed up by reprehensible conduct on the part of Her Majesty's Government. He begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £500.

That was the amount of the reduction last moved, and the hon. and learned Member, therefore, must move another.

I would move the reduction of the Vote by £1,000.

said, that when the right hon. Gentleman (Sir James Fergusson) was speaking just now, he reminded him of one of those abject Roman Senators who were ready to regard their Emperor as a god. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to imagine that Lord Salisbury was so wise and so experienced a statesman—[Ministerial cheers]—that so long as he condescended to take into his hands the conduct of our foreign affairs Parliament was to abdicate its duties, and that, in fact, anyone who ventured to ask even a question as to what was taking place between our Foreign Office and foreign countries was guilty of unbecoming levity. He perfectly understood the cheers which rose from the other side when he mentioned the eminent wisdom of Lord Salisbury. Hon. Gentlemen were perfectly justified in entertaining that opinion; but it might surprise them to know that many Members on the Opposition side, and a very considerable number of people outside, did not share their estimate of Lord Salisbury. Hon. Members sitting round him considered it to be the duty of Members on the Opposition side to inquire as often as they possibly could into the acts of his Lordship in regard to foreign countries. Now, the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir James Fergusson) said that our engagements and liabilities were limited to those already known to Parliament. An hon. Friend of his (Mr. Labouchere) had said that the right hon. Gentleman was more specific upon this occasion than he had been on previous inasmuch as he had not made any of those limitations he had made on other occasions. But if our engagements and liabilities were limited to those already known, why was the right hon. Gentleman not prepared to produce the Correspondence which had taken place? Most unquestionably there was correspondence; most unquestionably there were negotiations. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman admitted it, because, on a previous occasion, he said that negotiations were going on, but he would not produce the Correspondence. He (Mr. Labouchere) presumed that the negotiations were now over, and still the right hon. Gentleman declined to produce the Correspondence. Quasi-official organs of Austria and Germany, which probably had the opportunity which hon. Members had not had of seeing something of the negotiations, took a directly contrary view to that which was stated by the right hon. Gentleman. They considered that we had given pledges; they did not consider that we had limited our engagements and liabilities to those already known to Parliament; they held there were more; and surely if there was this difference of opinion between the right hon. Gentleman speaking in Parliament and the organs of the Austrian and German Governments speaking to the people of their respective countries, hon. Members of the House ought to have the Correspondence before them, in order to form their own conclusions, whether or not there had been these limitations to the existing Treaties. He could not understand why the right hon. Gentleman would not let them see the Correspondence. Let it be remembered that the negotiations were undertaken with three Governments on the Continent, and that they were carefully kept away from two other Governments on the Continent, although we were on terms of amity with all the five Governments. There must be some reason why the right hon. Gentleman would not produce the Correspondence, and the reason was offered that the right hon. Gentleman did not dare to produce it, because he was afraid of the public opinion which would rise in this country, or because he was afraid of the public opinion which would rise in France and in Russia. The right hon. Gentleman was indignant with him (Mr. Labouchere) because he had ventured to say that in the event of war between France and Germany his (Mr. Labouchere's) sympathies would be on the side of France. His sympathies would be on the side of France; but he did not ask that the right hon. Gentleman's sympathies should be on that side. On the contrary, he knew perfectly well the right hon. Gentleman's sympathies, and the sympathy of all his Colleagues, would be against Republican France, and in favour of Monarchical Germany. Lately the right hon. Gentleman and Her Majesty's Government had inflicted what he might term a deliberate insult upon France. As the Committee was aware, in 1889 there was to be a Universal Exhibition in France. This Exhibition happened to be fixed for the same year which was the centenary of the taking of the Bastille; and because of that the right hon. Gentleman said that although we were represented at the Exhibition when there was an Emperor in France, we were not to be represented officially on the present occasion by a Royal Commission. When they discussed that a little while ago the right hon. Gentleman put the matter upon the ground that a difference of opinion existed in France in regard to the advantage to the country of the taking of the Bastille, He (Mr. Labouchere) would like to know who entertained any doubt that the taking of the Bastille was an unmixed blessing to the people of France? Did the Bonapartists? The Bonapartists certainly did not. Did the Orleanists? Certainly they did not. Did the Republicans? Most assuredly they did not. The fact was that the right hon. Gentleman would have, in order to find this difference of opinion, to run about the Faubourg St. Germain, where possibly he might find some fossils ready to deny the advantages to the country of the taking of the Bastille. He (Mr. Labouchere) thought there was hardly a man in France who would say that the taking of the Bastille was not one of the most glorious events in French history. It was quite distinct from some atrocities which took place in the French Revolution. Burke, Pitt, and Fox, gloried in the taking of the Bastille, and regarded it as a great advantage to the human race. The right hon, Gentleman was bound to tell them from whence he derived the information that we ought not to take part in the forthcoming Exhibition, because it happened to be fixed for the year which was the centenary of the taking of the Bastille. Let him say from whom he derived the information that there was a difference of opinion in France in regard to the result of the taking of the Bastille. He (Mr. Labouchere) had always understood that we derived the public opinion of the country from the Government of the country. In this particular case, the Government of the country were the authors and projectors of this Exhibition, and they had coupled it with the taking of the Bastille; and yet, notwithstanding, the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues absolutely ignored the Government of France, and went back and said there was a difference of opinion existing in the country in regard to the event to be commemorated. But the right hon. Gentleman did not go so far as the Hungarian Prime Minister, who, encouraged, no doubt, by the attitude of Her Majesty's Government, denounced France the other day on account of having an Exhibition the same year as the centenary of the taking of the Bastille, and he said that he did not believe that Hungarian goods would be safe in France. The right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues had joined in that Boycotting of France, and it seemed to him (Mr. Labouchere) perfectly monstrous that the right hon. Gentleman should get up in his place and say—"We do not wish to interfere in any sort of way in the internal affairs of other countries, but wish to be at peace and amity with the whole of the world, and we hope and desire that peace will continue in Europe," and should at the same time inflict this uncalled for insult on the French nation, who ought to be more than any other nation in Europe our friends and allies. He hoped the Committee would receive some clear indication from the right hon. Gentleman as to from whom he derived the information that there was a difference of opinion in France as to the benefit to the country of the taking of the Bastille.

said, he wished to put it to the Committee whether it was at all desirable that the debate which had been raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) should be continued? The hon. Gentleman had made the statement that it was the desire and intention of Her Majesty's Government to Boycott the Government of France. He (Mr. W. H. Smith) wished to state most explicitly that that was a sentiment which had found no expression whatever in France itself. The French Government was a friendly Government in every sense of the word, and they had received the expressions of opinion which Her Majesty's Government in regard to the forthcoming Exhibition had thought it right to make with perfect amity and good feeling. There had been no remonstrances of any kind whatever, and he protested against language being used in the House which would tend to raise unfriendly feeling between this country and the Government of France, with which Her Majesty's Government desired to remain on the most friendly and cordial terms. The hon. Gentleman had thought it right to refer to a remark which fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir James Fergusson) with regard to the course pursued by the Government respecting the peace of Europe. The Government had nothing whatever to add to, or to retract from, the statement they had made. Throughout the whole of the negotiations the aim of the Government had been to maintain the peace of Europe and the peace of the world. The aim of the Government was to respect the Treaties by which this country was bound, and which had been communicated to the House of Commons, and which were known to the House of Commons. They had not added to the obligations of the country, and they held that it would be most unpatriotic either to excite hostile feeling between Germany and France by any such language as the hon. Gentleman had thought it right to indulge in to-night, or to do anything which would tend to impair that peace which it was the greatest interest of this country, and which he believed to be the greatest interest of Europe to preserve. There were undoubtedly dangers abroad in Europe; but any man who had really the interests of humanity at heart would hesitate to increase those dangers by the use of any language which would tend to bring about the greatest calamity which could befall the human race—a great war between two powerful nations. He strongly deprecated the language which the hon. Gentleman had thought it right to use in regard to both France and Germany. They were both friends; they were both allies of this country; they were countries with whom Her Majesty's Government desired and hoped to remain on terms of perfect amity, and any effort they could make to maintain peace between those two great Empires it would be the duty and the pleasure of any Government holding Office in this country to make.

said, the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) protested against the language of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), on the ground that it was likely to raise unfriendly feeling in France. He would like to ask what was more likely to raise unfriendly feeling in France than the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in respect to the courteous invitation addressed to them by the French Government to take part in the forthcoming Exhibition? Let him point out to the Committee that the ground on which the Government based its churlish refusal to accept the invitation was not that given officially by the French Government for the holding of the Exhibition. He was bound to admit that the beginning of the whole of this business was to be traced to the last Liberal Government of this country. Lord Rosebery set a very bad example, for, instead of accepting the invitation, he instructed his Ambassador to find out whether it was the fact that the Exhibition was meant to celebrate the French Revolution, and then to find out whether any official documents could be found bearing out such an intention. Since then a distinct invitation had been addressed to Lord Salisbury in which not one word was said about the French Revolution; and, therefore, on Lord Salisbury and his Government alone rested the responsibility of the refusal, and with it all the consequences which that refusal might have upon the friendly feeling between France and this country. What had the Government done? The invitation of France had been addressed to all the other countries. The Continental despotisms had refused the invitation; the one free country in the world which was fit to rank with this country, the kindred people on the other side of the Atlantic, had accepted the invitation. He happened to be in Washington only a short time since, when the Senate of the United States passed a Resolution granting a large sum in aid of the American contribution to the Exhibition—he believed that sum amounted to between 250,000 and 300,000 dollars. He complained that the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues, instead of ranging themselves with the free Republic of the United States, had ranged themselves with the Continental despots of Europe. Before he sat down, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir James Fergusson) a question with reference to one item in the account. The Committee would observe that year after year enormous sums were voted for the clerks not only of this Department, but of all Departments; and he thought it was a scandal to the Committee that it should submit year after year to the enormous exactions on the part of the bureaucracy which really governed this country. In this case there was a Permanent Under Secretary of State, receiving a salary of £1,500, and he believed that gentleman was paid an allowance for receiving affidavits in regard to the distribution of the Secret Service Money. There was an Assistant Under Secretary receiving £1,500 a-year; there was another Under Secretary receiving £1,500 a-year; there was a Chief Clerk who was paid £1,250; and there were five clerks getting £1,000 a-year each. The question he wished to ask had reference to the salary of the gentleman who was called Chief Clerk. He dared say the point had been explained before, and if he was putting a question which had already been answered the responsibility must rest with those who prepared the Estimates, and who had not prepared them in a way which was intelligible to hon. Members. The Chief Clerk received £1,250 a-year, but at the foot of the Estimate there was a note to the effect that he also received nearly £800 a-year for compensation on abolition of Foreign Office Agencies, provided in Class VI. He (Mr. Robertson) had looked through Class VI., and he did not find any explanation of what Foreign Office Agencies were. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would explain what it was, and why it was that the Government continued to pay the Chief Clerk this enormous sum in addition to his regular salary?

said, that now they had got the details of this Vote, he should like to ask why the Permanent tinder Secretary to the Foreign Office should be in receipt of £300 in connection with the Secret Service Fund? The Secret Service Fund was distributed by the Foreign Office, the Colonial Office, the Home Office, and, of course, a large portion of it went to Ireland. They did not find that the Permanent Under Secretary for Ireland, or the Permanent Under Secretary to the Colonial Office, or the Permanent Under Secretary to the Home Office received any allowance for their share in the administration of the Secret Service Fund. All that the Permanent Under Secretary to the Foreign Office did in connection with the Fund was to receive certain affidavits or papers from diplomatic officers as to the amount of money they had issued in connection with their secret and not always very presentable services. He supposed that an hour or two hours in the year would be quite sufficient for all the work that this worthy official had to do for his £300. The Chief Secretary for Ireland, who drew from the Foreign Office if he was in want of more money for Secret Service in Ireland, had a great deal more to do in the way of instructing detective officers than all the staffs of the Ambassadors abroad put together, and what justification there could be for this charge of £300 he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) could not understand. Then, again, if hon. Members would look at page 109 of the Estimates they would see that the present Foreign Secretary had a Private Secretary with £300 a-year. But the present Foreign Secretary was also Prime Minister, and on the very same page there was a further entry showing that the Private Secretary to the Prime Minister received £400 a-year. Besides the Private Secretary to the Prime Minister there was an Assistant Private Secretary to the Prime Minister, and he was paid £250 a-year. Perhaps the right hon. Baronet would offer some explanation as to the arrangement respecting these Private Secretaries. There was another point upon which he had a few observations to make. There was, he believed, some nine, 10, or 12 legal appointments in the gift of the Foreign Office. They were abroad, principally in countries where Consular jurisdiction was exercised. He was informed that these appointments were given away on the recommendation of Members of the House of Commons, or other influential persons. The question he wanted to ask was, what was the gauge of qualification, or what circumstances were looked into in order to test the fitness of the men appointed to these places? He mentioned this, because at present he had before his mind the case of the appointment of a gentleman who was certainly nominally a barrister, because he had been called to the Bar, but who, he did not think, had ever been in a Court of Law in his life, and who certainly never heard an action proved. This gentleman was appointed to be a Judge in a very important city in the East with about £1,000 a-year. This was one example of the style of appointment which was made by the Foreign Office in places where Consular jurisdiction existed. Many men appointed possessed qualifications of the most meagre description for the posts they occupied. Was there any standard of qualification required; was it necessary that a man should show that he had been called to the Bar a certain number of years; was it necessary that he should show that he had had any practice, or was it a mere question of favouritism? Was it the fact that political supporters were recompensed by the appointment of relatives or friends to posts for which, in most cases, they were absolutely unfit?

said, that perhaps it would be convenient, before the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir James Fergusson) replied, that he (Mr. Conybeare) should refer to the question of the French Exhibition. Still, if the right hon. Gentleman preferred to answer hon. Gentlemen now, he (Mr. Conybeare) would postpone his observations. He was bound to say that the action of Her Majesty's Government, in reference to the proposed French Exhibition of next year, was the most Pecksniffian proceeding of all the Pecksniffian proceedings on the part of the Government. He did not know what reason or explanation Her Majesty's Government proposed to give; certainly the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) had not condescended to give any reason at all. The probability was that if they pressed the Government they would get two or three reasons assigned; but, at present, no reason at all likely to enhance the position of this country in the opinion of civilized countries, which they were assured by the Government and their supporters was their one aim and ambition, had been assigned for the conduct of the Government. This was simply a question of carrying out a series of Exhibitions which had taken place in France periodically. He (Mr. Conybeare), at any rate, remembered the French Exhibition of 1867; there was an Exhibition in 1878; and now, in the natural sequence and order of things, came an Exhibition in the year 1889. It, no doubt, happened to be a coincidence that 1889 was the centenary of the taking of the Bastille, and the Government chose to make this an excuse for directly insulting and affronting our neighbours across the Channel by refusing to do what, he believed, we had never refused to do before—namely, to take such measures as we wished with the view of having this country properly and adequately represented at the Exhibition. Now, he did not base his arguement for interrogating the Government on this point, merely on the question of the insult or otherwise which appeared to be, and which, as he and his hon. Friends contended, was, by the action of the Government offered to our neighbours in France. But he reminded Her Majesty's Government, and especially the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith), who, he noticed, having fired his exceedingly potent shot, had retired from his place, that the proceeding of the Government might have a serious effect upon our trade. We had heard Her Majesty's Government more than once already that evening dilate with excessive eloquence upon the great interests of this mighty Empire, and of the duty of looking to the trade interests of this country. Therefore, he asked them to consider seriously whether it was not possible that we should be, by this foolish proceeding of refusing to have anything to do with the Exhibition of 1889, doing considerable injury to the trade of this country? He should have thought we had already done enough in that direction this Session by imposing the Wine Duties, which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) had argued were more than likely to result in reciprocal duties being imposed in France. It was perfectly well known that, oven supposing that a nation like the French chose to associate this great international affair with a particular epoch of their own history, its primary intention and object was to bring together the exhibits of all nations of the earth, and that it was by bringing together in friendly rivalry the commercial princes of the world, and inducing the great manufacturers of this country, as well as of all other countries, to place themselves side by side, and to emulate one another in the beauty and excellence of their exhibits, that we must look for success in the competition which was so prevalent among all the nations of the earth. It was on this account that he urged the Committee to consider carefully whether we were not really doing far more harm to ourselves in the matter of trade alone than we possibly did injury to the French by any petty and wretched jealousy or political feeling which seemed to have been imported into this matter, if we continued to refuse to take our proper position, and share, as a great nation, in the forthcoming International Exhibition. His hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had ventured to assert, to the great indignation of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith), that in this proceeding the Government had Boycotted the French. If that were so, it was a very unfair proceeding, because there appeared to be some ground for asserting that the French themselves were not very much supported by other countries in the world; and if we were to take the opportunity, when one country was standing more or loss isolated, to kick or otherwise insult her, it certainly did not square with our ideas of fair play or international comity. But if it was the case that the Government had in this way deliberately Boycotted the French, it did not seem to him that it was at all inconsistent with their general policy, or even with their private practice, because the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, who was so eloquent in denouncing the hon. Member for Northampton for suggesting that he (Mr. W. H. Smith) was capable, as a Member of the Government, of Boycotting France, was himself guilty of Boycotting his poorer neighbours on his own estate at Henley. He (Mr. Conybeare) maintained that that was an attempt to deprive the country of its proper position in connection with the proposed International Exhibition, and that at this moment it was exceedingly foolish and exceedingly out of place, because we were ourselves now—or, at least, a great many of the people of the country were—preparing to celebrate, on a large scale, a great triumph and a great feat of arms and a great moral victory in the history of our country. He referred to the proposed demonstration later on in the year in respect to the defeat of the "Invincible Armada." If we chose to celebrate in this fashion a great historical event, he wanted to know why we should Boycott the French because they chose to celebrate in their fashion an equally great and an equally glorious event in their history; an event, too, not altogether unimportant to us, inasmuch as all the modern liberty which we now enjoyed dated from the destruction of the Bastille in 1789. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite laughed; but he supposed that the real fact was that they did not know enough about their history to prevent them falling into the confusion of mind which seemed to have settled down on the Front Treasury Bench; because it was perfectly evident that if the motive which had been assigned for this most extraordinary action on the part of Her Majesty's Government were a true one, and they refused to have anything to do with the proposed Exhibition because of the events which succeeded the Revolution of 1789; they were mixing up the events which took place a few years after 1789 with what happened in that year itself. There was nothing whatever that the greatest purist in political matters could object to in the events which took place in 1789—there was the destruction of the Bastille, which he did not think even hon. Gentlemen opposite really disapproved of. All the legislation which took place after the razing of the Bastille in 1789 was legislation of the most beneficial kind, and it was not until France had been surrounded by enemies, it was not until she had been goaded into fury by attacks made by Tories of this country, and by the despots of other countries in Europe, that any atrocities took place, that any of those massacres which sent a thrill of horror through every civilized country in the world, occurred. Those massacres, however, had nothing whatever to do with the glorious Revolution which took place in 1789, and it was the merest humbug to object to taking our part—which as a nation we were entitled to take—in the celebration of the year 1789, simply because, in the year 1791 or 1793, other matters took place which had nothing whatever to do with the year 1789. He supposed that the real reason of the refusal was that this Government, with the most pharisaical and canting spirit, desired to dissociate itself from anything which savoured in the very least of Republicanism. He supposed they would have their day; but they who had the advantage of sharing, at any rate, the hon. Gentleman's views—all those who believed in Republicanism—hoped, one of these days, to have an opportunity of celebrating in this country a festival of Republicanism. [Laughter.] That seemed a ridiculous suggestion to hon. Gentlemen opposite; but he did not suppose their historical studies had carried them so far back as to cause them to have any knowledge of the glorious Revolution of 1688.

Order, order! I beg that the hon. Gentleman will be a little less discursive, and that he will keep to the question before the Committee.

said, it was quite true that the interruptions from hon. Gentlemen opposite had led him a great deal away from his text, but now the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr.W. H. Smith) had returned to his place, he would just like to refer to one argument which the right hon. Gentleman used. The right hon. Gentleman complained in a frantic, irate tone that hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House were raising unfriendly feelings in France, and that they were sowing discord between this country and France and other civilized countries in Europe. It was nothing of the kind; their argument was that the Government by their action had not only lowered this country considerably in the estimation of France and of other countries, but that by deliberately offering what they considered to be an insult to the dignity of France, they had gone very much further in the direction of raising unfriendly feelings towards ourselves in France than other hon. Members could do by any amount of debating in the House. It was just as absurd to argue that they, by the attitude they were taking in this matter, were in danger of sowing seeds of discord between ourselves and France, as it would be for the right hon. Gentleman to argue that, because they were constantly in that House raising their voices against the coercive tyranny of the Government in Ireland, they were tending to cause separation or alienation between Ireland and this country. He sincerely hoped that if his hon. Friend proposed to press this matter to a Division they would be able to show that, at any rate, there were in the House more than a few who were determined not to allow an insult of this kind to pass without entering their protest against it, and who were sufficiently anxious for the dignity of the country, and sufficiently anxious to protect the trade interests of the country, to insist that both one and the other were being wilfully thrown away and endangered by this foolish action on the part of the Government.

said, that before the Committee passed the Vote which he ventured to hope the Committee would now proceed to do, he would like to say one word in regard to the remarks which had just fallen from his hon. Friends below the Gangway. Without entering into the Question whether the Government had been well advised or not in the action they had taken in regard to the French Exhibition, he might say, having observed as far as possible how the matter was received in France, that he had not observed any display of indignation in France, and that if them was any ill-feeling existing between this country and France, which he hoped was not the case, no part of that ill-feeling was in the least due to any action of the Government in this particular matter. He further desired to say that he did not think the general feeling in any part of this House, or in any Party in the country, was that Her Majesty's Government had shown undue partizanship in any question arising between the Powers of Europe, or had shown any unfriendliness towards any one of the great Powers. It would be a serious matter for this country if, at a moment like this, when the situation was full of tension, we were to forfeit the position of conciliatory detachment it held in the councils of Europe by the display of any unfriendliness towards any one of the different Powers. Without agreeing in many respects with the policy which the Government had taken up, he thought they might acquit them of any charge of that kind, and he believed the Government desired, as far as possible, to be on friendly terms with the French Government.

said, that the hon. and learned Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Robertson) had asked him to explain the extra receipts of the Chief Clerk. The Chief Clerk received a sum as compensation for the abolition of his office as one of the Foreign Office Agents. He remembered that in a debate which took place many years ago, Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell strongly defended these Agencies; but in later years opinions changed, and in 1878, he thought, they were abolished, and superannuation allowances were given to the holders of the offices on a somewhat lower scale than was usually given to public servants on abolition of their appointments. Then, as to the addition to the salary of the Permanent Under Secretary in respect to his duties in connection with the Secret Service Fund, the matter had been very often discussed in the House. As a matter of fact, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), in 1871, stated, in reply to a similar question, that it was necessary to have a responsible official to discharge these duties connected with the Fund. The allowance then was £500 a-year, but an arrangement was made that on the accession of a new incumbent to the office, it should be reduced to £300, at which sum it now stood. The hon. Gentleman the Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had referred to certain legal appointments in the gift of the Foreign Office. The matter did not properly arise on this Vote; but he could say, speaking only for the present time, that very great care was taken in the selection of the men to fill these appointments. He could not say what was done in former times; but those only were now appointed who were properly qualified to discharge the duties of the office.

said, that the question asked was, why the Permanent Secretary of the Foreign Office should receive £300 a-year in respect to the distribution of the Secret Service Fund, while other officials also charged with that distribution had nothing?

said, that similar officials in other Departments had no Secret Service Fund to distribute.

said, that it had been given in evidence before the Public Accounts Committee that the officials of the Irish Office, the Colonial Office, and other Public Offices had to do with this distribution.

said, that the Home Office had certainly to do with the Secret Service Fund, and they had had explanations given why it was increased last year.

said, that there was no officer in the Public Service who was charged with the same responsible duties in respect to the Secret Service Fund as the Permanent Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs.

asked, if the right hon. Gentleman meant to say that this official regulated the distribution of the Secret Service Fund?

said, that the gentleman did nothing of the kind; but his duties were such as to necessitate special remuneration. The fact had been recognized by successive Governments, although, as he had said, the salary had been reduced.

said, that the fact of the salary having been supported by previous Governments was no answer at all. The question was, was there any duty done for this payment? And the answer of the Government was that the official was charged with no kind of duty in the distribution of the money. If that was so, he ought not to receive the £300 a-year.

thought he could explain the matter. This money was originally paid out of the Secret Service Money itself, but eventually it came before the notice of a Committee, and then it was considered desirable to charge the amount on the Estimates. As a matter of fact, the right hon. Gentleman (Sir James Fergusson) would excuse him for saying that the Permanent Under Secretary had really nothing to do with the Fund. The Secret Service Money was paid abroad at the different Embassies, and the accounts were sent to the Foreign Office. Perhaps there was some little auditing on the part of the Under Secretary; but really he had not so much to do with the Fund as the officials of the Home Office, and of other Departments.

said, that the hon. Member was well informed upon the subject. This payment was begun in 1824, and it was made by percentage from the Secret Service Money, and it never appeared on the Foreign Office Vote until 1870, when, at the instance of the late Mr. Rylands, it was inserted in the Estimates.

said, there could be no doubt in the mind of anyone, after reading the evidence given before the Public Accounts Committee, that there could not be three days' work for anybody in the Foreign Office in connection with the Secret Service Fund. The thing was a gross job, and therefore he ventured to move the reduction of the Vote by £300.

rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

said, he would suggest to the hon. Member for the Nuneaton Division of Warwickshire (Mr. Dugdale) that Progress should be now reported. He had no wish to take up a position of opposition to the Bill; but he had to make some reference to the schools at Dublin and at Bandon, and did not quite know how they would be affected by the Bill, though he feared it was not all plain sailing. Possibly, an agreement would be arrived at; but he was unprepared to discuss the points he wished to raise, as he did not expect the Bill would be reached.

said, he was quite willing that further progress with the Bill should be postponed till Monday.

said, he did not know whether there was any objection to the Amendment of which he had given Notice; but, at any rate, he thought it was not desirable that the Bill should pass without discussion. They had not heard the final opinion of the right hon. Ba- ronet the President of the Board of Trade (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), and he was sorry the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) was not in his place, for he was an authority on the subject of electric lighting, though the Bill was in good hands in charge of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bright-side Division of Sheffield (Mr. Mundella). The Amendment he had to propose, in the form of an addition to the clause, was of an innocent character, and he hoped it would be accepted. It was a simple matter, and, if it did no good, would certainly do no harm. In the first place, he proposed that when a Local Authority applied for a licence for an area under its jurisdiction, the Board of Trade should grant the application, unless there were special reasons against it, and these should be stated by the Board of Trade in a special report. The object was to make it clear that only special reasons justified a refusal by the Board. He remembered that in the last discussion great jealousy was evinced on the part of promoters of Companies against Local Authorities grasping the lighting for themselves; but, right or wrong, he thought that a Local Authority should act on the opinion of the ratepayers, and supply its own water and lighting, when such was desired. Again, he wished to provide, by his Amendment, that the grant of a licence to any Company or person should not be a bar to the granting of another licence within the same area. He was aware that he might be told that as the law existed there was, in fact, no prohibition to the granting of a licence where another existed within the same area; but his Amendment amounted to a clear declaration that under no circumstances should the existence of one licence be an obstacle to the granting of another. He might instance, to illustrate his intention, the case of railways. So far as the absolute law was concerned, the passing by Parliament of an Act authorizing gave no claim against the construction of another line; but the practice was very different to that in the United States, where any responsible persons wishing to construct a line were permitted to do so, the existence of a competing railway being no obstacle. He did not object to the period being allowed to the Company for a licence under the Bill; his objection was to there being allowed to grow up in regard to electric lighting, as in practice there had been allowed in the case of railways, any sort of monopoly. Electricity was in its infancy—a growing science—and a few years might produce immense changes; electric lighting might become cheaper, and new methods might be discovered, and it would be a great misfortune if the absence of a specific legal declaration should give to the existence of one licence a claim as against the granting of another. It would be observed that he attached as a condition that the consent of the Local Authority should be given, for he was far from wishing that any new Company should, without that consent, have authority to dig up the public roads and streets. He invited the opinion of the right hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Trade, and regretted that the Committee had not the assistance of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham.

said, that the assent of the Government was confined to the Bill as it stood, because it appeared to be a useful extension of the powers under the Act of 1882, and might, perhaps, tend to public advantage. They must oppose the Amendment, the first part of which was wholly unnecessary, while the second part might be very mischievous indeed, defeating the very object for which the Bill was promoted.

said, as the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy had alluded to the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Mem- ber for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain), he might say his right hon. Friend entirely approved of the Bill as it stood, and objected to the addition. His (Mr. Mundella's) own experience at the Board of Trade had convinced him that restrictions imposed by the Act of 1882 prevented the development of electric lighting, and this short amending Bill, which had passed the House of Lords, would, it was hoped, give to electric lighting that chance of development which it had in other countries, to which we were far behind. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, who introduced the Bill of 1882, had given his complete assent to the extension of time to 42 years, and in the other House Lord Herschell had expressed his entire approval. As the right hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Trade had said, the first part of the Amendment was absolutely unnecessary, for the Act of 1882, and this amending Bill, conferred no monopoly whatever; and, with respect to the second part, it would act very mischievously, and operate against the intention of the Bill, and in reference to Provisional Orders would not work at all. He hoped, therefore, the hon. Member would not put an obstacle in the way of a very useful measure by pressing his Amendment.

said, he was somewhat alarmed at the statement that the second part of his Amendment would prove mischievous. He had anticipated that it might be said to be surplusage; but when told that it was mischievous, he began to think there was something in it. He hoped the right hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Trade would explain in what respect it would be mischievous. Did it merely declare the law as existing, or did it alter it?

said, the Amendment might be held to throw doubt on Provisional Orders and promote unrestricted competition, and the opinion of the best authorities were against it.

asked what opinion the right hon. Gentleman quoted, and where in the existing law could be found a declaration that no monopoly should be created?

moved that the Chairman do report Progress.