In the un-avoidable absence of my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury, I rise to move the Motion which stands in his name with reference to the charges relating to Mr. de Cobain. The House is now in full possession of the evidence, which goes to prove that Mr. de Cobain is aware of the charges brought against him, and of the fact that a warrant has been issued. Some time has elapsed since the warrant was issued, and under these circumstances, according to precedent, I beg to move the Resolution which has been placed on the Paper by my right hon. Friend.

Motion made, and Question, "That Mr. Edward Samuel Wesley de Cobain do attend this House in his place upon Thursday 23rd July,—( Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer," )—put, and agreed to.

I desire to move the reduction of this Vote by the sum of £100. When the discussion was adjourned on Friday night, the Committee were considering the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in relation to the treatment of the Zulus, especially in reference to the continuance in exile of the two Zulu Chiefs-Dinizulu and Ndabuko. I have great sympathy with these people, because I think that they have not been fairly dealt with. The right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the colonies, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for West Waterford (Mr. Webb), on Friday, made what appeared to me to be a most uncalled for charge against Miss Colenso. The right hon. Gentleman said that her conduct had not been conducive to the welfare of the natives of Zululand or to the peace of the country—a charge which, in my opinion, was quite unfounded. I venture to assert that the right hon. Gentleman can bring no charge justly against Miss Colenso, except that she has had too much confidence in the justice of the British Authorities. She persisted in assuring the Chiefs and the natives that they might rely on British justice to remedy their wrongs, and it was only in consequence of her loyal and earnest persuasions that the Chiefs waited as long as they did before they sought to obtain redress for themselves. The work of Miss Colenso must be viewed as one with that of her father, and I am not aware that any more heroic record of Christian work exists in the world than that of Bishop Colenso and those who assisted him, especially his daughter, in South Africa. I maintain that if Christian missionaries go from this country and submit to great sacrifices, they are deserving of more sympathy and respect than have been shown in this case, and I believe that their word is entitled to the consideration which is usually given to persons who talk about what they understand. We have read Miss Colenso's despatches, and they show that the concession which was made to the Boers in 1886 was an unjust and impolitic concession. It was an act of gross impolicy and of cruel injustice on the part of the British Authorities to send Usibepu back to the country after he had been driven out for cruelty and misgovernment. It must have been known that such a course would lead to disorder, and bring to an end the comparative era of peace which the country had enjoyed. Umsutshwana, one of the Chiefs who had taken a foremost part in driving out Usibepu in 1884, had retired to a small kraal of five or six huts, on being evicted, with a large part of his tribe from their own lands, and this was part of the evidence given in Court by an old woman, sitting on the floor with a baby grandchild before her:—

"I know Umsutshwana," she began. "At the time of his death I was at Ntshuku's kraal. I was there because we had run thither for protection, when we were running away from Usibepu. Umsutshwana belonged to the Government—that was the reason why we went to him. I slept outside the kraal fence. It is quite a small kraal. On the night before Umsutshwana's death my elder daughter and her three daughters were with me there. My younger daughter was there also with her three children, of whom this is one. Her elder child was not five years old. Early next morning an impi (war party) came and surrounded the kraal. It killed my eldest daughter and the child of five. It was stabbed in the thigh, and then it crawled, when its mother fell from off her back to the embers by which we had been. It came and sat beside us, and a young man came up and stabbed it to death. I heard the impi cry watshetsha (Usibepu's distinguishing cry). Beside my daughter another woman fell. As to Umsutshwana be was shot; the men who shot him were Usibepu's. When he was shot I heard him cry out, Oh! alas! I am dying, and I don't know for what sin.' I heard the men who were killing him cry 'Ji' (a sign of triumph at the death of anything hunted). Then Usibepu rode up fast on horseback at the time 'Ji' was cried, and jumped over Umsutshwana and back again, being then on foot. Then the impi went off, driving the cattle with them. They took away also women and children. They said that I could remain. What was the good of taking one so old as I was?"

This took place after the Zulu Chiefs had waited for many months expecting a favourable answer from the Government at Cape Town to their appeal for protection. At last their patience was quite worn out, and possessing the idea that they were left to themselves, but that they had the sympathy of the Government of England, they determined to take up arms to protect themselves and their people from the cruelties to which they had been subjected by Usibepu. This was then condemned by the Government as levying war on the Queen; the Chiefs were charged with high treason against the British Government, although the British Government was by no means completely established at that time, so that any act of violence could be called by so high-sounding a name as high treason. What followed? Troops were sent and a terrible vengeance was taken. The Chiefs were tried and punished with exile. In no sense was justice done. Three hundred of the Zulu women were taken away, and Miss Colenso tells us that she succeeded in ransoming one of them. A vast amount of suffering was occasioned. We could hardly have expected the same ideas of order to prevail in Zululand as in this or any other civilised country, and to regard a few scrimmages among discontented Chiefs as making war on the Queen is absurd, especially as those very Chiefs were not opposed to British authority. For whatever wrongs these Chiefs committed, their exile was more than an amply sufficient punishment. I hope that the Government will, as far as they can, cultivate a better feeling amongst the Zulus, and show that Miss Colenso did not exaggerate when, speaking of the British Government, she said these poor people might rely upon justice at our hands. I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A, Salaries, be reduced by £100, part of the Salary of the Secretary of State."—( Mr. Picton. )

I have no intention of pursuing the same line of argument in regard to South African affairs as hon. Members opposite, but I willingly join with them in urging the Government to exercise considerable clemency in relation to these military prisoners. Among the arguments used by the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) on Friday were these, that exception must be taken to the constitution of the Special Commission which tried the prisoners. But the question was brought before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and the Court was declared to be legal and even proper; and exception must also be taken to the character and weight of the evidence, and also to the severe sentences imposed. From these views I wish to dissociate myself. I am quite sure that it is impossible for anybody who did not hear the evidence to form a judgment as to its weight and character; I am perfectly content to accept the decision of the Special Commission; and so far as the sentences are concerned, bearing in mind the indictment of high treason upon which the prisoners were arraigned, the Judges could not well have passed much lighter sentences. If it were proved that the prisoners had committed high treason it was impossible to pass very light sentences. But I will pass from the procedure of the Court and proceed to criticise the action of the Administration in reference to these Zulu prisoners. I certainly do not approve of the action of the Administration in the matter. In my opinion, the indictment for high treason ought never to have been made against the prisoners. The offences they were alleged to have committed did not amount to high treason. The hon. Member for Caithness gave on Friday the early history of the trials, but I do not think it is necessary to go into it again. Against the two most important prisoners, Dinizulu and Ndabuko, three charges were made which separately and together were alleged to constitute the crime of high treason. It appears that a certain fine had been levied upon them which the Administration sent the police to collect, calling upon the Chiefs to obey the law. They refused to pay the fine, but on the first demand the police were not treated with violence. When, however, they were sent a second time to enforce the law they were driven back, and unfortunately there was loss of life. But that did not amount to high treason. They committed a breach of the peace, it is true, but they were not guilty of rebellion against the Queen's Government. There was really in substance no distinction between the action of Dinizulu and Ndabuko and the action of Irish tenants, who on certain occasions with which we are all familiar, have resisted the officers of the law. It was a resistance of the law, but it was not high treason. It is absurd to call the offence high treason. But there was another act alleged against these same men. Dinizulu saw Usibepu, his ancient enemy, within his grasp. He did what any one would have done under like circumstances; he attacked and routed him. But even that was not high treason. A frightened Government arraigned the men for high treason, convicted them, and they were sentenced to long terms of imprisonment. All that these men did was to commit a breach of the peace. They declined to give up certain men and to pay a fine to the officers of the law, and later on Dinizulu collected his forces together for the purpose of crushing his ancient and hereditary enemy. But he never proposed to drive out the Governor of Zululand. What he did was to offer resistance to the police twice, once without violence. I am obliged to point out here an observation by Chief Justice Wragg, of Natal, which induces me to think that there was more than the nature of the crime behind the sentences imposed upon the Chiefs. At the termination of the proceedings Chief Justice Wragg addressed a Report to Lord Knutsford, which will be found at page 17 of Blue Book C, in which he said—

"I am strongly of opinion, which my colleagues share, that for the peace and welfare of British Zululand it is necessary that the prisoners should be deported to some foreign country far removed from Zululand."

That is to say, that there were political motives behind what was required by the justice of the case. But whether the Chiefs were likely to be troublesome in Zululand or not was a political consideration, with which the Chief Justice had nothing whatever to do. His business was simply to adjudicate upon the offence as it was alleged against the prisoners; yet in his Report to Lord Knutsford he added this sentence, which clearly shows that there was something behind which acted as an additional reason. Therefore, I think I have some justification for saying that the sentences were rendered somewhat more severe by motives which were not entirely judicial, and that they would not have been as severe as they were if the Chief Justice had possessed a mind more completely unaffected by the condition of the country. The sentence upon the two Chiefs was that they should be exiled to some foreign place for 10 years. Another Chief, who was half-brother to Cetewayo, was also tried for high treason, for offences of more or less the same character, and also sentenced to imprisonment. I think that the Administration in reviewing the sentences ought to have taken into consideration—impartial consideration—the character of the country and the difficulties under which these people had laboured for some years. Who were they? Dinizulu was a youth, the son of an absoulute King whose power was destroyed, whose country was thrown into a maelstrom of disturbance, and who, in a moment, was deprived of his inheritance. Within eight months of being deprived of his rule over the country he was tried for these offences. Is there nothing to be said for a man who was deprived suddenly of the whole of his power? Would it not have been wiser to have exercised a little patience? Ten years of exile must seem an eternity to the uncivilised or semi-civilised man. Is there not something in the plea that the uncivilised man should be treated with consideration? I would recommend my right hon. Friend to take great care that the punishment imposed upon these men when they return to their country, which they must do sooner or later, instead of securing obedience and a recognition of the supreme authority over Zululand, does not engender a bitter hatred and an unextinguishable feeling of injustice. A moderate punishment was undoubtedly deserved; but let me invite my right hon. Friend to consult Lord Knutsford, in order to see whether they cannot extinguish a considerable part of the sentence. Let some hope be given to these men that they will return to their country; do not remove from them the possibility of return before the expiration of 10 years. I should like, before I conclude, to say a word about the Commissioner in Zululand, Mr. Osborne. I have nothing to say against Mr. Osborne. I believe that in difficult circumstances Mr. Osborne has done the best be could. But I would suggest only this: that the Commissioner, who has been an energetic and able officer, having been in Zululand all this time, and throughout all this trouble, has undoubtedly taken—perhaps was obliged to take—one side against the other. The side he took was that opposed to Dinizulu, and in favour of Usibepu, and I find from his Despatches that his deliberate opinion is that peace can never exist in Zululand as long as Dinizulu and Ndabuko were allowed tore-main there. I make no charge against Mr. Osborne, but can he remain there as Commissioner when these two men go back? Is it not possible to replace Mr. Osborne by some other officer, who shall bring an unbiased mind to bear on the settlement of the affairs of Zululand? I certainly unite my voice with those of hon. Members opposite who urge that it is a matter which ought to be looked into carefully. I have read most of the evidence, and I have heard a good deal of what has been said on the other side, and, after most carefully weighing everything, I think it is undoubtedly a case in which the clemency of the Crown may be very justly exercised. I do not join in the plea of injustice, but I only ask my right hon. Friend and Lord Knutsford to inquire into the matter, with a view of deciding whether the punishment imposed upon these men is not too heavy.

^* (4.27.) : I cordially join in the appeal. I look upon the whole of our policy in that country from the beginning to the end as a policy of which England ought not to be proud. Indeed, I regard the whole of our dealings with Zululand, with a very few exceptions, as a series of blunders. I will not, however, enter into matters of ancient history, but will confine myself to recent events. My hon. Friend who first moved the reduction said the punishment of these chiefs was a vindictive punishment. If that were so, I do not think that any words would be too strong to apply to it. It is a great crime for a great nation like this to inflict anything in the shape of a vindictive sentence upon savages. But I do not go so far as my hon. Friend and say that it was a vindictive sentence. Still, I think that it was more or less influenced by political considerations. I think that we are bound to look at this question as a matter of justice. I altogether demur to any Judge looking at anything except the real merits of the case. As to the sentences, they were undoubtedly severe. I think that when the right hon. Gentleman said that the men were never more happy in their lives he went a little too far. A sentence of exile is a much more severe thing to half civilised people than it would be to us, and the right hon. Gentleman not only underestimated the severity of the sentences, but he also considerably overstated the offence which had been committed. I cannot help thinking that the accounts which have been given are considerably exaggerated. It is said that Dinizulu was guilty of murder, but the word seems a strong one to use in application to the acts which he committed. We all know that in a country like South Africa human life is far less sacred than in a country like England. The phrase "high treason," too, as applied to his acts is too strong. The right hon. Gentleman must bear in mind the position of Dinizulu. He was the son of the old King Cetewayo, who for years and years was supposed to rule by Divine right. To describe his acts of resistance as acts of high treason is absurd. The term might as well be applied to the foray of a Highland clan in the last century, or to a Scotch border raid in the days of Henry VII. Of course, if these men had committed high treason, then the punishment must necessarily have been severe. It may be that Miss Colenso probably has indulged in some of that feminine exaggeration which probably we may look for when we get female suffrage, which the right hon. Gentleman supports. But Miss Colenso is thoroughly honest and generous in spirit, and she carries on with enthusiasm the work bequeathed to her by her father. But I go so far as to say that, in dealing with these things, it is good that you should have some honest advocacy on the side of the natives. We know the sort of record we are likely to get from official sources which will hardly ever be fair to the natives. With regard to the question of the amnesty, I venture to press upon the right hon. Gentleman very seriously whether the time has not come when he can grant something like an amnesty. The danger which was at one time apprehended of a great movement among the Zulus is practically over. The spirit of the Zulus is broken; they are docile, and easily managed by kindness. As to the general question of Zululand, my hon. Friend has suggested that it should be placed under the responsible Government of Natal; but before assenting to that, I should like to see a little more of the working of that Government. However, I agree that it is desirable to have a change of administration in that country, and there must be men in the Colonies with the qualifications necessary for successful government. An appeal has been made from both sides of the House, and I ask the right hon. Gentlaman whether he does not think the time has come when justice should be tempered with mercy.

^* (4.35.) : I regret that the hon. Member was not in his place on Friday evening when I dealt fully with this subject, as in answering him now I shall be compelled to take up the time of the Committee by repeating many of the statements I then made. With regard to the action of Miss Colenso, I can only say that whilst accepting the statement of the hon. Member that she had been actuated by the best of motives, I must again recall the fact that as far back as 1882 Sir Henry Bulwer, in a Despatch to Lord Kimberley (Colonial Secretary in the Administration of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian) deprecating her inter- ference in Zulu affairs as conducive to disturbances in that country. I am inclined to agree with the views he then expressed, and apply them to the line of conduct she has since pursued, and is still pursuing, relative to the imprisoned chiefs and their followers. I regret that such a long time should have been allowed to elapse—now more than three years—before this question has been brought to the full consideration of Parliament. Events which happened so long since are apt to be forgotten by hon. Members, and they are the less able to appreciate the real state of things, and are consequently driven to false conclusions.

May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that Mr. Bradlaugh called attention to the subject last year?

^* : The hon. Member for Leicester and my hon. Friend (Captain Bethell) have repeatedly urged in the course of their remarks that the acts of Dinizulu were not acts of high treason, because they were not in any way directed against the Government of this country, but against Zibepu. I can show that such is not the case. Now, the first rebellious act of the Usutus was in April, 1888. At that time Ndabuko led a body of men against the police, who, under Mr. Mansell, the Commandant, were sent for the purpose of executing a warrant issued against four natives guilty of contempt of Court. That was the first act of rebellion. Warrants were issued for the arrest of Dinizulu and Ndabuko for their action at the Usutu Kraal on the 26th of April, and on June 1st Mr. Mansell started for Ceza to execute them, with a force of 70 native police, about 100 Dragoons, two companies of Mounted Infantry, and about 600 of Muzamana's men. None of Zibepu's men were present. On the 2nd June, 1888, our force arrived at Ceza. They found opposed to them under Dinizulu and Ndabuko about 2,000 armed Usutus, who, under cover of the fortified position, made such a fierce resistance that our force was obliged to retire with loss, and if it had not been covered by the Dragoons, would have been cut to pieces. Encouraged by this, Dinizulu and the Usutus raided in the district and committed several murders: e.g., Dirk Louw, Klaas Louw, and several natives—men, women, and children. That was the second act of rebellion. The third act of rebellion was on the 2nd July, 1888. A force of about 2,000 men, including Dragoons and Mounted Infantry, were sent to Ulopekulu to capture Ishingana and disperse his followers. The position was taken after six hours severe fighting; the Usutus were dispersed with considerable loss. The fourth act of rebellion was in July, 1888, on the Umfolosi, when the Magistracy there was attacked by Somkeli with more than 2,000 Usutus, and they besieged it until the arrival of relieving forces on the 10th July. On this occasion several murders of peculiar atrocity were committed. I should like to know from hon. Gentlemen opposite what are acts of rebellion if these are not? These were not acts against Usibebu; they were acts against the forces of the Crown, and the object was to re-assert the supreme authority of the Zulu Chiefs as against the authority of the British Crown. I must confess I have not heard from hon. and right hon. Members opposite any defence of these acts. It is not sufficient to get up in the Committee and say that these acts were not rebellious acts in the true sense of the word, because they were directed against the personal enemies of Dinizulu. As a matter of fact they were nothing of the sort; they were against the authority of the Crown, and as such they were acts of rebellion. The hon. Member for Leicester said that Usibelm ought to have been punished because he was guilty of murder. What are the facts? On the 4th, 5th, and 10th of June, Umsutshwana, one of the Usuto Chiefs, met the ally of Dinizulu and routed Zibepu's people and murdered several of them. On the 11th, Zibepu, who was on patrol duty, attacked Umsutshwana, who was de. feated and killed with 10 of his men. On the 23rd June, Zibepu, who was at the Iruna Magistracy, was attacked by an Usuto force from Ceza, numbering 4,000 or 5,000 men, and was defeated with the loss of 300 killed. In consequence of this it was not thought safe to continue the occupation of the Magistracy, and it was abandoned and the force withdrawn to Etshowe. The prisoners were tried, and their friends appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, who confirmed the sentence upon them.

They merely approved the composition of the Court.

^* : The question of the legal competence of the Court was brought before the Committee of the Privy Council, and they decided that the Court was properly constituted. The hon. Member for the Holderness Division says that Dinizulu and the other chiefs ought not to have been indicted for high treason. He seems to forget that the Court before which they were tried had the power to quash the indictment had they held it to be improper. They did not do so; they tried and sentenced the prisoners for high treason. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council decided that the Court was a properly constituted and competent tribunal. I do not see upon what ground the hon. Member now seeks to impugn its acts and decision. The hon. Member took exception to the action of Mr. Justice Wragg in suggesting, in the Report on the trial which he made to the Secretary of State, that it would, in his opinion, conduce to the tranquillity of Zululand if the three chiefs were deported; and he went on to say that he must have been influenced by political considerations. I protest against such an unfair insinuation. Mr. Justice Wragg is a most upright and able Judge; he was called upon to make a Report on the trial, and was fully justified by his intimate knowledge of all the facts in expressing his views as to what he considered the best course to be adopted. With regard to Dinizulu, it must be remembered that he was first charged with murder as well as high treason.

Then why did you not send him back to Natal, if you had him here on false pretences?

^* : The hon. Member does not appreciate the position. The prisoner was removed from Natal under the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act. Would the hon. Gentleman argue that a person, charged with murder, should not be extradited simply because the evidence proved afterwards insufficient to support the indictment? The indictment was not preferred in this instance for murder, although there was some strong evidence against the prisoner of having murdered a trader and his family.

^* : I was speaking of Dinizulu.

^* : That is the very murder with which Dinizulu is charged.

^* : It was not proved.

^* : It was proved that one of his followers was guilty of the murder, and the man was sentenced to death. His punishment was subsequently commuted to hard labour for life. Dinizulu was guilty to the extent of having brought about the circumstances which directly led to the murder of this man and his family. There was another murder under peculiarly atrocious circumstances, and in fact, owing to the conduct of Dinizulu. and others Zululand was in a state of continuous internecine strife. Cattle were raided, wives were stolen, homes were burnt, and the people were miserable. But no sooner were these men in prison than everything became as peaceful as possible. These facts are beyond denial. With regard to the amnesty, it must be left to the discretion of the Government whether the present is the best time for these men to return to Zululand. They were sentenced to 10 years imprisonment, and only three years of that term have been served. I cannot give any promise at present that these chiefs will be sent back to Zululand.

While I give every credit to Mr. Justice Wragg, my argument is that he took into consideration when making his Report the political condition of the country, whereas, I think, he ought to confine himself to matters judicial and not trouble himself about the political aspect of affairs.

I confess I am sorry that the Under Secretary for the Colonies has adopted such an ff uncompromising attitude, and that he remains unmoved by the arguments addressed to him from both sides of the House. The Under Secretary repeated his censure of Miss Colenso, as one of those persons who are perpetually agitating. I think it would be a very great misfortune if, in our Colonies and in all places where we come in contact with the native races, there were not these persons whom the right hon. Gentleman calls agitators. We are bound to exercise the utmost subtlety and intelligence in dealing with the native races to prevent hardship and injustice often; and I confess that we owe no small debt of gratitude to Miss Colenso for the manner in which she has maintained the cause of the natives of Zululand. With regard to the four acts of rebellion of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke, he admitted that two of them were mere acts of resistance to the police. Why, we have had resistance to the police in Ireland, and we have not called it high treason.

^* : Police supported by troops.

Yes; in Ireland we have had the police supported by troops, and when the people resisted them we did not call it high treason. So far as the case of Dinizulu is concerned, it entirely rests on the resistance to the police. The right hon. Gentleman then proceeded to deal with the case of the Court and of the Privy Council, and I think that his language is liable to misinterpretation. He spoke as if the Privy Council had approved the sentence. Nothing could be further from the fact than that. The Privy Council had nothing whatever to do with the sentence. What the Privy Council dealt with was simply the question whether the Court was duly constituted, and it found that, under the law of Natal, the Governor had power to constitute the Court. Therefore, as far as the sentence is concerned, the authority of the Privy Council cannot be put forward in favour of it in any manner whatever. I think it shows the animus with which the case has been conducted that a charge of high treason should have been brought in. The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned instances in which murders were committed; but it is not proved that Dinizulu was connected with them, and, therefore, nothing properly in the nature of a charge of murder can be brought against him. Indeed, we have had a virtual admission from the right hon. Gentleman that, although Dinizulu committed acts of violence and attacked his old enemy, nothing in the nature of murder is charged against him, and certainly nothing of the kind was proved. The short and the long of the matter is this: There was a great deal of trouble in Zululand, the legacy of that melancholy and dreary tragedy which began with Sir Bartle Frere's war. The authorities took it into their head to bring back Usibepu, and it would have been beyond human nature for Dinizulu and his friends to resist the temptation to attack their old enemy when they saw him again. Disorders and acts of violence followed, and a wise Government would have welcomed the first opportunity of restoring peace and tranquillity to the country, and if they inflicted any penalty at all, would have inflicted a comparatively light penalty. As soon as possible, they would have allowed the heir of the ancient King to resume his place at the head of his people, and they would have restrained him rather by the exercise of a wise guardianship than by the infliction of severe punishment. The sentence of exile for 10 years is very severe for a semi-civilised man, and it is quite disproportionate to Dinizulu's offences. I think a Division ought to be taken, so that we may have an opportunity of recording our protest against the policy which has been pursued. If the protest be unsuccessful at the present time, I hope that those who have brought the question forward will lose no chance of doing so on subsequent occasions.

I do not entirely take Miss Colenso's view of this question, nor can I justify the action taken by Dinizulu and his two uncles, but I think that much more has been made of their conduct than the facts justify. I did not attack the Commissioners. My point was that the counsel for the Chiefs wanted to bring before the Court certain reasons to justify their action, but the Court refused to permit them to adduce that class of evidence, although it was the kind of evidence that would have weighed with a jury if the trial had taken place in Natal. As I pointed out, these men, finding themselves accused of crimes, went into a civilised country and asked to be tried, but the Natal Authorities refused to try them, because they knew that if an investigation took place in Natal, the man who would have had to be put on his trial would not have been Dinizulu, but Mr. M. Osborne, the Commissioner. To save Mr. Osborne, they got this poor man and his companions taken away on false pretences, by bringing against them a charge of murder. They were then compelled to create this new Court. When it met the question that ought to have been brought before it could not be, and the witnesses were intimidated, because it was as much as their lives were worth to give evidence in favour of the prisoners. Usibepu would have killed them, and he would have been assisted by the police. Usibepu had been sent back to Zululand for the purpose of wiping out these men, and if you will read the papers you will see that this was so. As a matter of fact, they would have been wiped out had it not been that they were able to cross over into the Transvaal. The question which Lord Knutsford ought to consider is not whether the proceedings of the Chiefs were high treason or not, but whether Mr. Osborne was justified in his action, and whether a great deal is not to be said for Dinizulu and his people. I think they were driven into rebellion by Mr. Osborne and Mr. Dick Harrison, the Magistrate. I stated at the time that if the Government sent back Usibepu there would be civil war, and other Members also opposed the sending back of that firebrand to Zululand. What the Government ought to have done when terms were arranged with the new Republic was to have got Dinizalu's sanction and consent. Instead of that the country was annexed right away, and the Chiefs never knew exactly where they were until they found themselves under British rule.

I have not been in Zululand myself, but I have had 14 years' experience of the Indian frontiers of America, where a precisely similar state of things was to be found, and I wish to join my appeal to that of the hon. Member for the Holderness Division (Captain Bethell) in favour of these Chiefs. In talking about uncivilised tribes, I demur entirely to the use of the words "murder" and "high treason." I do not argue that if deaths occur in these tribes they should not be punished just as if they were civilised people; but I say that it is difficult to judge of the motives of these natives, and impossible to attribute to them the same praise or blame as you would to civilised men under the same circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary spoke of Miss Colenso as an agitator. Well, I am an agitator myself, and I have always held that much good work has come from agitators, but I think there are special reasons why the right hon. Gentleman should not have referred to Miss Colenso's action as having anything of the nature of agitation about it. I know the right hon. Gentleman will not be offended if I refer to one illustration, as I know he is one of those Hebrews who are proud of their ancient race. I would ask him, with reference to the persecution of the branch of his race which is located in the South of Russia, whether he would not welcome such action as that which Miss Colenso has been taking in South Africa? It has been said that when these men were removed to St. Helena all the cattle-stealing, and wife-stealing, and so on stopped as if by magic. Well, we have heard that Mr. Escombe, who will probably be Prime Minister of Natal, has spent much time and £1,200 in money in championing the cause of these men. Miss Colenso, in taking the course she has followed, has acted not merely from impulse, but in pursuance of the life-long policy of her great father, who, was much beloved by the natives and sacrificed much for them, even, I believe, to his own life in the end, because I think it was the worry occasioned by the constant attacks made upon him by those who ought to have known better, that eventually brought about his death. I beg that mercy may be shown to these men. I have observed in my experience on the Indian frontiers of America that whenever a popular Chief is removed, although disturbances might for a moment cease, the tribe ultimately always fell into confusion, and more cattle-raiding, wife-stealing, and so on occurred on the frontier, until eventually the natives became subject to those blessings which civilisation affords to both natives and Europeans, namely, drunkenness and immorality.

^* (5.22.) : I regard the history of our relations with Zululand as one of the most disgraceful that is to be found in our colonial history. I think we have acted most discreditably towards the Zulus. I do not desire to make any imputations in reference to Miss Colenso. Her action may not have been judicious or beneficial to the natives, but I believe she was actuated by the highest and purest motives. I believe she was carrying out the policy of her father, the late Bishop Colenso, who, whatever else he may have been, was regarded by the Zulus as the truest friend they ever had. I join in the appeal to the Government to act with leniency in this matter. These men may have acted improperly and may have been guilty, to some extent, of violation of the law; but I think the punishment has been much too severe, and I hope the Government will exercise the prerogative of mercy. I am certain that Lord Knutsford has the most kindly feelings towards the native races, and I am confident that he will look at the matter carefully, and will, as far as he possibly can, see that the prisoners are treated mercifully.

^* : I can assure the Committee that the Government are not actuated by any vindictive spirit in this matter. The question is entirely one for the decision of the Secretary of State, who must be guided not merely by considerations of leniency bat by the condition of Zululand. There is no immediate intention of remitting the sentences, and though I cannot say what may be done hereafter, I can give no pledge at the present time.

(5.24.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 103; Noes 145.—(Div. List, No. 343.)

Original Question again proposed.

I desire to move a reduction of the Vote, with the object of calling attention to the question of granting responsible Government to Natal. The question is so important that I think it should be subject to Parliamentary discussion and decision. We have been promised Papers, but months have passed, and we are still without them. I notice in the Times of to-day there is a telegram from Natal which states that certain conditions are imposed, which will have to be assented to by the Natal Legislature before responsible Government will be sanctioned, I. confess I hope that the arrangements may fall through. It is a grave question. it affects not only Natal and Zululand, but the question of British dominion in South Africa. On two sides we are shut out from access from the sea to Central South Africa—on the one side by the Cape, on the other by Damaraland; and if we grant self-government to Natal, the Imperial Government will be shut out altogether from Central South Africa. I have not such "Jingo" sentiments as have been expressed by the hon. Member for St. Austell, but I am not disposed to quarrel with him in the view he has expressed that it is especially desirable that the British Government should maintain an influence in South Africa. It is important in itself, and it is important inasmuch as it is on our road to India. If we exercise due and legitimate influence in South Africa we may save vast expenditure in the Mediterranean, and those complications in the Mediterranean of which we heard so much in a recent Debate. My "Jingoism" does go to the extent of exercising a proper influence in South Africa. In regard to giving responsible Government to Natal, my first objection is to handing over control to a body of white men who only represent 1–15th of the whole population. I quite agree in the encouragement of friendly relations between the Transvaal and Natal, but I do very much doubt the wisdom of extending responsibility to Natal. My own idea in regard to South Africa is that, while to the white communities, whether British or Dutch, a certain amount of self-government should be extended within their own territories, where the white population is in such a small minority, and where, beyond the white settlements there are such masses of native population, the Imperial Government should retain control somewhat after the manner of the Indian Government. Natal is not in the position of a white community having settled upon a territory and cultivating it; the white population are in the position of masters employing native labour. Hitherto, when we have given responsible Government, it has been to a colony in the proper sense of our countrymen qualified for and accustomed to self-government. But in Natal you have a different state of things. The first departure from this pure system of responsible Government was when the Cape was somewhat hurriedly forced into that position, but there you had half a million of men, who are the best material for colonists in the world. What was done in regard to the Cape does not necessarily lead up to responsible Government for Natal, with its 30,000 white population, 35,000 Indian subjects imported to supply labour, and half a million Kaffirs, Zulus, and other native races. The whites are in the proportion of 1–15th of the whole population of the colony, and responsible Government means the handing over to this small minority the control of this vast mass of the coloured races. Opinions may differ whether it is desirable to do this or not, but I am sure there will be a general opinion that the step should not be taken without the assent of Parliament. I will not argue the point whether the Government have power to do this without consulting Parliament; but I do say that, though they have the technical power and right, they have not the moral right to do it. While Parliament has any authority at all it should exercise it in this difficult question, and in the interest of such an immense number of native population. The Natal people, I believe, are far from wanting it; they have repeatedly refused it, and even now the proposal has only a small majority of the Legislative Council in its favour. At all events, there is a very strong minority, if not a majority, of the people opposed to giving Natal responsible Government at the present time. I have a statement from a gentleman of position in the colony—I am not at liberty to state his name—to the effect that there is no general desire for the change, and that if adopted it would probably be followed by some form of compulsory native labour. It is not unlikely that a similar state of things would happen to that which has occurred in the Mauritius and in Queensland and other colonies, that dominion over the natives would mean some form of compulsory native labour. I am quite aware that it is said Her Majesty's Government will insert certain conditions for the protection of the natives, but, on the other hand, I am certain that once you give responsible Government, when you cast off a colony and allow it to govern itself, any stipulation or provision you make for the protection of the native population will be wholly and absolutely illusory. We had a difficulty in enforcing such a provision in New Zealand, and there has been much ill-treatment of the native population in Queensland. There is less likelihood of oppression of natives in Natal, perhaps, because they are in such an overwhelming majority, and a rebellion might follow with enormous difficulties to contend against; but in such a case, when colonists are involved in difficulties and defeat, a cry arises in this country; we have to go to the rescue, and ultimately the British taxpayer suffers. This brings me to the military aspect of the question as it affects the British taxpayer. The question of responsible Government for Natal has for many years been before Her Majesty's Government, and the Government have often shown themselves anxious to get rid of the trouble and responsibility of governing Natal, but the colonists have always refused the responsibility of their own defence. We are told in the Times' correspondence that the very important question of defence will probably be made matter of arrangement outside a Bill, and that British troops will remain for the present in the colony under the control of the Imperial Government. That means that the British taxpayer must pay for these troops. With such great masses of native population it is necessary to have a strong force to protect the European colonies. And what contribution do the colonists make? The Cape does not pay a farthing, and Natal has hitherto only paid a nominal sum of £4,000 out of a revenue of £750,000, and now approaching £1,000,000. I admit that, inasmuch as South Africa is on the way to India, Imperial garrisons should be maintained at certain points; but it is also fair that rich colonies should pay a share of the expenditure for their own defence; such expenditure should not fall wholly on the taxpayers of this country. Cape Town and Simon's Bay are important military ports, and we must have fortifications and heavy guns there; but is the British taxpayer to pay for all? Then it is said Zululand will remain a Crown Colony, while Natal has responsible Government; but there are about 500,000 Zulus in Natal, and I am sure nothing but trouble and difficulty will arise from two systems of Government applied to the Zulu people. It would mean the defence of Natal in another form if we had a brigade of troops as a buffer to protect Natal in Zululand. I confess I have not a great deal of sympathy with hon. Members who raise the question of the contributions for the defence of military ports in Ceylon, Singapore, Hong Kong, and elsewhere; but there is a disposition to raise these contributions by taxes on the food of the people, and I must say it is a cowardly proceeding to impose a heavy burden on some of the poorer, weaker colonies, from which colonies like the Cape and Natal are exempt. But I would press upon Her Majesty's Government that they should not rashly, and behind the back of Parliament, carry out this proposal to give responsible Government to Natal, on the ground that it is imperative that British dominion should be preserved in South Africa; that we must not shut ourselves out from access to Central South Africa from the sea; that it is dangerous to hand over the control of such an immense native population to a handful of whites who number but 1–15th of the whole, and that justice to the British taxpayer requires definite arrangements as to military defence. I hope Her Majesty's Government will not allow Parliament to be prorogued without telling us what is their intention, and that we shall be told that no final step will be taken until the House has had an opportunity of expressing an opinion on the terms on which it may be proposed to concede responsible Government to Natal. To raise the question I move to reduce the Vote by £1,500.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A, Salaries, be reduced by £1,500, part of the Salary of the Secretary of State."—( Sir G. Campbell. )

^* (6.0.) : The answer I have to give to the hon. Member does not vary much from that I had to give him some time ago. The hon. Member has raised the question whether responsible Government can be given to Natal without the prior consent of Parliament. My reply is that it can.

I have not argued that; but I say it ought not to be so.

^* : Previous legislation by Parliament is not required before responsible Government is granted to a colony, except in cases were existing Imperial legislation has to be modified. In the case of Natal, the original instrument—the charter of 1856—gave to the Local Legislature the power of amending its constitution subject to the right which the Crown possesses of disallowing Bills. At the present moment the Governor has before him the Secretary of State's objections to the Bill as passed by the Colonial Legislature. These objections, which are principally concerned in safeguarding native interests, must be considered by the Local Legislature, and I cannot say what view they will take of them, or how long it will be before we are in possession of their opinions. I can assure the hon. Member, however, that the reason why the Bill has been referred back is because the Secretary of State is not satisfied with the provisions for the protection of the native races, and until Her Majesty's Government obtain adequate assurances that the natives will be protected, so long will the Imperial consent be withheld from the Bill. As regards military arrangements under responsible Government, not much can be said, as the whole question is now under discussion with the War Office. But I may say the introduction of responsible Government would not justify the summary removal of all troops from Natal. A period must elapse before the colony could substitute a sufficient police force for the maintenance of internal order. Moreover, Zululand must be defended by us, being under the direct control of the Crown, and the troops required for this purpose are, for sanitary and economical reasons, principally stationed in Natal.

^* (6.6.) : No doubt the Colony of Natal has power, subject to the approval of the Crown, to constitute a proper Government. At the same time, I think it would have been satisfactory if the House of Commons had had an opportunity before the matter was finally settled of considering and discussing the question. Of course, I understand that the Government are not bound to submit the matter to Par- liament, and, as it is, we must accept the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that the interests of the natives will be properly safeguarded. I have myself always been in favour of granting responsible Government to every colony as soon as it is fit for it; but the case of Natal, with a proportion of natives to Europeans of something like eighteen or nineteen to one, is exceedingly peculiar. It is possible the colonists may take strong measures against the natives, and there may be rebellion In that case there is a great deal of force in what the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy has said. It will be the duty of the Home Government to support the action of the Government of Natal, and the British taxpayer will be called upon to pay for the expense of putting down the rebellion. I should like some more definite information as to the action likely to be taken by the War Office in the matter.

I should like to ask what safeguards the Imperial Government has asked for that the Natal Government has refused?

^* : I Can only reply that the Secretary of State has objected to certain provisions in the Bill, and those provisions are now being considered by the Government of Natal.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman three questions—first, whether Papers are going to be produced; secondly, whether there is to be a General Election in Natal in order to test the opinion of the country on the question; and, thirdly, whether there is any reason why Her Majesty's Government should not defer their consent until some time in next Session, when the question can be properly gone into and debated, and, if necessary, a Committee can be appointed to consider the Bill? At the last election the majority was an exceedingly small one, and the knowledge that the natives will be dealt with differently from what was supposed may produce a change of opinion in the popular mind. It is too late now to discuss the question this Session, but it is one of considerable importance. There is in Natal an enormous black population, and the white population is only about 40,000. The colony will be an important element in future combinations in South Africa. It is quite as important in its way as Western Australia. I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that no. Statute is necessary; but it does not follow that because a Statute is not necessary a Parliamentary investigation here is not desirable. The right hon. Gentleman must not suppose that he is not at liberty to do that which he is not obliged to do. I hope the Government will take no final and binding step in this matter until some time in the early part of next Session, and will give us the opportunity of raising the question, and, if necessary, appoint a Committee to examine into it.

^* (6.12.) : As to the right hon. Gentleman's first question, I have promised Papers, and I believe they are already in the printers' hands. With regard to a General Election in Natal, the Secretary of State has no power to control the action of the Government of Natal in that direction. And the answer to the third question is practically in the same sense. Under the Charter of 1856 the Government of Natal has the absolute power to change and modify the conditions of Government.

Without the consent of the Crown?

^* : Subject to the veto of the Crown. That, however, is quite another question, and would be no reason for curtailing or modifying the power which was given to Natal under the Charter of 1856. In the case of Western Australia, which has been cited, we were bound to have an A ct of Parliament, as certain existing Acts had to be modified; but in this case there is no obligation whatever, Natal having the right, under the Charter, to demand from the Home Government that they should either accept or veto the Bill altering its constitution. If the conditions we have imposed are complied with, we have no right to withhold our consent. I cannot give an assurance that we shall depart from the rule we have laid down, and first place the matter before Parliament. Of course, if the conduct of the Secretary of State is impugned, Parliament can take action with regard to it.

The right hon. Gentleman does not seem, in the least, to understand my point. He seems to think that the Colonial Office is bound to assent to a Bill if it fulfils certain conditions they have specified. What is to prevent the Colonial Office sending a Despatch to Natal saying, "We will not consent to this Bill until, by a General Election, the provisions of the Bill have been confirmed?" I cannot understand the lofty view of the Secretary of State's prerogative which the right hon. Gentleman seems to take.

^* : The opinion in Natal was expressed at a General Election.

That is disputed. I stated that there was a General Election, and that at that election the project was confirmed by an exceedingly small majority, and that it has since been suggested that there is an alteration of opinion in Natal owing to the fact that the provisions of the Bill will be changed.

^* : The majority was not very small. There were 2,121 electors in favour of the proposed constitutional change, and 1,937 against it, the numbers of the members elected being 14 for the change and 10 against it.

^* : Will the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War state what arrangements have been made for the defence of Natal?

I would rather reserve my reply to that question, so as not to give an incomplete answer.

I wish to ask whether in the Papers that will be submitted we shall find the provisions of the proposed constitution and the communications that have taken place with regard to it?

^* : I do not think that information can be afforded. The communications are all of the nature of confidential communications.

Are we, then, to understand that the proposed important change in the constitution of the colony is to be made not only without Parliament having an opportunity of expressing an opinion on the subject, but without Parliament having the information necessary to enable them to form one? There is no reason for such great haste, and, in my opinion, the proposals for the change in the constitution of the colony should be laid upon the Table of the House for a sufficient time to enable the matter to be fully discussed.

^* : I have pointed out that the Government are strictly following the precedent set by the Government of the day in 1872, when responsible Government was granted to the Cape. There will be an ample opportunity afforded of challenging the decision of the Secretary of State after the constitution of the colony is altered.

That will be too late. Do I understand that in 1872, when the oonstitution was granted to the Cape, a request was made to Parliament that information should be given, and an opportunity for discussion afforded, and that that request was refused?

^* : I cannot say that. I can only say that Parliament was not consulted.

While my hon. Friends are no doubt justified in pressing for full information, yet I hope no one will gather from the fact of our pressing for information that any of us are opposed to the granting of responsible Government in these particular cases. Judging from the only occasion on which I have had any experience of the granting of a constitution to a colony, I do not think discussion of this kind is very satisfactory. I think that all we need concern ourselves with in connection with this question is whether proper precautions are being taken for the protection of the natives, because there can be no doubt that natives have been improperly treated under constitutions which have been given to other colonies. However, if the Government determine to divide, I shall support them, although I think they are accepting a very serious and great responsibility, and when they have the opportunity of allowing the whole House to share in that responsibility it seems to me a very foolish thing not to avail themselves of it.

Natal is quite an exceptional colony, by reason of the small numbers of the white population and the large native population. It seems to me most undesirable to press the question forward too quickly. Some of us have cause to regret the haste with which the annexation of the Transvaal was decided upon and carried out, and it would be a great misfortune if similar haste were made, in the present instance. If any dispute arose in connection with Zululand or the Transvaal the Natal Government would be unable to defend their territory, and the British taxpayer might be compelled to contribute enormously for the maintenance of the independence of the country. I hope, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government will be very careful as to committing us, although in doing so they may only be carrying out the conditions under which the Natal Government have power to organise their internal administration.

The people of Natal have been considering this question for many years, and the General Elections in the colony during the last 10 or 15 years have shown a gradual growth of public opinion in favour of what is called responsible Government. The reason why the majority in favour of it is not larger is that there is in the colony a very large Party called "the Mealy and Forage Party," which is composed of people who grow rich by selling mealies and forage to the troops. I have no objection at all to another General Election in Natal on this question, because I think the advocates of responsible Government would go back to the Legislature still stronger. I should like to see something done to safeguard the interests of the natives. Certainly things cannot be worse than they are now, because polygamy is legalised, and runaway women are compelled to what is practically slavery.

^* : Nothing ought to be done rashly until Parliament has had some opportunity of considering the subject. The right hon. Gentleman has stated nothing whatever as regards the constitutional question; he takes his stand on a technical point—that the Crown may dispose of this territory. But what he has read from is not an Act of Parliament, but a clause in a Charter which constitutes the present Government of Natal. We may alter that, but we are not bound to give responsible Government. As regards the protection of natives, my own view is that we cannot give responsible Government, and at the same time the Imperial Government take measures for the protection of the natives. I do not want to see troops removed from South Africa. On the contrary, I think it a most important possession, and that we might move troops from the Mediterranean to South Africa. On no account should we remove our troops from South Africa. But I think that those for whose protection the troops are maintained ought to pay for that protection. The hon. Member (Dr. Clark) complains that polygamy is allowed in parts of Natal. Is he aware that it exists in our great dominion of India?

No, it is the permission to a father to sell his daughter, and to compel the girl to go to the husband; that is what I object to.

^* : I should be surprised if the hon. Member can find any law to that effect which has been sanctioned by Her Majesty's Government any more than permission is given to sell daughters in this country. I am not one of those who would overstrain the Colonial Government, and I hope the Government will not take a step which would be irrevocable and involve enormous responsibility, for which they would have to account on a future day. Under the circumstances, I will not trouble the House to go to a Division.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

I propose to move the reduction of the salary of the Colonial Secretary in reference to Singapore, and, as I understand the hon. Member (Sir T. Sutherland) has some remarks to make, I shall reserve my observations until later.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A, Salaries, be reduced by £300, part of the Salary of the Secretary of State."—( Mr. De Lisle. )

^* (6.38.) : In rising to support the Motion of my hon. Friend, I may state that the question to which I am about to call attention was under discussion on the occasion of the Debate on the Budget. The late hon. Member for the City of London then brought the matter before the House, but since then there have been voluminous Papers circulated among the Members of the House, and various Petitions have been brought under our notice. I believe that, had they been perused, they would have shown impartial minds that Her Majesty's Government, in dealing with the question of the military contribution in reference to these colonies, have been, I may say, guilty of high-handed and arbitrary conduct, and have strained to the very utmost the constitutional powers which they have in those colonies. My remarks have reference not only to Singapore, but to Hong Kong and Ceylon. I think the experience of hon. Members will bear me out in stating that in every instance in which a Crown Colony has been taken possession of by this country it was for strategical and Imperial purposes, and for the defence of the sea-borne commerce of this country, which is of vital consequence. Take the Colony of Hong Kong. It is a barren rock taken possession of under the Treaty of Nankin for certain specific purposes with regard to Her Majesty's ships. Or, take a more recent example—Cyprus. In the words of Lord Beaconsfield, it is a place of arms for the Imperial requirements of this country. It is notorious that when a colony was no longer required for Imperial purposes it has been abandoned, Heligoland furnishing a recent illustration. For a long succession of years this country has paid large sums for the purpose of maintaining many of these colonies in existence under the British Flag. Even at the present moment, in the Estimates before the House, we are called upon to vote large sums for the purpose of maintaining our authority in these colonies, such as Ceylon, the Straits Settlements, and Hong Kong. I venture to say that those colonies have long since emancipated themselves from the need of any financial dependence upon this country. They have become great provinces of which every one who has knowledge of them is proud. We know well that the centre of gravity of the trade of this country is gradually being shifted eastwards owing to the protectionist tariffs in western countries and the opening of the Suez Canal; and if Singapore were held by another Power we would soon realise the vast Imperial consequence of the possession of that place. If Singapore or Ceylon were to become the possession of any other Power than Great Britain the loss to the commerce of this country on a trade amounting to many millions would not only be very great, but the fact of those colonies passing from us would be a menace to our Australian and Indian Empire. But seeing that those colonies of which I am speaking have become and still remain Imperial possessions of the greatest possible value to us, that they are necessary to the protection of the seaborne commerce of that part of the world, and to ensure our communications with India and Australia; seeing also that they have been enabled to achieve financial independence as far as this country is concerned, and have required no assistance from this country for many years; seeing that by their enterprise they have contributed wealth directly and indirectly to this country, surely under these circumstances they are entitled to more than ordinary consideration on all questions affecting their Government and prosperity from the people of this country. But, Sir, these colonies are unfortunately, in some respects, not in a position to demand that consideration to which I hold they are entitled. They are Crown Colonies without representative Institutions of any kind whatever, and, though financially independent of this country, they are completely at the mercy of the Downing Street officials and the Government, who impose whatever laws and taxes they choose. It is true that there are Legislative Councils, but the members of those bodies are overruled by the official members, who are compelled to obey whatever mandates are sent from home. On a former occasion, when this subject was before the House, I stated a case within my own experience, in which I had been enabled to prevail upon an official member of the Council to actually vote against the Government. But, Sir, that act was followed by a Despatch from the Home Government informing the recalcitrant member that it would be as much as his place was worth if ever he attempted to take an independent attitude of that kind again. This happened, I regret to say, not under a Conservative, but under a Liberal Government. I hold that it is somewhat difficult to imagine a Government of this country in the present day bringing in a Bill to impose a tax, however slight, on an independent colony. As far as I am aware, there is nothing to hinder the Government from bringing in a Bill to tax Ceylon, Singapore, or Hong Kong, but this policy does not appertain to the present day. It belonged to a system which was in vogue 100 years ago, and which even then met with comparatively little success. It is almost impossible to suppose, for example, that if the maintenance of the status quo in Newfoundland were to be productive of enormous cost in this country that this or any other Government would bring in a Bill to tax Newfoundland for the purpose of meeting that expenditure. I may remind the House that some of those who four or five years ago voted against Irish Home Rule were mainly induced to do so by the fact that the system was one of taxation without representation. I may be told that morally there is a difference between the taxation of a colony which possesses what is called self-government and the taxation of a Crown Colony which possesses no self-government. I reply, however, that there is, morally, no difference at all. I say that the Government have no more right to force taxation on a Crown Colony than it has to force taxation on a self-governing colony, so far as the moral principle of government is concerned. But in this matter the Government have done worse—they have introduced a measure such as I have described as impossible. They have, by a stroke of the pen, imposed enormous financial burdens on those colonies against the protest of the Governor and of every member of the Legislative Council, whether official or non-official. In taking this action the Government have surely been guilty of an act of injustice and of imposing a species of coercion not necessary in the interests of law or of good government, but solely caused by a desire to enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer to obtain as satisfactory a Budget as possible. I, of course, sympathise with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his desire to obtain as satisfactory a Budget as possible. He is a man who has many claims upon him, and between free education on the one hand and the claims of Local Government on the other, one would hardly be surprised to hear that he is sometimes driven to his wits' end to know how to obtain the requisite balance. Accordingly, we find that the right hon. Gentleman and his myrmidons are always on the qui vive to pounce whenever they can do so upon any new source of revenue. It sometimes happens that those sources of revenue which ought to be available are not available. We have, for example, a proposal which I considered a fair proposal, that a Van and Wheel Tax should be imposed; but it was impossible to carry that proposition, because it met with opposition everywhere. After that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government looked round to see where they could safely obtain money without that amount of opposition. They looked round to see whether there were any of the Crown Colonies on which they might judiciously impose further taxation, and they found that the finances of Ceylon, Singapore, and Hong Kong were such as to enable them to impose this additional taxation. By acting as they have done in regard to this matter they acted in exactly the same way as the most absolute Monarchy that ever existed might have done, for they sent out positive orders to force the Bills for the subventions through the Legislative Council, no matter what opposition was offered; and I challenge the Government to defend such conduct as worthy treatment on the part of a great country like this towards its dependencies. Now, Sir, I wish to say a few words particularly in reference to Singapore or the Straits Settlements, because that is a case which comes before us very fully in the Blue Book which lies on the Table of the House. The history of the matter is briefly this: Singapore at one time formed a portion of the dominions of the East India Company, but at the time of the Mutiny the Government of the colony was handed over by consent to the Colonial Office. At the time this change was made a bargain was in force to the effect that Singapore should bear to the full extent the cost of its military expenditure, which amounted to something like £50,000. Singapore undertook to bear that military expenditure, but it should be noted that the agreement entered into at that time had reference entirely to the existing conditions of military expenditure, and had no reference what- ever to any future conditions. I think it is impossible to imagine that if for some reason, which might appear to themselves to be a good one, the Imperial Government found it necessary to make an expenditure of £1,000,000 or £2,000,000 a year in connection with the Straits Settlements, such a tax ought to be borne by that colony in virtue of such an agreement. I say that such an idea is absolutely preposterous. What the Colony of Singapore agreed to was that it should bear its own military expenditure, which, as I have said, was £50,000 a year, and it agreed to nothing else. Besides, it is shown by the Despatch addressed by. Lord Knutsford to the Governor of Singapore that an entirely different colouring is attempted to be given to this transaction. It is there attempted to be shown that whatever the conditions of the military expenditure might be at any time the bargain made 35 years ago was binding; and that if the Home Government for reasons satisfactory to themselves chose to expend £500,000 or £1,000,000 a year for the defence of the Straits Settlements, Singapore was bound to contribute that amount. Reasoning of this kind hardly requires to be contradicted. It may be highly ingenious, but it is by no means ingenuous. Her Majesty's Government have repeatedly revised the arrangements for the apportionment of Imperial obligations with regard to military expenditure, and they did so notably in 1879, when there were apprehensions of a war with Russia, for then, at their own cost, they embarked on considerable expenditure in providing fortifications for this settlement. Singapore has continued willingly to pay £50,000 annually up to the present; there have, it is true, been some minor squabbles with the home authorities, and there has been the miserable dispute as to the question of exchange on the silver remittances sent to this country from Singapore. So long as silver was above par the Government graciously accepted payment in silver, and never thought of crediting the colony with the difference in exchange, but so soon as silver became depreciated then they set up a counter claim, without taking cognisance of the profits they had previously made. But that has nothing to do with the main question as to whether the arrangements under which the Straits Settlements paid £50,000 a year to the Home Government were satisfactory. A great change occurred in this matter some years since in consequence of the appointment of a Royal Commission by Lord Carnarvon, and the Report of that Commission to the War Office. It was at that time found that the position which Singapore occupied with reference to India, China, and Australia was of such vast importance and significance that except with perhaps one solitary exception—the Cape of Good Hope—no other coaling station within the whole range of British possessions required to be so carefully looked after, and it was consequently pressed upon the Government by the Royal Commission and by the voice of the country that great and important works ought to be undertaken there. As these involved very heavy outlay, the Government of the day naturally enough invited the colony to consider what proportion of the expenditure it would bear. In this matter, I think it will be admitted by all who have perused the Blue Book, Singapore behaved with singular liberality, for it at once offered itself to construct the whole fortifications at a cost of £81,000. The Government had certainly no intention of claiming from Singapore more than it was willing to pay. Remember, the question of the fortification of our colonies is Imperial and not local. Singapore does not require the fortifications for her own use, and this House has never yet sanctioned the idea that a colony shall be called upon, whether it likes it or not, to make good Imperial expenditure undertaken at the instance of a Royal Commission. If it were necessary to drive this point home more conclusively it could be done by citing the cases of Hong Kong and Ceylon, for our vast possessions there are not in the slightest iota defended by the fortifications at the Singapore coaling station. Nevertheless, Singapore willingly undertook the burden of erecting the fortifications recommended by Lord Carnarvon's Commission, although the cost was £81,000. But the authorities at Downing Street are always on the qui vive, and finding that Singapore was financially solvent, raised the annual contribution from £50,000 to £100,000, and, in addition, required the colony to build barracks at a further expense of £60,000. Surely that is a high-handed proceeding, and treating with contempt a colony entitled to be treated with consideration. The colony, be it remembered, did not object to constructing the fortifications at a cost of £81,000; it did not object to building barracks at au expenditure of £60,000; but it did demur to pay more than two-thirds of the annual cost of the garrison, estimated at nearly £140,000, because it felt that that was an unfair proportion. I think every hon. Member acquainted with the facts will feel that they were justified in protesting against this charge. They also asked for an assurance of finality; they wished to be told that the question of the amount of military contribution would be definitely closed. The colony, I repeat, acted fairly and liberally, while the Government, in declining their proposal, accentuated the bitterness of the situation by insisting on the payment of £100,000 a year, and by refusing to finally settle the matter, and leaving it open to themselves to revise the arrangement in the course of the next two or three years. In other words, they said to Singapore:—"As you are only a Crown Colony, and have no representatives, we will, if we find you in a state of sufficient solvency, put our hands into your pockets to any extent we choose." I do not know what may be the feelings of those who adopt such an attitude to the people who maintain the glory and bear the burdens of this Empire in these inhospitable climes; but I, for one, taking as I do a pride and interest in the great achievements of these colonists, do not envy those feelings. There are grave consequences following upon this action of the Home Government. During the last two or three years it has been found absolutely impossible for this colony to frame an adequate Budget for its public works, because it was aware that it might be pounced upon at any time by the Home Government for a larger annual contribution. There must, consequently, be something approaching a paralysis in the public works of the colony. Such a condition of affairs is utterly unjust and inequitable, and inconsistent with the relations which ought to exist between a great country and its dependencies. I hope that I have not spoken on this question more strongly than I ought to. I have no personal interest whatever in any of these colonies; my only interest is that of personal association and a feeling of pride in the great work which has been undertaken and accomplished there. Now, I wish to make an appeal to the Government to deal with this matter, if possible, in some other way. I fear that in the present state of affairs it is impossible for the Government to retreat from the position it has taken up by calling on the colony to erect the barracks and by doubling its annual contribution. The claim made by the Government is extravagant and unjust no doubt, but I am more anxious as to the future than as to the present position, for unless a satisfactory solution is arrived at, the good feeling which has hitherto existed will disappear, and the difficulty will crop up again and again, and ultimately the Government may be defeated upon it. Three courses are open to the Government. They might decide that the present military contribution shall not be exceeded; or they might adopt the principle of fixing the contribution in proportion to the revenue of the colonies, allowing it to rise or fall proportionately with the revenue. I think either of those proposals would be deemed by the colony as not unreasonable, although I have no authority to speak in the name of the colonists. My third suggestion is one which I am sure the colony would heartily support, and that is that the whole question of military contributions should next Session be referred to a Select Committee to determine how, in what ratio, and in what manner they should be paid. We have heard a good deal during the last year or two as to a Committee to discuss the financial relations of England, Scotland, and Ireland; and I hope it will not be deemed unreasonable to suggest the adoption of a similar course with regard to a question which has raised angry and embittered feelings in the colonies, and has excited the opposition alike of official and unofficial members of the Council.

The question raised by my hon. Friend is one of very great importance, and one which I fear cannot be adequately discussed in Committee on a Vote of this character. However, recognising the gravity of the subject, I wish to say a few words upon it. I cordially support the last suggestion of the hon. Gentleman, that the Government should consent to refer to a Select Committee this question of the apportionment between the Home Country and the Colonies of the cost of Imperial defence, for nothing could be more unsatisfactory than to continue to act on the principles now in force. I shall confine my remarks to the cases of Singapore and Hong Kong in dealing with this question, for I think my hon. Friend somewhat marred the force of his case when he talked about the injustice of Penang and Malacca being called upon to bear taxation for fortifications and garrisons in Singapore, from which they derive no protection. On the same principle he might have taken a case nearer home, and cried out against the injustice of calling upon his own constituents in Scotland to contribute towards the cost of the fortifications at Portsmouth. Therefore, my hon. Friend has introduced an argument which will not hold water. When the words "Imperial Government" are used—and my hon. Friend frequently used them—the Committee are apt to forget that the Imperial Government has not the resources of the Empire at its back. Therefore, when we are talking of the Imperial Government in relation to matters like this we are referring to the taxpayers of the United Kingdom. If the Imperial Government were able to deal with resources furnished by the whole Empire for discharging a common obligation, it would be very different; but under the present arrangement you have practically to come down only on the taxpayers of the United Kingdom (Singapore, Hong Kong, Mauritius, and Ceylon) in order to meet the cost of defending the Empire in those seas. This discussion has been raised on a Motion to reduce the salary of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. But is the right hon. Gentleman at all responsible for the unfortunate series of events which have culminated in these protests I) I say that this present state of affairs is the full fruit of seed sown in the blindness of the Governments which immediately preceded the present Government. Singapore, as we all know, is a point of strategical importance; but arguments may be pushed a great deal too far in regard to what that means, for, after all, it is only valuable to the British Empire so long as the Empire retains supremacy at sea. It would be absolutely useless to us if we lost that supremacy. When the hon. Gentleman asks what would happen if Germany, France, or any other foreign Power got possession of Singapore, my reply is that it would be a very temporary inconvenience if we had the command of the sea, but that the loss of the place would not matter so much if we had not that command. We must not, therefore, push arguments too far. What is most valuable and essential is the water area around Singapore. In that area the whole Empire is concerned. What the hon. Member proposes to do is to take off from Singapore a certain burden and put it on the taxpayers of this country; but the other portions of the Empire have really greater interest in the water area around Singapore than the Mother Country, and therefore, even on his own showing, an equitable arrangement, and the only equitable arrangement that will stand the test of examination on any fixed principle is some system by which the whole Empire shall share proportionably in the cost of the defence of that area. Following the history of the question there came the Report of the Royal Commission on the importance of improving the defences of Singapore; and I know from personal communication with that colony that for years previously there was great desire among the colonists for defensive works, and that the Government were being constantly pressed to create them. At last there was an arrangement by which the colony was to bear the cost of the works, and the Imperial Government to provide the armaments, and the estimate on which that arrangement was based was that the works would cost £75,000 and the armaments only £49,000. But it will be found from the Despatch that while afterwards the colony had to pay £5,000, or 8 per cent. more than the amount estimated, for works, the Mother Country had to pay £73,000 more, and did pay it. This extra expenditure, amounting to 146 per cent., was incurred at the request of the colony. [An hon. MEMBER: No, no.] If the hon. Member will turn to page 1 of the Correspondence he will see that Lord Knutsford, in a letter dated 13th December, says—

"The armament originally proposed was to have cost £49,000, but this sum is far below the actual cost of the heavier armament, which at the request of the colony will have to be supplied."

Therefore, at the request of the colony, we so far exceeded our obligation as to spend £73,000 more than was estimated. I should like the Under Secretary for the Colonies, or the Secretary for War, to explain explicitly what the expression "at the request of the colony" means. Was it an official request? Was it made in response to expressions of opinion at public meetings, or how does it come about that the taxpayers of the United Kingdom have to pay, at the request of a colony, £73,000 more for armaments than was originally estimated? Well, the arrangement with regard to the works and armaments was carried out, but the late Government never seemed for a moment to have thought that, having the works and armaments, a garrison was required. It was simply a repetition of their policy with regard to the Navy. They provided extra ships, but forgot to supply them with guns and ammunition. We all know it is a most dangerous thing to make strong places with strong armament and weak garrisons. £200,000 having been spent on works and armaments for the defence of Singapore, then the question arose, "What is to be done about the garrison?" The present Government stepped in and called on the colony to provide a further sum of £100,000, and I really do not see what else they could do. Nevertheless, I think the colonists have a real grievance in the matter, though they must put the saddle on the right horse. The fault does not lie with Her Majesty's Government; it arises from the fact that we have no regular system under which to provide for the general defence of the Empire out of resources drawn proportionably from all its parts, and so long as the existing state of things in this respect remains injustice must be done and dissatisfaction created. To show the inequality and injustice that now exists I will give a few figures. Singapore is the centre of a circle which, with a radius equal to its distance from Aden, embraces a large number of British possessions, including India, whose aggregate sea trade amounts to £300,000,000 a year, and whose aggregate revenue is £85,000,000 a year, or nearly equal to that of the United Kingdom. If we exclude India the aggregate sea trade of the other British possessions within the circle is £181,000,000 a year, and the revenue £29,000,000. Four places in this circle—the Mauritius, Hong Kong, the Straits, and Ceylon—with a sea trade of £54,500,000 a year only, and a revenue of £5,000,000 only, give us over £250,000 a year in the shape of military contribution; while all the other places, with an aggregate revenue of £24,500,000, do not contribute a farthing; or, in other words, while we extract military contribution amounting to nearly £250,000 from four places having an aggregate sea trade of only £54,500,000 a year, we do not receive a farthing by way of military contribution from the other countries within the area having a sea trade of over £126,500,000. It is not fair to lay the blame for this inequality on the Government, because it is the effect of a false and vicious system that has grown up, and that in my judgment is imperilling the Empire. The time has come to deal with the matter, and, in my opinion, the only way of dealing with it is to have a Council of Imperial Defence. On that Council both the Mother Country and her dependencies should be represented, and it should be appointed to make arrangements for a fixed time. If such a suggestion is acted upon, and taken with the recommendations of Mr. Ismay's suggestion attached to the Report of the Hartington Commission, I believe we will be able to arrive at a system by which a more equitable arrangement can be made throughout the Empire for what is a common purpose and a common interest. I trust, therefore, that one result of this Debate will be to turn the attention of the Government seriously and earnestly to the question.

I cannot help thinking that the question now under consideration is one of too large and important a character to be adequately dealt with on the present occasion and in so thin a House; for it is one the settlement of which will tax all the resources of statesmanship. With regard to the particular point relating to Singapore, I presume that all are agreed that the colony ought to make some contribution to the State; and the next point for consideration is the action of the Government in largely increasing the contribution. Singapore has no doubt paid a great deal, and has paid for other colonies. What is said, and what I believe to be correct, is that the present demand is not only a large increase on what was hitherto demanded, but that it is a much larger demand than the colony had any reason to expect, considering the assurances given to them on previous occasions. They were led to understand that the demand would be of moderate dimensions, and as a result of what has taken place they feel there is no finality. Secondly, they allege that their local financial arrangements will be seriously disturbed, and that they will be unable to deal with public works and sanitary improvements and other things which the colony require if they have to meet this increased demand. Then the colonists allege that the trade of Singapore is to a large extent a mere call trade which contributes nothing to the wealth of the colony; that though the number of vessels which touch is very large, it does not tend to the profit of Singapore. In that case the tonnage touching at Singapore is not a measure of the support which Singapore should give to a matter of this kind. Of course, it will be said that they have naval protection, but I think that the colony feel acutely having no voice in the amount of contribution. Of course, I am not here to contend that it is possible to leave it to such a colony to determine a matter of this kind. The Government at home must be the determining authority, but at the same time it is desirable to use the controlling power in the most conciliatory manner. There seems to be some uneasiness at the large increase in the demand, and I gather that there is some little sense of irritation which it will be desirable to remove. Singapore has not been backward hitherto in trying to do its duty. There are other colonies which do not pay anything at all; therefore, without making the matter an attack on the Government, I think that we may hope that they will be as indulgent as they can, and not increase the burden upon that colony indefinitely.

The hon. Member who has just sat down has avoided the vague generalities and the violent language of the hon. Member for Greenock, and has stated in temperate language the case of Singapore. He seems to desire to make Singapore a typical case, and I am perfectly ready to meet him on that ground, only I think if the hon. Member wanted to carry conviction to the minds of the Committee he ought to have descended to particulars. He ought to have proved to us by arguments and figures that the contributions now asked are in excess of the capacities of the colonies. With the permission of the Committee, I wish to sneak not as the representative of the War Office, but the representative of the Government as a whole. It is perfectly well understood how the Government dealt with this matter. There were strong Committees inquiring into this question, and they made their Reports. Not satisfied with this, the Government for themselves examined into every one of these Reports. I am not going into a great deal of the speech of the Member for Greenock. No one is likely to accuse me of any want of sympathy with the colonies. I have the deepest possible feeling for the colonies, and I should not like to press anything which I do not believe to be just to the colonies. But in recent years circumstances have changed. The cost of defence has greatly increased all over the world. It costs more now than formerly to defend a harbour. The armament is very much more expensive than formerly, and it is natural that the Government should think that the time has come for examining the amount of the contributions of the colonies with the view of increasing them where it is just and decreasing them where they appear to press heavily on any colony. The hon. Member for Greenock based his whole case on what he called justice to the colonies, but there is also justice to the taxpayer of the United Kingdom, and it is not right that, without careful examination, the taxpayer should bear the whole cost, or even a large portion of it, without asking the colonies to bear a reasonable share of it. I do not think the Member of Greenock would go down to his constituency and tell his constituents that he was going to ask them to pay additional taxation in order to relieve the colonies of, what I shall be able to show are the reasonable demands made upon them. Now, we have not been able to lay down any general rule which can be applied to all the colonies in the matter of the garrisons. We feel that each case must be judged upon its merits, and we are bound to judge the capacity of a particular colony. We have also to consider the amount of Imperial interest involved. I come, first, to the case of Singapore, and if I dwell longer upon that it is because the Member for Greenock has selected it as a typical case. It has been already stated that the colony of the Straits Settlements urged the transfer of the colony from India to the Imperial Government on the ground of the charges imposed upon them for the cost of their defence. An agitation took place and lasted for years, this country absolutely refusing to allow the transfer, except upon the guarantee that no further charge should fall upon the Imperial Government. That was laid down as an absolute condition of transfer, and it was accepted by the Colony in 1866, when the conditions of transfer were laid down, and providing that no charge should result to the Imperial Exchequer in consequence of the transfer of the Straits Settlements to the Imperial Government. This understanding was again affirmed in 1873, the Straits Settlements accepting the agreement with full knowledge of their position. And in the result the colony has had the full advantage of it. Upon the old footing the charges they would have had to pay to the Indian Government would be about £236,000, instead of the £100,000 now asked. The case, then, stands thus, speaking generally. They made a bargain with the Imperial Government, and the bargain has turned out very much better than they had any-reason to expect, and now they turn round and wish to avoid payment of a fair and reasonable amount of expenditure. Is it now to be contended that they are not to bear their fair share of the expenses of their defence, notwithstanding that they deliberately entered into an agreement to do so? Of course, I admit that if the present charges imposed upon them a heavier proportionate burden than was the case in 1866, they would have reasonable grounds for making a complaint. But is that the case? Let us examine the figures. In 1858, when the transfer of the Straits Settlements to the Imperial Government was first mooted, the revenue of the Colony was £132,000 per annum, while the military and marine charges which they had to pay amounted to £87,000 per annum, being at the rate of 66 per cent. of their total revenue. In 1866, their revenue had risen to £260,000 per annum, while the charges had fallen to £70,000, or 27 per cent. of revenue. As years went on the proportion continued to fall, and in 1890 the revenue had increased to £650,000, and the charge we impose now is £100,000, or 15½ per cent. of the revenue. So it will be seen, that so far from the proportion of charges to revenue being increased, it is very much smaller and less than a quarter of what it was when the question of transfer was first mooted, and not much more than half what it was when the transfer was made. I have also to point out that the Straits Settlements, while paying only this proportion towards the defence of the colony, pays nothing towards the cost of the Navy, and when the contribution was increased two years ago, a part of the settlement was that the charges against the Straits Settlements, which had accumulated in the course of years, and which the Imperial Government might have called upon them to pay, were remitted to the extent of £82,000. Their present contribution, instead of being comparatively greater than it was, has proportionately largely decreased. The charges amount to only 3s. 6d. per head of the population of the colony, while in the United Kingdom the corresponding charges amount to 16s. per head. [An hon. MEMBER: More.] In these circumstances, it cannot be said that they are being asked to pay more than is fair and reasonable. Two or three minor questions have been raised in connection with this subject. In the first place it is said that the charges having been fixed at the time of the transfer, therefore should not be increased. Nothing can be clearer, however, than the two conditions that were laid down at the time of the transfer, one being that no additional burden should be thrown upon the Imperial Exchequer by reason of the transfer, and the second being that the Government of the day made it a condition that the charges should be increased or decreased from time to time as circumstances might require. The colony, therefore, had ample notice that the contribution which they agreed to pay might be increased from time to time. A question has also been raised as to the charges for the fortifications. I do not think it is difficult to show that the arrangement entered into in 1884 in regard to fortifications was altogether favourable to the colony according to the understanding of 1866. What the colony was to do was to pay the whole of the cost, but instead of requiring them to do that, what the Imperial Government did was to say "find the necessary work and we will provide the armaments." The Imperial Government undertook not only a very large proportion of the whole cost of the fortifications at the time, but as it subsequently turned out, found a much larger proportion than was originally intended, more effective and heavier guns being provided than were suggested in the first instance. I do not carry in my head the terms of the Despatch, but I know that the guns provided were more effective to meet the requirements of the colony that was at first contemplated. Malacca and Penang share in the advantages of the defensive works; it is ridiculous to say this is not the case, because these places are not actually fortified. In every country you cannot fortify every possible place, but they all share in the general defence, and should pay a portion of the contribution towards the expenditure.

^* : What I said was that Malacca and Penang were in no way advantaged by the fortifications at Singapore.

The hon. Member, I think, went beyond that; but, however, I need not make it a point of controversy.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the strength of the garrison at Singapore, and the cost, both effective and non-effective charges?

That, I think, is a question to raise on the Military Vote. The garrisons in the Straits Settlements amount to 1,360 men.

And the approximate cost?

At the moment I cannot give that.

I think £66 per head.

Then passing to Hong Kong, the question is a very simple one. Hong Kong, according to the agreement of 1863, was to pay a contribution of £20,000 per annum, but in that case, again, the condition was made that the sum so fixed was to be subject to any revision that the altered circumstances of the colony might require. Nothing can be clearer than the condition laid down in the Duke of Newcastle's Despatch, that, in fixing £20,000, the desire was not to press too heavily at first on the Colonial Revenue, and thus probably to retard works of great public utility, and it was further laid down that the amount of the contribution might be raised to a higher rate at a future period. Therefore in that case, again, the colony had full notice when the agreement was entered into that the amount of the contribution might be increased. There can be no doubt that Hong Kong is well able to bear the burden, because the amount of the contribution has Leen reduced from 16½ per cent. of the revenue—the proportion it bore when the arrangement was made—to 12 per cent. in 1890. The cost of the garrison to the Imperial Exchequer at the present moment is £170,000 per annum, and of this sum the colony is only asked to pay £40,000. This cannot be called an unreasonable proportion, taking into account what has been said by the hon. Member for Greenock (Sir T. Sutherland) as to garrison being maintained for Imperial purposes. As to what has been said about the strength of the garrison, I may explain that, to relieve the strain on the European Army, it is proposed that the 2nd Battalion maintained at Hong Kong shall consist of Asiatic troops. We are raising a battalion in India, and as soon as it is raised it will be sent for the garrison of Hong Kong. The arrangement is an economical one, of considerable advantage to this country, and one which I should like to see carried a good deal further than the case of Hong Kong. I made a comparison of cost per head in the case of Singapore, and I may make a comparison of the contribution from Hong Kong with the proportion in other countries, not great military Powers, paid by the population towards the cost of defence. Hong Kong contributes from 9 to 12 per cent. of its income to defence, the Netherlands 25 per cent., Belgium about 14½ per cent., Portugal 19 per cent., Sweden 32 per cent., Greece 24 per cent., and Switzerland 34 per cent. Put in another form, it may be said that each inhabitant of Hong Kong contributes towards defence Is. 10d., each inhabitant of the Netherlands 13s. 7d., Belgium Gs. 7d., Portugal 7s. 2d., Sweden 6s. 6d., and Switzerland 5s. l½d. Considering, therefore, the large amount which the Imperial Government has to pay towards providing an adequate garrison in Hong Kong, I do not think that the contribution of the colony can be regarded as unreasonably large. I might go further in comparison, but I rest the case here. I hope that I have made out to the satisfaction of the Committee that the contribution we are now asking the colony to pay is one, judged by every fair and reasonable test, which we may fairly call upon the colony to contribute. My hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley has undoubtedly raised a large and important question in urging that these great questions connected with Imperial defence should be looked at as a whole between this country and the colonies. With his view I have considerable sympathy, and I should be exceedingly glad to do anything that lies in my power to contribute towards that result. I may remind the Committee that a great deal has been achieved in that direction, and especially by the valuable Report made by Lord Carnarvon's Commission. The recommendations suggested by that Commission have now been practically carried out, while other places have also been defended in addition to those specified in that Report. The great omission then made of not considering either the question of garrisons or that of barracks has since been dealt with by myself, and when those two subjects have been completely carried out, the Government will then have dealt with all that side of Imperial defence touched upon by Lord Carnarvon's Commission. At the Imperial Conference the list of ports was extended so as to include Table Bay and certain Australian ports, while the Government have been able to induce the Australian Governments to join with the Home Government in the cost of naval defence. The question, however, is one of enormous difficulty. The case of the Cape has been referred to. I think that the Cape ought to contribute more largely than it does, but the House of Commons cannot compel the Cape to make a larger contribution. I believe the time will not be far distant when the Cape may be induced to look upon this question in a different light, and that it will be able to see, not only in justice to the taxpayers of the country, but in its own interest, that a larger contribution ought to be made towards the defence of that important station. There are also other cases to be dealt with, and if I can do anything in this direction, I assure the Committee that it will be done.

^* (8.23) : I have listened with great attention to the defence which the right hon. Gentleman with his usual great ability has made, but I am not convinced that the facts are such as to justify the Government in the conclusions at which they have arrived. The essential grievance complained of is that the Government have not merely put pressure on the officials at Singapore, but have compelled them to vote against their convictions and belief, and have deliberately violated an honourable understanding made between the colony and the Colonial Office. A Despatch from the Governor, March 21, 1890, points out that the course followed had brought about strained relations between the Government and the Legislative Council. Now, this is a very serious matter. The Governor goes on to say, how-ever, that his instructions were clear, and he had to require each member of the Legislative Council to support the proposals of Her Majesty's Government. Now, in the first place, I protest against this arbitrary exercise of authority which has led to these strained relations. I am not proposing any change in the form of government, or to make it possible for the Council to resist the wishes of the Imperial Government, but I protest against the exercise of authority being carried to such an extent. I had the honour of serving the late Governor in the Settlement, and came into intimate acquaintance with the whole affair. The understanding in the colony was clear and distinct, that if the colony bore the expense of fortifications and barracks the existing conditions with regard to the maintenance of the garrison should not be altered. There is a Treasury Minute I may recall to the memory of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for I think he is the real offender in this matter, looking naturally to the interest of the British taxpayer. We are grateful to him on behalf of our constituents, though, I am sure, speaking for my own constituents, they do not want their pockets to be saved at the sacrifice of justice to a colony. This Treasury Minute of June 2, 1866, was written to Mr. Cardwell at the time when the original arrangement with the colony was made. It states with respect to barrack accommodation that no charge ought to fall on the Straits Settlements, the troops being maintained for Imperial purposes; but in defiance of that utterance, the Government have imposed on the colony an extra charge of £60,000 for barracks, and have doubled the charge for military contribution. I may also call attention to a letter of Lord Kimberley's to the War Office in 1871, in which an objection was raised to making the colony liable for an uncertain charge over which they would have no power. I am not prepared to go so far as to say the colony should not be liable to pay a sum over which they have no power; but when you have the whole Colonial Ministry protesting against the charge as unjust, under such circumstances I think the Imperial authority ought not to be exercised. What it comes to is this, that what the Colonial Office thought unfair in 1871 is now pressed upon the colony as a liberal arrangement. I am not so much blaming the Colonial Office, for anyone who reads the Despatches will see that the sympathy of the Colonial Office is with the colony, but the War Office and the Treasury are on the other side, and they have compelled the Colonial Office to break faith with the Settlements. The arrangement I refer to actuated Major McCullum, the Colonial Engineer, when he made his Report to the Governor in 1872, when it was well recognised that for expenditure for Im- perial purposes the Home Government should be responsible and not the colony. Now, with regard to the defence the right hon. Gentleman made of the conditions under which the transfer of Singapore from the Indian Government to the Colonial Office was effected, I would point out the complete reply of Major McCullum in his memorandum— ties, which have laid down in terms very clear that all local military requirements should be paid for by the colony, and that the colony should pay a fair share towards Imperial defence, but that all demands that arose on Imperial grounds should be paid out of Imperial funds. The fact that the possession of Singapore is of prominent importance to us has not been disputed to-night. We find in the Memorandum of the Inspector General of Fortifications in 1884 these words— demands of the entire Singapore community and, at the same time, do justice to the British taxpayers—against whom I, as one of them, can have no manner of ill-feeling. He says— the charge would not be so unfair as it now seems to be to the people of Singapore, Malacca, and Penang. I earnestly hope Her Majesty's Government will take this matter into consideration, and see if it is not possible to adjust a grievance which I, for one, am convinced is a real one, the reality of which I do not think any statement made tonight by Her Majesty's Minister has in any way tended to remove. (8.50.)

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,

I have always thought that the British taxpayer, who is compelled to pay for naval and other defences all over the world, receives a miserably inadequate return. But it does seem to me that the Secretary of State for War has made out a very fair case far the contribution of £100,000 for the Straits Colony. For my part, I should be glad to regard that colony as a typical one, and my opinion is not that the Straits Colony pays too much, but that the other colonies pay too little. While it is shown that the Straits Colony makes a tolerable approach towards paying for its own garrison in the same way as India does, we must nevertheless feel that the people of that colony have some excuse for feeling sore upon the subject, on the ground that while they are compelled to make a just contribution for defensive purposes, the other colonies do nothing of the sort. I wish the Secretary for War could only show them the prospect of something being done in other directions. I think we are in a somewhat unsatisfactory position with regard to most of our colonies. We "gas" a good deal about our possessions in every part of the world, but at the same time we have little or no control over those possessions. At any rate, we have no such control as will relieve the pockets of the British taxpayer from the enormous burden he is compelled to undergo for the defence of those colonies. I regret that the Secretary for War has not formulated some plan for obtaining a more adequate contribution from our colonies. It has been stated with regard to the Straits Settlements—Hong Kong and Ceylon—that the British Government contribute very little towards the revenues of those colonies. But in the case of Singapore and Hong Kong, the revenues are derived almost entirely from the duties upon opium and spirits sold to the natives. Ceylon is a large and rich island, which pays very little in the shape of taxation, but which follows what is the normal rule among the Crown Colonies by levying heavy duties on the commonest food imported for the consumption of the commonest people, and yet, at the same time, it grudges a contribution to the British Revenue for Imperial Defence. Ceylon, Singapore, and the other colonies in that part of the world are under the ægis of India, and are all equally benefited by the expenditure incurred for the defence of India. Therefore, it is not too much to suggest that in the interests of the British taxpayer all these colonies should be called upon to make, at least, similar contributions to those of the Straits Settlements; and if this were so, Singapore would have no ground of complaint.

There is no doubt that the Colony of Hong Kong derives a large portion of its revenue from opium; and if hon. Members opposite had their own way, that revenue would be taken away. With regard to Singapore, that colony undoubtedly contributes largely towards its own defence, and does this ungrudgingly. I believe it has not yet obtained all the guns that are considered necessary for defensive purposes, but we are told that they will shortly be supplied. We must remember that what is being done is not merely for the defence of the colonies per se, but for the defence and protection of the British trade up and down the entire coast in that quarter of the globe. It would be manifestly unjust to demand additional taxation from the Colony of Hong Kong on account of its opium revenue without, at the same time, giving it additional troops, because that source of revenue may soon be swept away. If additional troops had been sent to Hong Kong, the complaints made by that colony would not be so justifiable as they appear to be at the present moment. No doubt we have a very important trade at Hong Kong, and passing through Hong Kong, but, as I have just said, if it is necessary to call upon them for increased contributions, we ought to give increased means of defence. For my part, I shall support the Amendment of my hon. Friend.

^* (9.30.) : The difficulty of this question will be obvious to every fair-minded man. It is quite easy on the one side to declaim against the magnitude of the charge imposed upon Singapore, and it is equally easy on the other side to say that a large charge should be imposed in such cases, in order to relieve the British taxpayer. I naturally listened very carefully to the speech of the Minister who undertook to defend the situation; and when the Secretary for War concluded, I could not help contrasting the tone of his remarks in dealing with this protest with what it would have been had the protest come from a colony blessed with representative Government. I could not detect one word or one expression in his speech designed to alleviate or pacify the very strong feeling which undoubtedly exists in the colony, both with regard to the amount of the contribution imposed and the manner of its imposition. It would surely have been well if the Secretary for State had taken notice of one of the three propositions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock. This is a question of some importance, for we know that the feeling of every one who speaks on this subject in the colony—whether official or unofficial—is adverse to the action of the Government, and therefore it would be well if some concession could be made to their views. I can hardly see the general bearing of the Secretary of State's argument. No doubt the figures he quoted were interesting and instructive. The difficulty in Singapore has arisen from two circumstances: In the first place, an extremely high charge has been imposed in a somewhat violent manner; and, in the second place, that charge is felt to be very large in comparison with like charges imposed upon other Crown Colonies. I agree with the Secretary of State that it is impossible for the British Government to do all they desire with regard to the levying of these charges; but I view with grave apprehension the tendency which now exists in this House and out of it to impose from home charges equal with our own upon our colonial people. If that were attempted in the case of the self-governing colonies, we should, I am certain, soon lose their Imperial attachment. The Secretary of State in the figures he quoted compared the charge per head and the personal income in the colony with the military charges per head in this and other European countries, but he failed to give any figures showing the extent of the burden in our great representative colonies, which would have been a comparison far more applicable to the case. While I feel very strongly it is a bad thing to have dissatisfaction arise in the colonies, I do not desire to do anything which would have the effect of diminishing the charge upon the colonies at the expense of the taxpayers of this country. On the other hand, the most common good feeling towards our colonists would suggest that we should take all possible pains for the purpose of equalising the charges which they bear among themselves. The great grievance in this case is that the charge imposed upon Singapore is without parallel among the Crown Colonies, and that point in itself affords a ground for careful inquiry. I believe that much might be done if the question were brought under the purview of a Committee of this House. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite may not agree with that view, but I would ask them to remember that the inhabitants of this colony have for the most part lived in England, and have been accustomed to that consideration which our system of government necessarily involves. The speech of the Secretary of State to-night was not, perhaps, inappropriate to the time in which we happen to be, for it was a speech which might have been made by the greatest Emperor upon the face of the earth, and it conveyed no kind of intimation that the people of Singapore were entitled to any consideration whatever beyond the baldest discussion of the figures. I shall be glad if, before the Debate closes, something is said to show the people of Singapore that they will be treated with something like consideration by Her Majesty's Government.

I hope that before this Debate closes we shall have a few words from my right hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies. The Blue Book is full of interest. It shows that there was a wide divergence of opinion, not only between the colony and the Home Government, but in the Cabinet itself. There was a difference of opinion also equally marked between the Colonial Secretary and the Treasury and the War Office, and they were obliged to call in the Chancellor of the Exchequer to put matters right. The result was that the unfortunate Colonial Secretary was placed in a minority by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary for War, and has been forced to accept their decision. The colony unanimously complained of what was proposed, and appealed to the Colonial Office, which supported the colony. The Colonial Office was outvoted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary for War. Now, we in this Committee ought to support the colony and the Colonial Office. The Colonial Office ought not to be made a mere Department either of the Treasury or of the War Office. Lord Knutsford informs us that the incidence of the contribution was fully considered by the various Departments concerned, and continues—

"As in the end a difference of opinion was found to exist between the Colonial Office, the Treasury, and the War Office, the matter was dealt with in confidence by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary for War, and myself."

Thus the unfortunate Secretary for the Colonies was sandwiched between the Secretary for War and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We have reason to complain that the Colonial Office should have been forced to put pressure on the members of the Legislative Council of Singapore. This raises a very difficult and important question in regard to our attitude towards our Crown Colonies. Are the Legislative Assemblies to be absolutely controlled by the Home Government? It appears to me the true policy for us to pursue in our relations with the Crown Colonies is to deal with them as far as possible as if they possessed representative Government—as a Cabinet would deal with a representative Assembly, and I hold that it is most dangerous for us to override the local opinion of a colony. What has been done in this case reminds one of a Stuart King directing his Parliament what to do. Word was sent out from the Colonial Office to the Governor of this colony to carry this Vote at all hazards and against all opposition; the official members were compelled to support it, while the un-official members were against it. It was carried by the casting vote of the Governor, and, therefore, became a case of absolute dictation, entirely out of harmony with English principles. I am sure that the protest which has been made in this Committee is a wise one, and I hope it will have the effect of moderating the dictatorial tendencies and sentiments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for War.

I support the appeal of my hon. Friend. It is a remarkable fact that in this Debate the Committee have not yet heard anything positive from the Colonial Office on the question, and that the defence of the Government has been left to the Secretary for War, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in close attendance. It is also a notable fact that this matter was first broached to the House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech in April last, when the right hon. Gentleman said the Government would appeal to the patriotism of the colonies on the subject, and that they were not disposed to deal with them in any niggardly spirit. It can hardly be said now that Singapore has been at all generously dealt with, and the colonists have, I think, strong ground for complaint. I regard the statements and arguments of the Secretary for War as very unsatisfactory, for they in no way adequately meet the case, or answer the complaint made by the colonists. Nothing has been urged in defence of the exaction—which is characterised by excessive meanness on the part of the Home Government—of a sum to make up the deficit arising from the exchange on silver in past years. I believe this is an addition to the increased contribution now demanded.

^* : No.

I understood that the contribution of £100,000 was to be exacted from the colony, and that also there was £28,000 due to the Home Government on account of the loss on exchange.

The hon. Member is absolutely incorrect.

I am sorry to have made the mistake, but I gathered from the Despatch of Sir Cecil Smith that the Government claims that the annual contribution hitherto fixed at £50,000 shall be paid in sterling or at the Treasury rate of exchange; and the Despatch goes on to say—

"Your Lordships and your Lordships' predecessors have unceasingly represented how in equitable any such claim is on the colony, so I must despair of being listened to."

^* : He had been listened to already.

That does not appear on the face of the Despatches. My hon. Friend alluded to the fact that this claim on the part of the Treasury for loss on exchange forms part of the arrangement which has been made.

^* : I certainly thought the demand for a lump sum on account of the loss on exchange was entirely apart from the increase of the annual contribution.

^* : It is a just claim, a large part of which was waived out of deference to the views of the colonists, and in order to treat them as generously as possible.

I am very glad to have elicited that explanation. As to the suggestion that the Home Government is entitled to demand this increased annual contribution by virtue of the terms of the arrangement of 1856, that is, I think, endeavouring to enforce the provisions of the agreement too stringently upon the weaker party to he contract.

We were accused of breach of faith, and it was only fair, therefore, to quote the essential points of that agreement.

The agreement might have been perfectly fair then. Is it so now? It is well-known that this extra contribution has been exacted from Singapore because of the new ideas—the new condition of things that has sprung up in connection with the necessity of protecting, or defending, our Imperial coaling stations abroad, and there is this element of shabbiness about it—that the Government will not persist in the demand on colonies which can resist it, and has only done so in the case of Singapore, because that Crown Colony is powerless. Then there is the further argument as to the proportion which the sum of £100,000 bears to the present Revenue of the Straits Settlements. Sir Cecil Smith also deals with that. He points out clearly that the contribution now demanded is asked for because of the importance of Singapore under the new scheme of Imperial defence; yet a burden is imposed on the whole Revenue of the Straits Settlements, which have really no interests in the fortifications at Singapore. Therefore, the only fair comparison would be the ratio of the £100,000 to the Revenue of Singapore alone. I would suggest to the Government that such en important subject as this should be dealt with as a question of general Imperial policy, and not as one affecting a particular station such as Singapore. With the general consent of the House of Commons, the Government have made various proposals for Imperial defence, and particularly for the defence of the coaling stations in the other hemisphere; and surely it is a matter to be settled on general principles how much of the necessary expenditure shall be borne by the Mother Country, and how much by the individual settlements where the fortifications are raised. I quite gathered from the Blue Book and other sources that, if the Government had brought for ward this matter in a reasonable and temperate spirit, it would have been met in a similar way by Singapore; for, in proof of this, it may be stated that, after all the cause of irritation given, and notwithstanding the harsh and coercive manner in which this contribution has been forced upon them, the colonists passed resolutions, expressing their willingness to contribute one-half of the estimated expenditure—or £70,000 a year. I earnestly join in the hope expressed by the hon. Member for Greenock and other hon. Members, that some action in the matter will follow this Debate—that the Government will seriously take it in hand with a view to arriving at some settlement, either by a Committee of the House, or by investigation on the part of some other responsible body, so that, in the interests of the Empire, future differences with our colonies may be avoided.

I do not propose to occupy the time of the House at any length, but I should like to point out that this matter raises a very important point, not only with regard to Singapore, but with regard to all the Crown Colonies, because it involves the question whether in future they are to be entirely at the mercy of the home authorities. It should be remembered that these colonies have no representative members, and it is very important that in all financial relations with them the Home Government should not err on the side of harshness, meanness, or injustice. They should not only avoid shabbiness of conduct, but should be careful not to create any impression that they are guilty of it. They draw a distinction between the defence of Singapore and the defence generally of the commercial interests of the British Empire in the East. They feel it is unjust that they should be called upon, not merely to defend themselves, but to pay the very large proportion which is thrown on them of the cost of the general protection of British commerce in the East. Upon the question at issue between the Home Government and the colony, there can be little doubt that the Home Government have erred; but it is not too late, even at the eleventh hour, for the Government to do that which the sense of justice of the Colony of Singapore demands. It is hardly a light matter that leading merchants of Singapore should be led to entertain doubts of the justice, not to speak of the generosity, of the Imperial Government. I feel quite sure there is no part of Her Majesty's dominions in which stronger Imperial instincts prevail than amongst society at Singapore, but the whole colony is up in arms against the Imperial Government, and I think the amount of money which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to get does not make it worth while to create such a sense of injustice which has been created in this case.

^* (10.4.) : The colonists are happy in one respect—that when there is a dispute in a matter where Imperial and colonial interests are at issue they have sympathetic Members in this House to plead their case; but, on the other hand, when the Imperial view has to be put before the Colonial Council, there are no Members who are able to press the Imperial case in the same way. The hon. Member has spoken with regard to the merchants of Singapore. They pay no Income Tax, no Customs Duties; they are taxed more lightly than merchants in almost any other part of the world. In fact, they pay scarcely any taxes at all. It is a most natural thing on their part that they should vote or agitate against the demand made by the Imperial Government. It is said that if we impose a larger contribution upon the colony they will have to find new taxes, and that they hope, at all events, the demand made upon them will be final. Contrast with that the position of the English taxpayer. Government cannot give them any guarantee that the payments they make will be final, and when it is necessary that increased expenditure should be incurred, Government is obliged sometimes to have recourse to new taxes. It appears to be entirely forgotten that defence costs infinitely more than it did. Every single item of military expenditure costs more than it used to do. The hon. Member for West Edinburgh thinks the offer of the Singapore people a generous one. They paid £50,000 in the year 1860, when their revenues were £200,000; now their revenues are £600,000. The hon. Member thinks it generous, when the revenues are three times as great and everything connected with military expenditure costs twice as much, that the colonists should offer to pay the same as they paid 30 years ago. I do not think that is an offer which is adequate to the occasion. I deny that the speech of my right hon. Friend was wanting in sympathy with the colonies, but surely it is right to put before the House of Commons fairly what the case is as between one set of taxpayers and the other. Having looked carefully into the matter, the Government found that whether we take population, or revenue, or any other test, the colonists of Singapore paid infinitely less than almost any other community. I can assure hon. Members, while I wish to be just to the taxpayers of this country, I have at the same time borne in mind that the colonists are not represented in this House, and that, therefore, there ought to be extreme care taken in fixing the sums that should be charged. I regret the feeling of dissatisfaction in the colony, and, as far as the Government are concerned, I do not wish to add a single word which may embitter the controversy; on the contrary, the Government wish to express their appreciation of the efforts which the colonists have so far made, but I do not think we have gone one jot beyond the fair justice of the case in the demands which we have made upon the colony. This is not the view of one Department or another, but of the Government as a whole, acting upon their responsibility, and after careful consideration of the circumstances of each particular colony. I do not think we are called upon to retreat from the decision we have taken, but in order to meet the view of the hon. Member for Greenock, if the revenues of the colony should decrease, if they are less able to bear this contribution than they now are, the Government will be inclined to review the situation. At present the demand of the Imperial Government is made in the full conviction that they are attempting to draw the proper line between the claims of the British taxpayer and those of the colonists.

(10.11.) The Committee divided:— Ayes 44; Noes 112.—(Div. List, No. 344.)

Original Question again proposed.

I beg to move the reduction of the salary of the Secretary of State for the Colonies by the sum of £200, with a view to calling the attention of the Committee to the administration of the island of Ceylon, and especially to the system of taxation which prevails in the island. Ceylon is about five-sixths the size of Ireland, and, in proportion to its size, it is almost as thickly populated. There are at present nearly 3,000,000 people on the island. Notwithstanding its fertility, it is not able to grow sufficient food for its own consumption. In the year 1888 the visible food supply for the year consisted of 8,600,000 bushels of paddy ( i.e. , rice in the husk), locally grown, which is equal to half that amount, or 4,300,000 bushels of clean rice. In addition the food supply in eluded imported rice to the amount of 6,600,000 bushels; fine grain (kurak kan) 900,000 bushels; and peas, 35,000 bushels; making a total of 11,835,000 bushels. There is, consequently, scarcely an allowance of four bushels apiece for the bulk of the population. This is only half rations; eight bushels is the proper allowance for health. The dietary for prisoners in the gaols exceeds seven bushels of rice besides other things, the penal diet being eight bushels without other things. This being the actual state of things as regards the food supply, what does the British Government do? It raises one-fifth of the gross revenue, or three-eighths of the net revenue of the island, in the form of taxes upon necessary food. In 1887, the tax on imported rice was 1,800,000 rupees, and the tax on homegrown paddy 975,000 rupees. This is an iniquitous and intolerable state of things that ought no longer to be endured. Fifty years ago the corn laws were in force in this country. They were an intolerable wrong, but the state of things still prevailing in Ceylon is infinitely worse than was the state of things prevailing in this country during the existence of the Corn Laws. We were satisfied to place an Import Duty on foreign corn. In Ceylon we not only place an Import Duty on rice imported into the country, but we tax the homegrown rice as well. It is mainly with the Paddy Tax that I am now and here more particularly concerned. This tax is of British origin. Before the British occupation taxation had been levied on all sorts and descriptions of property in the island, but by proclamation, dated 18th November, 1818, a tax on paddy only was established at 1–10th its yearly yield. In 1840 the British Government introduced the farming system, the Paddy Tax of the different districts being put up to auction to the highest bidder. This gave rise to the grossest extortion and abuse, and was succeeded by the commutation system some 20 years ago. The tax which had formerly been paid in kind was now paid in money, and the goiya, or peasant cultivator of Ceylon, was now obliged to pay whether the crop was good or bad, and whether the land was under cultivation or not. The amount of the tax was also raised. In the Uva district, for every 100 rupees of the tax in kind in 1818, the peasantry had now to pay 350 rupees in money. Within about 30 years the Paddy Tax has been increased in the Colombo district by 145 per cent., in the Kandy district by 149 per cent., in the Matalé by 73 per cent., in Matara by 105 per cent., in Trincomalee by 108 per cent., and yet the cultivated area has not increased in these localities. The tax has every vice which it is possible for a tax to have. In the first place it is a tax on food, and taxes upon the necessaries of life; as Adam Smith has well said, have nearly the same effect upon the circumstances of the people as a poor soil and a bad climate. Hon. Members will remember that the author of Wealth of Nations lays down four canons with which every good tax ought to comply, and it is easy to show that this tax violates them one and all. The first of Adam Smith's maxims is this—

"The subjects of every State ought to contribute towards the support of the Government as nearly as possible in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the State."

The Paddy Tax is levied in flagrant violation of this first and most essential principle of all just taxation. The inhabitants of Ceylon are, as I have already stated, nearly 3,000,000 in number; the paddy growers, on the other hand, are only 430,187, or about one-seventh of the whole. Paddy is the only agricultural produce in the island upon which tithe is levied. The rich planters and tea growers escape scot free, the whole weight of the tax falling on the poorest portion of the population, and this in face of the fact that the remaining burdens upon the paddy growers are so great that even when the Grain Taxes are repealed they will still be the most heavily taxed of any of the people in proportion to their means, The second principle of sound taxation is that—

"The tax which each individual is bound to pay ought to be certain, and not arbitrary."

Now the Paddy Tax, as we have seen, has been raised in the most capricious and arbitrary fashion. One of the assistant Government Agents, Mr. Le Mesurier, says the cause of the great default in payment of commutation has been twofold; the over assessment of the production of the fields, and the high rates enforced per bushel. The third principle of taxation is that—

"Every tax ought to be levied at the time, or in the manner in which it is most likely to be convenient for the contributor to pay it."

Here, again, the Paddy Tax is at fault. It is an annual tax levied whatever the state of the crop, and whether the land has been cultivated or not. The work of the Grain Commissioner in the Uva district revealed the fact that there were instances in which men had paid tax for 10 years without once realising a crop. These payments were made from coffee, not from paddy. When there was a failure of the coffee crop widespread destitution ensued. In 1883 the coffee exported amounted to 307,530 cwts.; in 1888 it had fallen to 137,793 cwts. Lastly—

"Every tax ought to be so contrived as both to take out and to keep out of the pockets of the people as little as possible over and above what it brings into the Public Treasury of the State."

From this point of view the Paddy Tax is a bad tax, because the cost of collecting it amounts to at least 20 per cent. of the tax itself. The tax, then, being of such an odious and abominable character, it is not surprising to learn that the worst possible consequences have followed from its exaction. In the year 1864 the Agent for the North-West Province sent in a Report showing that during the year 1860–61 8,000 people died of starvation, and the diseases engendered thereby, in his district in six months. Again, during the last few years the Ceylon Government sold up and evicted from their lands 85,380 people, and dispossessed them of 29,182 ancestral acres for 71,551 rupees due for arrears of Grain Tax—that is to say, for the paltry sum of about 5s. each person. The people have died by hundreds and by thousands in consequence of the brutality and inhumanity of the British Government.

^* : What is the date to which the hon. Member refers?

From 1882 to 1885. Another statement given us on the authority of a Government official is that in 1882–5, in the Newara Eliya district alone, 1,048 owners of paddy lands died of starvation. We are responsible. I hold that the British Government and this House are responsible for the deaths of these men, women, and children.

"You take my house, when you do take the prop

That doth sustain my house; you take my life, When you do take the means whereby I live."

The Government have taken from these poor people their means of livelihood. I do not speak of this, or indeed of any, particular Government; all Governments have sinned in this matter. Ceylon is governed despotically. It has, no doubt, a Legislative Council, but this Council is only a consultative body, it has no power of initiative. The Legislative Council is composed of the Governor and 10 of his officials, and of seven gentlemen, not officials, who are nominated by the Governor. None of these non-official members may raise any question in Council which entails a money vote or might lead to one; and no official member may speak or vote except as the Governor permits. Everything depends upon the Governor and the Secretary of State for the Colonies. They have only to speak the word and an end will be put to a gross wrong, and right will be done at last to some of the poorest, humblest, and most deserving of Her Majesty's subjects. I beg move the reduction of the Vote by £200.

Motion made, and Question proposed, " That Item A, Salaries, be reduced by £200, part of the Salary of the Secretary of State."—( Mr. Summers. )

I must say I had hoped, after what passed in this House some few months ago, that by this time, at any rate, a considerable stop would have been taken in the direction indicated by my hon. Friend. It seems to me that this question of the Paddy Tax in Ceylon has somewhat akin in its nature to the course of an intermittent fever; it has its hot and cold phases, and, at the present time, we have entered upon a cold phase of the question, I fear. I judge this, because when 1 asked a short time ago whether any advance had been made towards a settlement, I was told that, though it had been under the consideration of the Government, nothing had been decided upon in this "very complicated question." As a partisan of the Government of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, I should be satisfied if the honour and credit of settling this matter did not fall to the present Government; but having visited Ceylon, and knowing the condition of the Cingalese labourer, I feel it is a matter too urgent for even that short delay, and I would prefer that it should be settled now immediately by the right hon. Gentleman now sitting opposite and his Party, so as not to prolong the hardships under which the Paddy-grinder suffers. For my own part, I cannot see any cause for such long delay. There must be tons of correspondence on the subject in the Colonial Office, and I am quite at a loss to understand what it is which prevents the settlement of so simple a question, involving only£75,000 a year of revenue. To the great ability of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who not long ago bore, Atlas like, the immense burden of the Sugar Bounties question, I am sure the solution of so simple a matter as the Paddy Tax can present no great difficulty. In Ceylon there are only a few fanatics and fossils remaining who defend the tax. Even the planters, whose interests are not all on the side of a change of taxation, have very greatly changed their position, having been touched by the miseries depicted in the Reports of the Government Agents—Mr. Le Mesurier and Mr. Fisher. I need not enter at length into the Reports of these gentlemen, because the House has on various occasions been put in possession of the facts. I will only mention from Mr. Fisher's Report the fact that 3,244 fields have been sold within five years, or 22½per cent. of the paddy fields in his—the Uva—district, 2,950 head of families, and estimating each family to consist of five, 15,750 villagers have been thus deprived of the means of livelihood, or 49 per cent. of the whole population of the district. Mr. Moir did not exaggerate when he said that in his district 1,689 fields out of 2,780 had been alienated and sold by the Government for arrears of taxes? But very recent information the Government has at hand to show the impoverishment among the paddy growers. The Census Returns for 1891 show to what an enormous extent villagers have been driven away by eviction and want to the tea plantations. It is difficult, without local knowledge, to picture all the evils that result from this driving of the heads of the families from their native villages. Wives and children are deserted, destitution and gross immorality prevail. It appears from the Census returns that in the Central province the population has diminished 10 per cent. in the villages, and on the estates it has increased 20 per cent. In the Kandy district the decrease in the village population has been 11 per cent., and the increase on the estates 32 per cent. The transference of population is obviously the result of bad times and the continued exactions of the tax collector. The fact is that rice cultivators in the island can only obtain a miserable livelihood, and yet upon this class falls almost the whole burden of taxation on produce. It is said sometimes that money has been made out of rice cultivation, and that it is an industry that pays well; but from actual experiments made, Mr. White, the well-known planter, declares that the cultivation cannot pay. The only way in which a profit can be made is by the usual method adopted by the Moormen and others, who buy the land, settle families of Cingalese upon it, and reserve to themselves the right of supplying food, implements, and seed, all at a profit of 50 per cent. Only by half-starving himself can the "goiya," or labourer, eke out an existence. By working 100 days, he gets eight or ten bushels of paddy, equal to 15s. or 16s. A miserable result for 100 days' labour. Mr. Wall, the well-known editor of the Ceylon Independent, has made a calculation of the incidence of taxation in terms of days on heads of families, and he has taken four different classes in Ceylon and estimated the percentage of day's income per year a man of each class gives to pay his share of the taxation. The "goiya," paid in kind equal to 10 cents a day, has to work 52 days to pay his share of taxation, the goiya earning wages works 46 days, persons in receipt of incomes of 500 rupees a year 11 days, and those in receipt of 1,000 rupees pay 5·90 days income. When reduced to averages it works out that the goiya works 14·4 per cent. of the total days of the year, the goiya earning wages 13 per cent., the person with an income of 500 rupees annually 3 per cent., and the recipient of an income of 1,000 rupees a year 1·6 per cent, of the 365 days of the year. So it appears the class most heavily taxed is that to which the poorest agricultural labourers belong. I am glad to think that since I was in Ceylon, four or five months ago, there has been a decided advance shown in the expression of public opinion. The present Governor—Sir Arthur Havelock—may be claimed as on the side of those who propose the abolition of the Paddy Tax. Speaking at a public breakfast at Dimbula, at which he was entertained by planters, he used these words, in which he referred, though indirectly, to the Paddy Tax—

"I am not aware of any particular obstacle in the way of the progress of the planting interests that Government could at present help to remove, nor can I think of any special advantages which the Government, with due regard to other interests could just now fairly give to the planting enterprise. If the planting industry were an industry that hardly paid its own way; if it were an industry that hardly left any margin of profit and which only succeeded in keeping body and soul together; if that industry were subject to a heavy impost to which no other industry or undertaking in the country that I know of is subject; if the result of the collection of that impost has been the leaving of their homes by hundreds, I might say thousands of families who have had to quit their holdings on account of forced sales of their land, and have had to seek their living as best as they can, some in unaccustomed and menial labour, and others in the paths of crime and vice or of dishonour, then I should say that it was the duty of the Government to do all it can to remove that impost, even though it might cost some little sacrifice of revenue —even though while removing it, it might be necessary to throw overboard some of the axioms and theories of financiers—even though it might be proved that that impost had existed and had been endured since the time of Noah, of Wivjavo, or of Buddha."

Obviously Sir Arthur Havelock was referring to the paddy growers, and the reference was so understood by the Observer for that paper animadverted severely upon the phases I have just read. But I am glad to think that the Observer , which may be said to hold in Ceylon the position the Times does here, recognises the justice of our claims, for I find the Observer making use of these remarks—

"The Government have mitigated the paddy evy again and again; they have in a very slight degree, and a s regards the abolition of this rent,' or tax, the rich are, we believe, ready for the change to-morrow, and to go in for a general land levy which can alone supersede both our local food or grain taxes."

Again, I find the Observer saying—

"We have told Mr. Schwann and other visitors a thousand times that the Ceylon planters are, if need be, ready for a genera1 land tax, or any re-arrangement of taxation at any time; but what native, or native organ, in Ceylon has ever, or will ever, support a general land tax?"

Of course, those who are only subject to a light Road Tax of 1 rupee 80 cents do not look forward to a new tax with any pleasure, and as Burke said, "It is as difficult to tax and to please, as to love and be wise." What substitutes may be found for the Paddy Tax? A general light Land Tax, exempting small holdings. Out of 25,000 square miles in the Island there are 574,000 acres under paddy, and 643,641 acres under cocoanut trees, the latter constitutes the most profitable form of cultivation, though no tax whatever is imposed upon it. Then, again, an Income Tax, which has been applied by able financiers throughout India, could surely be applied without much difficulty to a small Island like Ceylon. The duty on spirits might be raised. It is only 4 rupees 50 cents in Ceylon, while in many colonies it is 10s, or more per gallon. It would not be difficult to impose a light Export Duty on tea, the export of which has increased in four years from 14,000,000 to 44,000,000 lbs. A very small duty on this would produce a large revenue. But I do not wish to detain the House with suggestions. I hope that before the House meets again next Session the Government will have done themselves the honour of removing the weight of taxation which now presses so heavily upon this suffering and industrious population.

^* : I have always considered this the very worst tax that could be imposed, for it is raised on a necessary of life and falls on the poorest part of the population, while it is exceedingly expensive to raise. It is a tax wrung from the poorest part of the population, and, as I gather from the pamphlet on the subject published by Mr. Salmon, the tax amounts to 13 or 14 per cent. on an average income of £6 a year. It is no wonder that the land is going out of cultivation. Mr. Salmon states that in one district out of 18,848 fields, 2,889, or 15 per cent., were sold in four years, owing to the inability of the cultivators to pay the tax, and besides that, a large number of other farms had to be abandoned. Statistics show that in the districts where the Paddy Tax presses most hardly upon the cultivators there have been appalling starvation and misery. I do not wish to attach the blame to any particular Government, for Liberal Governments have been as much to blame as Conservative Governments in continuing this tax, but a change has taken place in the views of the authorities themselves, and I think the time has come when a determined effort should be made to substitute for it some more fair and equal tax, which will not press so heavily on the poorest part of the population. A light Income Tax might well be substituted for it. That is paid throughout India; why, therefore, should it not be paid in Ceylon? The means of finding a substitute must be left to the Government of the day, but I do press most earnestly on the right hon. Gentleman that the time has come when something should be done to relieve these wretched people who, as it is, have hard work to keep body and soul together, from one of the most unjust taxes that can be conceived.

^* (11.4.) : I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Gentlemen who have spoken that Her Majesty's Government, to a great extent, share the views they have expressed. The hon. Member for Huddersfield was incorrect in stating that the tax was introduced by the British Government, for I have here a Report which states that when England took possession of the island the land was liable to contribute to the general revenue of the State, and that this tax was instituted in the year 500 of the Christian era. It has been continuously reduced during the occupation of the island by the English. While sympathising with hon. Gentlemen opposite, and agreeing that this tax is hard on the poorer population, the Government have to consider a very important question, namely, the means of raising an amount of revenue equal to this tax should it be abolished. That question has presented itself to many Governments. Up to the present time no Government has succeeded in solving the problem of how to raise an equal amount by other means. It is easy to suggest Income Tax and taxes upon cocoanuts and tea, but it is certainly doubtful whether the people of Ceylon would receive any of those suggestions with any considerable amount of enthusiasm. It has been said that a vast number of persons have been compelled to leave their lands in consequence of the impossibility of paying the Paddy Tax, and have perished from starvation. The Secretary of State has inquired carefully into the subject, and is convinced that the circumstances have been greatly exaggerated. The population statistics are the strongest evidence of this. In two districts where the mortality is said to have been specially high the statistics show that whereas a few years before the population was 10,564 and 15,700 respectively, in 1888 it rose to 10,938 and 16,341. That leads to the conclusion that there can not have been much diminution in the population from deaths in those districts. To make good the deficit that would be caused by the abolition of the Paddy Tax a very considerable amount of revenue must be raised. It would be necessary to reconstitute the whole system of taxation in the island. From 1881 to 1885 this question was under the consideration of the Colonial Office under the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, and I observe that the same difficulties that presented themselves to the present Government presented themselves to that Government; and when the hon. Member for Manchester says he thinks that we ought to have solved the question during the past three months, I would remind him that this is not a question that the present Government alone has had to deal with, but which generations of Governments, so to speak, have had to face. One-third of the taxation of the island is derived from these taxes on grain.

My argument was that, for the sake of humanity, the Government be prepared even to depart from the recognised principles of political economy.

^* : I do not say it is impossible to supply the place of this tax, but I say it is a matter which requires very grave consideration. The Governor of Ceylon has been instructed to inquire into the whole subject. Her Majesty's Government are waiting for this Report, and as soon as it is received we shall do our utmost to do away with a tax which we regard as a hard one, and one to some extent unjust.

Having been in Ceylon two or three years ago, and having made inquiries in regard to this matter, I must say that I regard the Paddy Tax as one of the most scandalous taxes in existence. The Government have never fairly looked into the question at all. I have heard answers given from the Front Bench opposite which have convinced me that that is the case. The tax bears most heavily on the poorer part of the population, every spoonful of paddy eaten by a child in the island having to pay its proportion of the tax. The question is one of humanity, and not of political economy at all. As a mere question of humanity it ought to be abolished, for it conduces to the starvation of the people. I must say I am astonished to see the state of the Treasury Bench to-night. We are not dealing with the luxuries of the rich, but with the misery and starvation of the poor under our protection in Ceylon, and there are the Members of the Government, or rather, there they are not. I thank the hon. Member for Huddersfield for having brought this question forward. I hope Her Majesty's Government will have the courage to appoint a Commission to thoroughly investigate the whole matter, and I feel sure that if they do, such Commission will condemn this iniquity which has been permitted for so long.

^* : I desire to dissociate myself from the suggestion of the hon. Member for Manchester that the Import Duty on rice should be retained. I am surprised that the suggestion should come from Manchester of all places in the world. I earnestly hope the Paddy Tax will be abolished. It now replaces the old Land Tax, which fell upon the rich, and which has been abolished owing to the pressure of that influential oligarchy which is to be found in all our Crown Colonies. They have shifted the taxes from themselves and imposed them on the food of the lowest and poorest of the people. The Paddy Tax ought to be abolished and an equable Land Tax re-established. That would bear on all alike—whether the rich cultivators of tea and cocoa or the poor growers of rice.

We are all agreed that if possible the Paddy Tax should be altered, but I do hope that the suggestions of the hon. Member for Manchester will not be allowed to pass without notice in this House. I am astonished at the hon. Member suggesting the imposition of an Income Tax and an Export Duty on tea. I wonder what the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton) would have said to that if he had been present. Ceylon is only just emerging from financial difficulties due to the failure of the coffee crop, and I should be very sorry to see an Export Duty on tea, which would diminish the export of tea, thereby injuring the colony, and at the same time increasing the price of an article in this country of universal consumption among the poorer classes.

(11.19.) The Committee divided:— Ayes 69; Noes 112.—(Div. List, No. 345.)

Original Question again proposed.

^* (11.28.) : Before we pass from this subject I wish to deal with a matter several times referred to to-night, namely, the main source of revenue in Singapore, the Straits Settlements, Hong Kong, and other Crown Colonies along the Asiatic coast. That source of revenue is the sale of opium. That trade is very demoralising. There is a strong feeling growing up among the natives in those colonies against our policy of multiplying opium dens among them for the sake of revenue. We have crowded Singapore and Hong Kong with opium dens, and all the British settlements along the Asiatic coast have become contaminated, and I wish to protest against such policy. I would call attention to a Petition from Singapore, signed by 11,000 residents and sent to this House last year. That Petition refers to the terrible effects of opium smoking among the thousands of Chinese in the colonies, and prays the British Administration to lessen the facilities for carrying on a traffic in this pernicious drug. On behalf of the people of Singapore I wish to call the attention of the House to this Petition, and to point out the havoc we are causing by the enormous multiplication of the number of opium dens in that unhappy place. We are told that of late years the revenue of Singapore has been trebled; that it has risen from £200,000 to £600,000. Yes; but how has that great increase taken place? By multiplying the number of opium dens and stimulating the consumption of the drug, thereby demoralising tens of thousands of the popu- lation. And the same thing has happened in Hong Kong. There, again, we draw our chief revenue by ministering to the vices of the people. A Petition was sent from Hong Kong last year, and it was supported by nearly all the native churches. It points out the evils arising from the trade in opium, and it prays the Government to restrict the importation. I think the House will be very hard-hearted if it pays no attention to these appeals. Had this been a matter touching the pockets of European merchants there would have been a tremendous noise about it; but as it only injuriously affects the welfare of millions of poor natives little notice is taken of these appeals. The Government will not trouble itself about the moral and physical welfare of these people; it studies only the pecuniary advantage of the European colony. I do appeal to them, however, to do something to limit a traffic which inflicts ruin and misery on thousands and tens of thousands of our fellow-subjects.

I wish to emphasise what has fallen from the hon. Member for Flint-shire. I think that the Petitions referred to by the hon. Member show that there is a strong feeling in these colonies against the existing state of things with regard to the opium traffic. I trust that this question will be narrowly watched, not only by the Government, but by Parliament, and that a real effort will be made to reduce the evils of the opium traffic as far as possible in Singapore and other colonies. At Singapore it is not only the Chinese who are victims to this terrible vice; even Europeans are falling into the pernicious habit.

^* : No notice has been given to my right hon. Friend that this important question was going to be brought up, but it will be brought under the notice of Lord Knutsford. Of course the question is extremely important, both socially and financially, and I am sure that the Committee will not wish any rash action to be taken on the matter. I will now earnestly ask the Committee to allow this Vote to be taken, as a considerable time has been occupied in the discussion of the very important questions raised. I do not say that the Debate has been unduly prolonged, but I am sure hon. Members on both sides are anxious to make progress with the business of the Committee.

^* : I have no wish to prolong the discussion. I wish, however, to ask two questions, not out of curiosity, but for reasons which will make themselves manifest on a future occasion. I desire information as to the office hours of the First and Second Division clerks in the Colonial Office and also of the messengers and workmen. I want to know at what hour they commence, how long is allowed for refreshment, and at what hour they finish? I ask for this question during Supply, because if I had moved for a Parliamentary Return it would probably have been refused me. I also wish to give notice that I propose on all the subsequent Votes affecting other Government Departments to ask for similar information.

^* (11.40.) : I shall be happy to give the information either in reply to a question or on the Report.

^* : I should prefer to have the information on the Report. I think 1 should be more likely to get definite information than if I put a question.

I do not think my hon. Friend ought to be satisfied with that undertaking. I take it that promises are often given to supply information on Report with the hope that as Report is taken after midnight the hon. Member desiring it may chance to be absent from the House. I think it is our duty to insist on having the information as to the hours the clerks in Public Offices work. We know that in some Departments they have a very easy time, and we ought to see that the country gets money's worth for the salary paid to them. I shall take a Division on this matter, even if I am the only Member to challenge it. I therefore hope the right hon. Gentleman will, even now, give us a specific statement.

I wish to ask a few questions. We certainly have had a long Debate on this Vote, but we have not yet commenced to analyse the figures. Under Sub-head A I find the case of a first-class clerk who is a major in the Yeomanry. When he goes on this annual training he receives 19s. a day, and an allowance for forage. Is any deduction made from his salary of £800 while he is away from the office on this training? Then I see that one of the chief clerks gets £100 a year for emigration business. Is that in addition to his salary of £1,000 a year, and, if so, does he do the emigration work out of office hours? Under Sub-head B there is an item, Emigrants' Information Office £500 "expenses of management, &c.," and £150 rent. Why are not the details set out in the same way as the Votes for other Offices? Can the Under Secretary for the Colonies explain the items? What is the meaning of "etcetera?" Is it, as a celebrated individual once found out," sherry and biscuits?" I hope my hon. Friend will persist in securing the information he desires as to the hours of labour of the employés in Government Offices. I think sometimes they are too short, for I remember that when I went to one office on public business before 11 o'clock the clerks were very angry indeed with me.

^* (11.50.) : As to the Emigrants' Information Office, the £500 is for salaries of clerks and caretakers.

How about the Yeomanry officer?

^* : He is absent only six days at the training, and I am not aware that any deduction is made from his salary on that account. As to the other gentleman, the emigration is something outside his ordinary duties, and of course he receives extra remuneration for it.

Why is not the staff of the Emigrants' Information Office set out as that of other offices?

^* (11.51.) : I cannot say; I have nothing to do with that.

^* : If the hon. Member will look to the Report of the Colonisation Committee he will get full details.

I say the details ought to appear in this Vote.

(11.52.) Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £11,009, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1892, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council and for Quarantine Expenses."

On this question I wish to ask whether it was not the intention of the Government when the Board of Agriculture was formed to take the £2,000 put down for the salary of the President of the Council and devote it to the Minister of Agriculture by way of salary? I certainly gathered there was an understanding to that effect. We shall have to take a Division on it; but it will be more convenient to do so when we come to the Vote for the Minister of Agriculture.

^* : I wish to put a question as to the hours of the clerks and workmen in this Department. I wish also to get an explanation of the item of £50—" allowance to the purveyor of luncheons." A similar item occurs in other Votes, and I wish to know if it is an allowance to make up a loss on the sale of refreshments?

I will endeavour to get the information asked for by the hon. Member on the Report stage. If he will put a question as to the allowance of the purveyor of luncheons I will also explain that.

^* : I will do so.

I also wish to draw attention to this allowance to the luncheon purveyor. There is an item for a similar purpose (but only for £25) in the Home Office Vote. Why is a large sum given to the comparatively small Office of the Privy Council? I should like an answer as to that.

It being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.

Resolution to be reported to-morrow; Committee also report Progress; to sit again to morrow.

I beg to move that this Bill be sent to a Select Committee. It cannot be adequately discussed in Committee of the whole House, and therefore I beg to move that the Order now read be discharged, and the Bill referred to a Select Committee.

I object.

How long does the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stockton think the Bill would take in Committee? Could it pass this Session?

It is not my Bill, it is a Government Bill; but I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Longford will not press his objection.

As long as I am a Member of this House I shall object to this Bill.

I think the hon. Member for Longford is under a misapprehension.

I object.

May I explain—

I object.

If I may—

I object. I rise to a point of Order. I wish to know if the Debate can be proceeded with in the face of the objection taken?

^* : The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General is entitled to explain or to make an appeal. Of course, Opposed Business cannot be proceeded with.

I only wish to say that the objection which the hon. Member takes to the Bill is founded on a suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton that a certain clause should be inserted. But the Leader of the House told the right hon. Gentleman that if that proposal were pressed the Bill could not be passed. The Bill, as now presented, does not make the alteration of the law to which the hon. Member for Longford objects. I agree with the suggestion to send' the Bill to a Select Committee.

I presume I may be allowed to reply to the speech of the Attorney General. I have for the last eight years successfully prevented any Bill of this kind passing into law, and so long as any objection of mine will prevail it will be made. I remember the triumphant statement of the Chief Secretary that he intended to cram this Bill down our throats; but capacious as those throats are he has not succeeded in cramming it down as yet.

The Attorney General told us on the occasion of the Second Reading that this was a Consolidation Bill making no change in the law. But the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton is seeking to introduce what we think an obnoxious provision, and the Government also are proposing to resist a Motion that the Bill do not extend to Ireland. So long as that is their attitude we shall object to the Bill.

Committee deferred till Thursday next.

Supply—Civil Service Estimates, 1891–2

Resolution [10th July] reported.

Class II

"That a sum, not exceeding £46,015, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1892, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs."

Resolution agreed to.

Ways and Means

Committee deferred till Wednesday.

I object.

I appeal earnestly to the hon. Member not to object. The Bill is an important one in the interests of the east coast fishermen, and I hope it may be allowed to pass with as little delay as possible.

I have objected because no explanation has been given of the provisions of the Bill.

^* : I did make an explanation on the Second Reading, but I think the hon. Member was not in his place. This is merely a Bill to carry into effect provisions which will prove advantageous to English fishermen. It does not affect the Irish fisheries.

Under the circumstances, I will not press my objection. I have only just returned from Carlow, where I have been opposing the Tory friends of the right hon. Gentleman, and as I could not be in two places at once I missed the explanation. I hope that the Chief Secretary for Ireland will take cognisance of this, for I have on the Paper a Bill for the benefit of Irish fishermen, and hope it will be allowed to pass.

Bill considered in Committee, and reported; as amended, to be considered to-morrow.

Highways and Bridges Bill. (No. 384.)

Read the third time, and passed.

Statutory Rules Procedure (Recommitted) Bill.—(No. 397.)

Considered in Committee, and reported; as amended, to be considered upon Friday.

Betting and Loans (Infants) Bill [Lords.]—(No. 367.)

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1.

I am sorry to oppose this Bill, but I feel bound to do so as it creates new offences, and, in fact, repeats some of the worst features of the Conspiracy Law, to which we on this side of the House so strongly object. I do not think it would b3 easy to amend it, so I hope it will not be persisted in. I beg to move to report Progress.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—( Mr. E. Robertson. )

I hope the objection will be withdrawn. The Bill was carefully considered in another Place; it has the support of Lord Herschell, and any Amendments the hon. Member may put down shall be carefully considered. Although the Bill has been before the House several weeks not a single Amendment has been put down.