asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention had been called to recent allegations respecting the conduct of the medical staff of the Chelsea Hospital for Women; whether it was the case that the whole staff resigned; whether, notwithstanding the Report of a Committee presided over by Lord Cadogan, all except two of the staff had been re-elected; and whether he had any power to order an inquiry into the whole proceedings; and, if so, whether he would order such an inquiry?

The Secretary of State has seen the allegations to which my hon. Friend refers, and is fully alive to the gravity of them. I am bound, however, to tell my hon. Friend that the Home Office have some private reason for believing that the allegations made in the newspapers are not correct. If my hon. Friend will communicate with me privately, I will tell him what I know of the matter. In the meantime I have to announce that the Secretary of State has no power to order an inquiry, as suggested in the question.

asked the President of the Local Government Board whether, in appointing the Committee in respect of the management of pauper children, he would include in the Reference to that Committee the question of placing the educational arrangements in pauper schools, or in pauper schools fulfilling certain conditions, under the inspection of the Education Department?

I do not think it will be necessary to make any special mention of this matter, as it will, I believe, come well within the general terms of the Reference to the Committee.

asked the First Commissioner of Works whether, Glasgow Cathedral being under the control of the Board of Works, any alteration in the structure or fittings could be made without the approval of the Board; whether the alterations lately made or now in progress therein had been so approved; and out of what funds would the cost be defrayed?

It is the rule that any alteration in the structure or fittings of Glasgow Cathedral must receive the approval of the Board of Works. I have not had time to get full necessary information, but I am not aware of any alterations having been made without such approval. The only work of this character carried out lately at the charge of Votes of Parliament is the erection of an internal south porch, which was required much more for the health and comfort of the warders and public generally than of the congregation, and the cost was only about £70. The expense of the recent works in the choir was defrayed, according to the information before me, out of local and private contributions. I am making further inquiries, and will communicate with my hon. Friend.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, regarding the contract for the Liverpool Post Office, whether the clause therein making the Government not responsible for the quantities was not an unusual one in works of such magnitude; and whether he would permit the esti- mate of the quantities to form part of the contract?

The advertisement inviting tenders for the new post office at Liverpool notifies, as usual in the case of all new works under the Department, that the Commissioners of Works do not hold themselves responsible for the accuracy of the bills of quantities. The question of making an alteration in the practice of the Department is a very serious one. It is now receiving consideration from the technical officers of the Board, and it shall he decided as soon as possible.

asked whether it was the invariable custom of the Board of Works to issue an advertisement on the lines of the present one?

Yes, Sir, it is.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of his statement a short time ago to the effect that the delay in settling terms of compensation with the British East Africa Company had been due to the difference between the Government and the Company as to what the amount should be, he would state what terms had been proposed by Her Majesty's Government and declined by the Company; whether the Government gave any opinion on the terms offered by the Company on June 23, 1893, and withdrawn on May 8, 1894; and, if no opinion had been expressed by the Government on this proposal, then on what proposal had the difference of opinion arisen which had been alleged by him in the House; and whether the Government had any proposals to make to the Company, and by whom the amount of compensation was to be finally determined?

I have nothing to add to what I previously stated in debate on this question. The original hope of the Government was that the Company would negotiate on the subject of the concession. The Company were anxious that in any negotiations the claim in regard to the Charter should be included; but the Government, unfortunately, had reason to suppose that the first estimate of the Company's claim in regard to the Charter was so large that it would be impossible for the Government to make, in respect to it, any proposal which would have any chance of being accepted by the Company.

said, that the hon. Gentleman had not really answered the question in any accurate sense, though it had been brought under the notice of the Foreign Office a week ago. He wished to know when he would get a categorical answer to the question?

A word of personal explanation. I was shown this question the other day by the hon. Member; but I have not got verbal memory enough to be able to carry its terms in my mind. I did not see it on the Paper till 2 o'clock this morning, and no time was lost in presenting the question to the other authorities who must be consulted in the matter. I have done my best to get the hon. Gentleman the information. I hope to receive information in the course of to—day, and, so far as a more categorical answer can be expected, it shall be given on Friday.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he was aware that the bullet that killed Mr. Henn's son on June 9 at Tipton was believed to have been fired by one of the Volunteers of the 1st V.B. Worcestershire Regiment whilst shooting at the range in ordinary practice; whether the War Office had received complaints from Tipton in the year 1892 that the range was unsafe; whether, in consequence of these complaints, the range was at that time closed, inspected, and afterwards pronounced by the War Office to be safe, and was again re-opened; whether the War Office having allowed a rifle range to be used, which they now condemned as unsafe, and which they had now closed, they could allow to Mr. Henn his out-of-pocket expenses in connection with the death of his son if they believed the death was caused by a stray bullet from this rifle range; and whether the closing of the range would be permanent?

I am aware, from the proceedings of the inquest in this unfortunate case, that the 1st Volunteer Battalion of the Worcestershire Regiment were firing at the range when the accident occurred, and presumably the fatal shot was fired by one of the members of that corps. No complaints in regard to this range appear to have been received in the War Office prior to this accident. The range was closed for a time in 1892 by the Local Military Authorities, and again re-opened by them after being examined and pronounced to be safe. With regard to Mr. Henn's claim, I can only refer to the answer given by the Secretary of State on June 18, and that by myself subsequently. As long as existing conditions continue the range will not be re-opened.

inquired whether the Local Authorities who closed the range in 1892 wore authorised by the War Office to act on their behalf?

Yes; of course they acted under authority.

asked whether, as the Local Authorities were acting under the orders of the War Office, the War Office were not liable for their acts?

In a sense, certainly; but what has been done was done not by the direction of the Commander-in-Chief or the War Office, but on the responsibility of the local officers.

asked whether, if the Local Authorities were authorised by the War Office to close the range and then afterwards to re-open it as a safe range, the Volunteers ordered to shoot on the range could object to use it, although it had been sanctioned by the War Office? If they could not, then could the Volunteers be liable in any way for this accident?

I decline to be drawn into a controversy on a point like that. The range, under ordinary circumstances, was fairly safe. The particular accident appears to have occurred through a bullet hitting the roof of a shelter and then ricochetting in an unexpected manner. The incident only goes to show that a range, under such exceptional circumstances, cannot be considered as perfectly safe.

asked whether the War Office had really made inquiries into the matter, inasmuch as he was informed that the house in which the unfortunate man lived was covered with bullet marks?

I will communicate with the Local Authorities, and will give the hon. Member an answer hereafter.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it was true, as stated in the newspapers, that the appeal of Jabez Balfour had been dismissed?

The Foreign Office have had no further information beyond that which I communicated to the House the other day; and I wish to enter a caveat on this occasion as regards the information received at the Foreign Office. So far from the information received by the Foreign Office being a month after time, it has been up to date; while other information has been a month, before the fact.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury if tradesmen residing in a district in which they call upon customers for orders are liable to pay the licence of £4 per annum?

I think the hon. Member must be under some misapprehension, as I am informed that there is no such thing as a £4 licence; but if he will communicate to me or to the Board of Inland Revenue the particulars of the case which he desires to question the matter shall be inquired into.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he would present to Parliament a copy of the Petition with regard to the franchise and commandeering recently presented to Sir Henry Loch in the Transvaal, and signed by 13,000 British, subjects there resident?

Yes, Sir. If desired, I will present the Paper at once.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he could now give any information upon one or two points connected with a question which was asked for him on Tuesday by the hon. Member for Preston? The Under Secretary had promised to obtain information from South Africa as to the relative proportions of population in the Transvaal Republic. He wished to know whether the Under Secretary would procure that information under three heads—first, the number of Boer citizens within the Transvaal; secondly, the total number of foreign persons resident in the Transvaal; and, thirdly, the total number of persons of British origin resident in the Transvaal, as distinct from the rest of the foreign population; and whether he would make the information public, through the ordinary channels of communication, as soon as he received it, seeing that the House would not then be sitting. Then as to the right hon. Gentleman's answer yesterday, when he stated that the total European population was 119,000, did he mean to include in that the Boer citizens or the foreign residents only?

The figure 119,000, from the Census of 1890, included every one but natives; but that figure is now necessarily very much out of date. The three points on which the hon. Gentleman desires information are just the three points which suggested themselves to me. But the information we obtain cannot be more than approximately correct. As to the publication of the information, I will see about it.

asked whether it would be possible, except under the Census which was made every 10 years, to give the number of foreigners in England? Were the Boers to be expected to do more in that respect than was possible in this country?

Probably the South African Republic will be able to give us the figures approximately as we should be able to give figures approximately.

They have no means of getting the information accurately from one Census to another any more than we have.

If they have not got the information they cannot give it to us.

said, that the hon. Gentleman's answer of the other day as to the recent franchise law was not quite clear. Did the law prohibit any foreign residents whose parents had been previously naturalised from obtaining the franchise?

I have not yet received the text of the new law; and, indeed, I do not know whether it is absolutely passed yet in all its stages. But, as I understand from the short summary of the Debates which I have seen in the South African papers, the position is this: Children whose parents were not naturalised will be in the same position as new residents, and will have to undergo the same process of naturalisation.

Does the hon. Member for Caithness ask these questions as the agent for the Transvaal Republic?

Does the First Commissioner of Works agree to these Amendments?

Yes, I have been carefully through them, and I have shown them to the hon. Members for Stockport and Islington. Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.

said, he did not know whether the Government intended to accept all the Lords' Amendments; but perhaps they might have an explanation from the Secretary for Scotland with regard to this Amendment, which was an important one.

said, he had taken the very greatest care in the arrangement of Clause 4, in order to carry out what he promised to the House of Commons—that the Local Government Board should be responsible to Parliament. They laid it down on the lines of the English Board, and still more of the Irish Board, and in neither of these cases was any provision of this sort. The Government considered it would be absolutely unnecessary, and not only that, but it might be regarded as somewhat invidious to put these words in which they were reconstituting the Board. At the same time when the question was raised in the Grand Committee, the Government did not think it essential to refuse to accept the Amendment inserting these words. The Secretary for Scotland would have the same relation to Parliament in respect of the Local Government Bill in Scotland as the Chief Secretary for Ireland had in respect to the Local Government Board in Ireland.

said, he was strongly in favour of the words in the Bill, but he would not divide against the Lords Amendment. The Secretary for Scotland would still be responsible in that House for whatever the Local Government Board might do. The right hon. Gentleman, however, with these words struck out, might not be able to direct the action of the Board in Edinburgh, and the Scottish Members were very anxious that in future the Secretary for Scotland should not be able to hide himself behind the Board, but that he should be required to take personal responsibility upon himself.

said, that Lord Tweedmouth, who was in charge of the Bill in the other House, stated that this proviso had probably been inserted by too enthusiastic an admirer of the present Secretary for Scotland.

said, that the Amendment was not inserted in the Grand Committee for the purpose of conferring any greater power on the Secretary for Scotland, but of conferring on the Scottish people greater control over the Secretary for Scotland, that he should not have the power to say that this or that was the resolution of the Board, over which he had no control. The object of the words which were inserted was to put on the face of the Statute the fact that the Secretary for Scotland was to be responsible to Parliament for the deliberations and Orders of the Board, lie thought that, was only right, considering the enormous powers which were given to the Board to make Orders practically superseding legislation. Looking, however, to the fact that they were anxious to have the Bill passed, ho would not at that period of the Session divide against the Lords' Amendment.

said, that as the Bill stood if there were an election instituted by a landward parish the expenses would fall solely on that land ward parish. The Lords' Amendment would throw the charge upon all the parishes concerned. In the same way, if there was an election rendered necessary by the action of the burgh parish, the Lords would require that the expense should be shared by the landward parish. The elections were different—one held under the County Council, and the other under the Burgh Act, each having a distinct electoral roll. This was not a question of Party politics at all, and people should be encouraged to refrain from having contests, and this encouragement would be given by making the expense fall on that portion of the parish responsible for the election. If the people knew that the expense was to be spread all over the parish they would not have as great an inducement to avoid a contest.

said, the whole of the Amendments on the first page were put down by the Government. This was one. It had reference to the expenditure on the election of Parish Councillors, and its effect would be to divide up that expenditure into such infinitesimally small sums that the cost of making the division would be as much as the relief which would be given to either parish. It was therefore understood, with the goodwill of the Parish Authorities who understood the matter, that it would be well to have the clause as amended by the Lords.

said, this was an Amendment of some importance. This was a change which the Government had themselves stated would restrict the powers and policy of the Parish Councillors. He did not know the exact meaning of the differentiation between the phrase of the Bill and the phrase of the Lords' Amendment, and perhaps the Lord Advocate would tell the House what the limitations of the Amendment amounted to.

said, the Government preferred their own words, "or other public purposes"; but in another place it was thought, as it was thought by a good many in the House of Commons, that these words might be too large and wanted some definition. The words inserted by the Lords corresponded with those in the English Act, and he thought they were quite consistent with the Bill.

asked whether, under the Amendment, it would be possible for the public hall to be used for the consideration of such subjects as the estab- lishmant of Public Libraries and for meetings of candidates at Parliamentary elections?

said, as to the first purpose mentioned by his hon. Friend, he considered that the building could be used for it, because the Parish Councils would have powers with respect to Public Libraries. As to the second purpose, it had been pointed out that throughout Scotland school-houses were invariably used for that purpose. There was a doubt at one time whether Board schoolrooms could be used for flower shows, but it was ultimately settled that any purpose which did not interfere with the primary purpose, and for which an elective body such as the School Board might allow the rooms to be used, was lawful.

This clause has no relation to the use of the buildings. It is a question of providing the buildings.

Hear, hear.

said, this was practically the only portion of the Bill which concerned the country districts generally. The object they had in view was to infuse a little activity into parish life, and he thought it was greatly to be regretted that the Government should allow the Bill to be whittled down by accepting the Lords' Amendment.

Up to this point I do not think the Bill has received any damage, and we have now reached the first matter upon which the majority of the House of Commons and the Government decided against the Amendment which has been inserted by the Lords. I prefer very decidedly the clause as it originally stood, and I am not in the least defending the change made by the Lords, but the Government have to look at this question rather in the large. The Bill at one period in its passage through the Lords gave the Government some anxiety, because there wore on the Paper Amendments of a very serious, if not fatal, character. These Amendments, however, were not pressed, and on the Report provisions were introduced in a great many places in a sense satisfactory to the Government and the House of Commons. Hon. Members will observe that absolutely no change whatever has been made in that essential and indispensable framework of the Bill, and the machinery of the Bill as it left the House of Commons has been preserved intact, and will work exactly as the House of Commons wishes it to work. That being the case, the Government had to consider whether in the two or three decidedly important matters which, however, do not absolutely touch the framework of the Bill, it became their duty to disagree with the Lords. At this time of the Session and under the existing conditions, my strong opinion, and that of my colleagues, is that if any Amendment is disagreed with there will be, to say the least of it, the greatest risk that the Bill will be lost, and that is a result which we regard as so important—whether we look to the gain that Scotland will get, or to the pains which have been taken to make the Bill what it is—that I cannot make myself responsible for the loss of the Bill. Up to this time all the Amendments proposed by the Lords can be accepted, and have been accepted, by the Government; and as to those which will follow, there will be two or three which, if hon. Members accept them they will accept with reluctance, a reluctance which is shared by the Government. I trust hon. Members will believe that this action on the part of the Government has been arrived at honestly and after serious consideration, and that I am speaking now under a serious sense of responsibility.

In moving this Motion—namely, that this House disagree—which, if carried, will have the effect of restoring to the Local Government (Scotland) Bill the clause giving Parish Councils power to provide or acquire land for the erection of workmen's dwellings, I desire at the outset to repel an accusation which has been made—to wit, that I and those who support this Motion are endangering the Bill as a whole in any way whatever. I desire to point to a paragraph which has been circulated this morning by the Central News Agency which, I think, accurately describes the position which we take up in the following words:—

"The course now taken cannot imperil this Bill, which the Lords already passed as a whole on Friday last, and if their Lordships throw out this particular clause a second time they will at the worst merely prolong the Session by a day or two, while at the same time they will supply the electors with a fresh issue against themselves of such a clear and simple nature as will be readily understood by every working man throughout the country."

In offering this Motion for the consideration of the House I am convinced that I shall be able to state nothing less than an overpowering case for the reinstatement in the Bill of the sub-section empowering Parish Councils to provide or acquire land for the erection of workmen's dwellings. I hold that it is no slur whatever on the Government that they did not introduce this power at first into their Bill. They took as their analogy the English Bill without at the moment considering the difference of circumstances between the two countries. It will not be denied that the provision of workmen's dwellings in the rural districts of England is not by any means a burning question to the extent that it is in Scotland. In fact, the Census Returns prove that rural depopulation is not going on in England to anything like the same extent as it is in Scotland. In England there exists no positive conspiracy to depopulate the country districts. But what is the case in Scotland? In the Highlands, in particular, it is the positive policy of the owners of many great estates to use every method in their power in order to get rid of the people from off the soil, and to reduce their villages to silence and desolation. I would commend to the attention of hon. Members a Return presented to the House about two years ago. That Return gives particulars of all the land which has been thrown out of cultivation and turned into deer forest within the last 10 years. It shows that no less than 280,000 acres have been turned into deer forest during that period. The existence of a single workman's cottage on such land as this is deemed by the landlord to be an offence and even a nuisance. And so every such cottage is either purposely allowed to fall into decay, or is razed to the ground. "Oh! but," say those landlords, who believe that they possess rights in the soil without any duties to its inhabitants, "the landlord only turns out the people from cultivating the land when he can get a higher rent from the sporting tenant." Now, Sir, I hold that even this policy, thus declared by landlords, of making it merely a matter of money for themselves whether the land shall be occupied by human beings or by the wild beasts of the field, is a sufficiently brutal policy. But even this, I am sorry to say, does not go the full length of the miserable facts as they exist at this moment. An examination of the same Return will show that no less than 200,000 acres of these deer forests are let to tenants, and the cultivators of the land thrown out, although the landlord actually receives less rent from the sportsman for turning his laud into a wilderness than he formerly received from his cultivating tenants and village workmen. These reared their families in comfort on the soil in their hamlets and villages where now no sound, no voice of man, or woman, or child is heard. Sir, it is a mockery to tell the working population of rural Scotland to go to landlords like these, even on their bended knees, and to ask them for a plot of land, on any terms whatever, for the erection of a workman's dwelling. I would point to the woeful results of this policy as shown in the last Census. Its figures demonstrate that in one of the counties which I have the honour to represent—namely, the County of Nairn—shire, if allowance is made for the natural increase of the population in Scotland generally, no less than 25 per cent, of what should have been at this day the normal and natural population of the county has disappeared during the last 10 years. And now, Sir, I would briefly sketch what has been the history of this sub—section, providing land for workmen's dwellings. It was carried into the Bill in the Grand Committee on the 3rd of July last by a majority of about 2 to 1. Moreover, that majority comprised every Scottish Liberal Member who was present, except the paid Members of the Government, without one single exception. More than a month passed by, during which it became fully evident that the sub-section had been received with a unanimous chorus of approval by all sections of the Press and people throughout the length and breadth of Scotland, Many congratulatory resolutions were passed by important bodies in Scotland, which were sent not only to myself, but to the other hon. Members who had supported the sub—section. Well, Sir, all this had its natural effect not only on the Government, but on the Opposition also. The Government gallantly resolved to stand by the sub-section. It will also be observed that so popular was it known to be amongst the people of Scotland that no Member of the Opposition who sits for a popular constituency could be found who was willing to move its rejection on Report. The only Member in all Scotland who could be found to do so was one in whose constituency there is not a single working man—namely, the right hon. and learned Gentleman who sits for the Edinburgh and St. Andrews Universities. The right hon. and learned Gentleman went to a Division, and was defeated in this House by a majority of between two and three to one. And, Sir, it is most significant that on that crucial occasion, out of the whole of the 23 Scottish Members who belong to the Opposition, only a diminutive band of eight Members ventured to join the right hon. and learned Gentleman in thus voting against the right of the people of Scotland to live upon her soil. But, Sir, yet another and a most remarkable argument has been meanwhile supplied for retaining the sub-section in the Bill. I refer to the Report which has just been presented by the Select Committee of this House on Feus and Building Leases in Scotland. It was 23 days after this sub—section had been carried into the Bill in the Grand Committee that the Select Committee on Feus and Building Leases met to consider their Report. And I specially ask the House to note that paragraphs 44 to 47 of that Report embody the very same arguments, and urge the granting of the very same powers for providing or acquiring land for the erection of workmen's dwellings, which had been successfully urged in the Grand Committee 23 days before. I will quote from paragraphs 44 and 45—

"The next question to which the Committee would advert is one which has long excited much interest in various parts of Scotland. It is alleged that there are towns and villages situated upon the property of proprietors who do not desire the extension of the towns or villages, and decline to give land either for building houses or for industrial purposes in their vicinity, either absolutely or on lease, except upon prohibitive terms. The effect, of this is said to be not only to prevent the natural expansion of such communities, but to lead to their decay."

And now let the House mark that the remedy for this public evil is propounded by the Select Committee in these remarkable words—paragraphs 46 and 47—

"The remedy which the Committee would suggest is that the Local Authority, whether Town Council. County Council, or other Elected Body, should be empowered to purchase land by agreement, or compulsorily, for the purposes either of building dwellings for occupation by workmen or other persons, or of otherwise providing for the present or prospective development of the town or village."—"Machinery for the acquisition of land, simpler and less expensive than that prescribed by the Lands Clauses Acts might be provided, as has been done in the Parish Councils Act for England, in the Local Government (Scotland) Bill, and in other Bills now before Parliament."

But, Sir, the most remarkable testimony of all to the value and the urgency of this provision of laud for workmen's dwellings consists in the fact that these stringent proposals for the acquisition of land for workmen's dwellings were actually passed into the Report of the Select Committee with the unanimous voice even of the Opposition Members, who had opposed my Motion to the same effect in the Grand Committee. These hon. Members were the Members for Linlithgow, Dumfriesshire, the Western Division of Renfrewshire, the North-Western Division of Lanarkshire, and the Universities of Edinburgh and St. Andrews. Sir, surely in all this there has been shown amply sufficient reason for retaining the sub-section, and it only now remains for me briefly to allude to the action of the House of Lords in regard to it. I have already given ample evidence both of the necessity for the sub-section and of the chorus of approval with which it has been received by the people of Scotland as a whole. Now, on the other hand, who was it who moved and supported its omission in the House of Lords? Its omission was moved and supported by the Marquess of Huntly and Lord Balfour. These two Scottish landlords are, no doubt, very worthy and excellent noblemen, but I do not think that they themselves would go so far as to say that they in any wise can be held to represent the people of Scotland. And what was the number of Peers who went into the Division Lobby against this subsection, which was fitly described by Lord Tweedmouth as offering a great boon to both workmen and fishermen? Why, only 38 noble Lords; that is actually not so many as form a quorum of this House. And what was the solitary argument which these noblemen in the House of Lords, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh and St. Andrews Universities (Sir C. Pearson) used, in the House of Lords and in this House respectively, against this sub-section which they moved to strike out? It was this—

That is going too minutely into an examination of the Debate in the other House; that is not admissible, though an allusion to it would be.

I bow to your ruling, but I wished to say that one argument was used and one alone, and that was the extraordinary one that if the power were retained in the hands of these Parish Councils to acquire land for the purpose of the erection of workmen's dwellings, it might be used by the Parish Councils for the purpose of buying plots of land and selling them to persons desiring to build upon them, until quite a large number of workmen's dwellings might be thus called into existence.

That was not the only argument.

I am only speaking from The Times report; there may have been others not reported; but if this was used as an argument, the right hon. Gentleman will admit we are entitled to call not only these noble Lords, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman, into the ranks of the friends and supporters of this sub-section. I ask, could any stronger proof possibly be given of the enormous want of workmen's dwellings which, in the opinion of these gentlemen themselves, exists in Scotland at this moment? If no such want really exists, what earthly inducement could either the Parish Councils have to provide the land, or the builders to build the workmen's dwellings upon it? Therefore, Sir, we are entitled to say that out of their own mouths they are accused of now endeavouring to stop the supply of what they themselves admit to be a great, urgent, and grievous want— namely, the want of houses for workmen desirous of continuing to live upon the soil of their own country. For these overwhelming reasons I have no hesitation whatever in appealing to the Government to stand firmly by this sub-section. And, Sir, I do not believe that, if the Government does this, the other House, on full and careful consideration, will for a moment elect to fly in the face of the wishes of the people of Scot-land—seeing that these wishes have been represented, first, by a majority of two to one in the Grand Committee; secondly, by a majority of between two and three to one in this House; and, thirdly, by the unanimous Report in its favour by the Select Committee on Feus and Building Leases in Scotland, whose Report was circulated only a few days ago.

said, he wished to make his position in this matter clear. So far as the merits of the sub—section under discussion were concerned, he was at one with the hon. Member for Elgin and Nairn (Mr. Seymour Keay). He supported it in the Grand Committee against the Government; he supported it again upon the Report stage, and upon its merits he was willing to support it again against the Government. So far as the merits of the question were concerned, no demonstration was necessary, because in the Report of the Feus and Leases Committee his right hon. and learned Friend before him, the Lord Advocate, showed in his remarks distinctly how great a benefit would accrue from its adoption, and even some hon. Gentlemen opposite had been converted into ardent apostles of it. But the question really before them was what would happen if the House should adopt the hon. Gentleman's Amendment and reinstate this sub-section in the Bill? From good information he believed what would happen would be simply this: The Amendment would be sent back to another place; they could hardly believe that the Lords would accept it, and a Division would be challenged; if, upon a Division being challenged, there were not 30 Peers pre- sent the Bill would simply drop —[Cries of "No, no!"] Hon. Members said "no," but his information was good, and he believed that was actually the case. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down seemed to think that such a contingency would not be unwelcome, as it would add a certain amount of odium to another place. That might be splendid, but it was not statesmanship. The Bill was of the utmost importance, and not only hon. Gentlemen in this House, but a great many people throughout the country, had been most actively and energetically interested in it, and any Member who took upon himself the position of imperilling the passage of the Bill was taking a grave responsibility. But while he said that, he admitted he had at least learned a lesson to-day. He found that in another place there existed a power which he had not expected; not only might the House of Lords reject their measures or add Amendments; not only might they use the power of battery, but the might use against them the power of siege; that when all else failed they might starve them out. This, perhaps, was not the place or the occasion for discussing the matter, but there was another place where they might discuss it freely, and that was in the country, and he should take care that this new power, at least new to him, should be known throughout the country. He hoped the knowledge of it might tend to increase the steps that might ultimately be taken against the House of Lords.

In what I am going to say I may ask hon. Members to believe me that the Government, in the course they are taking, are not actuated by the fact that the Amendment was not originally in the Bill, but came from another quarter. For my part, if anything could commend a proposal it would be that it hail been started in the Scotch Grand Committee, and the Bill shows very many evidences of that belief on the part of the Government. I will speak very shortly, because I am not going to try to controvert the substance of the speech of my hon. Friend. Ever since I represented a group of small Scotch burghs I have known the cruel manner in which they are often cribbed, cabined, and confined in matters that concerns them most intimately, and I have always held that the Municipal Authority should have the power of acquiring land, just as land is acquired for the purposes of the public in railways, in water, and in sanitation, and for my part I see little difference between acquiring land for sanitary purposes, as they are generally concerned, and acquiring land for the purpose of building healthier streets and houses in the neighbourhood of a town or in a country parish. But as to my hon. Friend's provision, I have always thought it was the assertion of a great principle rather than the carrying out of it into practical effect. The Workmen's Dwellings Act of 1890, which applied to unhealthy quarters of towns, was a whole body of legislation; and though, of course, much of it would not be applicable in carrying out the proposal of my hon. Friend, still a great part of that Act consists of clauses the like of which would have to be put into any Bill for practical purposes. My hon. Friend has referred to the extreme importance and timely Report of the Feus and Building Leases Committee. I do not know that I can quite endorse what appears to be the tenour of his remarks: that this Report was inspired by the action of the Scotch Grand Committee, especially when I see among the members of the Feus and Building Leases Committee such names as those of the Member for North-East Lanark (Mr. D. Crawford), who has made this and kindred subjects his own for many years, and of the Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Dalziel). But it is observable in the paragraphs which my hon. Friend has read out from the Report of the Feus and Building Leases Committee that even in the bald assertion of the principle there are really more methods and machinery laid down than exists in the Bill as at present.

I do not wish to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman; but as this seems to reflect upon me for having carried an Amendment and not coming forward to provide the proper machinery to carry it out, I desire to remind him——[Cries of "No!"] It looks like it; and I would remind him that in the presence of the Solicitor General I asked him timeously whether or not the Government intended to propose any machinery such as the right hon. Gentleman had said was necessary in his speech in the Grand Committee, or whether I should do so; and he, in the presence of the Solicitor General, said that the Government had carefully examined into the Bill, and had found that there would be no further machinery necessary. And, therefore, I held my peace.

I was not aware that had passed. I think that more machinery would he necessary. I was merely referring to the provisions of the Bill as they stand at present. The Feus and Building Leases Committee made the proposals which my hon. Friend has referred to, in addition to some six or seven others of great importance; and it is impossible that so very pregnant and serious a Report can remain without some result. I am sure I am not going too far or speaking without authority when I say that the Government heartily endorse, speaking broadly, the recommendations of the Committee; and, speaking not broadly, but particularly, that they heartily endorse the particular paragraph quoted by my hon. Friend, and at the earliest period in their power they will embody that Report in a Bill—and that Bill will be an effective and complete machine for carrying out the recommendations of the Committee; and certainly the recommendation which my hon. Friend has put forward. I am sorry if my hon. Friend thinks that anything I said reflected upon him in any way, because I think he has done a great service in this question. But I end by saying I can but repeat my opinion that the rejection of this Amendment of the House of Lords would at this period of the Session very seriously imperil the Bill. I notice that my hon. Friend has used some words doubting whether the other House would allow the Bill to drop.

I left it to the Government to explain how it could possibly be dropped by any action of the Lords.

If the Bill went up to the House of Lords, and the clause is opposed, as I have very little doubt it would be opposed, then the Bill itself would drop.

How?

Of course the Government would not drop it, but if the House of Commons insists upon its Amendment, and the House of Lords insists upon theirs, then the House of Commons must insist a second time. I am not going to play the fool with this Amendment. If the House of Commons supports it now they must support it to the end. I hope hon. Members will endorse it. Then if the House of Lords insists upon their Amendment the Bill would drop, and I see quite plainly that the dropping of this great Bill for Scotland would be too great a price to pay for the House of Commons insisting upon the insertion of the sub-section. That is my opinion and the opinion of the Government; and I believe the danger is very considerably aggravated by the lateness of the time and the very small number of Peers that are now in the other House. I will not, however, enter upon that question, and it is a somewhat hazy one. On these grounds, the Government being heartily in favour of the principle, and thoroughly determined to bring in a Bill which shall embody it, and in good time, I ask the House to support the Government in this matter.

said, he would not have intervened in the Debate but for the statement of the hon. Member for Kincardine (Mr. Crombie), that the Opposition were hostile at first to the Bill, and had only given it a lukewarm support.

I only said that the hon. Member for Elgin and Nairn (Mr. Seymour Keay) had proved, or tried to prove, that that was the case in respect to this Amendment.

said, he could only consider it unfortunate that any hon. Member should have been so unfair as to represent that any section of the House had been or was hostile to the Bill. The Secretary for Scotland and Scottish Members would, he believed, generally recognise that a most earnest desire was shown on all sides, and certainly by the Party to which he belonged, to give their best assistance to the Government to carry into effect a measure which was calculated to do a great deal of good in Scotland, and for which there was great occasion. As to the necessity for providing dwellings for workpeople, he had all his life earnestly desired to see the working classes better housed. He had, himself, spent large sums of money in that cause, and he had no sympathy with any who would hinder the provision of sufficient and suitable dwellings for them. The great objection which was urged in the House of Lords to this Amendment was the absence of any machinery to carry the clause into effect; and he would point out that the Committee on Feus and Building Leases, who had just reported, urged the necessity for such machinery. There must be adequate machinery and an adequate controlling authority; and without these the clause would not efficiently work. He must protest against it being said that their opposition to this point showed that they were hostile to a measure to pass which all had given their assistance, and in which he had taken a good deal of interest and an anxious part.

thought they could heartily endorse everything that had been said by the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken; that he had assisted them in making the Bill a useful measure, though on two or three points they had differed. He was not going to say a word as to the merits of this case, as the only question was what they should do at the present time, whether they should allow the Peers an opportunity of reconsidering this matter. The charity Amendment was an important one, but they would be willing to let that and all the other Amendments pass with a protest more or less expressed in words or silently; but upon this one question he really thought that the Government ought to give way to them, and give the Lords a chance of reconsidering the question. This was not a large, but a small, question. The Parish Councils had only got a 6d. rate for carrying out everything provided by the Bill, and if the Parish Council after making a levy should spend the money in land for workmen's dwellings, they would not be And there was able to do anything no attack upon the rights of property, because all the powers it was now proposed to give to Parish Councils had been in the possession of District Councils and burghs, and had been carried out with very great advantage. Therefore, the only question was whether the Government would give the Lords a chance to reconsider this one question out of all the questions which had been raised. They were not prepared to wreck the Bill upon the question, but it was one which he thought the Lords might well reconsider. There might be no Division in the other House, and if there was and there were not 30 Peers present, to say that the Bill would be lost was a very serious matter. As a matter of fact, the hon. Member for Kincardine (Mr. Crombie) was mistaken, because if he read the Standing Orders lie would find that if there were not 30 Members present when a Division took place that nothing was lost—that the matter was simply put down for the next day. The utmost, therefore, that could happen was the addition of one day or perhaps two days to the Session. He did not want to increase the Session, but the utmost would be that they would require to increase the Session for a single day in order to get a change, but there was no need for that. If the House could accept all the other Amendments, the House of Lords might be able to give way on this question, and it might be settled in the other House without any Division at all. He thought, however, that at present they had a right to urge that the question here involved was one of very great importance for the social well-being of the people, and that the other House should have an opportunity of reconsidering the matter. If they still persisted, this House was powerless. They would take nineteen shillings in the pound, and hope to get the other shilling from the right hon. Gentleman. He trusted they would take a Division right away upon the matter. If the Government did give way, he and others would assist them afterwards upon the other Amendments. They were willing to come to terms with the Government in a spirit of compromise, and he believed that the other House would be willing in the same fashion. At any rate, they ought to give them another chance, hence he would support his hon. Friend in taking the Division, if the Government forced them to have a Division, in order to express their opinion, and to give the Lords a chance.

said, he thought that the position of the Government was a most unfortunate position. It was not a courageous position. The Government should hold to the opinions of the whole of the Scottish Liberal Members, and should not refuse to give effect to them in the Statute Book merely for fear of what the Lords might do. It was admitted there should be power to acquire land for the erection of dwellings, and there was as much machinery for carrying out that sub-section as for carrying out any other sub-section. The Government agreed to a limit put in by the Opposition to the effect that the powers of the Parish Councils were to be limited to a 6d. rate, and they also provided that money could not be borrowed for any purpose of the clause without the consent of the Local Government Board. The 6d. rate, after certain deductions, was practically only 4d., and it was payable half by the landlord and half by the tenant, so that the Government need not have been afraid of the exercise of the power to acquire land for the erection of working men's dwellings. If they had not got this power really, the Bill was valueless as regarded other matters. He thought it was upon the special power given here that there was much enthusiasm in their country districts. If the Government showed timidity in a matter of this kind, it would produce a very chilling effect throughout the country constituencies. If a Division was challenged, he would certainly vote in favour of the principle, no matter what the issue on the Bill might be.

said, it was very easy to show that the effect of this clause might be slight indeed, on account of the limited amount of money which the Parish Councils would have at their disposal, not only for this, but for all other purposes. What they had now to consider was the position they would be in if they acted on the suggestion of the Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark). What the hon. Member said in effect was that they should ask the House of Lords to make a compromise. Although they in this House objected to certain Amendments, they would give in on them if the House of Lords would permit them to have this sub-section inserted. If they were to act upon that suggestion, in what an undignified position would the Government stand! The Secretary for Scotland had said distinctly that he would not play the fool with this Bill, and that if the sub-section was insisted upon, the House must continue to insist upon it, and if they did so and the other House would not consent to its reinstatement, the Bill would be dropped. Therefore they came on this point to a deadlock. He had consequently to appeal to his hon. Friend (Dr. Clark) to withdraw from the position he had taken up, as he thought it was one this House ought to occupy. The Secretary for Scotland had told them that at the earliest possible time they would introduce a Bill, not only to include this particular provision, but also all the recommendations, including those read out to-day, from the Report of the Select Committee on Feus and Building Leases. It was questionable if this sub—section, even if it was reinstated, would be of any great practical value, but all doubts would be set aside by the Bill which the right lion. Gentleman, on behalf of the Government, had promised to introduce at the earliest possible moment. He had no doubt that it would be much better to accept the Bill as it now stood and endeavour to pass a far more adequate Bill next Session dealing not only with this subject but with other cognate questions. If the Bill were dropped there would be a feeling of very keen and painful disappointment in Scot-land as the result would be to indefinitely postpone the new and permanent system of Local Government which it would establish in Scotland. Under these circumstances, he trusted that his hon. Friend the Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) would recede from the position he had taken up.

wished to press upon the Secretary for Scotland the advice given to him by his hon. Friend the Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark). The right hon. Gentleman had spoken as though the question of workmen's dwellings was only a small matter in comparison with the benefits that would be conferred by the Bill, but he could assure him that in his constituency it was the one provision to which the greatest value was attached. The agricultural workmen among his constituents had sometimes to go miles in order to get to their work, and some of them were actually put to the expense of keeping bicycles to enable them to reach their work in good time. Then there were the fishermen who could not get the smallest bit of ground to build their cottages upon except upon the moist extortionate terms. They had to pay £1 a year for the use of land which was not worth a penny. He would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir. J. Fergusson) to use his great influence with the other House in this matter. There were bad landlords as well as good landlords, and all that was asked for was a, very small modicum of compulsion to force the bad landlords to do that which good landlords did of their own motion.

said, he felt bound to vote in support of the Motion. He did so, first, upon sanitary grounds, upon the ground that some Public Authority ought to have compulsory power to erect healthy dwellings, and, secondly, on constitutional grounds. As he understood the Secretary for Scotland, the House was to accept all the Lords' Amendments because the Members of the House of Lords did not choose to attend at Westminster at that period of the Session. He did not himself believe that the Lords would be so foolish as to absent themselves from the House when an important Bill was brought before them. He was certain that were the House of Lords approached reasonably on the subject they would be willing to give way on one Amendment or another, and that an amicable arrangement might be arrived at.

appealed to the House to let the Government take the responsibility of the vote it was about to give. The present situation was not a new one. The Minister in charge of the Bill, who was naturally anxious to save the results of the labour which had been expended upon the measure, was in consequence of that anxiety prepared to sacrifice that which he himself regarded as one of the most important points in the Bill. It seemed to him (Mr. Dalziel) that no case had been made out for refusing to replace this clause. It was said that the Lords would insist upon the omission of the clause and that the Bill would be lost. His reply was that if the Lords were prepared to take the responsibility of killing the Bill on account of a clause like this which had been accepted by the vast majority of the Scottish Members let them take that responsibility. The House of Commons ought to be guided by what it considered right in the matter. He put it to the Government whether there was the slightest hope that the question would be dealt with next Session if it were not decided now? The Secretary for Scotland knew that there were half—a—dozen Bills of prior claim to that which would embody the recommendations of the Committee in feus and leases. Even if the subject were dealt with next Session no assurance could be given by the Government that the proposal would meet with any better fate than that which had overtaken it on the present occasion. Under the circumstances, he thought the Scottish Members had no option in the matter. Their constituents were unanimous in demanding this clause, which was the one point of the Bill that had aroused great enthusiasm. He himself knew districts where not one single house had been built for 20, 30, or 40 years, simply because the local landlords objected to grant the ground. He thought that whatever course the Government took, the Scottish Members were bound to insist upon the retention of the clause.

said, he supposed it would not be out of Order for an Englishman to take part in a Scotch Debate, and he should like to give an English view of the Scotch situation. What was going on to-day was, in his opinion, a most valuable object-lesson for the whole nation. In the earlier part of the Session, the House took some nine days to settle the question whether there should be a Scotch Committee or not. The Committee was at last appointed, and sat about 17 days on this Bill. Two days were afterwards devoted to Report, and now at the end of the Session it was said that the most important part of the Bill that had occupied so much time, and to which so much labour had been devoted, had been thrown by the Lords out of the window. However, neither the Government nor the 15 Liberal Members who voted with them last night had any right to complain, because they had insisted upon providing the Lords with £20,000 to enable them to carry on the proceedings against which the Scotch Members were now protesting. He was not at all afraid about the Bill being withdrawn if this clause were insisted upon. If it were withdrawn it would be the fault of the Lords; and if the Commons continued to provide money for keeping up the Lords, they were responsible. It would be a very good thing, he thought, if the Scotch as well as the Irish had a lesson on this subject, as it might help to get up the steam and promote the agitation, which ho hoped would be successful against the present great obstacle to legislation.

said, that Irishmen took considerable interest in the Mouse of Lords, and he supposed that If an Englishman might state his view on this Bill even an Irish Member might do the same. It was true that Irishmen had fallen out of practice in recent years with reference to the consideration of Lords' Amendments because Irish Bills when they once left the Commons never came back, but this did not absolve them from the duty of considering what course they should take as regarded Lords' Amendments or Bills relating to other parts of the Kingdom. As a Home Ruler he felt bound to consider this Amendment in regard to Scotch opinion as to its merits, and as a Member of the House of Commons he felt bound to consider the circumstances under which the Amendment was necessary. He took it that as the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Beach had nothing to say against the merits of the Amendment struck out by the Lords there was nothing to be said against them, and a Select Committee of the House containing Representatives of both Parties had unanimously reported that the Amendment ought to be inserted in the Bill. The Grand Committee adopted it by a majority of two to one, and the House as a whole, on the Report of the Bill, confirmed the decision of the Grand Committee by a still larger majority. It regard to the Lords' Amendments, he thought that the Scottish Members had taken up a surprisingly moderate position, because, as he understood, they proposed to accept six pages of Lords' Amendments if the Lords would yield on this Amendment. In view of the manner in which the provision had been carried in the House of Commons, it seemed to him that an occasion had been sought by the House of Lords to give a deliberate challenge to the House of Commons, and that challenge ought to be accepted. As to the argument that the Bill would be lost if this Amendment were persisted in, it was an argument he had heard at the end of every Session for the 14 years he bad been in Parliament; and it was only to be regarded as a form of coercion. He did not believe the Bill would be lost if this Amendment were inserted; but if it were lost, let the responsibility rest upon the body of men who sent down to the House of Commons six printed pages of Amendments, and who refused to re-consider even one of them. If this was an Irish Bill, it would in all probability be lost, but it was a Bill which concerned the people of Scotland, who were sturdy in the assertion of their rights, and he did not for a moment expect that if this Amendment was rejected the Bill would be lost. If the opponents of the Bill did not return to the other House to oppose this Amendment, it would be accepted; but if they did return, and if they overbore the quorum commanded by the Government, the Bill would return to this House forthwith, and, with a merely verbal Amendment, it could be sent back to the other House and passed. Both on the merits and as a matter of Parliamentary tactics this House ought to stand by its provisions, and, even if it were again rejected, the Bill could still be saved.

said, it was no use taking a Division when they had been beaten by two to one upon the last they took. All they could hope was that by-and-bye some legislation might be passed which would amend the defects in this Bill.

asked, how it was that the Government had been converted on this matter? Had they consented to insert the provision because the House of Lords had insisted upon it?

said, that that was one way of putting it. The hon. Member, who was not responsible for the measure, had put the matter in a most disagreeable manner, and they must accept it. While the Government did not think that this provision was necessary, still it was much better than the similar provision in the English Act. Scotland would now be in a somewhat better position than England, because he would venture to say that the Local Government Board was a more satisfactory body for the purpose than the Charity Commissioners.

said, this subject was one on which a Division was taken on a previous occasion in this House, and the Lords Amendment reversed the judgment then arrived at. Did the Government hold to the view they took in the House of Commons, or was this another point that they were conceding for the purpose of carrying the Bill? He thought the people of Scotland should know the price they were paying for the Bill.

said, that this did not raise any great question of principle. In the Bill it was originally proposed that the county auditors should audit the accounts of the Parish Councils. There was a very general feeling in the Committee against this proposal, so strong a feeling, indeed, that it was absolutely necessary to bow to it, and consequently the change was made that the Parish Council should appoint their own auditors, subject to the approval of the Board. He was quite certain that any Secretary for Scotland who knew his business would take care to consult the wishes of the parishes and not override them in this matter. He had known the Sheriff override the wishes of the burghs. He thought this was the right solution.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had said that there was no principle involved in this matter. He was quite sure also that there was no Party question involved. He believed it embodied a real improvement in the Bill.

said, he agreed that this was an improvement in the Bill, and he looked at the matter from the financial standpoint. This was an opportunity where the Government might have placed Scotland in the same position as England, and allowed a large portion of the cost of the audit to be defrayed by the Imperial Exchequer.

said, he would like to call attention to the fact that the Marines on board Her Majesty's ships were required to pay for their own white clothing which it was necessary for them to wear at foreign stations. He should be glad to hear that this hardship upon the men would be removed.

said, that under a new Rule the practice was to supply each Marine before leaving for a foreign station with two white tunics and two pairs of white drill trousers at the public expense; what he received would doubtless not be sufficient for him for the whole three years of foreign service in a hot climate, and he would have to supplement the supply himself. He should, however, be very happy to confer with his hon. Friend the Member for Devonport, who took such an interest in the Royal Marines, as to any matters connected with their clothing.

said, that as the House would now shortly adjourn for some considerable time, he should like to call attention to the subject of the manning of the Navy, and press that it should receive somewhat closer attention.

Order, order! The Navy Vote has been passed.

I am speaking of the policy.

That is out of Order.

Will it be out of Order to ask the Representative of the Admiralty to take all possible steps in order to make up the great deficiency in the personnel of the Navy, without going into detail as to manning the Fleet?

A question might be asked to that, effect, but any detailed or lengthened inquiry into the subject will be out of Order, inasmuch as the Manning Vote is one of those which have been passed.

said, he wished to elicit from the representative of the Admiralty some statement on this question, as fears were entertained that the Department was not proceeding as rapidly as might be wished in the matter.

said, that he made a very full statement on this subject at an earlier period of the Session. He could assure the hon. Member that the very large and increased provisions made in this year's Estimates for the manning of the Navy were being given effect to by the Admiralty with the utmost vigour. They had been extremely successful in some of the points. In the Royal Marines, to which his hon. Friend had just now referred, they had been very successful in adding to the number, and the standard had recently been raised. As he had previously told the House, the Northampton had been commissioned to enrol boys older than those taken on the training ships, and that also was a very encouraging experiment, for the boys were coming in with great rapidity. Generally speaking, they had made a great advance in the direction required. He might, perhaps, be allowed to add that very exaggerated reports had appeared in the newspapers as to the difficulty alleged to have been experienced in providing men for the ships engaged in the recent Naval Manœuvres. There were, in fact, large numbers of men at the disposal of the Admiralty, especially at Portsmouth and Chatham, and in the embarking section of the coastguard, by whom further ships might have been commissioned. The Admiralty hoped in future years, and indeed even by next year, to be in a much better position than at present.

said, he merely wished to emphasise the question put by the hon. Member for Devonport. He believed that great anxiety was felt throughout the country as to the admitted deficiency in the personnel of the Navy, and it was generally hoped that the Board of Admiralty would do their utmost during the coming year to supply, so far as they could, that very serious deficiency in the number of officers and men.

said, he desired to call the attention of the Civil Lord to a case into which he knew the hon. Gentleman had been inquiring—namely, that of a man called Deans, who died a few months since. At 60 years of age Deans became entitled to a gratuity; instead of retiring at the age of 60, when entitled to a week's wages for every year's service, he, at the request of the Government, consented to continue in the service to suit their convenience. Within three months he unfortunately died, and instead of the gratuity being given to his relatives for his 25 years' services, the money had been denied altogether. His hon. Friend had, he believed, looked into the question, and he should like to know what had been done? He desired also to draw the attention of the House to a matter in connection with the Navy, which was a burning question. That was the system under which the wives of naval men were compelled to come monthly to the naval establishments for the purposes of drawing the half-pay allotted to them by their relatives on foreign service. A Committee had inquired into the subject, an overwhelming mass of evidence being given in favour of the change, and none in favour of the continuance of the present system. But notwithstanding this, the old practice was being continued. This practice was very much objected to; the husbands objected to their wives being herded together for two hours in a building eminently unsuitable for the purpose, and they objected to the two miles walk to and from to draw the money; but the strongest ground was that it tended to immorality. It was stated in evidence that no fewer than 15 bad characters had money allotted to them, perhaps by a few of the worst characters who happened to get into the Navy, and they attended month by month to draw the money so allotted to them. A respectable man, of course, had the strongest possible objection to his wife having to consort with these people even for a single moment. A Petition had been sent in to the Admiralty, signed by the wives of 1,500 Naval men, praying for an alteration of the system, and not one single representation was made or evidence given in favour of the continuance of the present system. What the men wanted was that their wives should be able to draw the money at the post offices. Years ago the pensioners had a similar grievance, but in their case the desired reform was made, and they now received their pensions through the post office. With regard to pensions now paid quarterly, he urged the necessity of paying them monthly. Long before the next quarterly payment became due the pensioner and his family were often in necessitous circumstances, the fact being that when a pensioner got a large sum in his hand at a time he was sometimes tempted into dissipation, with disastrous results. He also desired to call attention to the question of Greenwich pensions; an arrangement had been made whereby men, when they reached the age of 55 years, should have an augmentation of 5d. a day, but in 1878 a limitation in the number of men was effected. Until 1892 strong agitation was carried on against the action of limitation. The result, then, was the appointment of a Select Committee, which made three recommendations. Two had been carried out, with the result that of the 2,800 men who had been deprived, 2,200 were enabled to receive the pensions to which they were entitled. Still 600 men remained, whose cases, he urged, should be dealt with.

said, with regard first to the question of the gratuity to the relatives of the man Deans, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, there was a doubt as to the powers of the Admiralty in the matter; it was doubtful whether to give the gratuity was within their powers. He would, however, inquire into the question of the powers of the Admiralty, and if they could they would consider the possibility of making an allowance. With regard to the allotments, he congratulated the hon. Member for Devonport upon being the first to raise the question, and upon the successful result of his efforts, which would undoubtedly be one of the greatest benefits to the families of seamen. The system of paying these allotments to the wives of the seamen by Post Office orders, which they could cash at any time, instead of compelling them to herd in hundreds and thousands at the dockyards, was a change which was approved of by the Admiralty. They were now waiting the sanction of the Treasury with regard to the necessary increase in the staff, but the additional cost would not exceed £480, and he hoped the sanction of the Treasury would be obtained in time for handbills to be sent out next month, and if that were done, the new system would come into operation on October 1. With regard to the question of the payment of pensions monthly instead of quarterly, the hon. Member said that when a pensioner got a comparatively large sum into his hands once a quarter he sometimes got rid of it too soon, with bad results to his family. The Admiralty had been made acquainted with some very painful circumstances of that kind, and he should be very glad to take the suggestion, that the pensions should be paid monthly instead of quarterly, into his consideration and consult his colleagues on the subject. With regard to the question of the Greenwich age pensions, the information of the hon. Member was not correct; the Committee did not recommend that the whole of the men should be considered. They distinguished between them, and made two recommendations, which had been acted upon, at an increase of £22,000 on the Estimates. They made some observations upon a third recommendation, which were being considered. He could promise on behalf of the Admiralty that the whole subject should receive the most careful consideration, but further than that he could not go.

said, the House would recollect that on Monday last the hon. Member for the Carnarvon Boroughs raised a Debate with regard to the Registrar General's Report on the Census of 1891 in Wales, and stated that that official had imputed that many of the Welsh people had wilfully made misstatements with the view of increasing the number of those who were returned as speaking the Welsh language only.

said, the Registrar General went further than that, and suggested that the Returns were not reliable.

said, the hon. Member imputed that the Registrar General, in his Report, had insinuated that the Welsh people had wilfully and purposely, and almost fraudulently, filled up the Returns in a manner which was not consistent with truth. At the time he (Mr. Shaw-Lefevre) said he felt certain that that could not have been the intention of the Registrar General, and that he did not think on the face of the Report that that was the meaning of the paragraphs complained of. He also promised that he would communicate with the Registrar General, and ascertain from him what was his real view of the matter. He had done so, and he had received from the Registrar General a most emphatic statement that he had no intention whatever of imputing that the Welsh people had wilfully and improperly filled up these Returns. All that he intended to convey in his Report was that there had been some misunderstanding as to the requirements of the schedule on the part of the Welsh people in some districts, the result of which was that some of the Returns were not altogether reliable. The hon. Member must not think that this explanation of the Registrar General was made specially in consequence of the Debate of Monday, for he would point out that the present Secretary of State for India (Mr. H. H. Fowler), who was at that time President of the Local Government Board, at the beginning of the year, answering a question on the same subject, put to him by the hon. Member for Oswestry, said—

"He had no power to direct that a fresh inquiry should be made as to the number of people speaking Welsh, and that the Registrar General had no evidence that any person wilfully and knowingly made false Returns in Wales."

There was an emphatic statement on the part of the Registrar General at that time that the passage to which the hon. Member for the Carnarvon Boroughs referred on Monday did not admit of the meaning which that hon. Member placed upon it. He had to state on the part of the Registrar General that he had no intention whatever of reflecting on the Welsh people in the sense in which the hon. Member complained of. At the same time, he must admit that he thought the language used by the Registrar General might have been more explicit; and having regard to the fact that it had given rise to a feeling of irritation in Wales, he regretted that the language had not made it clear what was really meant. He would, therefore, advise the Registrar General to embody, in a letter to him, an emphatic denial that he intended the passages of his Report complained of to bear the meaning imputed to them, and that he withdrew any expression which would appear to lead in that direction. That letter might be laid before the House in the form of a Parliamentary Paper. It would remain on record, and would be taken in connection with the Report of the Census in any reference in future Debates. There were one or two other points arising out of the Debate of Monday last to which he desired to refer. An hon. Member asked whether there was any foundation whatever for the statement that the Registrar General had communications with the Bishop and clergy of the Established Church in Wales; and to that the Registrar General replied that the only communication of the kind he had had was a telegram from the Bishop of Asaph on the subject yesterday morning. He had also received a communication from Mr. Ritchie with reference to this matter. An hon. Member on Monday night alleged that there had been an admission by Mr. Ritchie of mismanagement on the part of the Registrar General, and Mr. Ritchie wished to dissociate himself from any such admission. He wrote—

"I see that last night in the House of Commons Mr. J. H. Lewis is reported to have said that I had admitted in the House mismanagement on the part of the Registrar General in connection with the Welsh Census. I wish to dissociate myself from any such charge. It is true that there was some mistake of a very limited kind made in, I think, a very limited area. This I admitted in the House, but I did not admit anything approaching to mismanagement generally in connection with the Welsh Census, and certainly not on the part of the Registrar General, who devoted himself most zealously to secure that the Census should be full and fair; and not once during the many communications I had with him on the subject was it possible to detect the smallest trace of partiality or bias on his part."

said, that what Mr. Ritchie had admitted was that the supply of forms in the Welsh language was not so great as the demand.

said, that as to the want of a proper supply of schedules in the Welsh language, there appeared to have been a kind of patriotic movement in Wales to fill up the schedules in the Welsh language to a far greater degree than before, and although 25 per cent, more papers were furnished than in 1881 the supply proved insufficient, but where any difficulty of that kind arose steps were taken to remedy the defect. He hoped hon. Members would be satisfied with the assurance that the Registrar General had no intention whatever to throw any imputation on the Welsh people.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman had simply addressed himself to the imputation made by the Registrar General on the truthfulness of the Welsh people in filling up the Census Returns. He had not addressed himself to the more important point from the Parliamentary point of view of the reliability of the Returns. The Registrar General in his Report said—

"We do not think that much value can be attached to the figures which are given in our tables."

What did those words mean? Either the Returns were reliable or they were, not, and the Registrar ought either to defend his Report or withdraw the imputation on the reliability of the Returns made by the Welsh people. The issue was a perfectly clear one. Census papers were distributed through Wales. In one column of the paper the people were to make a return as to the language they spoke. Surely the people themselves were better judges as to the language they spoke than the Registrar General. The result of the Census was that 500,000 of the people returned themselves as speaking Welsh only, 400,000 as speaking both Welsh and English, and the remainder as English-speaking. Upon what evidence had the Registrar General come to the conclusion that those figures were not correct? Without any evidence, either set forth or indicated in the slightest degree, the Registrar General came to the conclusion that the whole Returns were unreliable. This was not a small matter. If the Registrar General was right in his inference as to those Returns, Parliament could not place the slightest reliance upon any Returns made by the Welsh people in the future as to their habits and customs and language. Several social and political questions would have to be decided on, whether it was or was not true that there were some thousands of people in Wales who did not understand the English language at all. For instance, a short time ago he raised in the House the question of the appointment of a County Court Judge, who could not speak Welsh to a Welsh-speaking district. The reply that was given to him was that this district was not a Welsh-speaking district, and that the people were able to give their evidence clearly in the English tongue. What a valuable Report in refutation of that statement would the Report of the Census of 1891 have been were it not for the unfounded comments of the Registrar General! The fact was, that the Census Returns for Wales had been rendered perfectly worthless by the insinuations which the Registrar General had thought fit to make. He should express his dissatisfaction with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, and he was determined to take the opinion of this House upon the subject. If the Government had no control over the Registrar General the House had, and he would therefore move a reduction in the Vote on the ground that there was no evidence to justify that official in aspersing the whole of the Welsh Returns. The slur that permanent official had cast upon the Welsh people rendered these Returns valueless for all future purposes, political and social. They must show such men that they could not make false statements with regard to the Welsh people, falsify Returns, and colour Reports with a political object in view, without having the censure of the House of Commons visited upon them. He therefore moved the reduction of the Vote by £100.

supported the reduction. He did not understand the English language if the Registrar General did not in his Report deliberately impute inaccuracies in the Welsh Returns, and wrong-doing on the part of the Welsh people. Misrepresentations as to the number of Welsh-speaking people might have important results in connection with the controversy in Wales between the Established Church and the Nonconformists. The great charge that the latter made against the Establishment was that it had failed in its duties because it did not minister to the people in the language of the people. The Registrar General's Report would be relied upon by the friends of the Establishment as a proof that the number of Welsh-speaking people in Wales was greatly exaggerated, and that, therefore, the Church did minister to the people in the language of the people. The misrepresentations in the Report were, therefore, justly resented by the friends of the monoglot Welshman. The Registrar General, who was said not to have cast any imputation upon Welshmen, used these words—

"Abundant evidence has been received by us that the Returns were either misunderstood or set at nought."

What ground had the Registrar General for saying that? He held that this Report ought to be set aside, and that another Report should be supplied, containing statistics only, and no official imputations or opinions.

hoped that this Report would be with- drawn and an impartial Report substituted for it. In every line of the Report animus and bias were apparent, and the imputations which it contained were so insulting to the Welsh people that their Representatives could not submit to them. It was very important when a Census was taken that an adequate supply of Census papers should be printed in the Welsh language. They earnestly hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give them the reasonable satisfaction for which they asked.

said, that if hon. Members were surprised at the warmth shown by Members from Wales on the question, he would point out that this was not the first time upon which calumnies against the Welsh people had been put into the form of official documents. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to request the Registrar General either to justify or withdraw his allegations against the Welsh people.

said, it would be inhuman to detain the House in its present condition for many minutes, and though he felt that observations should at the present period of the Session be reduced to microscopic dimensions, yet there were subjects arising on this Vote which there had been no previous opportunity of mentioning, and which could not be allowed to be passed without being referred to. It was to be regretted that the present practice of the House led to too much time being devoted to the early Votes, and to such Votes as those con- tained in Class V. passing without remark. It was, of course, possible to raise discussions on subjects falling under Class V. on the Votes on Account, but Votes on Account were always taken in the same order, and from the manner in which Votes on Account were taken in that order too much time was also given to the early Votes and too little to the later. That was highly inconvenient, and was reason for some change in the Forms of the House in dealing with these matters. In view of the fact that they had come to this period of the Session and the House was weary, he would make his remarks very few. Because the question of Egypt had not been raised this year, it must not be supposed that those who raised the question last year had changed the views which they then expressed. Their views remained as strong as they always had been; but the matter had not been raised this year, because they thought it had been sufficiently ventilated last year, and no sufficient change had occurred to justify its being again raised. But he wished to draw attention to two or three small matters of another kind. On page 403 of the Estimates there was a Vote of £1,000—a new Vote for the establishment of an International Maritime Bureau at Zanzibar in consequence of our obligations under the Berlin arrangement. He was bound to say that our position at Zanzibar in relation to the Slave Trade was hypocritical. While there was an increase in the money nominally spent on the suppression of the Slave Trade, a great market for slaves was left open by the existence of the legal status of slavery in Zanzibar and Pemba. There was no free labour there, and so long as that condition of things prevailed so long would all attempts to keep down slavery by votes of money be unavailing. He believed that the establishment of a Labour Bureau at Zanzibar was a mere blind to the country, because it was impossible to suppress the Slave Trade unless the legal status of slavery were abolished within our own Protectorate. He hoped that in future years the Uganda Votes would all be brought together. There was a Vote this year for the expenses of the Commission for carrying out the Agreement between Great Britain and France as to a neutral buffer State between their possessions in Indo-China, as to which some documents wore presented to the House a few days ago. A great deal of time had passed since the Estimates were framed; but in spite of the pressure which had been put upon the Government in the matter no meeting of the Commission had been held, and the creation of the buffer State seemed as far off as ever. He should be glad if the Government would give the House some information as to whether anything like this buffer State was to be created. He doubted whether, in the circumstances of the district, it would be possible to establish a satisfactory buffer State. Such a State as Afghanistan would be valuable, but a purely artificial State such as was proposed would not be of the least value. But the Government attached great importance to such a State, and he hoped that they would curry out their own policy. As to the Vote for the escort to the Legation of Japan, such a guard was now wholly unnecessary, and as for unforeseen missions and services, why was double the amount taken this year than was taken last year?

said, the right hon. Baronet had made it appear as if the temporary maintenance of slavery in Zanzibar was the principal cause of that abhorent traffic in the East. He (Sir E. Ashmead-Bartlett) would point out that with reference to the Slave Trade the Anti-Slavery Society were of opinion that the best way of suppressing it would be the immediate building of the railway to Uganda. That was also the view of people who were best acquainted with the circumstances of Uganda, and who were impressed with the desirability of doing away with the enormous caravans of porters, for the most, part in a state of quasi-servitude, who at present had to carry the goods conveyed from the coast to Uganda.

said, there could be no doubt that the Diplomatic Service of this country was decaying and the Consular Service growing and becoming more useful every day. For this reason he desired to appeal to his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs to do something for Consular officers abroad. It was a fact which reflected discreditably on this country that a great many of our Consular officers not only received no salary whatever and nothing at all against office rent, but were obliged to supply their own stationery and their own postage stamps. He would appeal to the Government to make provision, at any rate, for stationery and postage stamps. A circular might be issued to chief Consular officers authorising them to pay for the stationery and postage stamps of subordinate Consular officers in their various districts. He did not think that was a very exorbitant demand. When we required information as to the products and imports of given districts we had to apply to these officers for it, and surely it would be only reasonable to pay for their stationery and postage stamps.

said, he hoped a specific reply would be given to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean. The question was whether the status of slavery existed in Zanzibar, and, if so, what steps the Government were taking to put an end to it? That question must be answered. Her Majesty's Government would have to justify themselves before the civilised world if they allowed this slavery to continue. It had existed, as they all knew, for centuries, and probably it could not be done away with at once, but were the Government taking steps to gradually, if not immediately, abolish it? He was apprehensive that the hon. Baronet would say that we were not administering that country—that the country was not under our control. That, however, would not be accepted by the civilised world outside, and he hoped it would not be accepted by the best and most influential opinion in England. With regard to the Uganda railway, he wished to impress upon the Government that if they had not the resources, financial and otherwise, for undertaking so great a work, they ought at any rate to begin it, and to construct the line from the sea to the first range of hills. That could be done easily and inexpensively.

said, that he had on previous occasions specifically stated that the status of slavery existed not only in Zanzibar, but in all Mahommedan protectorates in Africa. The universal practice where the Mahommedan law was in existence in British protectorates was that the institutions of the country were as far as possible undisturbed, though political influence outside these protectorates was placed entirely in the hands of the British Government. In Zanzibar there were three regulations, not all new, but which had only lately come under the influence of British officials. One of them was that whenever slaves were treated cruelly by their owners, and the cruelty was proved, they were set free. Another was that the slaves might not be inherited by anyone but the children of their owner, so that if the owner died and left no direct issue his slaves became free. The third was that slaves were not to be imported into the island, and that every man landing after a certain date became free. He believed that people in the status of slavery did not multiply rapidly; that the tendency was for the slave population not to perpetuate itself. That being so, it was obvious that, provided the Rules he had described were strictly enforced, the institution of slavery in Zanzibar must within a comparatively limited number of years die a natural death.

There is no free labour at all there at the present time.

said, he would deal with that point. The Regulations were being strictly enforced, although no doubt in some cases a certain number of slaves, comparatively few, did slip through the meshes of the rules and got into the island. In order that the Regulations might be better enforced they had lately placed a representative in the Island of Pemba. The strict enforcement of the Regulations and the fact that the number of slaves was decreasing must have its effect upon the cultivation of the island. They were receiving more and more complaints as time went on of the difficulty in obtaining labour in Zanzibar, and therefore one of the great problems before them, assuming that it was the duty of the Government to see the Regulations enforced, was the introduction of free paid labour into Zanzibar for the cultivation of the land. Though there were great objections and difficulties to doing away with the status of slavery in Zanzibar, he quite admitted that it was the business of the Government to see that no mere economic considerations should be allowed to obscure and put on one side those large humane principles so deeply felt in this country with regard to the question of slavery. With regard to the Expedition to establish the limits of the buffer State in Siam, it could not be started, owing to climatic reasons, before October. Arrangements were actively in progress between the two Governments with the object of fixing the number of the escorts, the place where they were to meet, and what their programme was to be, and these arrangements had been pushed on in order that the work might be begun during the ensuing autumn. As for unforeseen missions and services the Vote was larger this year than last year, because the Vote for foreseen missions and services was smaller than last year. When the one class of missions was larger than usual it was anticipated that the other class would be smaller, and a sort of average was struck. With regard to what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Gentleman, he could not altogether agree with him. He could endorse the last part of his statement, that the Consular Service was growing in importance, but he could not admit that the Diplomatic Service was less important than previously.

said, that when important International questions were raised special envoys were invariably sent out. He did not say that the gentlemen at present engaged in the Diplomatic Service were less conspicuous for ability than those engaged formerly, but he said that with the telegraph and modern means of communication the Diplomatic Service was waning and the Consular Service growing in importance.

said, the two Services were growing in importance together with the growth of the Empire. There were some Consuls paid and some unpaid. No doubt it would be more satisfactory if they not only had more Consuls, but if they paid them; but, after all, the number in the Services must depend on the demand. His own opinion was that whatever money the Treasury could be induced to allow for expending on the local services ought to be devoted rather to the pay of the officials than to any alteration of the existing system.

asked whether a person under British protection born of slave parents could be held up as a slave?

said, that such a person would be a slave subject to conditions. When the owner died the slaves would not pass to strangers. He assumed that the claims on the fund would be few.

said, that under British protectorate slavery would be an innovation, for it had been abolished by the British Government. The argument that it was necessary to make it an institution of the country might be equally applied in other cases. Another point with which the hon. Baronet had not dealt was the maintenance of a guard at Tokio. That was surely unnecessary at the present day. There was really no more need for a guard in Tokio than in Paris or Vienna. This guard itself proved its own inutility in case of actual disturbances arising, for it was obvious from the Vote that it was an exceedingly small one. Resolution agreed to. Thirty-third Resolution—

"That a sum, not exceeding £213, 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 1895, for Expenses in connection with the Suppression of the Slave Trade, and the Expenses of the Maintenance of certain Liberated Africans,"

considered.

said, this was a very curious item. It had reference to tonnage bounties. For these the charge was double what it usually was, and he must ask the Secretary to the Treasury the reason for it, and whether he could throw any light upon the matter? As Her Majesty's ships had ceased to patrol Madagascar waters, and this Estimate was made in advance, he could not understand why there should be an increase in the sum charged for tonnage bounties on the East Coast of Africa. There used to be a good deal of work done in the Malagasy waters, but that was no longer the case, and he should have thought there would have been a decrease, therefore, instead of an increase in this amount. He should also be glad to hear a statement from the right hon. Gentleman as to the number of Africans relieved.

said, the increased provision for tonnage bounties was owing to the more numerous demands, which were likely to come in course of payment during the present year. He did not know how long the numbers of Liberated Africans would remain the same; but in going through the Estimates he had drawn attention to the matter, and a sharp eye would be kept upon it.

said, a strong opinion existed in this country that the efforts for the suppression of the Slave Trade in what were called foreign waters would continue to be ineffectual so long as the slave markets in the interior were allowed to be supplied. All the expenditure would continue to be non-effective until we took more active measures on land for the suppression of slavery. He hoped this point would be borne in mind in connection with our Protectorate in Uganda. But the first point was that the supplies to those markets were allowed to go on unchecked by Her Majesty's gunboats.

said, the chief item in this large amount was in regard to Bechuanaland. He feared that the annual expenditure upon Bechuanaland would soon exceed £100,000, which had been stated as the maximum amount, there being already a deficit of £14,000 or £15,000, while the House could not count upon a less annual expenditure than £200,000 upon the row of posts in Central Africa which were not connected with one another—in Bechuanaland, Nyassaland, and Uganda. He desired to call attention to the matter as, in consequence of the action of Germany and the recent break-down of the Congo Convention, we had now no route through British Central Africa and Uganda to Egypt and the North. The negotiations appeared to have broken down, and there was no prospect of their ultimate success. We were adopting a new forward policy in Central Africa, though he himself was not in favour of it, believing that we had interests on and near the sea of much greater importance. He therefore pointed out that we were increasing our expenditure upon the stations in Central Africa, and there was little prospect that it would ever fall below £200,000 a year.

said, in reference to Bechuanaland—Nyassaland and Uganda being under the control of the Foreign Office—he hoped that it would be possible not only to reduce the expenditure, but to increase the revenue as the country developed. Two causes were likely to have that effect—the attraction to Matabeleland of a large number of emigrants, who, passing through Bechuanaland, would tend to develop that country, and the extension of the railway. Therefore, he did not share the view of the right hon. Gentleman, but believed that ultimately the British taxpayer might be relieved from burdens in carrying on the administration of that territory.

said, a promise had been given to consider the question of compensation to Roman Catholics for damages received during the war in Uganda while Captain Lugard was there. A special officer had been sent out to inquire into the reality and extent of the losses; and though this officer had made a Report, it had not been published. For some reason or other it was not, he believed, thought satisfactory. He did not know what its nature might be, and would be glad to hear what the hon. Gentleman could say as to the claim for compensation, which he believed affected not only French Roman Catholics, but some German subjects, who suffered damage in the fighting at the same time. This question of compensation should be borne in mind when settling the sum to be paid to the British East Africa Company for depriving them of their rights. These damages to Roman Catholics were incurred during the time the Company were holding Uganda, and it was a question whether this country ought to be called upon to pay them, more especially as Captain Lugard reported that in those very operations a large amount of booty was captured by him for the Company which would go a very long way, as he said, to meet the expenses of the war.

said, as this was the last opportunity which would be afforded before the House rose of considering the question, he would make a short statement, without going at any length into details, in reference to the necessity of strengthening our position in Uganda and of establishing railway communication with that district. Everyone interested in the extension of our Imperial dominion in Central Africa had long recognised the importance of Uganda. He was much astonished to hear the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean express himself in doubtful terms as to the enormous value of these vast regions. There had, however, been of late a distinct improvement in the tone of the right hon. Baronet. He now spoke less confidently than before against the value of Uganda. There was a time when people expressed doubt as to the value of our great dominions in Canada, Australia, and the Cape. Yet where would be the wealth and Imperial greatness of England now without those splendid colonies? The natural wealth of Uganda and the districts around it exceeded the natural wealth of almost any country in the world; and it was vital to the existence of our power in those regions that railway communication should be established as speedily as possible with the coast. The value of Uganda to this country, and of the districts near to it, was also to be found in the fact that in that region lay the sources of the Nile. Danger was now likely to arise from the advance of the French, in consequence of the breaking-down of the Anglo-Congo Agreement. Our great rival in those regions was now brought, by the Franco-Congo Treaty of August 14, very much nearer to Uganda and the Nile waterway. Therefore, in order to maintain our position at the sources as well as at the mouth of the Nile we must keep the waterway of that river clear from the control of any other European Power. On this point he would quote a letter to The Times of Major Roderic Owen, who had recently taken such a prominent part in Colonel Colville's expedition up the Nile from Uganda, and who from personal experience was well qualified to speak on the point. He commended this sentence in the letter to the attention of the Government—

"If we intend to remain in Egypt we must hold the Nile from its source to its mouth, and a clearly-defined margin to the west as well as to the east, either by acquisition or delimitation, and that considerably nearer the 25th degree than the 30th degree of east longitude."

But the French had just driven the Congo State back from the 25th to the 30th degree. Both from a military and political point of view, therefore, it was of the utmost importance that a railway should be constructed at once from the coast to the Victoria Nyanza. Although Article III. of the Anglo-Congo Treaty had been cancelled to please Germany, we still have a right of transit across the territory from the Albert Nyanza to Lake Tanganyika. Though we had not the absolute control of the strip of territory between the two lakes, still we had power to make a railroad. This was the very fateful moment for our dominion in Central Africa. Upon the action of the Government within the next few months would depend the future of vast regions, to us of great political importance, of enormous natural wealth, and of great commercial potentiality. The Government, therefore, should adopt all possible means of strengthening our forces in Uganda and constructing as soon as possible a railway from the coast to the Nyanza. Our markets abroad were not too many, and had been shrinking of late years. Foreign tariffs everywhere placed British products at a disadvantage. Competition with our manufacturers in foreign markets was growing keener every day and this great region afforded us a much-required opportunity of extending our trade. The right hon. Member for Birmingham had demonstrated in that House that a railway could be constructed at comparatively small cost for £900,000 as far as Kukuyu, close to the Victoria Nyanza. All that was wanted was a guarantee of less than £30,000 a year for a certain time. That small expenditure would give us speedily a railway which would confer upon England political and commercial predominance in all those regions. At present the cost of transport from Victoria Nyanza to the sea was £300 a ton; a railway would reduce it to £8 a ton, and would do away with the necessity of importing thousands of native porters, who were only slaves in disguise working under their taskmasters. A railway would simply be invaluable to us from a military, political, and commercial point of view as well as being of the greatest importance in checking the nearer advance towards the Nile of our European neighbours. He was glad to see that even Radical Members from North of the Tweed were in favour of a forward policy in this respect. One of the Radical Members for Durham also had pleaded for the construction of a railway. In those circumstances, he hoped Her Majesty's Government would be able to give an assurance of speedy action in the matter, and that they would see their way to grant a subsidy in order that the work of constructing the Uganda railway might be pushed forward without further delay.

said, that the claims of the missionaries had already been considered, as the subject formed part of the general discussion between the British and French Governments. He did not think that the circumstances of the case required them to make further inquiries, because to do so would necessitate their going through an immense amount of evidence of what took place, in many cases, a very long time ago. With regard to the construction and maintenance of railways in Uganda, he could only repeat what he had said on Friday last, nor had he any fresh announcement to make, and he, therefore, could only refer the hon. Gentleman to what was said by the Prime Minister on this subject in the House of Lords when the first Vote on Uganda was introduced. As to the universal danger to British interests in Uganda, whatever danger existed it was not only not greater but certainly less than it was some time ago. When the railway scheme was first advocated the recent Anglo-Congo Treaty was not even thought of. Any danger that might arise would be due to difficulties with the natives, and the fact that the strip of land between the two parties was now occupied by the Belgians would materially lessen the chances of friction. As regarded the larger question, it was impossible for him to again refer to the general interests existing between the English and French Governments. He had already given the House his views on that question, and to that statement he had nothing to add.

said, that it was the first time that the House had been asked to make this grant, and if it had not been for the answer to a question put by him the other night, it would have been necessary to raise a discussion upon it. It had been hoped that this district—a rich planting one—would have paid its own expenses, but considerable wars had been undertaken as to which there were differences of opinion, and an opportunity ought to have been afforded for a Debate earlier in the Session. It was, however, too large a question for him to feel justified in raising a discussion upon it then, as he had given notice earlier in the Session that he intended to do.

said, he wished to obtain some information as to the English and French Treaties with the Congo Free State. The Anglo-Congo Treaty had practically disappeared. The French Minister for Foreign Affairs in the French Assembly had, on June 7, openly declared, in a way, he believed, without precedent, that the Anglo-Congo Treaty was null and void. By Article II. of the Franco-Congo Treaty, the Congo State was driven out of its position as a buffer State between us and the French, and it was forced back some 300 miles eastward. At least 12,000 square miles of territory leased to the Congo State by this country under the Treaty of the 12th of May had been resigned by that State. So far as they knew, this great tract of country had fallen back into the position of no man's land, and was quite open to French occupation. The other day, when he tried to elicit some information as to the Western basin of the Nile, the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs stated that Her Majesty's Government were in no sense parties to the Franco-Congo Agreement, and that the territory North of Lado and in the Western watershed of the Nile basin still remained within the sphere of British influence. That was a very important statement indeed, and he hoped that the Government intended to adhere to it. He would not have said one word on this subject had it not been for the recently-issued Siam Blue Book. He recollected with what consideration the Opposition treated the Government last year in acceding to the suggestion that it was contrary to British interests that questions should be put or that information should be given as to the progress of events in Siam. And now 12 months later they read in the Blue Book a deplorable story of aggression on one side, and of weakness and surrender on the other such as they had not seen since the days of the Transvaal capitulation. The story was almost heart-rending as told in the Siam Blue Book. Every fresh advance of the French against Siam was met by retreat and surrender on our side, until the integrity of that country was destroyed, and great inroads made upon its independence. If a similar policy was to be adopted with regard to the Congo, and the French forces allowed to approach the Nile watershed, tremendous injury would be done to our commercial and political interests. He, therefore, asked from the Government a clear statement of their policy. Would they insist upon retaining the western watershed of the Nile within the sphere of British influence? Did they know exactly what the French forces in Central Africa were doing or intended to do? If the Government adopted a firm attitude, well and good. He was asked by the hon. Member for Bradford, on behalf of whom he was speaking. He was speaking for a very large body of persons throughout the country who were interested in the maintenance of our political and commercial control over the Nile waterway. He did not expect the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford, who had put that question, to appreciate Imperial or commercial views, for his opinions were purely academic, but the public realised the vast importance of this question. He was quite aware that his speeches had not been received with particular favour by Her Majesty's Government. He never expected the approbation of the present Ministry, but he had never intervened, except when the importance of the subject justified it. They must have a clearly defined boundary placed to the advance of the French forces towards the Nile. He trusted the Government would see that the Western Nile watershed was retained within the sphere of British influence, and kept clear of all foreign encroachment.

said he ought, perhaps, to have reserved the latter part of his last speech for this Vote, as he meant it to be taken as a reason why he did not make a detailed statement with regard to the large matters dealt with by the hon. Member. The question the hon. Member asked was in connection with an answer he had given in that House a few days ago. That answer was given with the full authority of Her Majesty's Government. He had no alteration whatever to make. It was not a new announcement; it was founded on decisions arrived at long ago, and he had only to say that they had no intention of abandoning the legitimate claims inherited from their predecessors.

agreed that the matter discussed by his hon. Friend the Member for the Ecclesall Division of Sheffield was of first-class Imperial importance. When these questions were raised the Minister responsible usually declared that negotiations were pending and deprecated discussion; but although that might be a good reason for reticence on his part, it was not one for silence on their part. They had listened with satisfaction to the statement that the entire watershed of the Nile was within the sphere of British influence, and he hoped they might assume that the Government were prepared to defend that against all comers. With a declaration to that effect they would be satisfied, but they must be excused for having a little scepticism on the point after the conduct of the Government in regard to Siam—conduct which had been so pathetically depicted by his hon. Friend. Of course, he did not doubt the sincerity of the Government in making the declaration. What he did doubt was their power to make it good. If, as was alleged, the Congo boundary had been pushed up to within 40 or 50 miles of the western bank of the Nile, that meant that, potentially, the French power would come up to that line. What then became of the western watershed of the Nile—about 200 or 300 miles at least—being under British influence? He thought they ought to demand a revision of the Franco-Congo Agreement. When we made a Treaty with the Congo State the French intervened and declared it null and void, and surely we had a similar right to deal with the Agreement they had now entered into with the Congo. It was essential to the just interests of this country that the territorial limit of French influence should be considered. A belt of anything like 40 or 50 miles was quite insufficient. If France were to approach to anything like that distance from our Indian frontier it would be considered a most menacing state of things, so far as British interests were concerned, and therefore they were obliged to urge these things upon the Government, and ask them to bear them in mind. He did not ask for any state- ment whatever in regard to the negotiations that were pending or for a statement as to any arrangements likely to be entered into with the French Government, but on behalf of British interests he urged that this matter should not be overlooked. The fear that our arrangements with France might prove as futile as our arrangements about Siam compelled Members to urge upon the Government to take whatever course they could to guard against danger.

said, no Member of the House required any justification for rising to address hon. Members with regard to a matter of first-class importance such as this. They were speaking for thousands and even millions of British subjects who were interested in the maintenance of the markets which it was our interest in Africa to preserve. What was going on now was a contest for commercial supremacy in that part of the world, and he contended that if the main lines of communication in Africa fell into the hands of France or Germany, they would be used for the purpose of excluding British merchandise, and British commercial interests would be placed in serious jeopardy; and, if they were impaired, a starving population at home would require to know why our interests had not been better protected.

said, that, as a member of the Industrial Schools Committee of the London School Board, he had been led to take an interest in the management of our reformatories and industrial schools. It was grotesque to speak of their inmates as criminals; many of the children had crime whatever; they children neglected by their parents. In some cases the parents had tempted their children into criminal ways in order to get rid of the responsibility of bringing them up. Of course, the natural guardians of these children were the last persons in the world who were likely to look after them. The House of Commons stood in loco parentis to these children, and it was the duty of the House to treat them as if they were their own children. If it were necessary for the sake of the children that they should be committed to these schools, so be it; but let it be remembered that what was called the education of the streets was by no means as bad as it used to be. He had obtained, by a unique experience, a knowledge of some of the lowest streets of London; and he knew well that the condition of the criminal localities of London was incomparably better than it was 20 or 30 years ago. Therefore, the dangers that neglected children were exposed to were not nearly so great as they had been in times past. Where there was real danger he admitted that the best course was to commit children to one of these industrial schools. The obligation rested upon Parliament to see that the children who were committed to industrial schools were made as happy as they could be while they were there. If these children had votes they would not be neglected as they had been by that House. In many schools year by year the children had to drag out a monotonous existence without a single holiday. For his part, he would rather be in a prison or an asylum than be in the worst industrial schools of England for 10 years without a holiday. He defied anyone to discover from the official Reports of Colonel Ingliss whether in the opinion of the Inspectors a school was a good, or a tolerable, or a bad school. An hon. Member had asked a question in the House with regard to St. John's Industrial School at Walthamstow. He had read the Report upon that school, but there was nothing in it to open anybody's eyes as to whether the charges made with regard to that school were true or false. He wanted to see the children classified according to age, the mere children being sent to one school, the younger boys to another, and the elder boys to a third. In the next place, there ought to be more Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors. And, in the third place, he wished to see the schools classified according to merit.

said, no doubt everyone would sympathise, as he did himself, with the spirit which animated the remarks of his hon. Friend, and recognise the personal attention he had given to the subject. The hon. Member had spoken to willing ears. During the time he had been at the Home Office he had taken much interest in the industrial schools, and as far as the Metropolitan area was concerned he had been at great pains to investigate personally the state of the schools and the condition of the children attending them. It was obvious, even from a superficial inspection, that the standard of comfort, efficiency, and discipline, and the general moral tone was entirely different as between one school and another. He recognised that it was to the advantage of everybody concerned that his hon. Friend should have thought it worth while to bring the subject forward, and he should be glad to co-operate with his hon. Friend in any considered schemes of reform which it might be necessary or desirable to adopt.