I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether his attention has been drawn to the statements in the public prints as to the number of soldiers in the force now mobilised for manœuvre in the New Forest who are unable to keep up with their regiments, and have fallen out of the ranks on the line of march; whether it is the case that the inability to march is not confined to the infantry battalions at present being exercised at home, under conditions approaching those of service in the field; what steps he proposes to take in order to deal with a matter so vital to the efficiency of our Army; and, whether he is prepared to make good marching under service conditions as important a feature in the future training of British troops as the good shooting?

The attention of the Secretary of State has been drawn to the statements referred to, and he has called for full Reports on the subject from the General Officer commanding. Until these Reports shall have been received, no opinion can be expressed as to defects in marching, or as to the causes of such defects. The Secretary of State concurs in the view indicated in the last paragraph of the question in regard to the importance of good marching under service conditions, and the results of the manœuvres in this respect will be carefully considered by the Military Authorities.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, whether his attention has been called to a statement by Norman M'Aulay, Angus M'Kay, and Angus Smith, to the effect that since they emigrated in 1889 to the Saltcoats Settlement in the North West Territory they are in greater poverty than they ever were in the Highlands of Scotland; that during the first three years they could not raise any crops owing to the frosts; and also praying that inquiry be made into their impoverished circumstances; and whether, having regard to the frequent complaints by crofter settlers, an independent inquiry will be made into the condition of these colonists with a view to redressing their grievances?

On inquiry I find that the persons referred to by the hon. Member, abandoned their holdings in the summer and autumn of 1892, leaving their lands, houses and chattels in the possession of the Colonisation Board; they did so without previous communication with the Board's Agent, and since then have been on their own responsibility. The Colonisation Board are of opinion that if they had remained to work their holdings, and carried out their agreements, they would now have been in a satisfactory position. There does not seem to be any necessity for further inquiry at the present time, but the condition of the settlements and the progress of the settlers will continue to receive the careful attention of the Secretary for Scotland and of the Colonisation Board.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, whether steps will be taken to put the Harbour of Portmahomack into such a condition that fishing boats may be able to enter at all states of the tide?

The Harbour is in the hands of private trustees, who decline to spend more money upon it. The estimated cost of the work, between £4,000 and £5,000, places it practically outside the category of the undertakings contemplated by the West Highlands and Islands Works Act, and the Fishery Board are, I understand, not prepared to spend so large a sum upon it when there are other cases of more importance to be considered. I cannot, therefore, hold out expectation that any addition to the harbour works can at present be constructed out of public funds.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he can give any information as to when the Report of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Mines will be published regarding the flooding of No. 4 Auchenharvie Pit at Stevenston, Ayrshire; and, whether there are any hopes that the bodies of those who were unfortunately drowned in the accident can be recovered?

said: This accident will be the subject of a public inquiry, to be held next week, under the Fatal Accidents Inquiry Act of last Session. The Inspector of Mines will take part in this inquiry, and until it is completed I do not propose to call for a final Report as to the causes of the disaster. I am informed that probably the only hope of recovering the bodies of those drowned would be by pumping out the water from the flooded mine. And I am afraid I must add that, so far as I am informed, to do this would be a matter of the greatest difficulty, if not impossibility.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) is he aware that Lord Justice Fitzgibbon has given it as his judicial decision (Report, 1894, pp. 236, 244, Educational Endowments (Ireland) Commission) that due regard to Erasmus Smith's intentions requires that his endowment should be administered by a Protestant governing body; (2) that the schoolmasters of his schools should be Protestant, and that Protestant instructions should be given to all pupils attending his schools; and (3) whether, seeing that the Conscience Clause of the Intermediate Education Act of 1878 requiries that no pupil attending an intermediate school receiving grants from the Intermediate Board should be compelled to receive religious instruction to which his parents or guardians object, he will inquire how the Erasmus Smith Board, who receive grants from the Intermediate Board, are observing the intentions of Erasmus Smith and the Conscience Clause of the Intermediate Education Act?

I have not had sufficient time to closely examine the judgment of Lord Justice Fitzgibbon in this matter, though I believe he did express himself substantially to the effect stated. As regards the second paragraph, I am informed by the Assistant Commissioners of Intermediate Education that results fees were paid by them to Erasmus Smith Schools in 1894 and in previous years. The claimants for such fees in each case were obliged, under the rules of the Commissioners, to declare in writing that the requirements of Section 7 of the Intermediate Education Act of 1878 had been complied with. It is not for me to attempt to decide whether the intentions of Erasmus Smith and the observance of the Conscience Clause are, or are not, consistent.

asked whether the Chief Secretary meant an individual claimed, or a body which made the claim?

I think it is a body.

Will he inquire of the body who have made this claim how this Conscience Clause is put in force in their schools?

made a remark which did not reach the Gallery.

As the Chief Secretary has undertaken to receive a deputation on the question during the Recess, will he undertake to look into the whole subject previously with reference to the question of the Conscience Clause?

Certainly. I will do my best.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he will direct the Inspector General of the Royal Irish Constabulary to abolish the use of the valise and what are known as marching order parades in the force, also the compulsory wear of leggings by the rank and file, and allow men (when required) on detachment duty to carry the blanket enclosed with the great coat in the coat straps; if not, will he see that the members of the force are supplied with these articles at the expense of the Exchequer or in the same way as their uniform and other appointments, and not compel the men to provide these things at their own expense?

When men of the Royal Irish Constabulary proceed on detachment duty the use of the valise is indispensable, as it contains a change of clothing, shirts, boots, &c., and, in fact, is to the policeman what a travelling bag or portmanteau is to the civilian. As regards parades in marching order, these are carried out in order to insure that the men shall turn out properly equipped, and are essential to the comfort and convenience of the men themselves. Leggings are required to be worn on outdoor duty between November and March inclusive, also on detachment duty. There is every reason to think that the wearing of leggings, particularly in wet weather and when men are absent from their stations, is conducive to their health and comfort. The Inspector General sees no reason for recommending any change in the existing arrangements in either of these respects, nor in regard to the carrying of the blanket which is strapped to the valise. From the formation of the Force the men have been required to provide valises and, since 1888, leggings at their own expense, and there appear to be no grounds for now defraying the cost of these articles out of public funds.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) if the Inspector General will prohibit the sale of manuals purporting to be books of instructions on drill and police duties by officers of the Force to their subordinates; (2) is he aware that every man under District Inspector Bain in his various districts is required to answer questions as they are given in his book, and that other district inspectors recommend and require their men to supply themselves with a copy of his book; (3) if recruits at the depô;t on joining are forced to purchase the book of Head Constable Smyth; and (4), if these books are worth having, will a copy be supplied to each station without expense to the men, like the code and other books?

The Inspector General does not think it would be advisable to prohibit the sale of the manuals referred to, as their circulation, in his opinion, causes the men to be more efficient and to take a greater interest in their duties. The County Inspector of Limerick, in which Mr. Bain is stationed, reports that there is no foundation for the allegations in the second paragraph. Some of the officers may have expressed approval of the book, but there is no foundation for the suggestion that pressure has been put on the men to procure it. I am also informed that there is no foundation for the statement in the third paragraph of the question. There is no reason for supplying such unofficial publications to the men of the Force at the public expense.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the importation of spirits into the Niger Coast Protectorate has increased by 25 per cent. in the last year for which figures are available, as compared with the previous year; whether the spirits in question consist mainly of German and Dutch gin and of German rum; whether there has in the same period been a decrease in the importation of cotton goods, hardware, and cutlery; and what is the cause of the enormous importation of percussion caps, amounting to 258,893,750 in one year, looking to the illegality under the Brussels Act of the trade in caps to the interior?

There was a considerable increase in the import of spirits into the Niger Coast Protectorate in the year 1893–4, but the right hon. Baronet will be pleased to hear that there is a still more considerable reduction in the year 1894–5,—namely, a reduction of 523,800 gallons of gin and 313,000 gallons of rum. The figures for 1893–4, as well as the countries from which the imports are derived, are given in the Consular Report 1618, recently presented to Parliament. In the same period, though there was a decrease in the number of packages, there was an increase in the value of hardware and cutlery imported, and an increase in both respects in the case of cotton goods. The British Commissioner, now in England, explains that owing to difficulties as to warehouses and to legal questions relating to the framing of the regulations, the rules concerning percussion caps did not come into operation until May, 1894; and that the large importation in the previous year was due to the fact that traders filled their stores in anticipation of the prohibition.

asked whether the Government had expressed any opinion on the extraordinary violation of the Brussels Act and the importation of between 18,000 and 19,000 percussion guns?

did not admit that there had been any extraordinary violation of the Brussels Act. Some time necessarily elapsed before the Act could come into operation, and traders took advantage of it to import these gun caps

asked whether, acting on the Belgian precedent, the Government could not manage to hang a few Germans? [Laughter.]

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether a Petition from the junior section of the Second Division Clerks in the Civil Service, asking for an increase of salary and an addition to their annual leave of absence, was received by the Treasury last December; and, whether the Treasury have yet come to any decision on the subject?

Yes, Sir, the decision of the Treasury has been communicated to the departments from which the Petitions were received.

I beg to ask the Secretary of the Treasury—(1) if a reply has been prepared in answer to a Petition from the Ridley Clerks of the Second Division of the Civil Service forwarded to the Lords of Her Majesty's Treasury in 1894, praying for an improvement in their salaries; and (2) whether, in the consideration of this Petition, it is intended to remedy the system which exists in the Government service whereby a Playfair Clerk of the Second Division, who may have entered the Civil Service only two years prior to the entry of a Ridley Clerk of the Second Division, receives £50 or £60 a year more than the latter, although both are generally employed on the same sort of clerical work in the several Government offices?

As I have stated, in reply to question No. 9, the decision of the Treasury has been communicated to the Departments from which Petitions were received. The latter part of the question is the same as that asked by the hon. Member for Kilkenny on the 22nd instant, and I have nothing to add to the reply then given.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury—(1) whether any Playfair Clerk of the Second Division served more than 15 years before being placed on the new scale; (2) whether the Treasury regarded the salaries paid to Playfair Clerks during their first 10 or 15 years of service as excessive; (3) whether under the new scale their salaries were increased by a more rapid system of increments; (4) whether he is aware that Ridley Clerks of the Second Division, commencing at £70 a year, receive in salary during the first 10 years of service a total sum less by £190 than the Playfair Clerks introduced at £95 per annum, and that compared with Playfair Clerks placed on the new scale within 10 years of their appointment the difference is still greater; and, (5) whether he will take such steps as will place the salaries of all the clerks of the Second Division on a similar basis?

I am not sure that I understand the object of the first question, but the scale of the Playfair Lower Division was in operation only from 1876 to 1889, which is less than 14 years. The new scale was fixed, after full consideration, by the Royal Commission as being better suited than the old to the conditions of the employment. The Government have accepted it, and have no intention of altering it. It was an essential part of the change that the scale of salary should in the earlier years of service be less than under the Playfair Scheme, but that it should rise by annual increments more rapidly and to a much higher maximum. The scale in force before 1889 has been given to no one since appointed, but its benefits could not be withdrawn from anyone then serving.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether there is any complete printed register of the convictions obtained by Her Majesty's Inspectors under the Factory Acts; and, if not, whether he will consider the desirability of providing each of Her Majesty's Inspectors and Inspectors' assistants with such a list for the better prosecution of offenders; whether any register is kept of unsuccessful prosecutions, and what is the percentage of such prosecutions; and, what degree of responsibility attaches to an inspector for prosecutions which a magistrate considers vexatious?

A complete Return of all convictions under the Factory Acts is printed in an Appendix to the Chief Inspector's Annual Report, which was in the hands of all the inspectors. In the year 1894 the number of cases dismissed was 75 out of 3,220—i.e., less than 3½ per cent. No prosecution can be instituted by an inspector without the consent of the Chief Inspector or the Superintending Inspector of the district.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention has been called to the Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories for the year 1894, and the précis drawn up by one of Her Majesty's Inspectors (Miss Anderson) of the regulations under the Factory laws in France, as well as the general regulations with respect to sanitation, ventilation, and the restrictions placed on the employment of women and children in French industrial establishments; and whether, in view of the value attached by the Chief Inspector to that précis, he will consider the desirability of causing similar prÉcis to be drawn up with regard to the legislation and administration of Factory Laws in Germany and Austria during the ensuing year?

I have seen Miss Anderson's précis and translations, and have communicated with the Chief Inspector of Factories, who tells me that he hopes to include in the next Annual Report a précis of the Austrian and German Law on the same subjects.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(l) whether it is the intention of the Government to amend the law relating to grants for teachers' residences; (2) whether they will in every future case consider the advisability of adding gardens to teachers' residences applied for under the Act, and to schools in rural districts; and (3) if any intention is entertained of making the teaching of practical farming general in Ireland?

In reply to the three paragraphs of this question, which apparently refer to the same matter, namely, the acquisition of land to be provided as a garden in connection with each national school or teachers' residence for the purpose of agricultural instruction, I am informed that legislation will be necessary to give effect to the proposals of the hon. Member, and I will give the matter full consideration.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, have the Irish Education Office acted on the principle recently laid down that 40 per cent. secures a pass at the results examination; and what percentage secures a No. 1 or satisfactory pass?

I am informed by the Commissioners of National Education that the general understanding among inspectors is that the value of answering of a pupil at the results examination to entitle him to a satisfactory pass should be over 60 per cent., and to entitle him to a mere pass it should be over 40 per cent. This is the principle that for many years past has been acted upon in the marking of pupils answering.

said he understood the teachers complained that this had not been adhered to in regard to the 40 per cent. Had the Education Board given any hint on the subject?

No, Sir.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, when the Code of Instructions on the Irish School Programme of National Schools, so urgently necessary for the guidance of teachers and inspectors in preparing for, and at, the results examination, will be issued to the Irish teachers, as promised by his predecessor some months ago?

The revised Code of Instructions is still under the consideration of the National Board of Education, and will be issued before the close of the year.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can say why Mr. Andrew D. Murray, late of Her Majesty's Customs, has been refused an opportunity of personally stating his case at an inquiry, and refuting the allegations brought against him, and will he be given such an opportunity; on what grounds have the Board of Customs declined to afford Mr. Murray the benefit of the Treasury Minute of the 27th August, 1889, which provides for the re-instatement of an officer to suitable duty upon restoration to health; and, will the salary due to Mr. Murray, from 8th February to 15th September, 1893, be paid to him?

I beg to refer the hon. and gallant Member to an answer given by my predecessor on the 10th May, 1894, which ran as follows:—

"No salary is due to Mr. Andrew D. Murray, formerly boatman in the Customs. He had been continuously absent from duty on account of illness since the 24th September, 1892, and his pay ceased from the 8th February, 1893. He was discharged from the service with the gratuity for which his service qualified him, on the ground that he was medically certified to be incapable of performing his duties. There is no intention to re-employ him."

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that a clergyman's residence and cowhouses are about being built in Corlea Presbyterian Churchyard, county Monaghan, against the wishes of several of the parishioners whose relations have been buried there, and in spite of the fact that this ground was granted for burial purposes only; if so, will he take steps to prevent erection of the buildings referred to?

I am informed that a residence is to be erected on the land attached to the church referred to, and that of the two acres contained in the grounds, one acre has been set apart for burial purposes. The arrangement, I am told, is approved by the Church Committee, and, so far as the police can ascertain, by the Church Congregation. Nor has any objection been raised, up to the present, by the relatives of persons buried in the ground. The question of permitting the erection of the building referred to seems to be one for the consideration of the parties in whom the ground is vested, and the Local Government Board, whom I have consulted, state they have no functions in the matter, inasmuch as the burial ground has not been provided under the Public Health Act, or vested in the Burial Board.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether his attention has been called to the Petition lodged by the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the Borough of Hartlepool, relating to the firing of the heavy gun at the Lighthouse Battery; and, what steps the authorities intend to take to relieve the residents in the neighbourhood from the serious damage caused by the firing of this gun?

The question of the inconvenience to the inhabitants of Hartlepool caused by firing of the gun at the Lighthouse Battery has been, fully considered. It is absolutely essential that the gun should be fired annually in order to test its mounting. It is proposed, however, in the interest of the inhabitants of Hartlepool, to limit the firing to one full charge and one half charge on one day in the year when the wind is in a favourable quarter. This will reduce the inconvenience to the narrowest limits compatible with the efficient defence of the harbour.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether he is aware that letters posted in Innismore Post Office at half-past seven a.m. do not reach Enniskillen, which is only seven miles distant, until a period of 36 hours has elapsed, and that this long delay in transmission practically prevents the people of Innismore from transacting business by letter with Enniskillen, which is their market town; and, whether, with a view to remedy this state of things, he will take steps to have the time of despatching the mails from Innismore altered from the unusual hour of 6 a.m. to 5 p.m.

The mail is despatched from Innismore between 6 and 7 a.m., and letters for Enniskillen posted after this despatch would be delivered as stated by the hon. Member. Enquiry shall be made whether it is practicable to arrange for a despatch in the afternoon, instead of in the morning, and the result shall be communicated to the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention has been drawn to the report of an inquest held on the 27th instant on the body of a girl named Lins, employed at Messrs. Frost's rope-works, Commercial Road, whose death was caused by her head being caught in a lift; and to the observations of the coroner, who expressed astonishment that, although notified, no factory inspector thought it worth while to attend, and complained of the callous manner in which Messrs. Frost and the factory inspectors had treated the whole matter; and, whether he will state why a factory inspector did not attend the inquest?

I am informed that the coroner's notice did not reach the inspector in time to allow of his attending. In cases where short notice has been given it is usual for the coroner to adjourn the inquest to allow of the factory inspector's attending. After January 1 next, under the new Factory Act, he will be required by law, unless the jury think the presence of an inspector unnecessary, to adjourn the inquest and give the inspector at least four days' notice. ["Hear, hear!"]

asked when the notice from the coroner reached the inspector?

My information is that it did not reach the Home Office in time for a communication to be made to an inspector.

But when did the notice reach the Home Office?

I am not able to say. I think the evening before the inquest was held, but I will let the hon. Gentleman know more exactly.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he is aware that, in addition to the inefficient nursing of sick poor, there are other serious charges of mismanagement in Irish workhouses as well as their excessive number; and, having regard to the public interest in the question, whether he will consider the desirability of appointing a Royal Commission to inquire into the working of the Poor Law system in Ireland?

In the discussion that took place last night on the Vote for the Local Government Board, I spoke on the general question of the Administration of the Irish Poor Laws and of workhouse management, and stated that if I found any difficulty in obtaining the information necessary to enable me to arrive at a conclusion, I would not be averse to the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the whole subject.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if the Government have decided on the adoption of the three-foot gauge on the Mombasa-Uganda Railway, rather than on the three-and-a-half foot gauge, now approved for railways in South Africa, whose extension northwards may be ultimately expected; and what will be the estimated saving per mile on the narrower gauge?

If my hon. Friend will allow me, I will answer his question in the course of the statement on the Uganda Railway, which I shall presently make.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether his attention has been directed to the Resolution of the Bawnboy Board of Guardians, at their meeting on 26th instant, pointing out that it is impossible for the farmers of that union in the depressed state of prices to meet their present rents; and (2), whether he will be prepared to use pressure within the law on the representatives of the landlords to treat the tenants with moderation and forbearance?

The Resolution referred to has been received by me, and on the general question I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my previous statements in the matter. With regard to the second paragraph, I have no power to do what the hon. Member suggests and no efficient means of exerting any influence for the purpose. At the same time, it is hardly necessary for me to add that it is my earnest hope that the amicable relations which now prevail with very few exceptions between landlords and tenants in Ireland will continue unbroken and undisturbed. ["Hear, hear!"]

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Postmaster General has received a memorial from the Tracing Staff, containing objections to a scheme recently offered them, and asking that the date by which applications for the new appointments must be forwarded may be withdrawn; and, whether this request has been complied with, and the scheme withdrawn pending the consideration of the memorial?

Yes, Sir. A memorial has been received and is under consideration.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether Her Majesty's Government, in addition to the inquiries they have addressed to the Belgian Government, will direct independent investigations to be made immediately by Her Majesty's Consular Representatives at Loanda and Boma, and elsewhere if necessary, as to the circumstances of Mr. Stokes' death, and as to the property belonging to him at the time of his seizure, and prospect of recovering it?

The British Minister at Brussels has received an assurance from the authorities of the Congo State that all the documents relating to the execution of Stokes will be placed in his hands without delay for transmission to Her Majesty's Government. Pending their arrival, it would be premature to make any statement as to the course that may require to be adopted.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, what action he proposes to take with regard to serving out the new rifle to Volunteer battalions and outlying companies whose ranges are not suitable to the new rifle; whether he is aware that a very large majority of the present ranges will come under the above heading; whether he is also aware that, in view of the fact that under the Act of 1892 new ranges can apparently only be acquired by purchase, and that Volunters have neither money nor credit to spare, a very large number of Volunteers will be unable to shoot at all; and, whether he is prepared to assist Commanding Officers to obtain ranges suitable to the new rifle, and to pay travelling expenses to and from such ranges?

said: The whole question of ranges is under the consideration of the Secretary of State, and it is impossible at this moment to make a statement on the subject. The Act of 1892 enables Volunteer corps to borrow money for the purchase of ranges on very moderate terms from the Public Works Loans Commissioners on the security of the range and the Capitation Grant; and it is hoped this provision will assist in getting over the difficulty. ["Hear, hear."]

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, whether complaint has reached him that in carrying out the public inquiry under the Fatal Accidents Inquiry (Scotland) Act, 1895, sheriff-substitutes limit the inquiry and the verdict of the jury to the immediate cause of death, and do not also consider the circumstances of the accident, and where the defect or blame arose; and, if such limitation is a due carrying out of the Act?

The hon. Member laid before me yesterday the only complaint which has reached me on this subject. The case as stated did not appear to me to warrant the assumption in the question that sheriff-substitutes decline to consider the circumstances of the accident, as they are bound to do under the Statute. It is impossible to lay down any rule as to how far the inquiry should take account of the remoter causes of the death; but there are of course cases where the ascertainment of the immediate cause of death would not satisfy the requirements of the Act. I may add that the apportionment of blame for the accident is in my view no part of the primary object of the inquiry; though that question may sometimes be necessarily involved in the inquiry into the cause of death.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether it is in accordance with any recent precedent for a Member of Parliament to retain the active command of a regiment; and, whether it is with the consent of, and approval of, H. R. H. the Commander-in-Chief, and the Secretary of State for War, that the hon. Member for Taunton retains the command of the Scots Greys without being seconded, as in the case of subalterns when elected to seats in Parliament?

Since 1887 no case has occurred of a commanding officer sitting in the House of Commons. No regulation, however, is in existence on the subject so far as officers above the rank of major are concerned; and no intimation was made to the hon. and gallant Member for Taunton that there was any military objection to his sitting in Parliament. A regulation was issued to the effect that any officer below the rank of Lieutenant Colonel, on entering Parliament might be seconded or made supernumerary in his regiment. The regulation, however, is not compulsory, and such officers have sat in Parliament without being seconded. With regard to the hon. and gallant Member for Taunton, he has only a few months to complete his term of command, and before the next Session of Parliament arrangements will be made to prevent any clashing of his regimental and Parliamentary duties. The Secretary of State accepts the view that an officer in active command of his regiment should not, in future, sit in Parliament. A regulation will be issued on the subject. ["Hear, hear!"]

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the Royal Irish Agricultural Society, Dublin, have been memorialised to ask Her Majesty's Government to establish a Board of Agriculture for Ireland on the same lines as that existing in England; and, if he will take steps to establish such Board?

There is no official record of the presentation of the memorial referred to, but communication has been received by Government from various local bodies in favour of the establishment of a Board of Agriculture; and, as I have already stated, the matter will receive my careful consideration during the Recess. ["Hear, hear!"]

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can say when H. M. S. Minotaur will take up her station as training ship in Cork Harbour?

It is impossible for me to say when the Minotaur can take up her station as training ship in Cork Harbour. The establishment of such a ship for training purposes requires elaborate and costly preparations. Land has to be bought or leased as recreation ground for the boys. Some hospital accommodation has to be provided on shore. A landing pier would have to be built. Considerable new fittings and alterations would have to be carried out in the ship herself. The establishment of the Caledonia in Scotland as a training ship cost nearly £20,000. No money was taken in the Estimates for any works on the Minotaur, and I cannot say from what work in the programme it would be advisable to take men off to perform the work at present. Besides these matters, arrangements would have to be made for the accommodation of the first-class boys now in the Minotaur during the time while she was being dealt with in the dockyard. But the hon. Member need not think that any adverse decision is being arrived at with regard to the plan. But, if any other selection than the Minotaur were to present fewer difficulties, I must not be held to have pledged the present Board to that particular ship. ["Hear, hear!"]

begged leave to remind the right hon. Gentleman that this training ship was promised by the late First Lord of the Admiralty so far back as February 21 last, and asked what was the reason for the long delay that had occurred in the matter?

May I be allowed to say that no money has been taken in the Estimates for this purpose? The late Government were in office for six months after February, but, with the exception of some preliminary inquiries, no further progress has been made. No decision has been arrived at as to the training arrangements to be made for Cork Harbour.

asked whether the right hom. Gentleman suggested that in the Parliamentary Papers dealing with the general question of the Navy this training ship was not put down as Ireland's share of the 20 millions.

Yes.

asked whether there was not supposed to be continuity in every Government programme?

As I have stated, no adverse decision has been arrived at. The hon. Gentleman is really making a mountain out of a mole-hill. If there is another ship more appropriate for this purpose than the Minotaur it would be folly to pledge the Board to make use of that particular ship.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman could give a pledge that a training ship should be placed in Cork Harbour before the end of the present year.

said, that it would take four or five months to make the necessary preparations. He was not at all sure that the arrangements could be completed in the time mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. The moorings had yet to be laid down.

asked whether he was prepared to place a training ship on the west coast of Scotland?

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that some of the Continental Powers use smokeless powders which do not cause erosion of the barrel of the magazine rifle, and having regard to the fact that erosion of the ·303 barrel is still produced by the use of cordite powder, care will be taken to avoid the accumulation of an excessive stock of cordite powder cartridges until a really reliable smokeless powder be obtained?

The Secretary of State is not prepared to admit that cordite is not a reliable smokeless powder. The quantity of small-arm ammunition to be maintained will be that required by regulations with a reasonable reserve. ["Hear, hear!"]

asked whether he was aware that 2,000 rounds of the cordite powder exhausted the life of the rifle in question?

I am not aware that that is the fact, and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter."]

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, if he will state how many machine guns were in use in the Chitral Expedition; and, why black powder cartridges were used for these guns instead of cordite powder cartridges?

said, there were two ·45 bore Maxim guns with Sir Robert Low's force. A suitable cordite cartridge has not yet been worked out for this bore. ["Hear, hear."]

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, if he will state the names of the firms who tendered for the manufacture of cordite powder; the highest and lowest tender; the minimum number of tons for which tenders were invited; and, whether the lowest tender was accepted?

Information as to tenders is regarded as confidential, as was explained by the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Woodall) on May 14th last. I am, therefore, unable to reply fully to the hon. Member's question. I may, however, tell him that, in this case, the lowest tender was accepted.

Will the hon. Gentleman state the number of tons for which tenders were invited?

The Secretary of State does not think it desirable to give that information.

How many tons have been ordered from the respective firms?

I cannot give information on that point either. It is not thought desirable in the public interest to do so.

I should like to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in refusing an answer, he has had regard to the fact that the Opposition in the late Parliament, stated that there was nothing to be lost by giving the information.

I have, Sir.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, whether his attention has been called to a petition, dated 22nd May, 1895, and sent to the Secretary for Scotland, signed by Mr. Allan Morrison, missionary, and 26 settlers at Killarney, Manitoba, in which, among other things, they refer to their deplorable condition, and to the false representations made from time to time regarding them to the Colonisation Committee of the Imperial Parliament, and further state that if a responsible and trustworthy agent of the Colonisation Committee had been placed at the head of this Colony at its formation, to direct the management of their affairs, oversee their purchases, and in many ways guide them during the first few years of their settlement there, a great many of the present debts would not have been contracted, and the condition of the petitioners would have been tolerably prosperous; and, whether in consequence of the numerous complaints by settlers at Killarney and Saltcoats, he will cause an independent inquiry to be made into the condition of these settlers, or take such other steps as he may deem fit to deal with the prayer of the petitioners?

I find no petition of the date mentioned, but I presume the question refers to a petition, dated 1st May, which I have seen and which was duly answered by the late Secretary for Scotland, on the 13th of June last. I have already stated that there seems to me no necessity for a further inquiry at the present time.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether a memorial has been received signed by the Mayor of Lichfield as chairman of a public meeting at which the said memorial was unanimously adopted, praying that the privilege of holding races upon land belonging to the War Department which has been enjoyed for nearly two centuries should not be withdrawn; whether the prayer contained in the memorial has also been supported by all the ex-mayors who are still members of the corporation, as well as by leading representatives of all classes of citizens; and, what action it is intended to take in the matter?

The Secretary of State has received a memorial of the character indicated in the Question. He has also received a memorial signed by the Bishop of the diocese and a large number of the inhabitants of Lichfield praying that the Lichfield races may be discontinued. It was intimated to the race committee in 1890 by the then Secretary of State that at the termination of five years the privilege of holding the meeting on Government land would be withdrawn. The five years expired in 1894; and the late Secretary of State, as a special concession, agreed that one more meeting (that of last spring) should take place, on the distinct understanding that no further application would be entertained. It appears that in spite of this intimation a fixture has been obtained for an autumn meeting without reference to the War Department, notwithstanding the reply in this House on May 13 last. The decision to put a stop to the meeting was arrived at after full inquiry into the circumstances. The military authorities are of opinion that the holding of this meeting at the very gates of the barracks is most undesirable. The barracks have recently been enlarged, and the increase in the number of troops which will be accommodated in them will be a considerable gain to the tradesmen of Lichfield. As it is evident that opinion is much divided, Lord Lansdowne does not feel that he would be justified in altering the decision arrived at by his predecessors.

May I ask my hon. Friend whether, amongst the persons whom he describes as military authorities, he includes the paymaster of the district, and, if so, whether he is aware that that gentleman is a very prominent member of the Anti-Gambling League. ["Oh,"and laughter.]

No, Sir, I should not describe him as one of the military authorities, and I did not know that he had any connection with the Anti-Gambling League.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Report of the Inspectors of Lunacy (Ireland) for the year ending 31st December 1894 has yet been presented; if not, what is the cause of the delay; and when it may be expected?

The Report in question is now in the hands of the printer, and will be circulated without unnecessary delay.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will lay upon the Table a copy of the Act under which the Duke of Sutherland is alleged to hold the gold mining rights in Sutherland in feu?

What I said was that the Duke of Sutherland held the mining rights under a Crown grant in feudal form made pursuant to the Act of 1592. The Act is a lengthy document expressed in ancient phraseology. There is a copy of the Act in the Library, and the Commissioners of Woods will be ready to place their copy at the disposal of hon. Members for their inspection at the Office of Woods. I hardly think I should be justified in incurring any expense for reprinting it.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the further Correspondence between the Treasury and the West Highland Railway and Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Cameron, of Lochiel, which he promised the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire should be laid upon the Table, will be laid upon the Table forthwith?

, who answered the Question, said: The official Correspondence will be laid on the Table without delay. It will not include any Correspondence between Cameron of Lochiel and myself. This only consisted of a couple of notes, of which no copies were kept, and which were destroyed at once in the ordinary way.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in the event of legislation being introduced in the course of the next Session to promote or facilitate the construction of Light Railways, the needs of mineral districts like the lead districts of Flintshire will not be overlooked?

Any measure dealing with Light Railways will certainly be applicable to the districts named by the hon. Gentleman.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, what steps have been taken by the Department of Woods and Forests to re-afforest the Crown lands in Wales?

In his forthcoming Report to Parliament, the Commissioner of Woods says :—

"Representations having been made to me in favour of carrying out planting operations on parts of the Crown wastes in Wales, I took the opportunity, during October, 1894, of going over those in the neighbourhood of Denbigh, and had a meeting with some of the local farmers, who were interested as having sheepwalks or common rights upon them. Whilst it seemed quite possible to select places where trees could grow and do well, there are many other considerations which must he carefully weighed before any definite proposal of the kind can be made which may give reasonable hope of success. The common rights would have to be extinguished where the plantations were made, and, owing to the fact that though these wastes arc unfenced each owner of common right has in practice his own particular sheep-walk, there would be some difficulty in arranging how the rights of the commoners should be readjusted. To deprive one of these hill farms of its sheep-walk would probably be held to seriously damage the value of the farm as a whole. The accessibility of the ground, the nearness of railway communication are also serious factors in the problem, and I am therefore taking such opportunities as I can to visit the wastes in other parts of North Wales before attempting to make any definite proposals in connection with any one of them. A small plantation, mainly for purposes of shelter, has been made on a small Crown farm in Merioneth adjoining the waste of Maentwrog Mountain. The very severe weather experienced last winter greatly interfered with the work and added to the expense, arid the exceptionally dry spring has proved very trying to the young trees, most of which, however, were doing well when I inspected it in the month of June, 1895."

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether he is aware that the Local Government of the North-West Provinces has recently reduced its grant for the education of European children by Rs.3,000 per mensem, although the number of children who require education is annually increasing; whether it is a fact that the Local Government maintains no schools of its own for the education of such children, and that under an article of the Grant in Aid Code, which hitherto has not been enforced, grants are no longer given to schools in excess of what the managers can raise by private subscription; whether this course, which makes the education of the poor absolutely dependent on the bounty of the rich, has been sanctioned by the Secretary of State in Council; and, whether he will direct the Local Government of the North-West Provinces to provide suitable education for poor European children, or else that the managers of aided schools, to whom the education of these children will otherwise be left, shall be supplied with the funds necessary to adequately supplement the resources obtained elsewhere?

I am not aware that the grant made by the Local Government of the North-West Provinces for the education of European children has been reduced by Rs.3,000 per month, as stated in the question. It is the fact that there are no schools for European children entirely supported by Government. There is a rule that the Government grant shall not exceed the amount earned by the school; but the effect of this rule is tempered by another empowering special grants to schools where there is a small or poor European population. I cannot admit that these rules have the effect attributed to them in the question. The rules have been in force for a number of years under the authority of successive Secretaries of State. The question of the working of the rules is now under consideration in India. I will forward the hon. Member's question, and any other representations he may have to make, for the information of the Government of India.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office, whether memorials have been received by the Secretary of State from the Town Commissioners of Strabane and from the inhabitants of Lifford with reference to the suggested removal of the head-quarters of the 5th Inniskilling Fusiliers from Lifford to Bally-shannon; whether the probable effect of such removal upon recruiting for the battalion has been considered; and, whether the representations of the memorialists will receive full attention before a decision on the question is arrived at?

Memorials from Strabane and Lifford have been received; and, in a contrary sense, from Ballyshannon. The removal of the head-quarters of the 5th Inniskilling Fusiliers from Lifford to Ballyshannon was decided on because Ballyshannon is the largest town in Donegal. The battalion was raised at Ballyshannon, and a new recruiting ground would be opened up. Generally, the change appears to conduce to military efficiency.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, whether, in view of its important bearing on the work of the Statute Law Revision Committee of both Houses of Parliament, he will lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of the recent judgment of the Irish Court of Queen's Bench in the Castleconnell eel weir case?

I am unable at present to obtain a revised Report of the judgment referred to, as the judges who took part in the decision are absent from Ireland on vacation. I have no doubt that the judgment will be reported in the authorised Irish Reports before the next Session of Parliament. Should, however, this not be so, or the hon. Member be not satisfied with it, I would suggest that he should repeat his question next Session.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether during the Parliamentary Recess the eviction of small tenants in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland whose leases have expired since the passing of the Crofters (Scotland) Act of 1886 will be aided by the forces of the Crown, pending any legislation which Her Majesty's Government may introduce on the subject?

I have no reason to believe that evictions will take place, nor can I answer any hypothetical question as to the method by which the law is to be put in force.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether it is intended that His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge shall receive any provision from Public Funds on his retirement from the post of Commander-in-Chief?

Before the question is answered I desire to ask my right hon. Friend whether it is the case that the arrangements consequent upon the retirement of His Royal High ness the Commander-in Chief practically involved the abolition of that office; and whether it is not the fact that the principle which has been generally adopted in regard to the abolition of offices, and invariably in cases of long service, has not carried with it the continuance of full salary for life?

In answer to the question on the paper, it is not intended to make special provision for His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge out of the Public Funds when he relinquishes the office of Commander-in-Chief. Staff appointments carry no special pension whatever. All officers, on retiring from the service, receive a retiring allowance in accordance with their rank. This allowance, under the new regulations, amounted, in the case of a field-marshal, to £1,300 a year. His Royal Highness is, however, under the old regulations, entitled to unattached pay at the higher rate of £2,200 a year as Colonel of the Grenadier Guards. With regard to the question put by my right hon. Friend, I am told that a Staff appointment cannot be regarded as coming within the ordinary category of those posts in regard to which special terms are given to the holders, on abolition.

Do I understand that retiring allowance is irrespective of the other sum mentioned by my right hon. Friend as being due as pay for the honorary colonelcy?

Yes, Sir. The retiring allowance is in respect of the military rank of the Commander-in-Chief.

said he desired to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, assuming that the Report of Supply was finished on Monday, when the Indian Budget would be taken?

If the Report of Supply is finished on Monday, the discussion on the Indian Budget will be taken after the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill, which will be on Tuesday.

I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether there will be a Saturday sitting tomorrow?

Yes, Sir, there will be a Saturday sitting.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not know how the Saturday sitting is going to be obtained under the Rules of the House. There is no notice on the Paper to-day. I wish to ask whether notice is not necessary?

No notice is necessary.

Is it not necessary to give notice, Mr. Speaker, before you leave the Chair to-night?

There is no necessity for notice.

asked the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, if he could not arrange to close the sitting of the House on Saturday before midnight?

said, there was no necessity for any proposal on the part of the Government with regard to Saturday's sitting. That was a matter which must be left to the decision of the House.

asked whether the Government would proceed with the Berriew School Bill, having regard to the fact that it was highly contentious?

said, if his memory served him aright, some irregularity occurred in regard to the Bill brought in by the last Government in reference to this matter.

said, he understood that the Vice-President of the Council stated that this Bill was contentious.

asked when the Government intended to take the Irish Evicted Tenants Bill?

It will be introduced on Saturday, and the Second Reading will be taken, if circumstances permit, on Monday.

May I ask if the Saturday Sitting will be fixed by Order of the House?

Yes.

When will the question be put?

I cannot say. That will be for the Member of the Government who is in charge of the Order. The Twelve o'clock rule is suspended.

Will the question require to be put from the Chair?

Yes.

said, he understood the proposal was to fix a Saturday Sitting which might last after midnight, and of course they would have an opportunity of debating the terms and conditions under which they were to sit. He thought that would be for the convenience of the House, as there was no rule regulating Saturday Sittings, and as they had in 1880 and 1881 sat into Sunday. He asked whether it was not possible to come to some amicable arrangement as to this Saturday Sitting?

I am entirely in favour of an amicable arrangement. The plan of the Government has already been stated, and our desire is to get to-night the remainder of the Civil Service Votes and the Navy Estimate, and, of course, the Report of Supply. To-morrow we propose to take the Votes on the Army Estimates, and some stages of the Bills of which the Government has given notice. I cannot conceive that this programme is one which would necessitate any very prolonged exertion of the House on Saturday, or the sitting to an untimely hour as was suggested by the hon. Member for Ross-shire. I hope the hon. and learned Member for North Louth will see that the statement I have made is a satisfactory one, and that an amicable understanding may be arrived at.

said, one of the Orders that was down for that night was the Second Reading of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, which involved the renewal of the Arms Act. He presumed the Government would take the Committee stage on Saturday, and that might bring the sitting up to midnight or into Sunday. He suggested that the Government should fix an early limit, such as six o'clock, beyond which they would not sit on Saturday. On Wednesday last, although they had been told that they should not sit late, they had sat up till two o'clock.

What I said with regard to Wednesday was that we hoped we should not have a very late sitting. The same hope exists with regard to to-morrow; and it is our earnest wish that that hope should become a practical reality, I am convinced that the hon. Member will feel that there is nothing excessive in the demand which the Government propose to make.

said, he must not be taken as concurring in that view.

asked the Speaker whether, when the question of a Saturday Sitting was put, it would be competent to move as an Amendment that the sitting take place under the Six o'clock Rule?

No, there is an Order of the House that the Six o'clock Rule be suspended. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.

thought that one Ministry of Commerce and Industry as in most other nations, would better serve our commercial interests than the present dual arrangement of the Board of Trade and the Foreign Office. He fully recognised the value which the Foreign Office had given to its Commercial Department, but he hoped a reorganisation in the direction of a single Ministry might take place. He also thought there should be a greater amalgamation between our Diplomatic and Consular Services and that both should fully recognise the commercial duties of diplomacy. He was glad to know that the Secretary to the Treasury had recognised the duty of revising the remuneration of our Consular Officers, who were, he said, at present very often absurdly underpaid. He suggested that the very valuable Consular Reports should be systematised and better indexed. He would like to express his sense of the urgent need that existed for our having more Commercial Attachés, whose help was absolutely essential at Embassies, especially during the negotiation of commercial treaties, and while the personnel of the Embassies were not themselves experts in commerce, though their commercial qualifications were increasing. They had now two commercial representatives, one in Paris and one in St. Petersburg, who had charge of vast areas. They ought to have a representative in Central and South America, the trade development in which was very great with civilised countries. They wanted accurate and speedy information on matters of urgent necessity, such as new openings and fields for commerce, and diplomacy ought to be the intelligence department for other forces of commerce. If they had had better information as to Argentina, they very probably would not have had the financial trouble they had two years ago. Then, they ought to have one in the United States, a country with which they had large transactions. They ought to watch the commercial developments which were constantly taking place there, and which were leading to the displacement of our own trade. There was one part of Europe where they ought to be better represented—the Balkan States. They might, if they had better information, develop a lucrative trade there, and send goods in much greater quantities. He also suggested that there should be a representative in the far East. They had large dealings with Japan, and, with the probability of vast developments, the trade with Japan was of great consequence to this country. In China, they should closely watch the competition of other countries. He had made inquiry as to their Consuls, and he found they were very much undermanned in comparison with other countries if our comparative commerce were regarded. England had 786 Consuls; France had 957; Germany, 654; Belgium, 448; Italy, 724; Spain, 761; and Portugal, 581, The number of their Consuls bore no proportion to their trade. In Germany, where the competition should be closely watched, they had only 33 Consuls. The remuneration given was very small. Some of the Consular reports were excellent, but they were capable of improvement, and in some cases no reports at all were received; 215 in all had not reported at all. That ought not to be. The Consuls ought to give this country the benefit of their experience and knowledge. The reports were frequently late in their publication. They were now only receiving the reports for 1894 on the eve of the Recess. They ought, where necessary, to have special and also interim reports, and the Chambers of Commerce, which took great interest in these reports, had made many practical suggestions. Many of these Chambers would like to have fuller information as to the class of goods saleable in various localities. Many complained that the reports were not as suggestive as they might be. More information was asked with regard to cotton-spinning manufactories in Japan. Others wanted information on special competitive trades in Belgium, Germany, and Austria, like iron and steel. Others asked as to railway enterprise in India and Burmah; others desired more information as to the credit and banking systems in other nations. Many might increase their trade if they had better and earlier information, and he suggested that there should be a storage of trade price lists, catalogues, and possibly samples. A Committee for which he had successfully moved, and of which he was a member, had recently reported to the House in favour of the establishment of metric weights and measures. They were practically isolated, and their own system placed great obstacles in the way of international trade. Foreign merchants would not take the trouble of checking and translating their weights and measures. He thought it was essential to their trade, that they should move in that direction. He hoped an early remedy would be found for replacing the present system with a better one, and he suggested both home and foreign clearing houses for such purposes. He also suggested that there should be attached to the Board of Trade or the Foreign Office, a consultative Committee, so that the Government might readily know, with regard to any particular subject, what was the commercial opinion of the country. It was said that the best service they could render to commerce was to leave it alone, but in his opinion that would be a great mistake. The days of laissez-faire were over and Governments could aid and help private enterprise, which, of course, was the main factor. He did not for a moment propose that subsidies should be given to raise an artificial competition, but he was satisfied that by more thoroughly organising the Diplomatic and Consular system and by bringing pressure to bear on foreign Governments, impediments to our international trade could be removed, and a great improvement effected. He congratulated the commerce of this country upon the presence of the Under Secretary, with his vast knowledge of countries which were opening or might be opened for trade, at the Foreign Office. He had had personal experience of both the willingness and the ability of the hon. Member to take steps, and sometimes somewhat daring steps, in order to take care that our merchants and manufacturers were placed, in relation to their proper claims upon other Governments or the subjects of other Governments, in a position which was justly due to them. He hoped that during the time the hon. Gentleman occupied the position, he would see his way to make the Diplomatic and Consular Services more effective, and that he would encourage them to co-operate for the promotion of commerce by taking care that some of the ludicrously inadequate salaries now paid were made co-ordinate with the expectations formed in this country of the duties that had to be performed for commerce and so for the community.

while associating himself with the hon. Member opposite, as to the importance of the services rendered by Sir Joseph Crowe, doubted whether the Commercial Attaché system was the best that could be devised. It rather tended to make the other members of the Embassies and Legations think that it was not their business to prepare Commercial Reports. In his opinion it would be better to put more prominently before the staffs the commercial side of their functions. It would be impossible to justify the largeness of many of these staffs unless commercial business was done by them, for there was no political business of any importance to be done. The Government were about to obtain the last of the two great Votes, upon which the foreign affairs of the country could be discussed, and he could only mention the fact, that both as regarded the Upper Nile and as regarded Siam, they had given an amount of information very much less than was asked from the late Government. The only other point to which he desired to refer was the recent mission of Sir John Kirk. A considerable number of questions had been asked on the subject, but they had had no promise that they should ever have Sir John Kirk's Report or the evidence taken at the inquiry. He hoped there would be no secresy. Our interests in this matter did not conflict with those of foreign countries. It was a question between the Niger Protectorate, and the Niger Company and the natives, and surely the fullest information ought to be given to the House of Commons. He hoped that during the Recess the Government would consider whether they could not give both Sir John Kirk's Report and the evidence upon which it was founded.

said, the expenses of managing our foreign affairs amounted to £664,000, and maintained that, in present circumstances, that sum was too large. No doubt in former times, when the diplomatist was many weeks, sometimes many months, distant from his superior officer, the Secretary of State, it was necessary to give him a large discretion; and he had therefore to be an important man, and to be paid a large salary. An Ambassador now was within a minute's communication of the Foreign Office. He had ceased to be anything but a clerk at the end of a wire, who wore a lace coat on State occasions. Consequently the importance of the whole Diplomatic Service had very greatly decreased, and there should be a relative decrease in their salaries. But it was not merely a question of economy. There was a considerable danger, in making these appointments, of the tremendous importance that they took by reason of the large salaries and allowances attached to them. He believed that, in the case of Turkey, great mischief had resulted from too much importance being given to the Ambassadorial and, especially, to the Consular offices. These Consular offices were not always wisely filled. Young men were sometimes put into them who had sent home Reports entirely at variance with the former Reports of the more experienced Consuls. For instance, one Consul sent a Report to the effect that 16,000 Armenians were massacred at Sasun, though they knew from the former Consul, Mr. Clifford Lloyd, that the whole of the Armenians in the place did not number more than 10,000. The right hon. Baronet opposite, had pointed out that there was the same desire for secresy in this Government as there was in the last. He was afraid there would always be a determination, so far as the Foreign Office was concerned, to keep the people of England in the dark until it was too late. He pressed the Government to give the House all the Consular Reports for 1893, 1894 and 1895, with reference to Armenia. If that was done he believed a very different complexion would be put upon Armenian affairs to that given by the imperfect information furnished by newspaper correspondents and new and untried Consuls. It was absurd to maintain diplomatic arrangements with the smaller German Courts, and to keep up separate establishments at Coburg and Saxony, when all their foreign affairs were conducted from Berlin, where we had an Ambassador with a staff. It had been suggested that a special reason for continuing these arrangments was that there were personal relationships between persons holding high positions and our own Royal Family; but that seemed to be an additional reason against, rather than for, having our Ambassadors at these minor Courts. It was something of a scandal to maintain purely ceremonial officers at these Courts whose foreign affairs were necessarily conducted from Berlin. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would feel himself able in some degree to break down that mischievous system by which in the Foreign Office almost entire secresy was observed with regard to the course of negotiations, the result of which was that this House was rendered incapable of dealing with foreign affairs. If Members asked for information while negotiations were going on, they were told that they were too early; if they waited, they were told that all was settled and it was too late to say anything. The business of the Foreign Office was conducted behind the backs and without the knowledge of the people of England. He could understand it if we were making secret bargains to get other people's lands; but we do not need to do anything of the kind; and there was no negotiation that our English Foreign Minister could properly enter into, about which he should not be able to announce what his policy was.

interposing, said, that the possible action of the Foreign Secretary would be discussed, not upon this Vote, but upon that for the Foreign Office.

said, of course he was dealing with the system under which our diplomatists were employed, a system whose mainspring of work was secresy. If we gave up secresy, we should not have a Vote such as this from year to year, we should require fewer Consuls, and we should place foreign affairs on a footing that would be more satisfactory to the people of this country and to those of other countries also.

said, he must begin by thanking the hon. Member for the graceful references to himself and the office he now filled. He listened with attention to the valuable suggestions made by the hon. Member, with the authority of the Chamber of Commerce, with which he was identified. The Commercial Department of the Foreign Office, although not ostentatious in its operations, was certainly a most important one, and those operations were capable of bearing most practical results. As head of that particular Department he looked forward to a period of activity and energy on behalf of the commercial interests of this country. In the keen competition with which we were confronted all over the world—and into which this country had to enter, so to speak, with one hand tied behind its back, because our fiscal system compelled us to enter it without anything to give, to promise, or to threaten—it certainly did behove us, within certain limits, to use the Foreign Office as a means of promoting the commerce of this country. In his term of office these questions would always have his sympathy and support. With regard to the suggestion that there should be a Ministry of Commerce, absorbing the functions of the Board of Trade and of the Commercial Department of the Foreign Office, his hon. Friend would recognise that circumstances might arise in which traders would regret if they had not the Foreign Office at their back to settle those diplomatic questions into which commercial difficulties were so easily merged. The suggestion had been made, not for the first time, that we should have more Commercial Attachés. We had three such Attachés—Sir Joseph Crowe, for Western Europe; Mr. Law, who had charge of Russia, Persia, and Asiatic Turkey; and Mr. Wrench at Constantinople. The question of increasing the number had been discussed more than once, and doubts had been thrown on the policy of doing so nine years ago by the right hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce), and in 1890 by a Royal Commission presided over by the present Home Secretary. Mr. Bryce said, with reference to Commercial Attachés, in a memo. which was printed as a Parliamentary Paper—

"Not to speak of the expense which this would involve, it may be doubted whether a Commercial Attaché would at most Capitals find enough work to occupy him, or whether, by any exertions he might put forth, he could render much further help to British manufacturers and merchants than they now obtain through the Press and private channels of information. His presence would be an excuse for the neglect of commercial affairs by the rest of the Embassy; there would be little promotion for him; nor would it be easy to secure, except by a large salary, capable men for a post so much out of the line of the regular service. Only a person of large commercial knowledge, judgment and experience would be worth having, and such a person would be almost certain to prefer a private commercial career to the prospect which this special branch of diplomacy would hold out."

"We have tried to satisfy ourselves as to whether we should recommend an increase in the number of Commercial Attachés; but though it is clear that the creation of the two posts is amply justified, we do not think that the experience as yet derived from them so conclusive as to the propriety of incurring any additional expenditure at present in the same direction."

observed that the hon. Gentleman attributed to the Consuls abroad what he had intended to apply at home. He himself received the Reports in large batches, evidently after they had been allowed to accumulate. He made no charge against the Consuls, but quite the contrary.

said, that the Reports were obtained from the Foreign Office as quickly as possible. There was an enormous number of them, and they did not always come in a form capable of being transmitted without revision to the public. Undoubtedly dispatch in the matter was of great importance, but what was also important was that more merchants should read the Reports. Very often suggestions of the highest value were repeated in them without receiving the slightest attention. He did not know what the sale of the Reports here was, but he ventured to say it was not what it ought to be, and if his hon. Friend could increase the reading capacity of his clients rather than suggest the imposition of greater work on their Consuls, he would be considerably benefiting the cause he represented. ["Hear, hear!"] As to the suggestion that there should be more Consuls, that was a question not merely for the Foreign Office, but for the Treasury, and in comparing the number of Consuls they had as contrasted with those of foreign countries, they ought really to discriminate how many in the two categories were paid and how many unpaid. The hon. Gentleman, at the conclusion of his speech, expressed the hope that the era of laissez-faire in the diplomatic conduct of their commercial affairs had passed. With that sentiment he entirely agreed. At the same time there was a consideration on the other side which they ought to bear in mind. If they contemplated that commercial conquest of the world which they claimed to have made, it had been made not by the protection or activity of Governments, but by the intrepidity and enterprise of their individual traders. ["Hear, hear!"] It was the duty, and should be the pleasure of a Government to sustain and stimulate the efforts of their traders to hold their own, but more depended upon maintaining the features of their national character, which had made them what they were, than upon any artificial support that Government, Consuls, or diplomats could give. ["Hear, hear!"] The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean had referred to the secresy which he said was observed by the Department, but if ever reserve at any time was justified it was justified in the case of a Government coming into power within the short space of time the present Government had been in Office, and finding themselves confronted with an enormous legacy of difficult and complicated questions from their predecessors, on many of which it would be premature, if not unwise, to make more than the statements they were every day obliged to do in the House. The right hon. Gentleman had asked for information about Sir John Kirk's mission to the Niger River, and had inquired when they might expect his Report. The Report had only just been placed in the hands of the Government, and he had not had time to peruse it. When the right hon. Gentleman asked for the publication of the Report, he seemed to be under some misapprehension. Sir John Kirk was sent out by the Government to acquire and furnish certain information for their guidance. There was never any promise that that Report should be made public. Circumstances might arise which would make its publication desirable, but until the Report had been considered by the Government it would obviously be most improper to give any pledge in the direction the right hon. Gentleman asked for. The hon. Member for King's Lynn had once again raised the question of the Consular Reports from Armenia. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think thatif the whole of these Consular Reports in extenso for 1893–4–5 were published, a very different impression would prevail about the incidents to which they alluded than at present existed, and that he and those who shared his views would, perhaps, derive some consolation from what they contained. He believed himself that the hon. Member's expectations in that respect would be disappointed. However, the question of the publication of these Reports was one, for the reason he stated the other day, of very great difficulty, but the Government hoped the time would shortly arrive when some information respecting these countries, from those who had been on the spot, might be submitted to Parliament. ["Hear, hear!"]

desired to say, as an old Foreign Office official, that not only the Commercial Attachés but all the officers, Diplomatic as well as Consular, connected with the Foreign Office were extremely anxious to push, by every means in their power, the commercial interests of this country. ["Hear, hear!"]

reminded the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs that he had not replied to the point as to the missions at the smaller German Courts.

remarked that his hon. Friend complained that these were merely ceremonial officers who rendered no services comparable to the salaries they received, and accordingly he had expressed the opinion that the missions ought to be abolished. The case was considered by a Royal Commission in 1890, who reported in favour of a further reduction, and, if possible, the ultimate abolition of these posts. Since the issue of their Report these steps had been taken. The Mission at Darmstadt had been reduced from £1,250 to £700 a year and had been placed in the hands of a Secretary of Legation with the rank of Chargé d' Affaires. The Mission at Stuttgart, the capital of Wurtemburg, had been amalgamated with that of Munich, there being in these two cases a total saving of £2,000 a year. His hon. Friend asked what was going to be done in the future, and he was afraid he could not give him any consolation upon this point. The occupants of these smaller German Missions might not, in the eyes of the hon. Gentleman, cut a great figure before the world but their functions were by no means unimportant. For instance, a place like Munich was a centre of very considerable information and influence, and it was desirable that they should have there a British Representative of this rank. The same remark applied to the other courts, and attaching as they did the utmost importance to their relations with Germany and the various courts of which the German Empire was composed it was in the highest degree desirable that they should maintain these Missions, the removal of which might create an amount of feeling in Germany which his hon. Friend did not anticipate, but which would be serious.

considered that the result of the abolition of those missions would be the very reverse of that indicated by the Under Secretary. They had got union in Germany, and there was local Home Rule in the various States. But all the diplomatic interests of Germany were centred in Berlin; the Germans did not desire that this country should have agents at these smaller courts and would be pleased to see them withdrawn. From the standpoint of economy, they ought to oppose the Vote, and also because they ought to try to carry out the new conditions that existed in Germany. But he rose to move the reduction of the salary of the Agent in Egypt by £100 for the purpose of drawing attention to the Egyptian question. New conditions were being laid down in respect to our evacuation of Egypt. For instance, the hon. Member for North Lambeth had said we could not leave Egypt until we had re-conquered the Soudan and given it back to Egypt. He regarded it as incumbent upon the present Government to get us out of Egypt, because they practically took us there. In 1879 Lord Salisbury officially created the dual control, and as a result the expenditure of Egypt rose until it reached four and a half millions sterling. The Egyptians demanded the right to vote their Budget, but we refused to give them that right and intervened with an armed force. We crushed the attempt of the people of Egypt to have a Parliament and we refused them the right to vote the salaries of their own officials. Mr. Gladstone followed the evil example set by Lord Salisbury, but I think he now bitterly regrets having done so. We entered Egypt for the purpose of putting down Anarchy. At a Conference at Constantinople, Lord Dufferin stated to the Powers that if they consented to our entry, we would merely go in to restore order. Europe gave their consent. Order had been restored, but we had been in Egypt for 13 years, and if the conditions that were now being added to those originally set forth by Lord Dufferin were to be fulfilled, we should be there for another 1,300 years. In February 1883, the late Sir Stafford Northcote asked the present Duke of Devonshire when we were going to evacuate Egypt, and the noble Lord suggested that the evacuation might take place in six months or six years. The noble Lord thought the occurrence might take place in six months, and he expressed the hope that within six months he would be able to retire. Shortly afterwards, both Lord Granville and Lord Derby said the Government were making preparations to evacuate Egypt, but before leaving they were going to neutralise the country upon the lines carried out in respect to Belgium. Nothing was done. Lord Salisbury came in, and in 1887 Sir Drummond Wolff arranged a Convention under which we were to leave the country in 1892. Under that Convention we had a right of free entry if circumstances arose requiring us to go back. That would have been a wise and statesmanlike settlement of the matter, but unfortunately, the Turkish Government refused to carry out the Treaty, and it fell through. Since then, a policy of drift had been carried out in Egypt. When the late Government assumed office, they were pressed to carry out their pledges, but upon this as upon other questions, the policy they had in Opposition was not the policy they carried out in Office. He supposed that was one of the reasons why they were sent about their business. The excuse given by Mr. Gladstone was, that they were waiting for proposals either from France or from Turkey. Neither Turkey nor France had made any proposal to us. Now that there was a new Government he desired to know whether they were prepared to suggest another Convention on the lines of the Convention of Sir Drummond Wolff. We gave a solemn pledge we would retire immediately after the Anarchy had been suppressed, after law and order had been restored. No one could say that law and order had not been restored. But we were now asked to remain in Egypt for the benefit of the Egyptian people; to raise the condition of the people, to educate them and make them fit for self-government. Why should we remain for that purpose? In honour we were bound to retire. Some Gentlemen thought it might be to our interest to remain. ["Hear, hear!"] Perhaps the hon. Gentlemen who cheered would say what interest we had. We were now losing about a quarter of a million a year by the occupation, but if Egypt were neutralised, or if the Convention of Sir Drummond Wolff were carried out, we should have every right in Egypt that we had now. We should, moreover, lose the dangerous position in which we were now placed. Was the policy of drift to continue? Hon. Gentlemen knew very well what the feeling of France was. France considered she had rights, and that in 1882 she was badly treated. All our difficulties in Siam, Newfoundland and other parts of the world with France were caused by our present position in Egypt. To continue the present policy of drift was bad, and he was persuaded that in the long run it would be fraught with most disastrous consequences. He moved the reduction of which he had given notice.

I think hon. Members will agree that this is hardly the occasion for a discussion of the question of the evacuation of Egypt. ["Hear hear!"] We are confronted with an exhausted and depleted House, and an empty front Opposition Bench. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter], and I must absolutely decline, in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire and his colleagues in the late Government, to enter at any length into a discussion as to our position in Egypt. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member has entered into a long argument as to our relations with Egypt in recent years. Into that field I will not follow the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, I have nothing to add to the few remarks I made on the subject the other day. The hon. Member complains that we have embarked on a policy of drift in Egypt. I see no sign whatever of drift in our proceedings in Egypt. But this I will say, if a policy of drift is undesirable, there is another thing that is more undesirable still, and that is a policy of drive ["Hear, hear!"]; and Her Majesty's Government will not be driven, tempted or cajoled into any sudden action with regard to our policy in Egypt. [Ministerial cheers.]

agreed that there was little value, in the circumstances, in discussing the position of affairs in Egypt. In May 1893 there was a very full Debate on the subject, and the facts brought out in that Debate made it impossible to blame the present Government for anything. He agreed, too, with the Under Secretary, that they ought to have the Leader of the Opposition present. The right hon. Gentleman sympathised with the views brought forward by the hon. Member for Caithness and himself, and yet, while the late Government was in office, they did nothing to give effect to those opinions. Therefore, it would not be fair to blame the present Government. Besides, he recognised that Lord Salisbury's previous Government did take a good step towards getting out of Egypt in the Drummond—Wolff Convention, which, he agreed with the hon. Member for Caithness, was a prudent and a wise Convention; and he was glad the Under Secretary had said not a word on the present occasion which would make the question more difficult. In one word, his view of the question was that we were pledged in honour to withdraw from Egypt, apart from the question of interest; and he also said it was our interest to withdraw. The Daily News, which, he believed, was the party organ of the Liberal Party, said, in regard to the policy of the late Government in Egypt, "It is a noble thing to govern Egypt, but it is a still nobler thing to keep our word." With that he entirely agreed. We had not kept our word; and our word was still honourably binding upon us. With regard to the question of interest, it had been attempted to be argued that the military possession of Egypt was a strength to this country. That was an argument to which he attached no force. The overwhelming command of the seas was of vital interest to us. If we had that overwhelming command of all the seas, Egypt was of no importance; and if we had not got that overwhelming command of all the seas, the position of Egypt would not help us. But he agreed with the Under Secretary that, in the present state of the House, and in the absence of the front Opposition Bench, this matter could not be discussed at any length. He, therefore, hoped his hon. Friend would be content with making his protest, and would not go to a Division.

I ought to point out to the Committee that it is very doubtful whether a large question of policy can be discussed on the salary of an official who merely carries out the policy of his chief. In my view, such a question could only be properly raised on the salary of the chief; and I had a doubt during the discussion whether I ought not to rule it out of Order, as this Vote deals only with the salary of an officer at Cairo.

Nearly all the Debates on this Question in this House have been raised on that salary.

did not agree with the reflections that had been cast upon the value of the Reports of our Consular representatives abroad. Nothing could be better, for instance, than the Reports of Sir Charles Oppenheimer, our Consul at Frankfort. Sir Charles had full and complete knowledge of the economic circumstances of every country in Europe, and his Reports were always most valuable. He could also give personal testimony of the very high value of other Reports compiled in other parts of Europe. He believed that in all cases the cost to the country for this work was exceedingly small— indeed, in some cases, it was merely an allowance for stationery—and considering the excellent value given, he thought no objection ought to be raised to those payments.

said he desired to ask a couple of questions in regard to the position of affairs in Armenia. He had no intention of entering upon the general question, for the simple reason that the speech of the Prime Minister in the House of Lords dealing with the subject, on the first day of the Session, was a speech which reflected the sympathies and opinion of the whole country, and had aroused the enthusiastic approval of all who were interested in the welfare of the people of Armenia. One of the questions he had to ask was in regard to the allegations in the Press as to the serious state of things in the neighbourhood of Erzinghian, in Armenia, where it was said the attitude of the Turkish troops was so threatening, that it was feared there would be fresh outbreaks of fanaticism and outrage against the Christian inhabitants of the district. He asked the Under Secretary a question on the subject yesterday, and he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that telegrams had been sent to Her Majesty's representative at Constantinople instructing him to make inquiries as to the accuracy of those allegations. He, therefore, ventured to ask the Under Secretary whether there was any confirmation of those serious reports; and, if so, whether steps had been taken, or would be taken, to put an end to such a threatening state of things? He should also like to ask whether the difficulties that were alleged to have been placed by the Turkish Authorities in the way of the distribution of the fund raised for the relief of the sufferers of the outrages in Armenia had been overcome by the representations of Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople. He would only say, in conclusion, that the whole attitude of the Government on this question had given the deepest satisfaction to hon. Members on the Opposition side, and that the Government would receive from them the very warmest support at all times and in all manners if the policy announced by the Prime Minister was firmly and consistently carried out in dealing with the very difficult problem of the position of Christians in Armenia.

said, he was indebted to the hon. Gentleman for his warm praise of the policy which had been pursued by the present Government with regard to Armenia, and which he believed had the unanimous approval of the House and the Country. With regard to the two specific questions of the hon. Gentleman, he would ask him to put his question in regard to the administration of the relief fund on the paper, and he would make inquiries. The reply he had received from Constantinople as to the threatening attitude of Turkish troops at Erzinghian afforded some ground for the allegations contained in the question of the hon. Member; but, as he had no idea that the question would be raised in Committee, he had not brought the telegram with him. If the hon. Member would put the question down for Monday he would reply to it, or he would give the hon. Gentleman the information privately if he so desired it.

Will the hon. Gentleman indicate the general state of things disclosed by the telegram?

I had only time to read it hurriedly, and I would not like to pledge myself as to its contents. The allegations, as well as I remember, were that there had been actions of the Turkish troops unfavourable to the peace and interests of the Armenians. That impression is sustained by the information we have received. More than that I should not, at present, like to say.

asked whether this Vote was not novel in recent experience? It was a Vote for the relief of distress in a self-governing Colony, fully equipped with representative and responsible government. There had been rare cases where relief had been granted to Crown Colonies, but he remembered no case in which relief had been given to a self-governing Colony of the first class. It was so singular a departure that attention ought to be called to it. The Vote was prefaced by correspondence, and there were three issues of Papers on the subject. The last began with a letter from a Member of the House in the last Parliament, Sir Francis Evans, who wrote to the Colonial Office as Special Commissioner of the Government of Newfoundland. That hon. Member had previously brought forward in the House a proposal for relief to be granted to the Colony, and based the claim on the ground of the French Treaty and the special legislation imposed on the Colony on that account. That Motion was not discussed because the hon. Member received certain assurances from the late Government. This precedent ought to be watched most narrowly, as it was almost impossible to justify it. Nothing but the existence of overwhelming necessity, which would make common humanity cry out if relief were refused, could justify this grant to a self-governing Colony. Of course it was the Vote of the late Government, and he regretted that it had to be discussed in the absence of any Member of that Government. It might be said that the Imperial Commissioner sent out to administer the relief was a man of great experience; but the official correspondence showed that he had virtually no option but to spend the money. He himself had always taken a great interest in the French Treaty question in Newfoundland, and he had always sided strongly with the Colony. Naturally, therefore, he had received letters from the Colony from both sides of politics, a fact on which he laid stress, because parties were so sharply divided that it was impossible to trust any one-sided statements. The Imperial Commissioner set up relief works and granted money to fishermen. There were stronger cases in this country to be made out for such relief, and as one of them he would mention his own constituency. The soil there and the mines and minerals belonged to the Crown; and as the iron-works had stopped, it would be more natural that the Crown should start them than start relief works for a self-governing Colony, with which the Government of England had only an indirect connection. The Banks had failed in Newfoundland, and there had been a commercial crisis similar to those through which the Australian Colonies had passed from time to time. But the consequent distress was among the better classes rather than among the working population. He had evidence from a Newfoundland source which was purely commercial and not political at all. In the Investors' Review there appeared immediately after the worst of the supposed distress, an elaborate article on its extent. It was therein pointed out that the Fisheries were, on the whole, increasing. The cod-fishery was slightly falling off, but the lobster fishery and the seal fishery were increasing, and up to the moment of the smash, the revenue was increasing. There had been considerable fluctuations in trade, but in 1893 it was greater than in such years as 1884–1887. The Savings Bank Deposits had increased rapidly right up to the smash, and they were not involved in the disaster. The debt of the Colony was considerable, and that pointed to bad government. As to the distress among the poor, it was stated:—

"Some distress had been imminent, but it has been warded off by the charitable at home and abroad.''

The right honourable Gentleman said, and it is the fact, that this is the first instance of a grant in aid from the Imperial Exchequer to a self-governing Colony, and therefore it may be considered to establish an important precedent, if we do not take care to confine the conditions under which such a grant shall be made. I can only say, under these circumstances, that I very much regret that no member of the late Government is present to-day to defend the Vote for which the late Government is responsible. [Cheers.] They may have a good explanation of the course they have pursued. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that this most exceptional procedure was undertaken on this occasion by a Member of Parliament towards the close of the career of the late Government. That is so, but I have been unable to find the arguments brought by Sir Francis Evans, which were found sufficient to induce the late Government to give a grant of £50,000, of which up to the present time £40,000 has been expended. In order to give a grant of that kind I have totally failed to find the arguments which persuaded them. I agree with my right hon. Friend that if assistance is to be given in the nature of charitable and eleemosynary aid by this Government to another Government, or quasi-independent Government, at all events, the circumstances must be most exceptional in their character. I admit, therefore, that I cannot find in the papers at the present time any evidence to lead me to say that the condition of affairs in Newfoundland was such as to amount to such an exceptional state of distress as would justify this very exceptional interference. I cannot altogether leave out of sight how the distress arose. The distress arose in this case undoubtedly, as my right hon. Friend said, owing to bad administration. We have here a colony with representative institutions of the freest and most democratic character; and it has led, I must say, to some rather extraordinary results. But, without going outside the subject at present under discussion, there is no doubt that with better administration the condition of things in the colony would have been better than when Sir Francis Evans made his demands. But even then it is also true that the distress, although, no doubt, very considerable indeed, would not have been of that absolutely exceptional character which we anticipate. I find, for instance, that the Special Commissioner from the Treasury—a man of remarkable ability, who has done the very best that could be done to secure proper and effective distribution of the funds—had no choice whatever. He was sent out to spend the money, and the only question left to his discretion was the best manner of administering the fund. He says in his Report that when he got to St. John's he found—

"That, although there were many cases of great suffering and deprivation among men and women long accustomed to habits of more than a sufficiency, the distress among the working classes is not greater than that which exists at the present time in the large towns in England."

"The accounts of this distress had been exaggerated, and it is not as great as had been assumed."

, contended that there ought to be some defence forthcoming on the part of the late Government for the inclusion of this Vote in the Estimates and for its expenditure in the manner indicated. Supposing the Committee refused to pass this Vote—if the late Government had remained in power it was probable that it would have been refused—in that case he wished to know upon whose shoulders the burden would fall of making good the money which the House of Commons refused to pay. The most effective warning against creating precedents of this kind would be that some portion of the burden should fall on the shoulders of those who directed the expenditure. As, however, Lord Ripon, who was the responsible Minister for the appearance of the Vote on the Estimates, could not reasonably be expected to refund the £50,000, he should content himself with moving to reduce the Vote by £1,000. The payment of this sum would not ruin the noble Marquess, but it would be a good warning to him in the future that if he and his colleagues spent money in this way they were bound to reimburse a portion of it.

I hope my hon. Friend will withdraw his motion. The effect of refusing the Vote would not be to lay any personal liability on the late Government. The probable result would be to complicate the arrangements of the public service and to cause delay by bringing the Vote up again. It should be remembered that the money has been spent.

said, that though the Secretary for the Colonies admitted this to be an improper Vote he yet advised the Committee to pass the money. In his judgment the hon. Gentleman, in moving a reduction of the Vote, had done his duty by calling attention to a question of maladministration. The fact of the money having been spent was no justification for voting it. Those gentlemen who undertook the responsibility of spending the money before it was passed by the House of Commons must take the responsibility now if a portion of it were rejected. The Ministers who were primarily responsible for proposing this Vote were not present to defend it, and he could not admit that their duty as guardians of the public purse was discharged merely because one estimable set of right hon. Placemen had been replaced by a more estimable set of right hon. Placemen. [Laughter.] If the hon. Member pressed his Amendment to a division he should support him.

scarcely thought that the last two speakers were quite serious in what they had said. They seemed to forget that the present Estimates had been recommended by her Majesty in the Speech from the Throne, and, therefore, that the present advisers of the Crown made themselves responsible for them, though they had not framed them. The Secretary for the Colonies did not assume entire responsibility for this Vote, but he had placed it before the Committee as a matter touching the honour of this country to fulfil its engagement to a foreign country, or to one of our colonies, by the responsible Ministers of the Crown. It therefore became an equally honourable engagement on the part of the British Parliament. The colony of Newfoundland, the oldest colony under the Crown, was placed in the greatest distress and embarrassment, and the late Government considered the circumstances justified a grant. The money had been spent. Estimates prepared by the late Government were under consideration, and the supporters of the present Government were as much bound to help them to pass the Estimates as the supporters of the Government that prepared them would have been if they had been in power. It would not be consistent with the dignity of the House nor the honour of this country to withdraw from the engagement that had been entered into.

said, the object of the House in refusing to pass this Vote must be either to censure the late Government or prevent a repetition of such expenditure in the future. The Government proposed to be censured was not in office, and there was nothing in our Constitution to enable the Committee to censure the Opposition. [Laughter.] With regard to preventing a repetition of such expenditure, no one who heard the speech of the Secretary for the Colonies would imagine that any such repetition would be within the range of practical politics. Nothing would be gained by pressing the Amendment. The money had been spent, and the responsibility for it could not be thrown on the Members of the late Government, because, except by a Bill of Attainder, this could not be done, and he did not think his hon. Friend would wish to see a Bill of Attainder passed against Lord Ripon. The Vote was an obligation of honour to this country, and the only persons who would suffer by the House refusing to pay the money would be the contractors who had supplied the goods. The milk had been spilt, and all they could do was to lament it and take the debate as expressing the sense of the Committee that no similar policy must be pursued in future.

urged that if the doctrine preached by the Leader of the House was accepted there would be no security against any Minister whatever if, when guilty of any misfeasance or crime, he could be whitewashed by resignation and freed from all blame.

repeated, that the only mode of punishment was a Bill of Attainder.

said, that was not the only mode of punishment. On the highest possible authority, that of the Colonial Secretary, they were told that this expenditure was unnecessary and improper.

I did not go as far as that; I said I was unable to find sufficient grounds to defend it in the absence of the person who proposed it.

submitted that, if a Minister with access to all the archives of the Department could not say a single word in defence of the expenditure, the Vote ought not to be passed.

intimated that, after what had been said by the Leader of the House he would not press his Amendment.

invited the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs to make a statement to the Committee.

said: Mr. Lowther, I think the Committee will agree that I am relieved from the necessity of making any observations on the general principle of the Uganda Railway. That was decided by the vote of the House under the administration of the late Government. It was felt that, after you had decided to assume the inland protectorate of Uganda and the basin of the Victoria Lake, it would be absurd to undertake this obligation unless you had a railway to the coast. That obligation, tardily accepted by the late Government, is assumed with readiness by the present Government—[Cheers]—and the action they are now taking is an indication to the House that they intend to push forward this scheme with as much energy and force as are at their disposal. The Committee will expect from me, therefore, no more than this, that I shall make a clear and business-like statement—so far as that is in my power—of the steps the Government propose to take to carry out the instructions received from the House. Most hon. Members present will have received and, I hope, read, the Report of the Departmental Committee which lately sat at the Foreign Office, and has been laid on the Table. Upon that Committee sat a number of gentlemen, experts of the highest authority and influence. It contained Sir John Kirk, formerly our Consul-General at Zanzibar, than whom there is no higher authority connected with Eastern Africa; Colonel Colvile, British Commissioner a short time ago at Uganda; Sir Alexander Rendel, Consulting Engineer to the India Office, and Sir Montague Ommanney, Crown Agent for the Colonies, who may be taken to represent the best expert opinion we can secure; and Sir Percy Anderson, the able and accomplished head of the African Department at the Foreign Office. That Committee had not merely the advantage of the survey for the railway made by Major Macdonald and Captain Pringle in 1893, but the advantage of three independent reports from engineering experts of the greatest eminence who had been consulted with reference to the possibility of a railway by the British East Africa Company. I mention this to show that it was in no light spirit and with no inadequate basis of information that they drew up the Report which has been laid before the House. Those who have read the Report will have noticed that some questions—and those not of minor importance—were left undecided. The first was as to the length of the railway, namely, whether the line starting from Mombasa should go the whole way to Victoria Nyanza, or should stop at Kikuyu—300 miles from the coast—and be supplemented by a road to the banks of the lake. The Government hive decided that the railway is to be constructed the whole way from the ocean to the lake, a distance of little more than 650 miles. [Cheers.] This decision, and the expenses of construction involved, may entail some financial sacrifice at the start, but, in their opinion, the question had to be decided by larger considerations than those of economy of construction alone. This railway has been commonly and justly called the Uganda Railway, and the application of that name itself suggests the truth as to the principal object of the railway, viz., that it is to bring down to the coast the resources, not merely of the Uganda Protectorate, but of all those countries in the upper waters of the Nile and of the Congo, both in the British and German spheres of influence, which surround at no very great distance the Victoria Nyanza, resources for which the railway will be the natural outlet. There is another consideration before the Government—if there had been any failure to construct this line the whole way to the lake, if it had been suspended as was suggested by some at a point half-way between Mombasa and the lake, there would have been, not the development which we anticipate, buta shrinkage—for which we should have been responsible—of the trade which is contemplated in this district. There is a third consideration which may commend itself to the patriotism of hon. Gentlemen—namely, the probability of German competition. Nothing is more certain than that if we do not construct a railway to the lake the Germans will. [" Hear, hear!"] We were the first upon the scene. Our administration and our Government are already in active operation there, and it would be blameworthy on the part of any Government in such circumstances by subsequent supineness to throw away the advantages which priority of possession has secured to us. Therefore the decision of the Government is that the railway shall be constructed the whole distance from Mombasa to the lake. ["Hear, hear!"] It will be constructed on what is commonly called the telescopic principle, the materials necessary for the construction of the line as far as possible being brought up on the rails already laid. As to the probable cost of construction, the Committee will have noticed in the Report of the Departmental Committee that the original estimate of Major Macdonald and Captain Pringle was £2,240,000, or £3,409 a mile, and that the Departmental Committee, by a reduction of the gauge and weight of rail employed, and of the expenses of rolling stock and buildings, brought the amount down to £1,755,000, or £2,700 per mile, or, if we allow for the interest during the four years expected to be spent in construction, to £1,865,000. But economy of construction is not the only consideration to be borne in mind. Efficiency in working and probable future development have also to be considered, and although, upon the question of gauge and of weight of rail, the Government have not yet arrived at a final decision, yet there are arguments in favour of a broader gauge and of heavier weight of rail than the minimum suggested by the Departmental Committee. Even if there should be, in consequence of any such possible decision in that direction, a larger expenditure than the minimum suggested by the Departmental Committee, there would still be a saving on the original estimate made by the engineers of 1893. ["Hear, hear!"] The next question relates to the working expenses of the line. The original estimate was that, £67,000 a year would be required for the working expenses if three trains a week ran each way, which estimate the Committee reduced to £50,000, or if only one train was running each way to £40,000. The Committee will naturally ask, and it is a most important question, what is the probability of revenue? The estimate of 1893, which was £60,000 a year, was accepted after much investigation by the Departmental Committee, and it was stated to them by Sir John Kirk that a very considerable volume of trade might be expected in the future. It may be asked from what sources this revenue is to be derived. Those sources are three in number. In the first place, there will be the goods traffic due to the export of native products and manufactures, and to the import of European goods. In order to meet this expenditure of £60,000 a year, only 68 tons a week, or 3,500 tons a year, will be required to be transported on the railway at the charge, which is proposed to be levied, of £17 a ton. The Committee will see, from the Report of the Departmental Committee, that the charge now made is £180 per ton by native porters, so that the reduction of charge brought about by the construction of the line will be one of no mean order. ["Hear, hear!"] As a practical illustration, I may mention that a steamer will shortly be placed on the lake, and that, owing to the difficulty of transport, in a region where every piece of machinery has to be of a certain weight, to enable it to be carried on the backs of the native porters, the cost of the transport of the material of the vessel will be £12,000, whereas we calculate that at the charge of £17 per ton, that material could be transported to the lake at a cost of only £1,100, thereby saving half the original cost of construction. ["Hear, hear!"] The question of goods traffic on the line is one which must, of course, depend very largely upon the development of the country. From conversations which I have had with Sir John Kirk and with Captain Lugard, who know every yard of the country through which the line will pass, and others, I have reason to believe that a considerable future, in the shape of agricultural and cereal produce will lie before this district, not only in regard to barley and wheat, but also, in future, to coffee and cotton, as well as in the export of ivory and indiarubber. ["Hear, hear!"] Those on the spot have such a belief in the future of the line that they have already taken up plots of ground on either side of the railway. Of passenger traffic I will not say too much at present, although, if the inhabitants of East Africa betray anything like the passion for getting into railway trains which I have noticed in scores of places in Asia, the return from this branch of traffic ought not to be inconsiderable. ["Hear, hear!''] There is a third item of revenue. A great economy will be effected by means of the railway in the carriage of Government stores. At the present moment we are paying £37,000 a year for taking Government stores up to the lake, and it is expected, if present conditions continue, that in four years' time the total cost of carrying the same amount of material will have increased to £40,000. When the railway is completed, the cost will be reduced to £6,500, and upon this item alone, therefore, there will be a net saving annually of some £33,500. ["Hear, hear!"] The question may next be asked as to the machinery of construction that it is proposed to adopt. In the Report of the Committee three alternative methods are laid before the House. The first is, that the railway should be constructed by a company or syndicate with a Government guarantee. The second is, that the Government should hand over the work to firms of contractors, and the third is, that the Government itself should undertake the work. The reasons against the first and second of these alternatives have been stated with much force in the Report of the Committee. There are, in the first place, financial objections to them. Companies are in the habit of looking to dividends, and contractors are in the habit of expecting profits, and there seems to the Government to be no clear reason why these dividends and profits should not be realised by them instead of by the companies or by the contractors in their employ. Experience in India, and, I think, in the Colonies, shows that difficulties are apt to arise in the relations between the Government and companies such as those of which I am speaking. There are difficulties arising from divided control and from the possibility of friction, and in the event of financial trouble or disaster, we know how, in the last resource, appeal is always made to the Government, and how the Government, after having entered into an apparently favourable contract, ultimately find themselves involved in a very considerable outlay. But there are stronger grounds even than that, and to these the Government attach chief importance. I speak of the political and social troubles that might possibly arise, through the construction of the line by a company or by contractors, from the employment by them of native labour, and from our relations with the tribes through whose territories the line would pass. It is of the highest importance that while this railway is being constructed, and afterwards, the best possible relations should prevail between the staff of engineers and the workmen who are engaged on the line and the neighbouring tribes. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has often said that if a railway to Uganda were constructed it could only be done by means of forced labour. I believe the right hon. Gentleman to be entirely wrong in that hypothesis. So far as we have reason to anticipate, no forced labour will be employed on the line. Another thing that the right hon. Gentleman is equally fond of saying, and in regard to which he has betrayed a similar ignorance of the subject, is that when, the line was being constructed, men armed with Winchester rifles would have to be stationed at every hundred yards in order to keep off the attacks of the natives. I am informed that these apprehensions are entirely illusory. ["Hear, hear!"] There is little or no fear of hostility from the tribes, and only a small body of police will be required to secure order. The local troubles constantly anticipated by the occupants of that Bench (the front Opposition Bench)—or rather by those who have now deserted it [laughter and cheers] —are not to be apprehended. Peaceful relations are, however, less likely to be secured if the work is undertaken by a company or firm of contractors than if it is undertaken by ourselves; and it is on these grounds—material, financial, and political—that the Government have decided to do the work on their own account. We shall know what we are spending from stage to stage, and we can exercise a closer supervision over the work; we can employ the best engineers; and, above all, we shall be able to succeed in maintaining friendly relations with the tribes. What may be the particular machinery of construction that is adopted has not yet been decided; but there can be little doubt that the Government will profit largely by the great experience gained in the construction of similar railways in India. They hope by the hiring of Indian coolie labour to start the works, and by the employment of competent engineers they also hope to give the best guarantees for economy and efficiency in carrying it on. The question as to how the money will be raised is, of course, not for me. It is a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who will, no doubt, at subsequent dates bring it before the House. This preliminary Vote is for £20,000. It is required for preliminary expenses connected with the starting of the line. I hope I have not unduly troubled the Committee with this brief account of the views entertained by the Government, and the steps they propose to take. This scheme is one which we intend to push forward with all the energy that lies in our power. [Cheers.] The line will not be a difficult one to construct. It runs over a fairly easy country, and the Government look forward with confidence to its future. They have no desire to stint the line, though some fear was entertained that if it had been undertaken by the late Government this might have been the case. Her Majesty's Government, on the contrary, have every desire to construct the line on a large and generous basis. It may be asked what use the line will be when we get it. I think the experience of other parts may supply an answer. Wherever you get a protectorate, or colony, or particular district, in proportion as your means of communication are developed, so in time does that country, colony, or district become self-supporting. There can be very little doubt that this will be the future of that part of Africa. The railway will make it self-supporting. There is another consideration which will appeal to many hon. Members in this House, and that is the bearing which the construction of this railway will have upon the question of slavery in East Africa. I believe that it will do more towards getting rid of slavery than any number of Resolutions of the House of Commons could possibly do. ["Hear, hear!"] The main sources of the slave trade will be struck at and, we hope, stanched, and when the railway has been in working order for a few years slavery, will, we trust, become extinct in that part. The advantages that this railway will thus have, not merely to our traders and servants, but to the inhabitants of the country itself, will be great. Nothing can be more melancholy than the state of petty internecine warfare in which up to recent years those parts of Africa have been plunged. This railway will carry with it not merely civilisation and commerce, but peace. [Cheers.] In a few years' time—I trust before the present Government have left the position they now occupy [cheers]—we hope that the railway will be in daily working order, running through a pacified country from the coast up to the lake, and I believe that hon. Members, whether in the last or the present Parliament, who have assisted by their Votes in the inception of this undertaking, will always look back with pleasure to having had a hand in starting and in pressing on a scheme which will be fraught with advantage to British trade and will also bring good government to the natives of that part of Africa. [Cheers.]

quite agreed that it was a disadvantage to have to discuss these Estimates in the absence of those who were responsible for them. [Ministerial cheers.] The Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce), in particular, took a strong line in the last Parliament against the construction of this railway. As to himself, while he was one of those who did not approve of the occupation of Uganda, believing as he did that the energies and wealth of the nation might be more profitably expended on places nearer to our sea base, yet he had always been of opinion that if we were to hold Uganda we should be driven to construct and hold this railway. Therefore, the opposition to this Vote should rather have come from the Leader of the Opposition and his colleague the Member for Aberdeen, than from the Radical Members below the Gangway. ["Hear, hear!"] He, however, desired to place certain considerations on the other side before the Committee in connection with this Vote. He said "on the other side" because some of the suggestions of the Under Secretary would, he thought, read, in parts, a little like the prospectus of Martin Chuzzlewit's Eden. They had heard a good deal about profits and dividends in connection with making this line, which, however necessary it might be, was not likely to prove a paying commercial undertaking or to appeal to capitalists in its construction. The Under-Secretary had alluded to the argument used recently in the House by the Member for North Lambeth (Mr. H. M. Stanley), but a wilder argument than that he had never heard in the House of Commons. An argument more likely to weigh with the Committee was that this railway would really have the effect of putting down slavery. Speaking now on the very highest authority, though he had no right to mention names, he asserted that there was no conceivable connection between the subjects. There was no connection between plantation slavery and slavery in East Africa.

I did not speak of plantation slavery.

said, that the Member for North Lambeth did, and he put forward this railway cure. The slaves in East Africa did not speak the Swahili dialect, but the language of the Lakes. The railway might be a perfectly defensible operation in itself, but it was riot defensible from the point of view put forward by the Member for North Lambeth, that it could have any bearing upon slavery in Zanzibar and Pemba. Hon. Members, he thought, had some vague notions in their minds, pointing in the direction of the view of the Member for North Lambeth, but they had no notion of the miles of territory which separated the country from the sea. This railway was to be 650 miles long to the Lake. From there to the Bahr el Ghazal district was another 800 miles, and from there, again, were 1,500 miles of country occupied by the forces of the Mahdi between Wady Halfa and Bahrel Ghazal. It had been suggested repeatedly that this railway was necessary for the purpose of stopping slavery, and the Member for North Lambeth said that it would prevent slave-raiding in the same way as it had been prevented in the Congo State, but if it were not out of order upon the present occasion, he might have had something to say about preventing slave-raiding in the Congo State. Some said that the Congo State was itself the greatest slave-raider. However that might be, the supposition that a narrow-gauge line in the direction of this territory was going to put an end to slave raiding seemed the wildest conceivable idea. The Under Secretary had told them that there was no reason to suppose that there would be any trouble during the construction of the line, and ridiculed the ideas of the Leader of the Opposition as to the amount of protection which would be required. But those ideas were backed by the report of the Survey Commission, in which it was distinctly laid down that there must be a native regiment on the line during its construction, and that recommendation had not been overruled in the last report. In Major Macdonald's report there were allusions to the dangerous character of the Masai tribe, and no evidence was forthcoming that this protection could be dispensed with. As to the commercial details of the line, this 3ft. or 3ft. 6in. line would be a mere toy or mineral line, such as was being constructed for minerals in West Australia.

said the right hon. Gentleman forgot that there were thousands of miles of railways of this description in India.

said that there were similar lines in New Zealand and South Africa.

said the ordinary 3ft. 6in. line now being made in West Australia cost £500 a mile, or, without stations £400. That was the cost of making a line in a flat sandy desert. The enormous ascent of 8,000 or 9,000 feet above the sea to which the Uganda line would rise placed it, however, in a very different category. It was frankly admitted in the estimate that there was "great risk of excess" over the estimate which was made. Experience of railways in Africa had not been encouraging; the most recent was that of the Congo Free State, which had ruined the financiers of the Congo State and put an end, he believed for ever, to the union between State and Belgium which was contemplated. What we were really trying to do was to divert trade from its natural line along the watercourses and drive it over the high mountains by a straight road. That plan had always failed. If no obstacles considered, of course the shortest line of trade would be from Suakim to Berber. He believed this country was quite strong enough and rich enough to carry out almost any enterprise; the question was whether the enterprise was worth the expenditure. When Lieutenant Cameron, after traversing Africa, came back with hundreds of treaties, he offered them to Mr. Disraeli, including those which conveyed the sovereignty of the territory of the Congo State, a country far more fertile and easier of access than Uganda. But Mr. Disraeli wisely refused them on the ground that these enormous tracts in Africa were not the natural sphere of this country, and that our trade was on the coast where we could give protection. It would have been better for us to have remained on the coast and left other Powers to develop the interior, but the contrary policy had prevailed. He believed Uganda, the unhealthiness of which had already deprived us of so many valuable lives, would never become the home of British Colonists. Kikuyu, and the district around it, was not likely to pay because it was not near the coast, and we should be spending our energy and enterprise in vain. He was by no means opposed to all extension of our colonial dominions, but he believed in taking each case on its merits, and he thought it was as foolish to say that under all circumstances we should extend the dominions of this country as to welcome every extension.

defended the views of the hon. Member for North Lambeth. The facilities which would exist for extending operations beyond Uganda when once the railway was made, would, he argued, reduce slave-raiding, just as it had been reduced in Nyassaland. There was nothing more certain than that the occupation of Nyassaland, and the activity of the Congo Free State of recent years, had had the effect of driving back the centre of gravity of the slave trade. He argued that the effect of the Uganda Railway would be, in a few years, to sweep almost completely those territories of slave-raiding expeditions. He quite agreed with the general conclusions of his hon. Friend. The right hon Gentleman spoke on the question whether it would be necessary to protect this line, but he seemed to overlook the fact that the survey party were probably only a small guard, and if they had no trouble whatever, surely it was a fair inference that if a small party carried out their business without interference, bigger operations could also be carried on in safety. He only wanted further to ask the Under Secretary one question as to the making of the railway. He said that the Government intended to do the work themselves. Did they intend to do it themselves in the sense of employing their own officers, or did they contemplate putting out portions of the line from time to time to contract? The Under Secretary rather left that question open. All he wanted to know was whether the Government would do the work directly or whether they would have the construction of the line done by contractors. He was very glad to hear his hon. Friend's able statement with regard to this costly work, and further that it would be undertaken in no penurious spirit. He did not think it would be wise or desirable to have a very narrow gauge, or that there should be any unreasonable economy in the construction of the railway. ["Hear, hear!"]

said, though they had every respect for the names of the gentlemen who wrote the Report, yet he could not help thinking that they had been too much actuated by a desire to reduce the cost of the railway on paper, so as to make its financial success appear certain. He doubted whether the rates suggested for wheat and coffee could be upheld, for he did not think these articles could bear the tariff proposed. He thought it was not prudent, in the first place, to treat the railway as likely to be a commercial success, and if the trade of Uganda was to be developed they would have to conduct the railway on a different basis from that stated in the Report.

said, his hon. Friend wanted to know whether they were going to employ their own officers or to do the work by contract. They would employ their own officers, with a view to keeping the work under their own control. A portion of the work might be required to be given to sub-contractors, but the principle on which they would proceed was to keep the control in their own hands. ["Hear, hear!"] The right hon. Baronet seemed to think there would be great difficulty in the construction of the line, but the country was not a difficult one, and no greater obstacles need be anticipated than Russia had encountered in laying her Trans - Caspian Railway. The cost of that railway was between £3,000 and £4,000 a mile, and therefore he could see nothing at all discouraging in the present estimate. The right hon. Gentleman said the Congo State Railway was a failure and that therefore this railway would probably be a failure also. But there was no ground of comparison between the two. The Congo State Railway was a short line running up steep gradients in order to overcome the difficulties of the rapids of the river. How was it possible to institute a comparison between a railway of that sort and a main trunk railway 650 miles in length? But the right hon. Gentleman was wrong in his facts, for he believed the Congo State Railway was not a failure. The line from the lake to Mombasa would be not merely the shortest, but, in the opinion of experts, the natural line. The right hon. Baronet had referred to the lives already lost; but it was not from any effects of the journey from the coast to the lake that either Sir Gerald Portal or his brother sacrificed their lives. He believed the right hon. Baronet to be entirely wrong in his lugubrious prognostications about the effects of this region upon health. Sir John Kirk, in a paper which he read to the Geographical Congress the other day, said that, in his experience, the table-land of Eastern Africa which the railway would traverse was the healthiest part of the African Continent he had ever visited.

said he did not think one of the results of the railway would be that the followers of the Mahdi, who rose in rebellion against the Egyptians, would go back to their yellow masters. Nor was it probable that the Cape railway would ever be extended to the lake, seeing that the Congo Free State and a German sphere of influence intervened. The estimate for the railway was ridiculous, and if it was constructed for three times the estimated amount we would get out of it very cheaply. In making the railway we were laying down a gold mine for the Masais, who would immediately proceed to pick up the rails. Thus not only the cost of construction, but the cost of maintenance, would be far greater than the paltry sum now suggested. Again, the rivers in this region came down in great force at certain seasons, and, as in India, difficulty would be found in constructing sufficiently strong bridges. He, however, did not mean to oppose the railway, because he believed it to be the logical outcome of the policy of taking possession of Uganda, but he predicted that we would be constantly engaged in little wars—first in connection with the making and maintenance of the line, and afterwards in seeking to add to our territories,

said, they were met with two difficulties in approaching the discussion of this Vote. The first of these was the knowledge that when they brought forward grievances and suggested remedies they would be met with the reply that, as the Ministry had just come into office, these matters could not be considered now, but must be dealt with at a future time. The second difficulty was the fact that the Postmaster General was not in the House of Commons. He knew the feeling of the majority of the members of the Government was opposed to that arrangement, and it could not long be maintained.

I must point out, as I have previously done, that references to the fact that the head of the Department is in another place are out of order on the Vote for that particular Department.

remarked that in dealing with the Postal and Telegraph Estimates on this occasion, they found themselves in considerable difficulties. On the one hand, there were in connection with these services many evils and abuses crying for early redress, and many grievances calling for instant remedy. On the other hand, it was impossible to regard the new Postmaster General, or his representative in that House, who had been in office only a short time, as in any way responsible for these evils and grievances. It was one of the misfortunes of the present system that the supreme chief was liable to be displaced at any moment. He had taken great pains with the late Postmaster General, and at the moment of his conversion he had disappeared. His labours were in vain. There was a further difficulty, in the fact that the Postmaster General was not a Member of the House in which the Estimates were discussed. It was well known that the main reason why the vast region called Tibet remained unimproved and unexplored was that the chief ruler, the Grand Llama, was inaccessible and invisible. Prayers could not move him, treaties could not bind him. Well, their Grand Llama was inaccessible and invisible. How did they know that, when he had convinced their right hon. Friend the Secretary of the Treasury, the labour would not be thrown away? Of course, if the Postmaster General had given him carte blanche it was a different matter, and in that belief he would submit a few facts of a general character which might probably occupy his time during the Recess. In the first place, the Post Office should be financed on business principles. At present it was the rule to pay out of current revenue the cost of sites, buildings and other expenditure, which a private firm would capitalise and spread over several years. He instanced the case of the Liverpool Post Office, which cost hundreds of thousands of pounds, and was paid out of the current revenue, as was also done in the case of the Post Office at St. Martin's-le-Grand. In a word, the taxpayers of this year were paying the whole cost of benefits to be enjoyed by future generations; while reforms were refused for alleged lack of revenue to spend on starting them. Again, the disgraceful purchase money originally paid for the telegraphs in this country should be no longer charged to the Post Office, no more than the Crimean War Fund. It was a blunder little less than a crime. He next wished to call attention to the subsidies paid to mail steamers. He was in favour of subsidies, but they should not be wholly charged to the Post Office. It would surprise hon. Members to learn that no record was kept of the number of letters received from the Colonies and abroad. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to see that this state of things was reme died. The public ought to be furnished with the fullest possible information with regard to correspondence sent to and received from every part of the Empire. The Postmaster General had refused statistics on various pretexts, one being that the Post Office had no accurate information. We had been compelled to get this information from foreign countries, and he found that while we dealt with 18,000,000 letters within England, we only received 10,000,000 from the Colonies. He wished now briefly to direct attention to a few grievances and a few reforms which he thought necessary. The only reason why these reforms had not been granted was that this country was ruled by officialism and the officials had determined not to grant them. But he hoped the Postmaster General would institute an inquiry which would enable him to form a judgment upon them. First, there was the great question of Imperial Penny Postage. He would not dwell on the overwhelming argument in its favour, but he was sure he had the sympathy and support of the House of Commons on this question. Its adoption would give the greatest satisfaction throughout the Empire. He hoped the Postmaster General would give the matter full and fair consideration. Another reform was the establishment of Parcels Post to America and to Japan. The absence of such a service did not cast any credit on the Post Office. He also hoped that the present high telegraph rates between France and England would be reduced to one penny per word. The rate throughout England was only a halfpenny per word, and throughout France less than a halfpenny per word. Why then should telegrams be charged from France to England more than a penny per word? He also complained of the fine of four times the deficiency on unstamped postcards, and the fine of only double the deficiency on newspapers. The question of telephone communication was a subject which should at once engage the attention of the Postmaster General. The present monopoly should be taken up, and the State should supply telephone communication to householders for £3 per house. He was sure that he had the sympathy of every man in the House, when he urged the Postmaster General to take this matter in hand, and do what the people desired him to do, namely, to take over the telephone communication of the country into the hands of the Government. Another reform which might be introduced with advantage to the public, was a reduction of the present charges for the transmission of periodicals. A bulky newspaper could be sent to any part of the country for a halfpenny, but for magazines the full postage rates were charged. A small point to which the attention of the Postmaster General might well be directed, was the frequent illegibility of the postmarks upon letters. The marks were generally smudged and indistinct. In the United States all envelopes were clearly marked by the Post Office officials, and the hour of postage stamped upon them. One of the most amusing charges made was that for unstamped postcards. A card sent through the post without a stamp was charged twopence. This practice was very mean. Why should the unfortunate recipient of an unstamped postcard be fined four times the amount of the deficiency when only double the deficiency was charged for an unstamped letter? In conclusion, he must again express his great regret that the head of the Postal Department was not in that House. When they remembered that the employées of the Department numbered 138,000, and that the sums paid in salaries by the Department amounted to an enormous figure, the Committee, he thought, would agree with him that it was of the highest importance that the Postmaster General should be a gentleman having a seat in that House. ["Hear, hear!"]

said, that he was recently in Middlesbrough, and that he could not find a Directory in the General Post Office of that town. He was referred by the officials to the Free Library. He had had the same experience in several other offices, and he believed that there were even in London many Post Offices without a Directory. He hoped that steps would be taken to promptly remedy the deficiency wherever it occurred. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether it was the intention of the Post Office to keep separate accounts in connection with the trunk telephone business. An annual return ought to be made showing how much the Government had spent in acquiring these trunk wires, how much they had spent upon them, and how much they had earned. That would enable the Committee to arrive at some conclusion as to the value of the recent purchases. In his opinion there would be no adequate return for the money which had been expended. At Stockholm a first-rate double-wire service, over an area many times larger than the area for which there was a service in London, was provided for less than, £5 per annum, whereas the rate charged in London was £20. Reference had been made to the charge in New York as being very high, and it was very high; but what was the reason? The telephone monopolists of New York had obtained control over the service by methods which were notorious. For many years consecutively, a Bill was introduced in the New York Legislature on behalf of the Telephone Reform Association, but through the action of the monopolists and their friends, the Bill was invariably sent to a Committee, and never came out of it. Consequently the reformers had been unable to obtain any reduction of the enormous charges made for the telephone service. If the opposing politicians could be defeated, the charges would probably go down to one-fifth of the present rate. The New York charges were kept up by an outrageous monopoly. But in this country there was also a telephone monopoly, and the excessive rates charged were maintained by the Postmaster General, who was the person to blame. The patents in telephones had all expired, and the trade ought to be as free as any other trade. But it was not free, because no one could supply telephone service until he had received a licence from the Post Office, and the Post Office refused to grant licences, and so the monopoly was maintained, and the charge in London remained at £20 for a service infinitely worse than was obtained at Stockholm and elsewhere for one-fourth of that sum. Glasgow had applied in vain for a licence, although no reason had ever been given in that House why that city should not have a licence. The last Government, which carried out, in circumstances which would not bear examination, the contract that was made between the Government and the telephone monopolists, appointed a Committee to inquire whether they should grant licences to municipalities. It was scandalous to do anything of the kind. Why should not Glasgow, Edinburgh and other places have licences if they asked for them? Why should they not be permittd to supply their citizens with telephone communication, just as they did tramways, gas, water, or anything else which was commonly used? There might be many reasons for not granting licences to private persons, but there could be none for not granting them to places like Glasgow, because it was ridiculous to suggest that a Corporation like Glasgow might sell their licences to others, although he was aware that licences had been bought up at fabulous prices in order to maintain their monopoly by the monopolist company of which the hon. Member who had just entered the House (Sir A. Rollit) was a director. This refusal on the part of the Government to Glasgow, was a disgraceful and shameful business. In refusing to grant a licence to Glasgow, the Postmaster General was, in effect, saying, "I shall compel you to pay twice as much for a bad service as we know you could provide a good service for if we granted you a licence." The hon. Member for Canterbury said, the Government should buy up the remainder of the telephone service, but he had never yet met the Chancellor of the Exchequer who would venture to ask the House of Commons for the enormous sum of money which such an enterprise would involve. He hoped that they would keep a separate account of the cost of the trunk lines and also of their earnings, in order that, when the question came up again next year, the House might be able to see whether the Government had made a good bargain in taking them over, or whether they had repeated on a smaller scale the extravagance of the terms on which they acquired the telegraphs.

complained of the arrangement now made for the conduct of Post Office business in this House. There was really no one on the Treasury Bench who was able to speak with authority and competent knowledge on the subject. Even since the Session commenced there had been a change. Originally, the Post Office was spoken for in this House by the right hon. Gentleman who was Under Secretary at the Home Office; but, for reasons which had never been explained, the performance of those duties was transferred to the Secretary to the Treasury, Now, any Member who had experience of the House of Commons knew very well that the Treasury had always been regarded as and had discharged the functions of a watch-dog over the Post Office. It had, indeed, been suggested that there was a certain advantage in this arrangement, because it enabled the representative of the Treasury to acquire a greater knowledge of Post Office business than was usually the case. It might with equal accuracy be said that, if counsel were instructed at once for plaintiff and defendant, they would have a larger and more comprehensive knowledge of the case than was now usual under the ordinary conduct of legal business. The interests of the two Departments were, or were supposed to be, antagonistic, and, therefore, the public was inadequately represented by a gentleman who at the same time represented the Treasury. Passing from that, he desired to refer to the case of the Committee on the Post Office. At the last General Election there was scarcely a Conservative candidate in London who did not pledge himself to move an Amendment to the Address in order to secure the appointment of a Royal Commission on the Post Office He had before him the names of nine gentlemen who took that pledge to move or support an Amendment to the Address. They were the hon. Members for Camberwell, Central Hackney, Haggerston, Lime-house, South Islington, North St. Pancras, Woolwich, St. George's East, and South Stepney.

, interposing, said, the first observation of his hon. Friend was, that there were eight Conservative Members who pledged themselves to move an Amendment to the Address. Afterwards he modified the expression into move or support. He himself was quite prepared to have done the latter.

said, that of course they could not all move, and he certainly meant to say "move or support." Of the eight or nine gentlemen to whom he had referred, the only one present at that moment to look after the interests of the Post Office servants was the Member for South Islington. When the question was before the last Parliament, the Member for Battersea raised a matter with which he cordially sympathised, namely, whether this Committee would be empowered to consider, amongst other questions, the conditions of service of the mail car drivers of the Metropolis. They had not a definite reply to that question, but, so far as he remembered, Mr. Arnold Morley gave them a somewhat sympathetic answer. Since then, the case for an inquiry of this kind had been materially strengthened by cases in which Messrs. Macnamara, one of the contracting firms, had been brought into court in connection with the treatment of their horses and drivers. In one case the manager of the carting was sentenced to a month's imprisonment for cruelty to animals, by overworking a horse, and in another case (it was said) a man was dismissed because he asked for an extra horse to pull a heavy load. He desired to ask whether, in the spirit Mr. Arnold Morley showed, the present representatives of the Post Office would be willing to refer the important question of the mail car drivers to the Committee that was now sitting? He believed this whole question would never be put on a satisfactory footing until the Post Office dispensed with contracting, and did its own carting. The only other point he desired to refer to was the present unsanitary condition of the Money Order Office. This was a disgraceful story. Some years ago, the money order business was removed from the old building in St. Martin's-le-Grand to the premises formerly used as a prison at Mount Pleasant, in Clerken-well. When that removal was made a pledge was given that it was only for a time, and that, when the new buildings then contemplated in St. Martin's-le-Grand were erected, the staff of the Money Order Office would be brought back. No sooner had the staff been removed to the old prison, than loud complaints of the insanitary condition of the office began to be made. The authorities at the Post Office adopted the usual optimistic attitude, one authority saying that the office was an ideal one. These complaints on the one hand, and the statement as to the ideal character of the office on the other, continued for some time.