rose to call attention to the enormous amount of money spent on Commissions from which very little good resulted. The delay in the case of the Vaccination Commission had been a public scandal. If Commissions were appointed at all they should be very small bodies. When very large bodies were appointed, an enormous amount of time was occupied in the examination of evidence, a great many unnecessary witnesses were called and an immense amount of time given to the proceedings. There had probably never been a Royal Commission, the delay in which had given so much dissatisfaction as the Vaccination Commission. It was a well known fact that Boards of Guardians took advantage of the appointment of the Commission to suspend all action under the Vaccination Laws, and the result was that in many cases the existing law had become a dead letter. The sitting of the Commission had been the means not only of putting an end to compulsory vaccination, but largely to ordinary vaccination, and much less vaccination had taken place than would have been the case if there had been no Commission sitting. He did not wish to detain the House, but he was bound to protest against this enormous expenditure.

called attention to the condition of Holyhead Harbour. He said that its proper development affected not merely local interests but the whole of the shipping trade of the western coast. The Liverpool Chamber of Commerce had more than once petitioned the Board of Trade for the removal of the Platters' Rocks, which, situated as they were at the entrance of the inner harbour, had long been felt to be a serious bar to the proper use of the harbour. When the wind blew from the south-west it was practically impossible for a largo sailing vessel to make her way into the inner harbour, the channel between the rocks and the breakwater being too narrow. Consequently, when the wind was in that quarter, there were a large number of vessels anchored in the outer harbour and the danger that arose from that was three-fold. In the first place the holding ground in this outer harbour was very bad; secondly, vessels in the outer harbour were exposed to a much greater force of wind, and thirdly, the vessels were anchored right in the way of the mail boats leaving for Ireland. Consequently a number of casualties had occurred. In one year there were no less than 15 or 16 vessels aground at the same time and many lives had been lost. No doubt it would cost a considerable sum to remove the Platters' Rocks, but the appliances for blasting were very much cheaper than they used to be, and he believed the débris removed could be made use of as a means of backing the breakwater. He appealed to the Board of Trade whether the time had not come when in the interest of the shipping trade of the western coast, these rocks ought to be blown up. He believed the London and North Western Railway Company once offered to clear the rocks away at their own expense if certain concessions were made to them by the Board of Trade. Those concessions had not been made, and the consequence was that the obstruction still remained. Between 2,000 and 3,000 vessels entered Holyhead harbour annually, and therefore it was of considerable importance that the harbour should be a safe one. It was an undoubted fact that the existence of the Platters Rocks, which were situated at the entrance to the inner harbour, made the navigation of the harbour very dangerous. In fact, so dangerous was it that when the wind was in certain quarters shipmasters preferred to run out into the open rather than try and enter the harbour. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade would give this matter his most serious consideration, with a view of ascertaining what could be done in order to get rid of these rocks, and to render the navigation of this important harbour safe. He was glad to see the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exche- quer in his place, because he was aware that the light hon. Gentleman had paid a visit to the harbour about the time that he held the office of President of the Board of Trade, and had made a very careful inspection of the harbour, and he understood that the right hon. Gentleman's impression at that time was that the Platters Rocks ought to be removed. The question was one of great importance, not only locally, but generally, and he trusted that it would receive the very careful consideration of the light hon. Gentleman who now held the office of President of the Board of Trade.

said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1892 had stated that a plan had been suggested by which the rocks could be partially removed at a small cost, so as to allow the smaller class of vessels to enter the inner harbour without danger, but it was said that that plan had received no local support. But the matter was one not of local interest only, but was of importance to the general Mercantile Marine. Between one-and-a-half and two millions of public money had been spent upon improving Holyhead harbour, and it was strange that, notwithstanding that expenditure, it was impossible for vessels on certain occasions to land cargo in the harbour. At a small additional cost the harbour might be made perfectly safe at all times. With regard to the mercantile necessities of the case, he might point out that there was absolutely no harbour of refuge between Holyhead and Milford Haven. He joined the hon. Member who had last spoken in asking the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to give his careful consideration to this very important matter. He had been informed that the London and North Western Railway Company had offered to contribute towards the expenses that might be incurred in blowing up these Platters Rocks. He trusted that the Government would take steps to remove this obstacle to navigation. ["Hear, hear!"]

said that he must entirely indorse everything that had fallen from the hon. Members opposite with regard to the danger to navigation that the existence of these rocks caused to the navigation of the Holyhead harbour. The proposal for the removal of these rocks had been made from various quaters. The Board of Trade had always recognised that this subject was of great importance, and already soundings had been taken with a view of ascertaining the amount of work that the removal of the rocks would require, and what that work would cost to perform. The estimate for the removal of the obstruction was £250,000, but it was a question whether some less expensive mode of operation might not be devised so as to allow vessels drawing 15 or 16 feet of water to pass safely into the inner; harbour. If he could obtain satisfactory information on the subject he should be glad to approach his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the matter with the view of ascertaining whether money would be forthcoming for the purpose of carrying out the projected improvement in the harbour. ["Hear, hear!"] Further inquiry had been directed to be made as to the proposal of the London and North Western Railway Company. He hoped to visit Holyhead harbour himself as soon as his other engagements would permit, and then he should be able to see for himself how the matter stood. ["Hear, hear!"]

called attention to the question of weather forecasts. The Board of Agriculture decided to publish weather forecasts in various districts during the hay and corn harvests as an experiment. They first selected two counties in 1893, then in the spring of 1894 the experiment was further extended, and forecasts were given in the counties of Somerset, Carnarvon, Ayr, Cambridge, York, and Haddington. Speaking for the county, part of which he had the honour to represent, he might say that general satisfaction was expressed by the farmers and others interested in agriculture at these reports, which were exhibited every day giving the probable state of the weather for the next 24 hours. The Report of the Meteorological Council for the present year dealt with this question, and expressed regret that the Board of Agriculture had not continued these forecasts, and pointed out that a proper appreciation of the valuable information given by the forecasts could only be arrived at by a somewhat continued experience. In answer to a question, the President of the Board of Agriculture threw cold water upon the proposal that further experiments should be made this year, on the ground that these forecasts would entail a cost of £4,000 or £5,000 for the whole of Great Britain, that people did not very much care about them, and that they were not of very much practical utility. He was quite aware that it took some time to get people to take sufficient interest in these forecasts, but it was no use saying they were a failure when they had only been tried a year or two. He was quite sure the right hon. Gentleman sympathised with every endeavour to assist the farmers of the country, and he thought it was worth while to continue these experiments in order fairly and honestly to test whether they were of real advantage to agriculturists or not. It should also be remembered that the Central Chamber of Agriculture had unanimously declared in favour of these weather forecasts.

called attention to the working of the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, which had received the consent of both parties in the last Parliament. It was an Act which ought to be of the greatest value in protecting agriculturists against fraud by means of adulteration, but he regretted to say that in a great number of the counties of England and Wales it was practically a dead letter. The reasons alleged for the failure of the Act by the Board of Agriculture and by the County Councils Association were very different. The President of the Board of Agriculture rather threw the blame upon the agriculturists who were not ready to take advantage of the provisions of the Act; the County Councils Association, on the other hand, rather cast the blame on the regulations that had been issued. He was aware that the Board of Agriculture had issued thousands of pamphlets with a view of giving farmers an idea of what the provisions of the Act were and what was the best way of carrying them into force, but the net result was that the Act was not used as it ought to be. He asked whether it would not be possible, by arrangement with the Board of Trade, to make the regulations for the working of the Act more simple in character than at present. He was quite aware that it was necessary to take certain precautions, but he did not believe that it was necessary to have regulations so complicated that a large number of County Councils would not avail themselves of the benefit of the Act. He urged that the forms and schedules which were sent by the Board of Agriculture to the farmers to be filled up should, in the Welsh speaking districts of Wales, be supplied in Welsh. At present the farmers in these districts were obliged to resort to the Minister, or someone else, for an explanation of these forms. It was also most desirable, that on the maps of the Ordnance Survey the commons should be marked in some way. Then there were a number of persons who desired access to the papers that were deposited at the Board of Agriculture relating to the time when the tithe commutation was settled. Those papers were not paid for by the central authority, but by the local authorities, and he thought it was very hard that, at least, representatives of the local authorities should not be allowed access to them, as was the case at present. He would venture to press for an answer on these four points.

hoped the President of the Board of Agriculture would take into his favourable consideration the question of the schedules.

thought that the importance of the weather reports to agriculturists had been exaggerated. They had practically received no representations on the subject since the experiment had been discontinued. He did not throw cold water on the idea, but he had to recollect that he should have to apply to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for £5,000 or £6,000, and then he had to consider whether this money could not be better employed than in circulating these forecasts. His own experience was that agriculturists cared very little about them. There were many other ways by which they could get the information without any difficulty at all. Besides, any individual or local authority could get the forecasts from the Meteorological Department on a small payment during the harvest. He was not prepared to hold out any hope that he should be able to apply to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. With regard to the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, he explained that, as the analysis might be the subject of criminal proceedings, he did not see his way to simplifying the procedure in taking the samples. As to the complaint from Welsh-speaking districts as to the forms for the agricultural returns not being printed in the Welsh language, this was the first time that the complaint had been made to him, but he should give it his personal attention. ["Hear, hear!"] He saw no reason why the difficulty should not be removed. As to the question of the inspection of documents relating to the tithe-rent charge apportionments, he had not received any specific complaints, but he should inquire as to whether there were any obstacles in the way of this inspection of documents which could properly be made public. He explained the difficulties in the way of carrying out the suggestion as to the showing of common lands as such on the Ordnance Maps.

said it was stated in the newspapers that Mr. Richmond had left the office and removed to an important position in connection with the Inland Revenue. It was of great importance that they should have the benefit of the experience of this valuable official.

said that by arrangement this Vote would be postponed.

19. "That a sum, not exceeding £14,918, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Public Record Office."

said that he wished to call attention to the Public Record Office with regard to Wales. There were in that office a multitudinous array of documents relating to the Principality—its history, its laws, its social life, and its customs. It was highly desirable that the Government should appoint a man competent for the work of arranging and classifying them in order to bring them to light. At the present moment, Wales and learning suffered a grievous loss because they lay all but unused. While Welshmen had in their country a splendid system of education, sad to relate, they had as yet no text-book on the history of their people, written in accord with the scientific and historic method, fit to place in the hands of students at their schools and colleges. The University of London had opened its doors for the admission of scholars to the M.A. degree, in part, for their proficiency in Celtic studies. Anyone who chose might read up books on the literature of Wales and its language, but none could possibly give fair play to its history. Wales stood in need of books written by scholars, with a sound knowledge of the Welsh language, who could satisfy the country with the results of a critical examination of facts bearing upon Wales at every epoch of its history. ["Hear, hear!"] It was true there were several books having pretentions of telling the country's story. It was but fair to say that, with one or two exceptions, their writers knew next to nothing of what they wrote; they were ignorant of the Welsh language, and lacked sympathy with the life of the nation. Some of them supplied great hunks of fancy mixed with homoeopathic doses of facts. [Laughter.] They treated place names—ancient and modern—with such carelessness as to utterly spoil their sense and beauty. [Laughter.] It was hopeless to expect a good text-book of history without first of all securing a competent man in the Public Record Office who should catalogue and calendar Welsh documents. The request for such a one was both moderate and reasonable. ["Hear, hear!"] If one were forthcoming to classify and index these records, and to make a précis of the most important of them, it would prove an unspeakable boon to the students of research, and not only to Welsh students, but to all who were cognisant of the extreme value of possessing a minute and an accurate knowledge of a nation's history, extending from the primitive times to its periods of civilisation. ["Hear, hear!"] This was not a Party question. ["Hear, hear!"] It commended itself to every intelligent mind, and he was glad to have the sympathy of every part of the House with him on the subject. ["Hear, hear!"] It was not a subject of interest to Welshmen alone, as was clearly shown by the evidence of so eminent an authority as Mr. Seebohm. Whilst engaged in writing his excellent book on "The Tribal System in Wales," Mr. Seebohm had to examine numerous Celtic manuscripts at the Record Office. He had been compelled to confess that he had to rest content with gleanings, that the harvest was beyond his reach, as he was unfurnished with the necessary knowledge to gather it in. He could not attempt to exhaust the rich materials which lay there for the writing of Welsh history, nor could their contents, he said, be rightly appreciated except by competent Celtic scholars. ["Hear, hear!"] He had to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury for the courtesy he had shown Welsh Members when they approached him privately on this matter. He ventured to make an earnest appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to prevail upon the Government to see the reasonableness of this request, and to grant it, for the sake of doing justice to the Welsh nation as well as for promoting the growth of an important branch of culture. He trusted the appeal would not be in vain. [Cheers.]

supported the case which had been put forward by his hon. Friend. In the Public Record Office there was an immense mass of documents relating to Wales which were entirely unindexed, and in this respect Wales had been a little hardly treated. This was by reason of the fact that there was no one in the office with the requisite technical and expert knowledge to deal with these manuscripts.

desired to co-operate with his hon. Friends in the laudable object they had in view, and stated that in this matter Welshmen of all shades of politics were unanimous.

said the desire of the Welsh Members on both sides for adequate treatment of the valuable historical records relating to Wales, of course, had the sympathy of the House. It was necessary, in the first place, however, to understand the facts exactly. In speaking of Welsh records it must not be assumed that these were records written exclusively in Welsh. No doubt there were a great number of Welsh manuscripts in the Welsh tongue, but these were generally private manuscripts, dealt with not by the Record Office, but by the Historical Manuscripts Commission. He frankly admitted that exactly the same treatment ought to be accorded to the Welsh as to the English records. There were two questions involved—one the question of calendaring, and the other that of transcribing. As to the former, manuscripts dealing with only one locality were practically arranged under the heads of the particular county or counties, and that applied to English and Welsh counties alike. So far as the general interest of the documents was concerned, nearly all of them were calendared geographically, and, therefore, the Welsh documents were fairly accessible to Welsh scholars. With regard to those which referred to more than one locality it was quite impossible to have a separate list, because they referred to England and Wales generally, but where a paragraph referred to Wales or a Welsh county, attention was drawn to the fact in a side note. So far as calendaring was concerned, the arrangement was satisfactory. With regard to the question of transcribing local manuscripts, the work of calendaring had been so great that practically no English or Welsh manuscripts were being transcribed at all at present. As to manuscripts of general interest, the officers of the Record Office said, and he thought with justice, that it was not so much their duty to transcribe these manuscripts as to calendar them briefly so as to enable them to be worked up by Welsh and English scholars. Welsh work did not suffer in any way from the fact of there not being a Welshman at the Record Office with expert knowledge of old Welsh. At the same time, while it would be impossible to make an immediate addition to the staff for this purpose, he recognised that the case was one which ought to be borne in mind. When the first vacancy arose the question might be considered whether it would not be well to put a Welshman into the office. He was very anxious to meet the wishes of Welsh Members, though a great deal had been done in the direction indicated. Resolution agreed to.

20. "That a sum, not exceeding £13,800, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Her Majesty's Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, and of the Office of Land Revenue Records and Inrolments."

called attention to the desirability of afforesting the Welsh hills. He knew there were certain common rights which would have to he extinguished before it would be possible for the Commissioners to attempt anything in the way of reafforestation, but he had been waiting in vain for them to take some practical steps in that direction. He believed it would be necessary to have legislation to reafforest the Welsh hills, and if that was the case, no Departmental Bill had so far been introduced. He had suggested that the difficulty might be met by means of purchase, and he thought that Wales had a right to some reinvestment of the proceeds of sales of Crown property in Wales itself. The policy of the Woods and Forests Department was described in the Report of the last Select Committee. Since 1851 £151,547 had been obtained from the sale of Crown lauds in Wales. On the other hand, the Crown had done nothing in Wales in the way of investment, except to pay off a permanent charge amounting to £40,000 on its estates, and to buy property to the value of £1,900. In England, on the other hand, the Commissioners had invested a great deal more than they had sold. They had sold land to the value of £2,492,000, while they had purchased to the extent of £3,172,000, or £670,000 more than their sales. In Wales, on the other hand, their purchases were less than their sales by £111,000. In these circmstances, Wales had a fair claim to say that, if it was necessary to purchase any property for the purpose of the work of reafforestation, the Crown had plenty of money in its hands, and that it could well be invested in work of this description. Private landowners had done a great deal of work in this respect lately, and it was a work which added not only to the beauty but to the wealth of the country. The Crown, however, could afford to do work of this kind better than private individuals, because private individuals could not afford to wait for the return of investments. If the Crown were to undertake the work of reafforesting a large portion of its property in Wales, it would find that the investment was of a remunerative character. This country did infinitely less than foreign countries in the work of reafforesting. We needed a great deal more timber than foreign countries. We paid £18,000,000 a year for the timber we imported from foreign countries, and in that sum he did not include wood pulp used for newspapers, or mahoganies, but only ordinary timber. The timber supplies were by no means inexhaustible, and some of them showed signs of very rapid diminution. Sweden was actually importing logs from America, and this fact showed the beginning of the end. If the Crown, therefore, were to undertake in Wales the work of reafforesting they would really be rendering a national benefit to the country. They would give not only a large amount of work, but that work would be given at the time when men were most out of employment. Owing to the policy pursued in the past Wales had lost the most valuable portion of the Crown lands. The vast wealth of the great mineral basin of South Wales had entirely passed away from the Crown, and the best slate quarries in North Wales had passed away in the same way. It had been said, he thought by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, that whenever a sale of Crown lands took place the local authorities would be consulted as to the desirableness of the sale taking place. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to say that wherever it was practicable, any property of the Crown which might be either sold or let should be put up to public auction. The Draperstown railway case showed how public property was sometimes sold, though he did not hint that any of the proceedings of the Woods and Forests Department were to be compared with that incident. But for the protection and the information of the public he thought that wherever it could be done this class of property should be put up for sale at public auction on ordinary commercial principles. In the past landlords had been appointed as stewards of Crown property to collect rents for themselves. He asked that this policy should not be adopted in. future.

pointed out that a Commissioner had been able to recommend the planting of plantations in certain districts in Denbighshire, and the result had been favourable. He should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman could give any information as to what had taken place in Denbighshire, and whether a further experiment would be recommended in Denbighshire and other counties in North Wales.

agreed that it was desirable to deal with Crown property in the manner indicated, and it had been his object in all sales of Crown lands to see that they were effected by public and open competition. In all cases where publicity was an advantage, publicity as a rule ought to be adopted. With reference to landlords who had been appointed stewards in the past, 1RS said, as a matter of fact there were only two landlords who had been appointed, and he was informed that they were not receiving rents; they were simply stewards of manors holding certain manorial Courts.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that in their case there were very considerable arrears of rent due.

thought that this was not so in the case of the two landlords he had mentioned. These gentlemen did not receive rents; they merely held certain manorial Courts in respect of enfranchisement and the copyhold. The receivers of rents were professional gentlemen. He thought that there was some misconception as to the power of the Crown in the matter of afforestation. The Crown held only a small amount of absolutely freehold land. On one part of it, he was told, considerable plantation had already taken place. But the bulk of the property of the Crown in Wales was subject to commoners' rights, and therefore plantation could not take place, without the commoners' consent, and it had been found very difficult to obtain it. By voluntary arrangement, therefore, it was next to impossible to start planting on Crown property, where there were sheep runs or which was subject to other common rights. The hon. Member, he understood, was in favour of giving the Crown special statutory powers; but they must remember that a sheep run was a very important part of a farmer's interest. It would be very hard to confiscate the right in order that afforestation might be undertaken. Even if compensation were given, hardship must be caused, as the farms would depreciate in value con- siderably if the sheep runs were closed. It was recognised at the Office of Woods and Forests that reafforestation would be very advantageous to Wales, but, as he had pointed out, the difficulties in the way could not be easily overcome. He would inquire whether in some cases the existing common rights could not be purchased by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, but he knew that in most cases these sheep runs were so closely connected with the farms that if they were closed to the tenants the farms would lose much of their value. Resolution agreed to.

said that he took it to be the duty of a Member to represent any grievances which were well founded of his constituents, and that this duty became more clear when one represented public employés. He had examined these grievances and he was of opinion that there was foundation and justification for them. There were, first, the grievances of the storekeepers and clerks, who maintained that they had not been treated fairly. They said that there had been unfair classification, and that the prospects held out to them when they entered the service had not been fulfilled. A large number of these men had entered the service after passing a special examination in respect of which they had paid fees amounting to £3. From announcements that appeared in the London Gazette, issued by the Civil Service Commissioners, the men were led to believe that they might expect to get a maximum salary of £400 or £450. As a matter of fact, however, they had no prospects whatever of obtaining this maximum salary under the present regulations. The great bulk of them could not hope for more than £200, and it was quite impossible for any of them to get more than £320, except in cases of exceptional promotion. Their classification, they said, was unfair. When they entered the service, in 1879, there were three grades. In 1886 these grades were increased to six, and in 1890 reduced to five. There were now, therefore, five different classes, and there were only two different sorts of work. The employés contended that there should be a reduction by amalgamation to two classes. The contention was that similar work entailing similar duties and similar responsibilities should have similar treatment. They wished to be put on the same footing as Second Class Clerks generally, with an upper and a lower grade. That change had been re-commended by the Commission of 1888. Another class of prison officials who wished for an improvement in their position was the warders. They ought to be treated as well as the London police, but in all important respects they were treated less well. The warders worked for 10½ hours a day, and for 6¼ days a week, whilst the police worked only eight hours a day for G½ days in a week. The warders' work was just as arduous, if not more arduous, than the; work of the police, and it was horrible work that they had to do, and often extremely dangerous. There was also a great difference in the manner of their treatment in respect of retiring allowances. A policeman joined the force at 21 years' of age, and after 26 years' service, at 47 years of age, he could retire on a two-thirds pension. A warder, on the other hand, entered the service at 24, and if he wanted to retire on a two-thirds pension he had to remain in the service until he was 64. The warders asked that they should be permitted to retire sooner—say after 30 years—with a pension amounting to two-thirds of their salaries. There had, he was glad to say, been a falling-off in the number of prisoners, but what had been the effect of that? It was that the country annually saved a large amount of money, and therefore was in a position to deal generously with the warders. He would like to refer to the Report of the Departmental Committee of this year, which was of very great importance. That Committee recommended, amongst other things, that there should be a greater increase in the productive labour in prisons, and that unproductive labour should, as far as possible, be abolished. He was glad to find that the Department were trying to follow that recommendation, but he would like to suggest that, in order to have productive labour, it was necessary to have proper trainers, and he did not think the trainers in prisons were good enough now. The storekeepers, who now had to give instruction, had quite enough to do without this extra duty, and it would be better to have technical instruction given by men with the technical knowledge. Then the Committee reported in favour of the appointment of men who had had experience in the management of prisons to governorships. That part of the Report was most important, and he thought that all connected with prisons thought that it was so. It was thought that those appointed to governorships should be men of practical experience. The Committee pointed out that there had been a large number of military and naval officers appointed since 1877, and they thought that a great improvement might be effected by appointing men of practical experience in the work, men who had worked their way up from being warders or prison clerks, or others who had worked in prisons, instead of Army and Navy officers. He was pleased to find that the Home Secretary had been following the lines here indicated and appointing to governorships men who had experience of prison life. He hoped he would continue to appoint from inside rather than from outside. He did not mean to press the Home Secretary for an answer on these subjects now, but he would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider them, especially, in the light brought to bear on them by the Report of the Committee. In the few months that lay between the end of this Session and the beginning of next, the right hon. Gentleman might well consider these questions, and he hoped that another year the House might be able to look to him for an answer.

said that, as he represented a constituency in which there was a considerable convict prison, he would like to add his testimony to the various grievances of the warders. The hon. Gentleman opposite had pointed out how arduous were the duties the warders had to perform. It was not merely the danger to which they were exposed, but there was also the unceasing vigilance which it was essential they should exercise, and in that respect their work was certainly more arduous than that of the police. There were two particulars in which the work was very severe, one was the night duty. There was this difference between night and day duty—namely, that whereas on day duty a warder had one half-holiday in the week, the night warder had no corresponding indulgence. It very often happened, too, that a man would be two weeks on night duty and one on day duty, and on one occasion of changing from night to day duty, a warder was most of the 24 hours out of bed, though he, of course, had a very short interval. The warders had petitioned the Home Office for a consideration of their wishes in regard to superannuation, and he had ventured privately to bring the matter before his right hon. Friend. They sent up a properly worded memorial, and, although they did receive an acknowledgment of it, they had received no reply whatever on the merits of their petition. That they considered rather a serious matter, and they very much desired to have a reply. He did not desire to take up the time of the House, but he earnestly hoped his right hon. Friend would devote all the attention he could to the subject, and would bring to bear the particular experience he possessed upon the matter, in order to see whether he could not better to some extent the conditions under which the warders did their work.

said that the general position of prison clerks and storekeepers had received the most careful attention, and it was his hope that a scheme which the Department had in hand, and which to a certain extent had received the approbation of the Treasury, without satisfying all their demands, would certainly increase the advantages of promotion, which, he agreed, they ought to have. With regard to the warders, their case was gone into by a Committee in 1891 and 1892, and all their proposals were most carefully considered, and, as the result, their position had been improved to some extent. He would be the last to deny that the warders had very re- sponsible and arduous duties to perform, and he could quite understand that they thought they ought to be put in a better position. His predecessor had made some recommendations to the Treasury upon which something had been done, and he himself had forwarded to the Treasury certain recommendations made by the Prison Commissioners and based on the demands of the warders. With regard to the question of making prison labour productive, there were great difficulties in the way. The moment prison labour was made productive it came into competition with labour outside. Still, he quite agreed that that was the direction in which a move should be made; and, in accordance with the Report of the Committee, a competent head man had been appointed to look after the industries in prisons and the teachers of those industries, and to see that the men and women in prisons should be employed not only in productive labour, but in labour which would be of advantage to them and lead to some useful work when they left prison. He had been blamed by an hon. Gentleman in Committee some time ago for appointing to an inspectorship of prisons a former prison governor. He submitted that that was a case in point of the argument of the hon. Member opposite—namely, that men of experience in prison matters should be promoted. The governor of Portland prison was a very good officer and strict disciplinarian, who had certainly earned the gratitude of the Government of the country for the manner in which he performed his duties, and when he appointed him an inspector of prisons, he not only made an opening in a lower post to be filled, but appointed as an inspector a man who thoroughly knew his work. He thought the argument was right that men in the prison service should be advanced as much as possible to important posts in the service. He could only assure the hon. Gentleman opposite and the noble Lord that he had not lost sight of this subject, and, although he was not in a position to fulfil all their hopes and expectations, he recognised the legitimate desire of the warders to improve their position, and he hoped he might be able to do something to effect it. ["Hear, hear!"] Resolution agreed to.

contended that the whole financial position in Cyprus was absolutely indefensible. This Vote was for a portion of £636,000 which was required to make up the deficit on the local budget. It was necessary every year to Vote large sums to make up the deficit on the Budget of the island; but it was not a real deficit. The island was able to pay the expenses of administration, but a large sum of money had to be paid over to Turkey as tribute, and it was a great grievance of the islanders that such heavy taxation should be imposed on them as was required to pay both this tribute to the Porte as well as the entire cost of the administration of the island, except so far as it was defrayed by this country. When the island was first occupied it was thought to be of such strategic importance to tin's country that, whatever arrangement might be made, it should be faced rather than that the island should be given up; but it was admitted now that the strategic importance of Cyprus was altogether exaggerated, and that was illustrated by the fact that the garrison of the island had now been reduced to a company of a regiment. If the trade accounts of the island were looked at it would be seen that the one thing we did for the island was to promote to a certain extent the growth of wheat there. The only purpose these annual grants served was that of subsidising the island in the growth of wheat. He now took the same objection to this Vote as he had already expressed on former occasions extending over many years past. He should leave his hon. Friend the Member for Warrington to deal with the question of tribute. ["Hear, hear!"]

said that his right hon. Friend the Member for the Gloucester Division of the Forest of Dean had referred in a brief way to the tribute paid by the island of Cyprus, and had practically left him to deal with the matter. The island of Cyprus was a small one, having a sparse population of some 210,000, who were not capable of raising any very large revenue. We had had possession of the island since 1878, and from that date to the present time there had been paid out of the tribute to the Turkish bondholders the sum of £1,450,998. During the same period the grants in aid furnished by this country had amounted to £6562,085. Under the Convention entered into between England and France with regard to the Turkish-Crimean loan of 1855, England was to be the paymaster, and was to render an account to France. The result of our taking possession of Cyprus was that we had made a fairly good profit ourselves, while France had made a large profit. The saving of France had amounted to £725,499, whilst the saving of England had amounted to £163,414. The amount put away for the so-called Sinking Fund, including interest, amounted to £140,000. During the period that we had had possession of the island the gross loss to it had been £1,590,998, while the net loss to the island after deducting grants in aid, which amounted altogether to £562,085, was £1,028,913, or nearly £5 per head of the population, or about £25 per family. The result was that one-third of the revenue of the island was taken away every year and was spent outside of it. He confessed that he should like to know what hon. Members representing Irish constituencies would say if Ireland were treated in a similar manner. It used to be said that the English flag brought justice to every territory over which it flew, but he could not say that it had brought justice to Cyprus. When we first took over the island it was said that we were about to give an object-lesson to the eastern world as to the result of good government, but that lesson had not proved a very instructive one. He was willing to admit that the administration of the law in Cyprus under our Government had been good and just, and that it prevented in justice being done between man and man, and that criminals were fairly tried, and fairly punished when convicted. But those facts did not justify this country in taking away such a large amount of the revenue of the island. The result of our action in the matter was that public works in Cyprus were greatly neglected. Although the islanders acknowledged that they were happier under the English flag than they were under the Turkish crescent, it must not be forgotten that we held it only by a leasehold tenure, and that, therefore, the islanders could not claim the advantage of being subjects of the Queen; they could if their island actually formed a portion of the British dominions. The majority of the population were Greek by language and by religion. He was perfectly aware that the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to send over an engineer to the island to consider the possibilities of irrigation, and he should like to know what was being done in that matter, and whether there was any chance in the future of one of the ports being made a free port, so that merchants might store their goods, and ship them in small quantities as they were wanted. He also wished to know whether there was any possibility of the Imperial Government doing anything to help the people of the island to build the railways which they needed, and to obtain a direct line of steamers between Cyprus and Egypt, so that once a week they might send vegetables and fruit into the Egyptian market quickly. The present service was practically useless for this purpose. He could not conceive that the island could be fairly called bankrupt, as it produced every year far more money than was necessary to carry on its own expenses. If they were to be told that it was morally or legally right that England should treat one of its colonies, because it was a small island, as the Spaniards used to treat their colonies in centuries gone by, he could not understand such a policy.

said that this was really a Vote in aid of the sum due under the loan of 1855, and not at all in aid of the revenues of Cyprus, which were quite sufficient to carry on the Government.

My right hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean appealed to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, as though they were in the same boat in this matter, but I think the discussion has shown that that is not at all the case. The solo object of the intervention of the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean was to advocate the immediate abandonment of the island. His view is that the island is of no advantage to this country, I understand; and therefore I assume that, by asking the House to Divide against this Vote, he desires to commit the House to the opinion that we ought to hand it back to Turkey, because it is perfectly clear that, without the grossest breach of international faith, we could not dispose of it in any other way. I can only say that, if that really be the view that he takes on the subject, I cannot believe he would be supported by many persons on his own side, who have been, as we know perfectly well in recent times, very much disturbed by the treatment Turkey has meted out to her subjects in other parts of the world. ["Hear, hear!"] Coming to the speech of the hon. Member for Warrington, I must say that his language must have been used without sufficient apprehension of its probable effect elsewhere. My hon. Friend says that Cyprus is a small and powerless island, and being, as he represents, in the possession or under the control of Great Britain, it cannot get justice. He says that this country cannot, unfortunately, be arraigned before the Courts, but that it has been guilty of an offence, at all events, against the moral law. He says that Cyprus ought at least to be found none the worse for the British occupation, instead of which, as he represents, it is worse off by the action of the British Government, and I am sure the impression produced by his speech will be that we derive large sums from it in aid of this payment.

I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon; I said not much better off.

Quite so, but let me say that, if that is true, a more discreditable series of actions on the part of successive British Governments cannot be imagined than that we should have taken over this country, and that we should have used brutally our force in order to extract from it money which it could not pay for our personal advantage—that we should have treated it, in the words of the hon. Gentleman, as Spain used to treat her colonies. If that were the case, my hon. Friend has disclosed a state of things winch is a disgrace to this country, and, as I say, to successive Governments. ["Hear, hear!"] But, if what he has said is inaccurate, then I cannot help saying that a speech such as he has made is really calculated to do a great deal of mischief—["Hear, hear!"]—because there is no doubt that the Greeks and other people who inhabit Cyprus are perfectly ready to accept as gospel, statements of this kind, and to assume that they are badly treated, and to be discontented in consequence. The real fact is that this island of Cyprus, which has been so badly treated according to my right hon. Friend, is £500,000 better off than it would have been but for the English occupation. That is the pecuniary result alone, and that £500,000 has been taken out of the pockets of the taxpayers of this country.

Oh no, it has not.

I am going to show that it is the case.

It is contested whether they ever paid in gold to Turkey anything like the tribute which they are now paying.

I am quite aware that everything is contested, especially by persons who are only anxious to be convinced that they are badly treated in order to base a further claim on the British Exchequer; but the arrangement was that they should pay after the occupation what they had paid before. An investigation with all the authority and information of the British Treasury was made. Our people had no object in raising the amount, but, on the contrary, their object was to make it appear as small as possible; and, having gone into the facts, they came to the conclusion that the average sum which they had hitherto paid to Turkey amounted to the same at which the tribute was finally fixed. Where is the hardship there? If this island had continued under the rule of Turkey, the whole of this amount would have been extracted from the inhabitants as it had been before, and not only that, but it would have been extorted from them by the means which we know are too frequently adopted in countries such as Turkey, in order to obtain the taxation which they derive from subject nations. ["Hear, hear!"] The island is infinitely better off pecuniarily in consequence of the acceptance of the control of this country than it would have been if it had remained under the control of Turkey. I do not say that the condition of the island is one upon which we may look altogether with satisfaction, but it is not our fault. I am perfectly ready to admit with my hon. Friend that the burden of the tribute is a very heavy one—it has been found too heavy for the island to bear; and the consequence is that we have undertaken to bear the burden of nearly one-half. When I came into my present office, I found that in accepting this burden every effort had been made to secure economies in the administration of the island, and I admit that I think that attempt has been carried too far, and that the economies were passed to a greater extent than was—I will not say just, but wise—both in the interests of the island and of this country, because it is in the interest of both that its cultivation should be developed in order that it may bear the burden of its heavy tribute with greater ease than it can at present. Accordingly, when this matter was last brought before the House I promised that I would investigate the matter and endeavour, in the first place, to secure a larger amount for the current expenses of the island; and, secondly, to see if something could not be done in the way of developing its resources, either by improved communications or by a system of irrigation. My hon. Friend has, I think, been misinformed when he says that the miserable sum of £4,000 was all that was allowed to be spent on public works.

On the average.

That is not the case. The real figures are as follows: In 1893–4, £11,942 was spent; in 1894–5, £9,917: in 1895–6, £7,900. The average of those three years was £10,000.

I mean the actual money spent on the works themselves, deducting expenses—excluding administration.

I am giving the actual expenditure on public works. What my hon. Friend means by expenses I do not understand; this is the actual money expended on public works in the island of Cyprus in the three years stated, and the average is £10,000 a year. But what I want to say is that for the present year, with the assent of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I have nearly doubled that amount, and the expenditure estimated for 1896–7 is to be £19,000. At the same time an additional grant has been given for education and for certain other necessary expenditure. Now, that is distinctly in the nature of what was called the other day, in the case of the island of St. Dominica, a compassionate allowance; it is an extra grant made from the taxation of this country towards the expenses and expenditure of the island of Cyprus. I believe it is justified, but, at all events, it is entirely inconsistent with the language used by my hon. Friend, not only as to the niggardliness, but as to the injustice of this country in dealing with the island. But, what I look forward to with even greater interest and hope, is the proposals which may be made for increasing the resources of the island; if those proposals can be successfully carried into effect it will not only benefit the island, but will have the result of relieving this country of its heavy burden, or of a portion of it. In view of that we sent out an engineer to the island, an expert who is well acquainted with irrigation in India, to report; his report has now been received—up to the present time I have not been able to look through it more than casually—but it is being carefully considered and examined in my office, and all I can say at present is that I am hopeful that good will result. Then there is the question of a line of steamers between Cyprus and Egypt, and I may say that I hope we shall establish a weekly mail service. As to the other matters referred to, they shall be carefully considered; and, as regards railways, I hope that, either by private enterprise or in some other way, railways will be made in the island. In the first place, the duty is to repair the roads and bridges, which is even of greater importance than the railways; and the additional sum which is now being granted in aid of public works will be mainly applied to this purpose. As to these matters, I hope we shall be able to give a better account in future years.

said he had inquired as to the licence for the sale of drink on the premises, but he had been unable to get any information. [Laughter.] There were five open liquor bars in the House, and it was not a proper thing that they should be carried on without a licence. There were at least four such places. He believed they were open to all comers, and therefore, in his opinion, the House of Commons was breaking the law by selling liquor to people without a licence. He would ask the Attorney General whether this was legal, and if he could say it was not illegal he would not divide the House. But otherwise, he would certainly take a Division, for, in his opinion, law-makers should not he lawbreakers. It must not be supposed that he made this Motion in the cause of temperance—[laughter]—because if he did so he should get little support. [Laughter.] He was quite aware that many Members on both sides would be unwilling to come there at all unless they were able to get those luxuries—[laughter]—but he did not put the matter on that footing. He raised the question in defence of law and order, and he thought he was right in doing so. Whenever he made a proposition it was said to him, "My dear fellow, you are quite wrong; the proper tiling to do is to see that the present law is enforced," and that was what he was doing now. He sought to enforce the existing law, and he simply moved the reduction of the Vote to give the Attorney General an opportunity of stating what was the law.

said the hon. Baronet had not quite satisfactorily stated the facts of the case when he said that anybody who came to that House was supplied with drink. That might be the experience of the hon. Baronet, but it was not in accordance with his own. [Laughter] He was not prepared to say that everybody who came into that building could get drink by paying for it, nor did he know how far the hon. Baronet and his Friends could get drink. It would be more satisfactory if the hon. Baronet would tell the House what conduced the mischiefs he desired to complain of.

said he was not speaking of an abuse, but of breaking the law.

said that, dealing with the abstract question, he did not say there were not some circumstances in which they might be called upon to interfere; for instance, if it were a fact that at those bars—with which the hon. Baronet seemed to have so large an acquaintance—[laughter]—it was possible for strangers to get drink who had no connection at all with the House it seemed to him quite possible that under such circumstances there ought to be the protection of a licence. If, on the other hand, only persons who really had a right to get drink—Members and their friends, for whom the Members paid—he doubted very much whether a licence was required. For many years there had been the sale of intoxicating liquors in the other House, yet the conscience of the hon. Baronet did not seem to have been troubled by the fact that noble Lords got drink without having a licence. He would confer anxiously on the subject with his noble Friend who presided with so much satisfaction over the Kitchen Committee, and he would occupy whatever time was necessary during the Recess in considering the matter. His labours would he assisted if the hon. Baronet would submit to him a statement of fact with regard to the facilities with which strangers could be supplied with liquor in the House. He thought his noble Friend the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee had been perfectly justified a few days ago in saying that the system under which liquor had been supplied in the House had existed for upwards of a 100 years, and as it had never occurred to anyone before that a licence was necessary he did not propose to make any change in that system on his own initiative. If the hon. Baronet wished him to look into the matter he would do so, for the question whether a licence was required for the supply of intoxicating liquor within the Palace of Westminster was, no doubt, one of considerable interest.

asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

called attention to the fact that the discussion of the affairs of the Transvaal had been delayed to this period of the Session, and complained that a promise made by the Government that, after the Blue-book had been issued another day should be given for the purpose had not been fulfilled. He had repeatedly asked for an earlier date, but on one plea or another the Colonial Vote had been put off to the last moment. Before making a few general observations on the subject he wished to deal with certain statements the Secretary for the Colonies had made during the past week, with reference to the two gentlemen—British subjects—who were then held prisoners in the gaol at Pretoria, and with reference to the obligations of the Government towards them. The Secretary for the Colonies had on several occasions denied that there was any obligation on the part of the British Government to intercede on behalf of those gentlemen. He had, indeed, gone so far beyond that as to deny that there was any promise of protection made to them by representatives of Her Majesty. Those gentlemen were at present in gaol because they were unwilling to address an humble petition to an alien Government begging for their release on certain terms which they deemed unworthy of them, and they affirmed—and it was practically impossible on good grounds to dispute their statement—that they received a distinct pledge of protection from the representatives of the British Crown. It would be in the recollection of the House that on Tuesday last the Colonial Secretary distinctly denied that any promise of protection was given to those gentlemen. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman went beyond this, because he said that Sir Jacobus de Wet, who was Her Majesty's representative at Johannesburg at the time when the pledge was made, distinctly denied that any such statement was made, and that it was clear that it was never made properly. At another time and in another place he said that the allegation was contradicted by both the High Commissioner and Sir Jacobus de Wet. He would remind the House that three gentlemen—all of whom are well known—had publicly affirmed that Sir Jacobus de Wet did make the alleged promise of protection to the Reform League. Mr. Lionel Phillips, a gentleman who was respected by all who knew him, and who had occupied a prominent position in the Transvaal for some years, wrote to The Times, on August 4, to the effect that Sir Jacobus de Wet, in the presence of himself and a large majority of the Reform Committee, promised that if the inhabitants of Johannesburg would lay down their arms not a hair of the head of any member of the Committee would be touched, and that no personal indignity, such as imprisonment, would be inflicted on them. Mr. Salter White, another member of the Committee, had on August 5th repeated the words of Mr. Phillips, and said those words were as nearly as possible verbatim as he had heard them from Sir Jacobus de Wet. Another gentleman, Mr. Bisset, had made a similar statement in the Public Press, and he (Sir Ashmead-Bartlett) was assured by gentlemen who were in every respect worthy of credence, that authoritative declarations to the same effect could be obtained from many other persons who heard the pledges given by Sir Jacobus de Wet. What did the Colonial Secretary do? He ventured to say that the right hon. Gentleman had taken a course as a responsible Minister of the Crown which was without precedent in the House. He told the House last Tuesday that Sir Jacobus de Wet distinctly denied having given those promises or made those pledges of protection. Every hon. Member present who heard the right hon. Gentleman must have understood him to mean that that denial was made on the strength of official information from Sir Jacobus de Wet. ["Hear, hear!"] He asked the right hon. Gentleman on Friday last whether his attention had been called to the statements of Mr. Phillips and Mr. White as to the pledge having been given, and the right hon. Gentlemen asked him to postpone the matter until Monday, so that he might be able to give the House fuller information. The only just inference surely to be drawn from that request was that the right hon. Gentleman was in telegraphic communication with Sir J. de Wet in order to obtain his authorisation for an official denial. When the right hon. Gentleman answered the question on Monday he was obliged to confess he was relying for the alleged statement of Sir Jacobus de Wet upon a letter in the Saturday Review. He doubted whether there was ever before au instance of a Minister quoting a representative of the Crown on the strength of a letter in a magazine, a weekly newspaper, or even in a daily newspaper, the authenticity of which had not been proved. ["Hear, hear!"] He now asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he had communicated with Sir Jacobus de Wet directly, and, if so, what reply he had received. A movement had taken place in the Transvaal for political, legal, and social privileges, and that movement was, according to the Dispatches of the right hon. Gentleman himself, thoroughly justified; it was a protest, to quote the right hon. Gentleman's own words, against an "Administration that was defective and corrupt." The movement was, so far as it possibly could be, a constitutional movement; and it was not until President Kruger had insolently and offensively rejected their petitions and bad threatened Johannesberg with violence under the famous metaphor of the tortoise, that the Uitlanders organised and, to a certain extent, armed. The action of Her Majesty's Government at the time of Dr. Jameson's raid laid them under peculiar responsibility to the people of Johannesburg. On the night Dr. Jameson's force was captured the Colonial Secretary authorised Sir Hercules Robinson to go from Cape Town to Pretoria to act as a peacemaker, and in his Dispatch to Sir Hercules Robinson on January 13th the right hon. Gentleman said:—

"The people of Johannesburg laid down their arms in the belief that reasonable concessions would be arranged through your intervention, and until these are granted or definitely promised to you by the President the root cause of the recent troubles will remain."

He went on to say it would be "the duty of Sir Hercules Robinson to use firm language." Those were admirable words, but for some mysterious reason which had never yet been explained the right hon. gentleman from that moment went backwards. Since then he had never endeavoured to fulfil a single pledge made by himself or his representatives, had allowed some 60 British subjects to be arrested and thrown into a most unwholesome and noisome gaol and kept there for weeks, and had then, without protest as far as was known, allowed heavy penalties to be imposed on the Reform leaders for their action in protesting in a constitutional way against a defective and corrupt Administration. What was worse than that was that, after terms had been arranged by local influence for the release of these British subjects thus treacherously and unjustly imprisoned, the right hon. Gentleman advised the only two prisoners who refused to bow the knee to the Boer Government to make an humble petition and to give a ridiculous pledge to the Boers. The Colonial Secretary was not ashamed to advise those men to sign such a petition in order that they might obtain the clemency extended to others. That was without precedent, and he could not think that, when it became understood, such action would be approved in the country. There was one other important point. Sir Hercules Robinson was the Queen's High Commissioner. He was sent down to obtain, according to the Dispatches of the Colonial Secretary, good terms for the Uitlanders. Sir Hercules Robinson sent Sir Jacobus de Wet to Johannesburg as his representative, and it was acting as his representative that Sir Jacobus de Wet made solemn pledges to the Reform leaders, about the reality of which there could not be the least doubt. The High Commissioner had previously paralysed the action of the Uitlanders by publishing the Queen's proclamation at Johannesburg, and by ordering the people to disarm. Such a step involved great responsibility on the part of the British Government. He had also appealed most solemnly to the Uitlanders to disarm in order to save the lives of Dr. Jameson and his comrades. That was a mistaken plea, but it was the High Commissioner's own fault that he had not found out the truth as to the terms of Dr. Jameson's surrender. ["Hear, hear!"] He thought Sir Jacobus de Wet had been very unjustly treated. Sir Jacobus de Wet bore a Dutch name, but he had always honourably represented this country in Pretoria. If the Dispatches were published, it would be found that the fault lay with the Colonial Office and not with Sir Jacobus. Notwithstanding the misleading and rather disingenuous statement of the right hon. Gentlemen as to Sir Jacobus de Wet and Amatongaland, it was a fact that Sir J. de Wet did warn the late British Government of the Boer designs upon the territories between Swaziland and the sea. It was owing to Sir Jacobus de Wet that the territories of Zambaan and the other chiefs were annexed to this country by the late Radical Government and the Transvaal was thereby prevented from obtaining a seaport. Thus a great danger to this country was averted, for if once the Boers had a footing on the sea coast they would invite some foreign power to plant their flag there. He, however, had been practically cashiered on a pension of £300 a year, yet the High Commissioner, who was sent to Pretoria to protect British interests, who absolutely failed to do a single thing for British interests there, but sat trembling in his lodgings during the whole affair, who showed the most absolute ignorance of everything that was going on, who knew nothing about the movements of the Chartered Company or of Dr. Jameson, who did not even take the trouble to inquire what were the terms of Jameson's surrender, who allowed the Boor Government to dictate the very conditions on which his aide-de-camp should interview the Reform prisoners, was promoted to the Upper House. He fully admitted that the conduct of Sir Hercules Robinson at Pretoria was a very great excuse for the failure of the Colonial Secretary to achieve some beneficial results for the Uitlanders. What had happened since January 13th? There had been no redress of the Uitlanders' grievances, and the right hon. Gentleman had apparently given up asking for it. His recent communications with President Kruger had been confined to apologies and explanations, which had followed each other with the rapidity of Maxim shot. At one moment he was apologising for sending an extra five hundred men to Matabeleland, and inviting a Boer officer to see that there were no more. At another he was explaining away his own Dispatches and accepting the most humiliating ultimatums from the Boer Government. At the next the right hon. Gentleman was informing President Kruger and the world that the Uitlanders had only suffered what they deserved for having dared to take up arms. [Ironical Opposition cheers and laughter.] The cheers for the right hon. Gentleman's policy always came from the other side; that was one of his greatest complaints against it. The right hon. Gentleman began his statement of Transvaal policy this year by an attempt to justify the infamous capitulation after Majuba. Ever since, his policy had been greeted with the cheers of the "Little Englanders" on the opposite Benches. He was, now abandoning the rights of British subjects in the Transvaal much as they had been abandoned in 1881. While on one side the right hon. Gentleman had pursued a policy of surrender, on the other side he had done his best, perhaps unwittingly, to aggravate Boer feeling and foreign feeling generally against this country. It was part of this new diplomacy and amateur statesmanship, which consisted in trying to adapt our Imperial and colonial policy to the momentary exigencies of the House of Commons without regard to tradition and consistency of national honour, that it should involve consequences the opposite of what were intended. The Uitlanders were now in a worse position than ever. They were practically helpless. The Boer population was armed to the teeth, and were much more difficult to deal with now than six months ago. The Orange Free State was also largely armed, and had made secret arrangements with the Transvaal Republic. Emissaries from the latter State had organised the Boer population even in Natal and the Cape Colony. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman meant well when he made his suggestion of Home Rule for the Rand on February 4th, but that suggestion and the most undiplomatic publication of that Dispatch before it was received by the Boer Government greatly irritated President Kruger, and made this country ridiculous in the eyes of the world. In his speech at the Constitutional Club on April 22nd the right hon. Gentleman denounced the Transvaal administration as defective and corrupt; that too, had an unfortunate effect on the Boer Government, and kept the prisoners longer in gaol. Why did he make that speech if he intended to follow a policy of universal surrender. Then the right hon. Gentleman must, on the same occasion, flaunt the Union Jack in the face of Foreign Powers and exasperate German feeling against us. There were facts connected with the Jameson raid and the attitude of Germany which might have justified a strong line in January on the part of the British Government—a line which would have been supported by the country. But at later periods it had always been most necessary to conciliate Germany as far as possible without of course permitting foreign intervention in South Africa. The whole of our relations with the Transvaal during the last six months had been one of the most deplorable episodes of our modern history. The right hon. Gentleman's policy had been marked by complete failure. He had failed to carry out the pledges of his earlier Dispatches. He had failed to obtain real protection for the Reform leaders or benefits for the Uitlander population; and he had failed to conciliate Boer feeling. In South Africa we stood in a position of the greatest danger, not so much from the arms of foes, as for the feeling of discontent, dissatisfaction, and disgust which had been aroused in almost every British subject throughout South Africa. It was hardly possible to find a man of British blood in South Africa, except for a few millionaires—whose policy was naturally from financial reasons quieta non movere—who did not speak in the strongest condemnation of the Government's policy in South Africa during the past six months. It had been hoped always that there would be some turn in affairs. Many hoped the Colonial Secretary had a marvellous plan concealed somewhere, which would be brought forth in due course. But this plan turned out to be like General Trochu's plan, it had no existence. Our position had steadily drifted from bad to worse. The right hon. Gentleman could not complain that he had been excessively pressed. He had been given practically a free hand throughout the past seven months. But failing any effort to defend and uphold British interests, he felt justified now in putting his sincere views before the House in regard to South Africa, and our immense interests there, interests which were of the very greatest importance, both for political and commercial reasons, to this country.

said that it was not for him to undertake the defence of the right hon. Gentleman against his infuriated follower. [Laughter.] But the hon. Member had done scant justice to the Colonial Secretary in attributing to him the unfortunate disruption of friendly relations between the Boers and the British. The hon. Member ascribed to the right hon. Gentleman all the consequences which had followed from the unfortunate raid. ["Hear, hear!"] But what he wished to ask his right hon. Friend was whether anything had been done, and. if not, whether he could promise that nothing should be definitely done to commit this country to a cable across the Pacific in the direction suggested by the recent conference. The cable had been recommended on military grounds, and if the Admiralty and the War Office considered it was wise to make the cable and contribute money towards it, he would not oppose it. But before it was too late he would like to suggest that there were other directions in which expenditure might be more profitable, especially from a military point of view. It was to be hoped that it would never be necessary to defend the Canadian frontier from not only a general attack, but from even a raid, for it was weak in a military sense, and the Militia of Canada had neither the number nor arms to defend it. The first cable that ought to be made ought to be, in his opinion, a line to Gibraltar and Sierra Leone and to the Cape, with a branch to Mauritius and from the Cape to Australia. That would pass along a line more traversed than the Pacific, and would be far more important from a military point of view.

who was received with cheers from both sides of the House, said: In answer to the last speaker, I do not know whether he entirely understands the position in regard to the proposed cable. The question is raised, as he is probably aware, at the instigation of the Governments of the Canadian Dominion and the Australian Colonies; and it was a joint proposal from them that an Inquiry should be held, in the hope, of course, that it would result in the laying of a cable to which we would be willing to contribute. Up to the present time there has been absolutely no pledge on the part of this country. All we are bound to is to institute an Inquiry as to the making of the cable, the best route to be followed, and, as a subsequent consideration, the proportionate amount of our contribution towards the cost. May I say, in regard to the suggestion of my right hon. Friend of an alternative route for the cable, that of course strategical reasons will have great importance in the consideration of matters of this kind. Hitherto, the British Government has never subsidised a cable intended solely for commercial purposes. Every subsidy hitherto has been justified by strategical reasons. But if we are to enter into a comparison between the Pacific line and the line suggested by my right hon. Friend, there is this to be said in favour of the Pacific line, that we should have large contributions towards its cost both from Canada and Australia, for that route is one which is very favourably viewed by both those great colonies. ["Hear, hear!"] Now I turn to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield. I say at once that I do not complain in the slightest degree of the attack which it has amused him to make upon me this afternoon. [Laughter.] I have been aware for some time, by the rather numerous questions which he has addressed to me during the Session, that he was anxious for an opportunity of expressing his dissent from the policy which I have had to announce on behalf of the Government. I am only sorry that the opportunity could not have been found for him earlier. But I hope that now that he has relieved his mind he will feel more comfortable. [Laughter.] I am sorry to say that I cannot follow him at length into his speech, partly because the greater portion of it was a violent diatribe and an exaggerated attack upon the Colonial Secretary, and partly because I do not think that even now the time has come to discuss fully the policy of this country in regard to South Africa. There are too many open questions still before us to make it possible for any one in my position to go at great length, or with any particularity, into the various difficulties that have presented themselves. ["Hear, hear!"] But I will deal with the personal question which the hon. Gentleman raised in the early part of his speech. He referred again to the case of Messrs. Samson and Davies, the prisoners in Pretoria. It is very difficult for me to add anything to what I have already stated in the very full reply which I gave the hon. Gentleman on this subject yesterday. What is the position of the hon. Gentleman? He asks me a question as to which, of course, I can have no personal knowledge, because the transaction referred to in the question occurred between the members of the Reform Committee at Johannesburg and Sir Jacobus de Wet. I can only give an answer on the information supplied me by Sir Jacobus de Wet and the High Commissioner. I gave the hon. Gentle- man yesterday an answer definite and conclusive, so far, at any rate, as a statement made by the High Commissioner and Sir Jacobus de Wet can be conclusive.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman—

No, I must ask the hon. Gentleman to hear me out. [Laughter, and general cheers.] After giving the hon. Gentleman that answer yesterday, he gets up again to-day and for twenty minutes he repeats the statement as if it were a proved statement—a statement that could not be denied by any one, although it is a statement absolutely denied by one of the parties to the supposed transaction. [Cheers.] On what grounds does he think the answer I made on the authority of Sir Jacobus de Wet is insufficient? Because he says it is an unofficial statement. I do not distinguish between a statement made by an official to the Government, and one made to the newspapers. ["Hear, hear!"] I do not understand that a man lies when he writes to the newspapers, and that he tells the truth when he makes an official ststement. [Laughter and cheers] If he is capable of lying in one case he is capable of lying in both. [Cheers and laughter.] Although it has not been in my power to communicate with Sir Jacobus de Wet, who is no longer a servant of the Crown, I have had the opportunity of communicating with Sir Hercules Robinson, and I have not the slightest doubt that in the statement made to him, Sir Jacobus de Wet has only stated what he firmly believed to be true—namely, that although when he was asked what would happen to those gentlemen he expressed his private opinion that nothing whatever would happen to them, he did not give them, for he could not give them, any pledge whatever on the part of the Government. Will the House bear in mind what was the course of these proceedings? In the first place, Sir Hercules Robinson was informed by the Transvaal Government that Johannesburg must lay down its arms unconditionally. That was the knowledge possessed by Sir Hercules Robinson when he sent Sir Jacobus de Wet to inform the Reform Committee of the demands of the Transvaal Government. Very well. The Reform leaders, after this conversation with Sir Jacobus de Wet, passed a resolution in which they said not a single word about protection or about having been influenced in their decision by promises in regard to themselves. The resolution says "That, having seriously considered the ultimatum of the Government, we unanimously decide to comply with that demand." They then go on to say that in coming to that decision they desire to secure the safety of Dr. Jameson, to advance the amicable discussion of a settlement with the Transvaal Government, and to support the High Commissioner. These are the terms upon which those gentlemen in their own resolution expressed their readiness to lay down their arms. But that is not all. The Transvaal Government were not satisfied with this resolution. They said it was a conditional laying down of arms, and, accordingly, they telegraphed to Sir Jacobus de Wet that the surrender must be unconditional. They rejected the conditions which formed part of the resolution of the Reform Committee as having nothing to do with the laying down of arms. After receiving this message the Reform Committee telegraphed, "We lay down our arms unconditionally." As I said yesterday, I do not want to impute to these gentlemen anything more than a misunderstanding. I do not doubt they are under the impression that they received something more than the mere statement of Sir Jacobus de Wet as to what would probably happen. But I can only say that in my position it is impossible for me, in view of the facts I have brought before the House, to doubt the word of Sir Jacobus de Wet when he said, "I did not pledge the Government; I only expressed my own personal opinion." [Cheers.]

Will you ask him?

The hon. Gentleman says, "Will you ask him?" I should think I would insult him if I asked him whether the letter he wrote to the Saturday Review was untrue. [Cheers.] That is the question the hon. Gentleman asks me to put to Sir Jacobus de Wet, whose praises he has been I sounding. [Cheers.] He makes a charge against me of having caused this valuable servant of the Crown to resign, and of then giving him a miserable pension of £300 a year. I have not a word to say against Sir Jacobus de Wet. But he was not forced to resign. His health suffered greatly during the last few months. I am speaking from memory now, and I do not wish to be held positively to what I say, but during four months Sir Jacobus de Wet was obliged on four separate occasions to absent himself from his official duties entirely owing to indisposition, and he himself expressed the desire to retire. He expressed the wish to resign to the High Commissioner, provided some arrangement could be made for a pension. He entered the public service when somewhat advanced in years. He served six years, and the terms of his appointment precluded any pension at all; but, having regard to all the circumstances and that Sir Jacobus thought he had done the best in his power for the interests of the British Government, I was able to persuade the Treasury to treat this case as entirely exceptional, and do what the Treasury had seldom done, and where the engagement contained no reference whatever to a pension, and therefore precluded it, to grant a pension of £300 a year. I think, under these circumstances, it is absurd to say I have been unfair to Sir Jacobus de Wet. There are two statements which have been put forward on behalf of the Reform leaders. The first is—made now for the first time—that they laid down their arms on a promise of personal protection to themselves. Per haps I ought to say that, to their credit, they have not put this forward themselves. We have not heard of it until recently. But the second statement put forward on their behalf is, that they laid down their arms on the understanding that Sir Hercules Robinson and the British Government would intervene to secure the rights for which they had been agitating. No pledge of any kind was given to secure those rights. But, undoubtedly, the High Commissioner has been instructed by me that the British Government are prepared to do everything in their power to acquire such rights as may be just and equitable-It was not a pledge for which these gentlemen laid down their arms. I cannot admit that for a moment. Having regard to the condition of Johannesburg when the surrender of arms was made, the British Government, without making a pledge, held themselves bound by friendly relations to secure that result. That I have been trying to do. But what is the alternative—the policy which the hon. Member would have put forward if standing in my place? We know what it would be. He would have sent an ultimatum to President Kruger that unless these reforms (which he would have specified) were granted by a particular day, the British Government would interfere by force, and then he would have come here and asked the House for a Vote of Credit of 10 or 20 millions (it would not matter which particularly) and sent an army of 20,000 men at least to force President Kruger to grant reforms in a State with which we had pledged ourselves repeatedly—not this Government, but previous Governments, by the vows of successive Secretaries of State—that we would have nothing to do. That is his policy. It is not my policy, and never will be. My policy—and I am not sorry that the Debate enables me to make it clearer—has since this unfortunate raid been to restore the state of things that existed before it, to restore the good feeling which was beginning to exist and had been created between the Dutch population on the one hand, and the British population on the other. Does not the hon. Gentleman see that, whatever may have been the grievances of the Uitlanders when the raid (which I believe even he does not defend) took place, there must have been a feeling of irritation among the inhabitants of the Transvaal, and common prudence demanded that we should give time for that to subside, and not base upon our own wrong a demand which would be even more unjustifiable. I say that has been my policy, and I believe it has succeeded. If I may trust the reports I get—and I get them from every quarter, I do not receive reports from one side only (my complaint of the hon. Member is that all his reports come from one side, I receive them from all quarters and all sides)—I think I am justified in saying that already there has been a considerable change for the better, and that, probably, in a short time we may be able to report a much more satisfactory condition of affairs. Meantime, these reforms, which the hon. Member thinks we have lost sight of, have been considered, and I think there is every reason to believe we are making considerable progress. What is the news telegraphed from the Transvaal within the last few weeks? That the Transvaal Government have passed a law, very much desired by the population of the goldfields, restricting the supply of liquor to natives, and that they have passed an education law by which children of every nationality are to be brought up at the expense of the State in the language of their own nationality; and a Bill is under consideration by which a new municipality is to be granted to Johannesburg, and, if the conditions upon which that grant is made are at all satisfactory, it will not be far from the suggestion of Home Rule for the Rand which has received the approval of the hon. Member. Although these reforms are not all the reforms for which the Uitlanders asked, or for which, in my opinion, they were justified in asking, it is a great experiment, especially if you take into account that these reforms were given at a time when feeling was much excited and there was a great deal of irritation. I think the hon. Member is too impatient. I do not think a policy of this kind, the carrying out of which must extend over a considerable period, should be judged at such a short interval on insufficient information. I hope, however, the House will be satisfied, at all events, with the general lines of the policy I have explained, and that it may be such as to justify their approval.

alluded to the promotion of Mr. D. C. Richmond, of the Endowed Schools Department of the Commission, to an important position in the Exchequer and Audit Department, and rejoiced that Mr. Richmond's eminent services had been rewarded. Like the office of the Local Government Board, the Department of the Charity Commission was greatly under-manned, and the public interest suffered in consequence. The delays of which complaints were sometimes made were not due to neglect or want of capacity, but because the staff was not numerically equal to the work imposed upon it.

complained that though the age for the admission of boys to reformatory and industrial school-ships had been raised it was still too low. Then there were general complaints that the British Mercantile Marine was being filled up by foreigners. There were 27,000 foreigners in the Mercantile Marine, whereas there ought not to be one. The Mercantile Marine were the great reserve of the Navy in time of war, so this became an Imperial question. The Manning Committee had suggested the establishment of Mercantile Marine training ships in all the ports of the country. It was much to be desired, but what he complained of was that no Minister of the day would bend his mind to make use of means at hand in the matter. Reformatory and industrial school-ships, if properly worked, would make up for much of the waste of life in the Mercantile Marine, and his object was to draw attention to the abominable way in which the ships were worked. He found no fault with the Committees or Captains, who worked hard to turn out good material with inadequate means. On the Mount Edgcumbe the stall' had been reduced from 12 to seven, and on the Southampton from 14 to eight. He desired that the ships should be filled up to their proper complement, instead of being so much below their strength. One ship which had accommodation for 500, had only 250 on board. He objected to the system of Magistrates committing to the ships, as they were not always the best judges as to the boys who were most fitted for sea life. He urged that the different training-ships should be affiliated to the land schools, and that boys from the hitter should be allowed to volunteer for the training-ships, provided they were physically fitted for sea life. Boys should be allowed to volunteer at 14, be trained till they were 16, and then sent to sea. At present boys wont on these ships at 12, and a considerable number of them were under 12. He considered that this was too young, and that they should not be allowed to enter until they were 13, only healthy boys who could bear the hardships of sea life being taken from the land schools. At present not more than 46 per cent. of the boys trained on the ships afterwards went to sea. They were trained at great expense and afterwards left the sea for land, thus flooding the labour market. Matters for the last five years, from 1891 to 1895, had been even worse than for the previous five years. In the previous five years there were discharged to the shore the supposed as unfit for sea life) 1,206 boys, and 2,800 were sent to sea. What was the return of the last five years? 2,073 were discharged to the shore, and only 2,500 sent to sea. The matter was going from bad to worse, it was high time it should be dealt with, and he had shown how it was possible to make these ships supply the great waste that was going on in the Mercantile Marine. There was one ship which deserved to be honourably mentioned, and that was the Wellesley in North Shields, where there was a good land school in connection with it. The Wellesley took no boy who was under 14 years of age, and she sent her best boys to sea instead of discharging them to the shore. He thought the whole question ought to be considered by the Departmental Committee which had been sitting for a year or two. He urged that these training-ships, to be of value, should be affiliated to the land schools, from which the supplies should be taken, instead of from magistrates' commitments, and that only boys physically fit should be selected. If these recommendations were carried out good would result from this large expenditure of money, whereas a large portion was now wasted, only 46 per cent. of the boys going to sea.

thought it was rather hard that the hon. and gallant Gentleman should find fault with the Home Office for not supplying a reserve to the Mercantile Marine of this country. He was not concerned to deal with the Report of the Manning Committee. He scarcely knew what that Report advised, but he did not think part of their recommendations was that the reformatory and training ships of this country should be the main source from which they should look for the extra reserve supply of seamen for the Mercantile Marine. There could be no doubt that these ships were established not directly by the Government, but by philanthropic persons, in the hope that both from the industrial as well as from the reformatory side boys might be taken into the Navy or into the Mercantile Marine. He agreed with the hon. and gallant Gentleman it was a matter of regret that so very few boys had left these institutions for the service of the Queen, or of the Mercantile Marine, or the Army. Those interested in such institutions would, he was sure, only be too glad to use every effort to see that the boys from reformatories or industrial schools should either take to the sea or join the Army. A Departmental Committee had been sitting for a year or two, and he imagined that one of the subjects they would have considered would be whether these ships could be affiliated to the schools on land and made more efficient. The Report of the Committee was not yet in his hand, so that he did not know its tenour. He would be very glad to have any suggestions from the hon. and gallant Gentleman on this subject, the importance of which he fully recognised.

would like to point out a fallacy running through the argument of the hon. and gallant Admiral—namely, that all these boys who were in ships and who did not go to sea were discharged because they were unfit to go to sea. That was not the real ground. They were discharged because either the boys themselves did not wish to go to sea or their parents objected to their going. These industrial and reformatory schools did not undertake to send the children into professions which the parents did not desire for them, and if the parents thought they could do better for the children than by sending them to sea they did not send them.

They ought not to go to the ship.

said they must take their chance of that. A boy was sent to a ship as part of the training and discipline of the school. On the ship he received certain instruction to enable him to go to sea, but if he did not want to go to sea, and his parents did not want him to go, he did not go, however fit he might be. He did not say that the affiliation which the hon. and gallant Admiral spoke of was not worth consideration, but he would not seriously alter the matter. He might fill up the ship, but when he had filled up the ship he had no security whatever that the boys would go to sea. The hon. and gallant Member must remember that there always would be a large percentage of those boys who, having been trained for the sea, would not go to sea, just as there were a large number of Her Majesty's subjects who did not prefer to go to sea, and, unfortunately, they were an increasing number in this country. That was really the cause why it had become worse. It was because parents were less and less disposed to send their boys to sea. The hon. and gallant Member must not suppose that there was any power in those who had the control of industrial and reformatory schools to increase the number of boys who went to sea contrary to the wishes of the children or the parents.

said he moved the reduction of this Vote in order to afford the House an opportunity of protesting against the action of the present Government in restoring the grant to King's College, after it had been withdrawn by the late Government, and withdrawn with the sanction of the late Parliament. He had not a word to say against King's College as an educational institution. It probably deserved all that was said of it for its efficiency and usefulness; but, so far as a right to share in a Parliamentary grant was concerned, it was open to the fatal objection that it was a distinctly sectarian institution. All the other colleges participating in the grants given under this Vote opened their doors freely to all professors, teachers, and students without imposing upon them any theological or ecclesiastical tests; but at King's College no person who was not a member of the Church of England was competent to fill any office, except the Professorships of Oriental literature and modern languages. To quote from a speech of Lord Herschell in the House of Lords a few nights ago—

"Under the system now pursued at Kind's College, a now Professor, though of the highest possible capacity, must be set aside if he is a Presbyterian, for instance, in favour of one of far less capacity and reputation, because he is not a member of the Church of England."

And that the practice of the College corresponded with the theory was shown by the letter of a civil engineer which appeared in the Daily News a short time ago; the writer stating that he had been a student of the College, and wished to become a professor of engineering, but was informed that he could not be appointed if he were not a member of the Church of England. Now that was distinctly opposed to the policy adopted by Parliament when, after a lengthened agitation, it passed the University Tests Act of 1871, which enacted that—

"No person shall be required to subscribe any article or formulary of faith, or to make any declaration, or take any oath, respecting his religious belief or profession" or "to belong to any specified denomination."

The exclusive character of King's College was not only opposed to the principle of that Act, but it had been condemned by authorities of great weight on purely educational grounds. This was a passage contained in the late Duke of Devonshire's Commission on scientific instruction:—

"With regard to King's College, we would further suggest that the College should apply for a new Charter, or for an Act of Parliament, with a view of cancelling the proprietary rights of its shareholders, and of abolishing all religious restrictions (so far as any such exist) on the selection of professors of science, and on the privilege extendings to students of science. We consider that any grant of public money which may be made to King's College should be conditional on such a reconstitution of the College as should effect these objects."

The Commissioners were not opponents of King's College, and certainly were not opponents of the Church of England; for they included, besides the then Duke of Devonshire, the Marquess of Lansdowne, Professor Miller, a Professor of King's College, Professor Stokes, and Sir John Lubbock. This weighty advice of the Commissioners was not taken; for, when King's College obtained its new Act of Incorporation, these restrictions were not, as they then might have been, removed, but the authorities of King's College deliberately resolved that it should remain a denominational institution. The question might be asked, How came King's College to become a recipient of a Parliamentary grant? and that brought him to the Parliamentary history of the question. The grant neither originated with, nor received the saction of this House. In 1889 Parliament voted a lump sum for universities colleges in Great Britain, and the then Government appointed a Committee of four persons to advise them as to the best mode of distributing the grant, and they recommended its distribution for the next five years among 11 colleges; one of them being King's College, and the amount allocated to it being £1,700 a year. In 1892 a second Departmental Committee was appointed to report as to the results of the grants, and to consider whether they should be increased, diminished, or withheld. The Report of that Committee contained this very significant addendum, which was signed by the present Member for the University of London and by Sir Henry Roscoe, formerly a well-known Member of this House:—

"'We have not dissented from the recommendation of the Committee that King's College, London, should be included in the grant to university Colleges, because we understand that questions of general policy have not been referred to this Committee. But we desire to record our view that King's College, being by its constitution a strictly denominational institution, so far as relates to its governing body and its teaching staff, stands in a position differing from that of the other Colleges dealt with in this Report; and we reserve our own freedom of action on the subject, as Members of the House of Commons, in case the question of the right of King's College to participate in the grant should hereafter be raised in Parliament.' "

When this Report appeared, he called the attention of the House to the subject, and the late Government promised to take it into consideration. The result was that, when a third Departmental Committee was appointed, they were instructed that they would—

"be bound by the principle that a share in the grant cannot be for any college in which any denominational or religious tests are, or can be, demanded from, or are applicable to, any member of the teaching staff (other than theological teachers), or any of the students."

But while the Committee necessarily reported against the continuance of the grant, they acted with the greatest consideration towards King's College, for they further reported as follows:—

"The Committee, bearing in mind that it is not improbable that King's College may take steps to remove the denominational tests which now apply to most of its chairs, have thought that, without finally excluding it, the principle laid down in the last paragraph of the Terms of Reference may be carried out, by provisionally retaining King's College in the list for a grant of £1,700, contingent, however, upon its removing the tests from all its teachers (other than theological) within the present year."

This was a second, and still more serious warning to the authorities at King's College to bring the institution into harmony with the liberal spirit of the times—[ironical cheers]—but what had they done? They first of all resolved to abide by their narrow constitution, and therefore to abandon the grant. Then they appealed to the supporters of the College to either raise an additional £3,000 a year, or £100,000 as an endowment fund. But their supporters did not appear to be willing to pay so high a price for the retention of ecclesiastical tests; for after repeated appeals during many months, he believed that only about £25,000 was promised. Then came an event which had proved a most fortunate one, not for King's College only, but some other vested interests also. The present Government came into office—[Ministerial cheers]—and forthwith King's College appealed to the new Government to undo the work of its predecessors by restoring the grant. And they complied with the request so promptly that as early as the 3rd of October last there was adopted a Treasury minute which, without assigning any reason for adopting such a course, stated that "My Lords have decided that the College may be placed in enjoyment of its share of the grant next year without stipulation as regards tests." So, unless the House saw fit to adopt the Amendment which he was about to move, King's College would keep its grants and keep its tests also. Not only so, but it was likely to draw more money from the national Exchequer; the Government having appointed a Committee to consider the advisability of increasing the amount annually voted to university colleges. He protested against such a reversal of a policy which had been deliberately sanctioned by Parliament, and which was, he believed, in harmony with the opinion of the country, and in the hope that the Committee would respect that opinion and maintain a liberal educational policy, he moved that the present Vote be reduced by the £1,700 proposed to be voted to King's College.

said that in August last he drew the attention of the House to the rescission of the grant to King's College, and elicited from the Secretary of the Treasury the promise of its renewal, which had since been fulfilled. ["Hear, hear!"] He reminded the House that the hon. Member who had just moved the reduction admitted he had not a word to say against the utility of King's College or against its educational efficiency, which was tested by special inspection under the direction of the Treasury, as a condition of the grant. Yet King's College had lost through the action of the late Government in two years £3,000, which went towards its educational work in science and art alone, for this was the most costly of all instruction, owing to the expense of apparatus, etc. Now, he defended the grant on the ground of the service which King's College rendered to the State. ["Hear, hear!"] The necessities of the State required that this grant should be made. Why had it been refused? On principle—because it was a Church of England institution! A French Statesman once said, "Perish the colonies rather than principle!" In this case to refuse this Vote would be to proclaim a principle and at the same time to do that which was unjust to the institution and disadvantageous to the State. This was no principle, but a want of principle, against which, in the name of principle, he protested. ["Hear, hear!"] His hon. Friend had also appealed to the policy of Parliament and to precedents. But was he right? Parliamentary grants were made to elementary schools, and yet they were distinctly, in many cases, denominational institutions, and both sides of the House now conceded that more must be given to them; and the same remark applied to the grants to the training colleges and to denominational colleges in Ireland. ["Hear, hear!"] What was done at King's College, moreover, was done under the authority, and according to the requirements, of its Act of Parliament, and, therefore this expressed the policy of Parliament qua King's College. ["Hear, hear!"] King's College had now, as many of them on its Council had long demanded, a conscience clause, and he hoped this improvement would be followed by others; though, perhaps, the conscience clause might be ultra vires the King's College Act of Parliament. For he was ready to admit, as a friend of King's College and a former member of the Council, that he thought the theological tests imposed were unwise and wrong, and he and several others had resigned from the Council rather than, in the interest of the College and education, be parties to the continuance of them and to other things. ["Hear, hear!"] The staff, too, had been much opposed to them. He thought that what was good enough for Oxford and Cambridge was good enough for King's College. ["Hear, hear!"] To that extent he agreed with his hon. Friend opposite. More than that, he knew the tests were illusory, and they tended to exclude the conscientious and admit the unconscientious or indifferent. [" Hear, hear!"] He could, for instance, name one Professor who was tried for heterodoxy as a Professor, but he became a teacher in the College, the tests notwithstanding. But in his opinion his hon. Friend exaggerated somewhat the practical effect of these tests. He knew of no case of real exclusion by reason of them, though he had been told they had occurred, and, if it were so, it was, of course, of serious moment educationally. ["Hear, hear!"] And he was of opinion that when King's College, as it did, forewent the tests in the case of its teachers of foreign and Oriental languages, it surrendered the whole case for the tests so far as the secular, as distinguished from the theological, departments were concerned. ["Hear, hear!"] But while making these concessions, he still defended the grant on educational grounds and for the State. ["Hear, hear!"] In this country we needed much greater provision for the higher scientific and secondary education. The two years' arrears of £3,000 ought, in fact, to be paid, and the grants to the University Colleges ought to be at least doubled, as had been recommended by a Committee, [Hear, hear! "] Vast branches of trade were actually being diverted from our country, and there was great difficult)' in keeping our commerce owing to the want of higher scientific and art instruction, to say nothing of higher personal considerations and of individual happiness and power. In many instances we were following upon instead of leading other nations In Germany, since the war, they had restored the University of Strasburg, which had cost £800,000 and which had an income of £60,000 or £70,000 a year, and each of the eight departments of which was larger than the very best modern university college that could be named in this country. He thought he might say that the fees paid by the whole of the students at the German universities were in it more than were paid in fees at King's College and University College alone. Only the other day at the Society of Arts they had to offer a prize as an inducement to the study of photogravure, because it was found that pictures were being sent out of this country to be reproduced in Germany, and they advisedly concluded that this was due to the defect of scientific and technical education. In many chemical and metallurgical processes we were much behind our German competitors. In France, in Paris, at the University, many were holders of perfectly free and open studentships, and the total cost to each student of education in science each year did not exceed £5. Hence in Paris the university had nearly 18,000 students, and crowded class rooms, while 2,000 went out annually in law, compared with our five-and-twenty LL.B.'s at the University of London. What we wanted here was a university which was in accordance with the type and requirements of the day for a great commercial community, and not merely starved and limited colleges. In Scotland, for example, £42,000 a year was given in aid of university work, and last year £13,000 was given for the purpose of university buildings in Aberdeen. In Wales £44,000 was given, while in England only £15,500 was given for the university colleges, which were doing such good work for our manufacturing and other districts. So far, therefore, from reducing or refusing this grant, they ought really to increase it. The teaching work of the Metropolis ought also to be coordinated, and, by joint arrangements between King's, University, and other Colleges, much economy of both pecuniary and educational effort might be effected, and with more liberal aid, we might emulate the national and international success of Gresham College, during the time when our commerce was being built up, which was crowded out with students and led to the foundation of the Collège de France. [Cheers.]

referred to a special grant made last year for Newfoundland and expressed the hope that the matter was closed. As to the West India Islands, he said that last year the Colonial Secretary suggested that probably it would be his intention in future to make certain proposals with regard to the development of the resources of the islands. The prosperity of the islands was increasing, and a very considerable increase of trade, on the whole, had taken place in the last two or three years. He hoped that this progress would be continued; but the systems of government in those islands were varied and not altogether satisfactory. About a half of them either had a nominated system of government or a joint system of nomination and election, and there were several islands in which there was a representative element. But local circumstances in the different islands did not explain that variety of representation, and he suggested whether the Colonial Office could not see its way to introduce the elective element more largely than at present and to follow the example of Martinique and Guadeloupe.

said that the question was a large one which could not be entered fully into now. He could not altogether accept his right hon. Friend's statement as to the state of prosperity in the Windward Islands; but undoubtedly the sugar industry, which was of the greatest possible importance to them, was in a very precarious position. By extending the number, differentiating the quality and character of the productions in those islands, there might be hopes of finding another industry which would restore them to their old condition. As to the comparison suggested between the French islands and our own, he did not feel himself to be in a position to follow that subject up. He was advised that the institutions in the French islands, though apparently on the surface called liberal, were nevertheless so limited by official and other restrictions, that the home Government, and above all the authority appointed by the home Government, retained in its hands a very large amount of control—larger, in fact, he was assured, than some which was governed as a Crown colony. The constitution of those islands differed materially, but if he were asked to say which constitution was the best he should hesitate to say. To speak of an elective system of representative Government as though it meant what we understood it to mean in the United Kingdom was absurd; in the West Indian Islands it meant nothing of the kind; it meant a Government by oligarchy. It was not proposed by any persons interested in those islands that a representation fair, full, and equal should be given to the coloured population. As long as that was the case it was absurd to speak of representative government. What those gentlemen meant was that the voting power should he given to a small portion of the population only. As a matter of fact, the interests of the majority were at present represented by the Colonial Office. He thought in some cases the liberality of the constitution had gone too far, as for instance, in giving too much power to the oligarchy as opposed to the disinterested control of the Colonial Office in the interest of the population.

thought that the Committee were entitled to some explanation as to the object of this clause.

said that the clause was intended to extend the powers now possessed by the Secretary of State to make regulations for the protection of wild birds, the existing powers not being sufficient in certain parts of the year. The clause merely proposed to extend those powers over a further period of the year.

asked whether the clause included under the head of wild birds other birds than those defined to be wild birds by previous Statutes?

replied in the negative.

moved to insert, after the word "borough," the words

"and any expenses incurred in a county borough under this Act shall be defrayed out of the borough fund or borough rate."

said that this clause appeared to make an important alteration in the last Wild Birds Protection Act. Perhaps the hon. Member in charge of the Bill would say why it was proposed to make that alteration.

said that it had been found necessary to increase the punishment of old offenders against the Act.

said that, unfortunately, the majority of offenders against the Act were young people.

said that the clause merely authorised the seizure of traps, nets, etc.

said that the Bill would inflict the same punishment as to seizure of traps, etc., upon young as well as old offenders.

thought that it would be better to withdraw the clause altogether.

asked leave to withdraw the clause.

moved to add to the clause the words—

"And any expenses incurred in carrying this Act into effect in Ireland shall be defrayed out of the poor rate."

said he had no objection to the Amendment.

said the clause at present provided that these expenses should be defrayed out of the grand jury cess. The grand jury had nothing whatever to do with the poor rate, and they surely could not impose such an expenditure upon them. The boards of guardians had to do with the poor rate.

hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not make this Bill contentious. [Laughter.] He submitted that it was only fair that the landlord should pay half the amount. ["Hear, hear."]

having put the question that the words proposed should be added,

, seated and with his hat on, said that if these words were omitted the clause would not work.

Order, order! That is not a point of order.

The Committee have the right to decide the question submitted to them.

On the point of order, Sir—

Order, order! Put your hat on. [Laughter.]

, amid general laughter, passed the hon. and learned Member a hat.

, seated and with a hat on, said that as be understood the Amendment it was to substitute for the words "grand jury cess" the words "poor rate." If that was so the Committee would be in a very difficult position. [Cries of "Order!"]

, seated and with his hat on, submitted that this was a matter for Debate, and not a point of order.

said that as he understood the Amendment it would be open to the Committee to strike out the words "poor rate" and to insert the words "grand jury cess" by a subsequent Amendment.

moved that Progress be reported. [Cheers.] The conduct of the Government had not been fair. They intervened in a Bill which was not a Government Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had robbed Ireland of three millions—[a laugh]—opposed their getting a division of the rates between the owner and the occupier. He held that the Government had no business to interfere. It was not their Bill. Why should the whole rate be placed on the unfortunate farmer, who had dothing to gain by this Bill?

said it was distinctly understood that Bills of this kind which were to be advanced were to be of a non-contentious character. According to the decision which had been taken, no expenses could he provided for under the Bill from any source. The words proposed to be altered were—

"And any expenses incurred in carrying this Act into effect in Ireland shall be defrayed out of the grand jury cess."

The proposal was to strike out the words "the grand jury cess." ["No!"] Let them know how the question stood. How was the question put?

That—

"any expenses incurred in carrying this Act into effect in Ireland shall be defrayed out of the poor rate."

["Hear, hear!"]

Quite so; they had negatived the words, and they could not put in poor rate or grand jury cess. There was no provision for expenses, and, therefore, it was not worth while to proceed with the Bill. [" Hear, hear."] It was quite plain that, having got into this impasse, the Government ought to accept the motion to report progress.

said that the Leader of the House, who was absent for the moment, had said that these Bills were only to be proceeded with if they were non-contentious. As a point of contention had arisen it would be better to accept the motion. [Cries of "No!"]

said that the contention could be settled by leaving Ireland out of the scope of the Bill. The Measure was mainly intended to deal with a nuisance in Middlesex and the other home counties.

said that he should not oppose that proposal, but he should like to hear a statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer before withdrawing his Motion.

said that he had endeavoured to prevent the Bill from being turned into an absurdity. [Mr. HEALY: "Everything in Ireland is an absurdity."] The proposal of the hon. Member was to intrust the power under the Bill to the grand jury, and to place the expenses on a rate over which the grand jury had no control. The Government had no objection to Ireland's being struck out of the Bill.

said: The hon. and learned Member for North Louth has on the Paper an Amendment to the Government's Motion to the effect that the Committee do consist of 17 members. I think it would he better if he moved that first as a separate Motion.

moved, "That the Select Committee on British South Africa do consist of 17 members "He had no wish to raise any contentions. Put it would not be contested that the subject under consideration was one in which the Irish Members had a valid ground to intervene. The question of Africa was one in which they had taken an interest for very many years; and the question of the treatment of Catholics in the Transvaal greatly concerned them. In any committee of 15 members on a subject in which the Irish Members were interested it had always been considered that the Irish Party were entitled to two Members. The hon. Baronet, who proposed to give the Irish Party only one Member, no doubt did so in a fair spirit; but no other Committee likely to be appointed for a very long time to come would have the same amount of importance for Ireland as this. The Boers were absolutely opposed to any concession to the Catholics. They refused to allow a Catholic to act even as a scavenger in Pretoria, and while he admired the gallant stand of the Boers—

Order, order! The only question before the House is whether this Committee shall consist of 17 members. [Laughter.]

Yes, Sir; and with all submission to your ruling I was going to suggest a reason why the Irish Members as Catholics were entitled to more than one member on this Committee.

The hon. Gentleman is certainly entitled to go into that question, but not into the opinions or action of the Boer Government. [Laugher.]

said that perhaps he had wandered somewhat from the point. But he held that in a Committee of 15 members the Irish Party were entitled to two members. They had only one on this Committee, having lost the second member owing to a concession made by the hon. Member for East Mayo to the Opposition, and that being so, he thought the best way out of the difficulty was to enlarge the Committee to 17 members.

said the hon. Member for North Louth was slightly wrong in his arithmetic. The Irish Party in their present position were not entitled to two members on a Committee of 15. Time was when they were 85 men of one Party, and when their right to two men out of 15 was recognised. But now the Irish party for whom he was entitled to speak consisted of 71 members—

May I say that I spoke for Irish Nationalists of all sections? [Laughter.]

I wish the hon. Member for Louth could speak for Irish Nationalists of all sections.

Can you? [Laughter.]

I "was just going to say that I cannot. But can the hon. Member for North Louth?

I agree with every word he said. [Laughter.]

said that, unfortunately he could only speak for 71 Irish Members, and as such, on a Committee of 15 members, he was only entitled to ask for one member and the thirteen-twenty-second part of a man. [Laughter.] It was true that in the matter of the Belfast and Derry Committees the Leader of the Opposition had made a concession to the Irish Party by which their representation on those Committees was enlarged; and, acting on the principle of give and take, he had conceded the fractional part of the second man the Irish Party were entitled to on the Committee to the Liberal party. He disputed the assertion of the hon. Member for North Louth that this Committee was for the Irish people the most important Committee that had ever been appointed. He thought the Belfast Committee was of far greater importance to Ireland. What had the treatment of the Catholics in the Transvaal to do with the Jameson raid or the administration of the Chartered Company? [Mr. T. M. HEALY: "Oh, oh!"] The hon. Member for North Louth based his argument on the supposition that the Irish Members numbered 83.

Ireland is one and indivisible.

That may be the experience of the hon. Member, but it is not mine. [Ministerial cheers and laughter.] I hope his words may come true before long. Continuing, the hon. Member said the hon. Member for North Louth wanted the hon. Member for East Donegal added to the Committee, while the Parnellite Members proposed to add the hon. Member for Waterford. Here was an instance of the indivisibility and oneness of the Irish Party. [Ministerial laughter.] This was a condition of things he regretted, and nothing would give him greater pleasure than if he (or any other man) could claim representation upon the Committee on behalf of all the Irish Nationalist Members. If the Government stood by their arrangement he should support them. If they increased the Committee to 17 he would not oppose it.