I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, with reference to his statements in the House on 12th March and 16th July 1896, whether in or about September last, nearly 1,000 natives were recruited at the Gambia and about 150 at Sierra Leone, to be employed as labourers on the Congo Railway, and conveyed by the Leopoldville to Matadi; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government sanctioned this arrangement; and whether he can tell the House the number of natives whom Baron Dhanis was allowed, earlier in the year, to recruit as soldiers for service in his expedition into the north-eastern interior of the Congo Free State?

After careful inquiry, I satisfied myself that the men employed by the Congo Railway Company are well treated, and the Governors of the West African colonies were authorised to allow men to be engaged for that purpose. The number of men engaged by Baron Dhanis was 350. I may add that since I came into the House, I have received the copy of a Dispatch from Consul Pickersgill, who has been along this line of railway, and in communication with the natives employed. The latter he found thoroughly contented, happy, and well treated.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what number of cases of venereal disease of all kinds were under treatment on 31st December 1896, respectively in the Aldershot, Portsmouth, Woolwich, and Irish commands, in military hospitals or elsewhere, and what proportion does this give to the total strength of the troops in the above garrisons?

On the 1st January 1897, the men under treatment for venereal disease at the several stations were 155 at Aldershot, 77 at Portsmouth, 84 at Woolwich, and 169 in Ireland These gave the following rates respectively per 1,000 of the strength—12·13, 18·06, 16·79, and 8·93, with an average of 11·84 per 1,000.

inquired if the Government intended to take any steps to remedy this state of things.

said that the whole question, as related to India, was under inquiry by a Departmental Committee of the India Office, and no decision with regard to any steps could be taken until the results of that inquiry were laid before Parliament.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether any steps have been taken to increase the number of police stationed at the National Portrait Gallery, in view of the increasing number of visitors, and the damage done to pictures during last summer?

I informed the noble Lord, in reply to his Question of August 13th last, that there were then in attendance at the Gallery ten curators and three constables. Two more constables have now been added, so that the total number of attendants during the day is now 15, in addition to a head porter, a head messenger, and nine pensioner messengers. The attendance of the public shows no increase. Indeed it has gradually fallen from 49,000 when the Gallery was first opened in April 1896, to 12,000 in December—the last complete month. As regards other means of preventing damage, I may say that the Treasury have agreed to ask Parliament to provide funds during the next two years for glazing the portraits which are immediately within reach of the public.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, will he explain why the rate of postage on a parcel sent from Malta to Gibraltar is 7d. per pound, so that a parcel weighing five pounds would be charged 2s. 11d., whereas a parcel weighing five pounds can be sent from Malta, past Gibraltar, to Edinburgh, Dublin, or elsewhere in the United Kingdom (or vice versa, from the United Kingdom to Malta) at a charge of 2s., namely 8d. for the first and 4d. for each additional pound; and, whether he will use his influence to secure a reduction of the rate from Malta to Gibraltar to that from Malta to the United Kingdom?

The Postmaster General does not know the reasons of the Government of Malta for maintaining the scale mentioned. He will, however, make inquiry on the subject; but until he knows what the views of the Colonial Government are, he cannot pledge himself to try to influence them. I must, however, warn my hon. Friend that would be equally valid against the measure advocated by the hon. Member for establishing Imperial penny postage; for, if that were done, a letter sent through Italy to Malta would cost the sender id., while a letter sent by the same mail only as far as Italy would cost him 2½d.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, (1) will he explain why it is that an author or publisher, on sending gratis, in accordance with Law, a copy of a newly published book to the British Museum Library, is required to pay postage upon such book, and that in default of pre-payment a fine of double the deficient postage is levied by the Post Office upon the copyright office of the British Museum; (2) whether he has been informed that authors and publishers resent the obligation to supplement the compulsory contribution of the books to the national library by paying postage, and that some of them on principle refuse to pay such postage and challenge proceedings to enforce it; and (3) whether, seeing that the privilege of free postage is conceded in the case of parcels forwarded to the South Kensington Museum, the Public Record Office, the Royal College of Science, the Royal College of Art, and similar institutions, he will recommend that authors and publishers shall only be required to convey their books properly addressed to the nearest post office?

The question raised by the hon. Member has been repeatedly considered by various Governments. The Law 5 and 6 Vict., cap. 45, has thrown upon publishers the duty of delivering their publications at the British Museum and at other Libraries besides—the Bodleian at Oxford, the Public Library at Cambridge, that of the Faculty of Advocates at Edinburgh, and Trinity College, Dublin. There seems to be no reason for relieving publishers of the duty by throwing the burden of delivery on the State. The deficient postage is apparently readily recovered by the British Museum, whose estimate for postage is only £200, and that for their law charges £20. The amount of such postal matter is very small, most of such publications being sent by other agencies, and amounting to about one ton a day. The Postmaster General has no such information as is suggested in the second paragraph of the hon. Member's question. The argument derived from the intention of the Copyright Act does not, of course, apply to the other institutions mentioned by the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland can he indicate the districts to provide railway accommodation in which it is proposed to allocate any of the money voted last Session; and has he been able to include in this allocation any of the districts of the county Cavan which petitioned for railway facilities to develop local trade?

I do not think it would be expedient at the present moment to make any general announcement regarding the manner it is intended to allocate the moneys provided by the Railways (Ireland) Act of last year. I cannot however, hold out any hopes that lines in the County Cavan will be included in I the allocation.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the sum of £600 is annually levied off the cesspayers of the County Cavan for the line from Crossdoney to Killes-handia by presentment of the Grand Jury, and against the will of the great majority of the cesspayers; and does he propose in cases of this sort to utilise any of the money voted by Parliament last Session for the relief of congested districts, by the building of railways in Ireland to relieve the people of such taxation?

This line is part of the Midland Great Western system, and is worked by that company under the Act of 1881, 44th and 45th Vict., cap 97. I am aware that certain baronies in the county have guaranteed to pay to the company the sum of £600 annually towards the construction and maintenance of the line for a period of 35 years from its opening. The money provided for the construction of light railways and for other purposes by the Act of last Session could not be legally applied in relief of taxation in respect of railways already constructed.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is prepared favourably to consider the two memorials which have been presented to the Irish Lights Board by the lightship men asking for an increase of wages, and also for an increase of pension from £25 per annum to £40 a year, similar to the amount granted to the men in Her Majesty's Navy, as the rules and discipline are almost alike?

No memorial on the subject has been received by the Board of Trade since 1891. I will carefully consider any further memorials which may be sent to the Board of Trade, together with any recommendations or observations of the Irish Lights Commissioners by which they may be accompanied.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Land Tax is this year being levied on the assessment of the annual value of lands and hereditaments under Schedule A (without any deduction such as is allowed for income tax purposes), instead of on the rateable value of property as hitherto; that an increased amount of Land Tax has in many cases been levied in consequence of this new procedure; and that Land Tax has this year been demanded on certain lands which have hitherto been considered to have been exempt from the tax; and whether he will consider the desirability of instructing the Land Tax Collectors not to alter the basis of assessment on which the tax has hitherto been collected?

It is impossible for me to make any general statement as to the basis on which the various local bodies of Land Tax Commissioners throughout the country, with whom the matter rests, and over whom I have no authority whatever, have made the assessments for the current year. The Land Tax is raised by a fixed quota on each parish, which quota, under the Act of last Session, can in no case exceed 1s. in the pound on the total assessment to Schedule A of the lands in the parish liable to Land Tax; and this quota is unaffected by any change in the method of assessing the various properties in the parish liable to the Tax as between each other. The power of deciding when a new assessment should be made, as between the various properties in a parish liable to the tax, rests with the Commissioners of Land Tax in each district; and when a new assessment is made, it is quite possible that there may be changes in the incidence of the tax on the various properties in the parish, corresponding to changes in their relative values. It is possible also that in some cases property may be brought into charge which, though liable, has hitherto escaped assessment. But, as the total charge on any parish cannot be increased (though, under the Act of last Session, it may be largely diminished), it follows that an increase of the tax on some properties in a parish must be balanced by a corresponding decrease on others. The Act of last Session did not require any alteration of the basis of assessment on which the tax has hitherto been collected.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury will he explain why, when the Corporation of Sligo expressed a desire to pay off, at the rate of 20s. in the pound, all loans contracted by them with the Board of Works, the Treasury refused to accept 20s. in the pound for the outstanding principal of the loans, the Corporation in consequence being unable to accept offers made to them from private sources of loans at a much cheaper rate than that charged by the Treasury; and will he consider the advisability of relieving heavily-taxed public bodies in Ireland by reducing the present rates of interest charged by the Treasury on loans, or by accepting on behalf of the Treasury the repayment of such loans at par?

From the correspondence which took place on this subject last year the hon. Member must, I think, understand that, so long as the market price of Local Loans stock is considerably above par as at present, the solvency of the Local Loans Fund might be seriously affected by premature repayments of Local Loans at par only; and as I then explained, if the Government lends money on condition that it is to be repaid in a given number of years, it is obviously justified in refusing prepayment unless there was a specific stipulation that the loan might be repaid earlier. As regards the question of reducing the rates of interest on Local Loans generally, I can only refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a question put by the hon. Member for North Louth on the 22nd instant.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) will he explain why the Local Government Board has issued a writ against the Newry Board of Guardians for £21. 6s., paid by the Board to Mr. M'Govern, Cavan, for treatment of four persons bitten by a rabid dog in the Newry Union; (2) is he aware that in Ulster and Connaught there is an almost universal belief in the efficacy of M'Govern's cure of hydrophobia, and that clergymen and magistrates of all denominations have publicly proclaimed their belief in it; and (3) will he instruct the Local Government Board to leave Boards of Guardians free to exercise their own discretion in cases of this kind?

In answer to a Question put to me yesterday by the hon. Member for West Cavan, I stated fully the circumstances under which legal proceedings have been taken by the Local Government Board in this matter. I have no information as to the statements in the second paragraph, and as regards the suggestion at the end of the Question I must again point out that the Local Government Board are advised that M'Govern's house is not a hospital within the meaning of the 7th Section of the 25 & 26 Vict., cap. 83, as it is not an institution under the professional control and management of duly qualified medical practitioners in which the treatment is openly avowed and subject to proper investigation. The Local Government Board do not interfere with the discretion of Boards of Guardians as regards the selection of the hospital to which the inmates should be sent for special treatment so long as the terms of the Statute are complied with.

I beg to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that tenders for Army contracts at Athlone, Birr, Boyle, Carlow, Castlebar, Dublin, Galway, Killbride Camp, Longford, Maryborough, Mullingar, Naas, Navan, Sligo and Wicklow, were called for on 18th November 1896. Is he aware that advertisements calling for tenders were inserted in Dublin papers but not in any local papers; and, will he instruct the persons responsible for the issue of such advertisements to have them in future inserted in local papers circulating at the stations named?

The selection of newspapers in which to advertise local contracts is left to the discretion of the General Officer Commanding the district, who in the case referred to thought it right to advertise in Dublin papers only. The Secretary of State does not consider it desirable to interfere in the matter, as the officer on the spot is most likely to be able to judge accurately of the necessities of each case.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, considering the large seafaring population living on the coast of Antrim and Down, he will now see that a training ship is placed in Belfast Lough?

As at present advised, the Admiralty does not propose to increase the number of stationary training ships.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has received any answer to the communications which he addressed to the Railway Companies Association, prior to the 26th July last, with reference to the withdrawal from circulation by the Clearing House Committee of Airey's sectional railway maps; and whether he has considered the desirability of the Board of Trade or some other Government Department undertaking the preparation and sale for public use of maps giving the distances in an authentic form along the lines of railway in the United Kingdom for the use of traders?

I regret that the correspondence with the Railway Companies Association has not led to any satisfactory result. The Association hold that the question of the publication of these maps is one for the consideration of the Committee of the Railway Clearing House. I cannot hold out any hopes that the Government will undertake the preparation of such maps.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, having regard to the persistent neglect of the Midland Great Western Railway Company of Ireland to carry out the recommendations of the Board of Trade with reference to the Royal Canal, he will sanction the application of whatever portion of the fund reserved under Sections 33 to 35 of 58 Geo. III. as may be necessary for the carrying out of the necessary repairs of the canal?

All the requirements of General Hutchinson and Major Marindin have (with the exception of warehouse accommodation) either been carried out or are in hand or arranged for. The maintenance reports of the engineers of the Midland Railway on the Royal Canal up to the 31st ultimo mark satisfactory progress towards the fulfilment of the Board of Trade recommendation. There does not seem at present any necessity to put in force the powers of the Board of Control.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if, to consult the convenience of the citizens of Limerick, he will, in accordance with a numerously signed memorial, direct that a telegraph station be opened at the William Street Post Office in Limerick?

No recent memorial for the opening of a telegraph office at the William Street Post Office in Limerick has been received by the Postmaster General. The question has, however, from time to time received very careful consideration, and the circumstances do not appear to have changed since the answer given to a question of the hon. Member in the last Parliament on the 5th September, 1893, when he was informed that, as there were already two telegraph offices within a short distance of the William Street Post Office, the application could not be favourably entertained.

I bog to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the fact that the Officer commanding the Royal Engineers of the North Eastern District at York, referring on 6th January 1896, to the death of Mr. James Ore Marshall, described him as a gentleman who had served his country for upwards of 40 years, and by his zeal and experience in the performance of his duties, as well as by his upright bearing and conduct, contributed very largely to the credit and efficiency of the Royal Engineer Service, the Secretary of State for War would advise Her Majesty to grant an allowance to his widow and children, who are in poor circumstances?

Mr. Marshall was a civilian clerk in the Royal Engineer Department, and there is no regulation under which an allowance can be granted to a widow or children of a civilian.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has considered the case of the under sheriffs in Ireland; and, if so, whether it is the intention of the Government during the present Session to deal with the subject?

I cannot give a promise to deal with the subject in the present Session, but the matter is under consideration.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the printed evidence of the Inquiry held in 1893 regarding the reconstruction of the Royal Barracks, Dublin?

On the 25th February 1896 I explained, in reply to the hon. Member, that although the whole case of the Royal Barracks had been made the subject of careful investigation, it had not been deemed necessary to hold any special Inquiry. There is no evidence therefore to lay before the House.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether an instalment of seed loan amounting to £1,000 odd becoming due by the Sligo Union, and payment being unavoidably delayed for about three months, a sum of £53. 10s. was exacted by the Treasury, and paid by the guardians after remonstrance; (2) whether this sum was charged as interest for the overdue time; and, if so, at what rate; (3) and, if a similar rate is charged on loans of this kind in England?

The answer to the first paragraph is Yes. The answer to the 2nd paragraph is No. The sum in question represents not interest but Receiver's Fees which are charged in all cases where instalments are not paid within one month of the date when due. The charge was a statutory one, imposed by Section 6 of the Public Works Loans Act 1892. Interest on these loans is payable not by the localities but out of the Irish Church Fund, so if these fees were not enforced, there would be little inducement to the localities to repay the loans. I am not aware that there are any loans of this kind in England.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the attention of the Foreign Office has been called to the need of some other currency than that of gin in the Delta of the Niger, with the view to the ultimate adoption of one less injurious to the natives; whether missionaries and others are now compelled by the character of this intoxicating currency to promote, however unwillingly, the demoralisation of the people which results from this medium of exchange; and whether some steps will be taken to abate the evils resulting from this state of things?

It is not correct to speak of gin as a currency—still less as the sole currency on the Niger. It is one of several articles that are taken in barter by the natives. So far from there being any compulsion, or any willingness to promote the demoralisation of the people, the tax upon gin has been lately doubled, and now stands at 2s. a gallon in the Niger Coast Protectorate, whilst it is heavily taxed in the portions of the Delta administered by the Niger Company, and is altogether prohibited in their inland territories. The danger of prohibitive taxation is, that the trade is then taken up by neighbouring countries, among whom France and Germany do not appear to share our view as to the desirability of increased duties, and that smuggling is fostered on a large scale.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what is the number of applications now pending in the Court of the Land Commission and County Courts in Ireland, respectively: to fix first statutory terms; to fix second statutory terms; under Redemption of Rent Acts; and also the number of appeals pending in each of the foregoing class of cases?

I am informed by the Land Commission that the preparation of a return containing the desired information would occupy a very considerable time, and it is suggested that a reference may usefully be made to the return of proceedings up to the end of November last, which has been presented to Parliament. The similar return to December will be presented in the course of a few days.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the numerous fatal accidents occasioned by the incautious use of cheap oil lamps and, whether he will consider the desirability of taking steps to secure some system of inspection and registration of oil lamps for the protection of the public?

I am fully alive to the importance of the question which is raised by the hon. Member, and he will remember that it was one of the subjects which the Select Committee of last Session on petroleum was considering. That Committee will, I hope, be reappointed shortly and conclude their labours at an early date.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether any decision has been arrived at by the Government in respect to the Dublin Port and Docks Bill; and (2) whether he has seen reports of the meetings held regarding its proposals by the merchants of Dublin?

No decision has yet been arrived at by the Government in respect of the Dublin Port and Docks Board Bill. The Government are in communication with the Board of Trade on the subject. I have seen newspaper reports of the meetings referred to in the second paragraph of the Question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to an accident at Phœnix Mills, Batley, on Friday last, the inquest relating to which was held at 11 a.m. on Saturday, the Factory Inspector for the district not being present, and the Coroner stating that he was unable to get into communication with him; whether it is provided by the law that the inspector should have 24 hours' notice; and, if so, whether the Coroner was justified in the course he took; and whether the Home Office will instruct the inspectors in the heavy woollen district to inquire into the cause of this accident, and into the need for the employment (according to the practice of many firms) of "hangers," where long belts are used?

Yes, my attention, has been called to this case. The action of the Coroner appears to have been irregular; he should either have given the inspector 24 hours' notice, and a telegram to the factory office of the district would have reached the inspector in charge at once, or, in default of such notice, have adjourned the inquest. I am making further inquiries into the particulars of the accident, and the means of prevention that may be required.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the new regulations for preventing collisions at sea, ordered by Order in Council to come into operation on 1st July next, have been submitted to and agreed to by all the Powers represented at the Washington Conference of 1889; and, if not, which Powers have failed or refused to agree to them; whether he is aware that the Merchant Service Guild, a representative body of merchant captains and officers in active service, have made a public protest against the enforcement of these new regulations as being calculated to lead to disasters; whether he has received any communications to this or to similar effect, either from the Merchant Shipping Guild, or from other bodies or persons connected with seafaring; and whether he proposes to take any notice of or any action with reference to the representations made against the new rules as being calculated to add to the dangers of the seas?

The regulations referred to by my hon. Friend have been submitted to all the Powers represented at the Washington Conference of 1889. All have agreed to them except one Power, from which no reply has yet been received, viz., Venezuela. I am quite aware of the attitude of the Merchant Service Guild on this question, and I have received communications from that and some other bodies to the effect stated in the Question, but having regard to the exhaustive manner in which this question has been discussed and considered, I am not prepared to depart in any way from the position taken up by Her Majesty's Government with the concurrence of the other Powers.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the papers promised respecting the affairs of Crete will be in the hands of Members?

The Blue-book in question is a very bulky one, and delay has arisen from the necessities of translation and of reference to so many quarters prior to publication. I hope its appearance will not now be much longer delayed.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the rule which prevents candidates for the Army Medical Staff who have twice failed in the competitive examination again presenting themselves for examination has been or is to be set aside; and, if so, how many trials a candidate is to be allowed?

In future, on the recommendation of the medical authorities, three trials will be allowed.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether arrangements will be made in the Estimates to provide for the cleaning and restoration of the Edinburgh University Library buildings, which have not been cleaned for upwards of thirty years, and which are admitted by the University Court to be in a condition urgently requiring the expenditure of money?

No, Sir. Under the Act 52 &53 Vict., cap. 55, the Scottish Universities receive an annual grant of £42,000 in full discharge of all claims on public funds. The hon. Member should, therefore, address himself to the University authorities, with whom the expenditure of Edinburgh's share rests.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state whether the Lee-Metford rifle has been issued to the Royal Marines; if so, will he state whether the issue has been confined to Mark II.; and, if Mark I. ^* has been issued, will he say to what extent?

The answer to the first two questions is in the affirmative. There are a few of the Mark I. and Mark I.^* rifles at Eastney and the depot, which are solely for drill purposes.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he is now in a position to state that the fee charged for admission to Holyrood Palace will be abolished; and if so, when?

In reply to the hon. Member's Question, I have to inform him that this subject is at present under consideration; but I have every hope to be in a position to make a definite statement when the Estimates are under discussion.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Midland Great Western Railway Company of Ireland have recently reduced their rates on coal, bran, oil cake, flour, oats, seeds, and manure in bags, to Mullingar to a competition rate with the rate on the Royal Canal, which runs alongside their system to that town, to the detriment of the bye traders on the canal; and whether, as the Canal is the property of the Railway Company, the Board of Trade will take steps to put in force Section 38 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, which makes it illegal for railway companies to charge competition rates in such cases?

If an application is made by any person interested in the traffic of the Canal, the Board of Trade well be happy to consider it under Subsection 3 of the Section referred to in the Question, with a view to putting the trader in a position to carry his complaint to the Railway and Canal Commissioners.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if, referring to the Report of the Irish Board of Works dated 1895–6, he will state what progress has been made to place Clare Abbey, Ennis, county Clare, and Canon Island, River Shannon, under the provisions of the Ancient Monuments Protection (Ireland) Acts, 1882 to 1892?

Clare Abbey was vested in the Board of Works in December 1896, and works of preservation are under consideration. Canon Island has not been yet vested in the Board, but negotiations with the owner are proceeding.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he would grant a Return, giving, with details, the total amount expended in Ireland on the various heads which in England are dealt with by the Board of Agriculture?

It would be extremely difficult to give with accuracy in the form of a Return the total amount expended in Ireland on agricultural work, inasmuch as the functions which in England are discharged by the Board of Agriculture, are in Ireland distributed over a number of Departments, and the administrative and other expenses properly chargeable in each case under the head of "agriculture" could not be stated. If, however, the hon. Member will be content with an approximate statement of the expenditure of public money on objects connected with agriculture by the various Departments concerned in Ireland, the following figures may be sufficient for his purpose, namely:—By the Agricultural Department of the Land Commission, £1,000, exclusive of the salaries of the clerical staff; by the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council, a sum of £15,000, representing a grant in aid of the cattle pleuro-pneumonia accounts, in addition to £12,164, the salaries and expenses of the Department; by the Registrar-General's Office, £2,083; by the agricultural establishments of the Board of National Education, £11,288; by the Congested Districts Board, £14,312, exclusive of the general administrative expenses of the Board amounting to £5,944; by the Public Works Office, £8,150; total expenditure £69,941. The figures quoted are in respect of the current financial year, except in the case of the expenditure of £14,312 by the Congested Districts Board, which is for the year ended 31st March 1895.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been directed to the statements recently current with respect to the financial schemes of the Imperial Ottoman Bank for raising a new Turkish Loan, and the reported proposal of a guarantee in connection therewith by the European Powers; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will give an assurance that it will not undertake any further financial guarantee or liability whatever for the Government of the Sultan of Turkey?

The matter has not yet come before Her Majesty's Government in an official shape. If it should do so it must be considered by them in concert with the Governments of the other Great Powers. They cannot, therefore, at present express any opinion or give any assurance with regard to the matter.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can arrange to take the Debate on the Financial Relations between England and Ireland in the second week in March.

The Government are, and have been, very anxious to give facilities for an early discussion of this important question. They fully recognise that the Irish Members have a special claim in the matter, and a right to be considered in fixing the date for the Debate. The Government are prepared, without pledging themselves to any particular day, to meet their views as far as is consistent with the exigencies of Government business. ("Hear, hear!")

asked the Secretary for the Colonies whether he could now state what steps were being taken to enable the Colonies and dependencies of our Empire to take official part in the celebration of the completion of the 60th year of Her Majesty's reign.

I have no doubt that this Question of the hon. Member is founded on a statement in the Daily Mail this morning, which is not quite accurate, and I think a little premature, since I have learned by experience it is desirable to postpone announcement of invitations until I can at the same time say that they have been finally answered. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter] But as it has come from the Colonies I may now state that with the approval of Her Majesty I have, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, invited the Premiers of all self-governing Colonies to come to this country to take part in the celebration of the completion of the 60th year of Her Majesty's reign. ["Hear, hear!"] I have also informed them that if they accept this invitation, Her Majesty's Government desire that they shall be treated as guests of this country. [Cheers.] It is also proposed that detachments representing the military forces of the several Colonies shall come to this country, and a similar endeavour will be made to secure representations of military forces from Crown Colonies. ["Hear, hear!"] I may say that up to the present time replies in general terms have been received only from Canada, the Cape and Natal. In every case the replies are extremely gratifying in tone, testifying to the loyalty of the Colonies and their desire to take part in this celebration. [Cheers.]

who on rising was received with cheers, said: I rise at once, for I understand from my right hon. Friend (Sir J. Lubbock) that he has concluded the speech he was making when the House rose last night. My light hon. Friend and the Mover of the Amendment have made an appeal to the Government to treat this Resolution which they have proposed as an open question—to leave it to the House to decide whether or no this further inquiry shall be made. Well, Sir, I may say at once that is an unusual request—I will not say an unprecedented request; but the circumstances of the case are not such as enable me to comply with it. ["Hear, hear!"] I am glad to know from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, as well as from the speeches of the mover and seconder of the Amendment, that the objects on all sides of the House are the same in reference to this matter, and that it is the desire of all sections of the House to do everything in their power to allay the feeling of race animosity in South Africa, and to promote those good relations between the Dutch and English there without which the peace and prosperity of the country are absolutely impossible. Now, that is my policy, that has been my policy, and that will be my policy consistently so long as I have the honour to hold my present office. ["Hear, hear!"] I have patiently pursued it, not without being subject from time to time to some misunderstanding. If my conduct has not always appeared to be absolutely consistent to some of my hon. Friends, it has not been because my lines of policy have changed, it has only been because, from the nature of the circumstances, I have not always been able to pursue that policy exactly by the same means. ["Hear, hear!"] But my policy, and the policy anyone in my position must put forward, has for its primary object to remove causes of disagreement between the Dutch and English inhabitants of South Africa. The mover of the Amendment said he was actuated by the same desire; but I must honestly say that I do not think he was fortunate in the manner in which he proceeded to accomplish his desire. I have no doubt it was entirely unintentional, but he did contrive to put his finger on every sore spot in connection with this controversy, and I am afraid that speeches of this kind will do more to promote than to allay the irritation we all deplore. The hon. Gentleman no doubt is a harbinger of peace, but at the same time I do think that upon reflection he himself will be convinced that the precise way he took to secure peace was not exactly the most discreet. ["Hear!"] I make no complaint whatever of the speech of my right hon. Friend who seconded the Amendment, who spoke with great moderation and evident sincerity on the subject. I will go further and say that I sympathise not only with his motive in bringing forward the Amendment, but I agree with many of the arguments he used. The House is perfectly well aware that the position of affairs in South Africa is still unsatisfactory. In dealing with matters at this juncture I am myself in a difficult position, and I am sure the House will show me every consideration. ["Hear, hear!"] I am not altogether disinterested. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment referred to rumours current during the last few months with regard to my action and policy previous to the raid. I cannot ignore these rumours, and if there be any person in or out of the House who believes that I knew of the intended raid or was cognisant of that raid beforehand, or that I did not take every step in my power to prevent the raid and to turn it back after it commenced—if there be any such person, then I have above all persons in the House the most reason to desire inquiry. [" Hear, hear! "] But I endeavour to put aside all personal considerations, and must then say to the House in my position as Colonial Secretary that undoubtedly the situation in South Africa at the present time gives cause for considerable anxiety. ["Hear, hear!"] Disquieting reports reach me every day, and I do not know how to distinguish in every case between baseless rumours and actual truth with solid foundation, but undoubtedly there has been within the last few months a recrudescence of that unrestfulness which it must be the desire of all of us, if possible, to allay. ["Hear, hear!"] The situation has not been improved by recent legislation of the Transvaal Government, and there is no doubt that provisions in some of that legislation are contrary to the Convention of London, and if that legislation is enforced, undoubtedly a situation will be created which will require all our prudence, all our impartiality, and all our patience. ["Hear, hear!"] Then, again, there is the question of reforms which have been asked for on behalf of the Uitlander population. The President has again and again promised to give full and favourable consideration to requests, to suggestions which may be made, to friendly representations, I should say, made by Her Majesty's Government in regard to the population in the Transvaal. These friendly representations from Her Majesty's Government have not been wanting. These respectful requests from the majority of the Uitlander population, who pay nineteen-twentieths of the taxation—[cheers]—and who have no substantial representation whatsoever—["hear, hear"]—have also not been wanting. But up to the present time the response of President Kruger and of the Transvaal Government has, to say the least of it, been inadequate. Reforms have been proposed and carried in the last session of the Raad, as to which I have asked Mr. Conyngham Greene, our very able Agent at Pretoria, to furnish me with a full report as soon as he himself is in a position to do so. But in the meantime, there is no doubt that they go only a little way to satisfy what I believe every impartial man in any civilised and constitutional State would admit to be the legitimate requests on behalf of the majority of the population. [Cheers.] I do not recall, I do not withdraw, anything I have ever said with regard to this matter. The hon. Member who moved this Resolution referred to the Dispatch which I addressed to President Kruger immediately after the raid, and he said that since then I have been overborne by the timid counsels of Sir Hercules Robinson. Of course I take full responsibility for everything that is being done or said by Lord Rosmead— [Opposition cheers]—so long as he remains the Governor of the Cape and the High Commissioner of Her Majesty in South Africa. I do not attempt for a moment to get rid of that responsibility, but I say for him and for myself that we have no reason to withdraw the statement which I made to President Kruger that there would be no security for peace and for the good relations between the races in the Transvaal until some consideration had been shown and some attempt had been made to redress their grievances. [Cheers.] Let me not be understood in saying this to cast blame upon President Kruger. President Kruger has his own difficulties to contend with. ["Hear, hear!"] He is a constitutional ruler; he has his people to deal with, and it is quite possible he has objections to overcome which up to the present time he may have failed to overcome. We can only wish that his hands may be strengthened to carry out the policy to which he has again and again committed himself and as to his sincerity in regard to which I, at all events, have no occasion and no right to comment. While, however, I believe that President Kruger and the great majority even of the Dutch in the Transvaal desire to follow out the policy indicated by the President in that speech which he made, I think, shortly after the munificent subscription which was raised in the Rand for the sufferers by the dynamite explosion, and in which he said his policy was "to heal sores, to forget and to for give "—I do not doubt that that is the policy of the majority in the Transvaal—it is only too evident that there are extreme sections on both sides—["hear, hear"]—who apparently have an interest, or at all events are willing, to maintain the state of unrest. ["Hear, hear."] These are the circumstances which it is my duty to bring before the House. It is in face of these circumstances upon which my right hon. Friend the Member for the London University has laid stress, that we ask you to proceed with this Inquiry. It is an Inquiry in two branches. It is in the first place to inquire into the origin and the circumstances of the raid. It is in the second place to inquire into the administration of the Chartered Company. As to the second portion of the Inquiry, I do not imagine that there will be any difference of opinion. [Opposition cheers.] Undoubtedly a new work, a gigantic work, is being carried on under very difficult and novel circumstances by this great organisation. [" Hear, hear!"] We have had some experience, we have had some knowledge; it is natural we should wish for more. We have come undoubtedly to a critical point, it may be to the turning point, and it is desirable that this House should be in full possession of all the facts with regard to the way in which this company has, up to the present time discharged its liabilities—[Opposition cheers]—in order that we may see whether we shall be justified in continuing its authority. ["Hear, hear!"] I am bound to say, and I say it in order that there may be no misapprehension, that, so far as my own official knowledge goes, and having regard to the magnitude and the difficulties of the task, I believe the Chartered Company will be able to make out a very good case for itself, and that the development of this country, which, could not be undertaken by the Imperial Government without, at all events, involving continuous and very large demands upon the taxpayers of this country—that that duty has been fulfilled by the Chartered Company with great energy and with great public spirit. [Cheers.] But there is no reason whatever, I imagine, why the Chartered Company should fear the Inquiry or why this House should not desire it. As regards the other branch of the Inquiry, no doubt it is a portion of the examination into the affair which requires great care and discretion. The raid is indissolubly connected with the discontent in Johannesburg. The discontent in Johannesburg is founded upon the grievances of the Uitlanders. No inquiry into the origin of the raid would therefore be complete—it would be a sham—unless it went carefully into this question of grievances—[cheers]—and unless it determined how far those grievances afforded a justification for that discontent and agitation in Johannesburg which, as I have said, made the raid possible. ["Hear, hear!"] Of course, I say again that an inquiry of that kind is a delicate and a difficult inquiry, and I think that it will require great care upon our part and upon the part of the Committee so to conduct it as not to re-open old sores. I think my right hon. Friend will admit that at all events I appreciate the difficulties in the way, the pitfalls in the path, to which he himself has so well called attention. But in spite of that I think it necessary, on behalf of the Government, to press for the appointment of this Committee. It is quite true that no promise was given either to President Kruger or, so far as I know, to any outsider in this matter. The promise was made to the House of Commons—["hear, hear!"]—and when a promise is made to the House of Commons it does not mean to one side, but to both sides of the House and to the general opinion of the House as a whole, and the Government could not without failing in honour retire from a promise so given unless it were relieved by the general wish of the House. ["Hear, hear!"] I have pointed out that the Committee will have before them a task of great difficulty, but I have confidence in a Committee of the House of Commons. I believe it will be equal to this difficult task. ["Hear, hear!"] It will know that it has to shield great national interests, and it will know how to subordinate personal prejudices to those higher and patriotic considerations. Although the House will be placing a great responsibility upon its shoulders, I believe that it will show itself quite able to deal with it in a manner satisfactory to the country, and that this Inquiry may therefore result in securing that object which we all have at heart—that is, allaying, and not increasing, the animosity which may at the present time prevail. [Cheers.] Before I sit down there is only one point on which I wish to say a word; that is with regard to the composition of the Committee. The Government have been anxious that this Committee should not be a large one. We think that its deliberations would be shortened and probably improved by its being confined to a limited number of members. But a difficulty has arisen with regard to the representation of the Irish parties on the Committee. Of course we are not responsible for that in any way; we have merely fulfilled our formal Ministerial obligation in accepting the list, which is the true proportion according to numbers, and which has been handed to us in the usual course as the representation of the other side. But it appears that there are certain sections of the Irish Party who consider themselves overlooked in the matter, and all I have to say is that I am so desirous that everyone should, if possible, be satisfied, that if it will conduce to that object the Government will be ready, though they do not recommend it exactly, to accept the proposal to increase the Committee to 17 in order that the Irish may have another representative. [Cheers.]

I certainly do not rise for the purpose of criticising or differing from what I will call the prudent and moderate speech made by the Colonial Secretary. My right hon. Friend the Member for the University of London last night attributed to me a part in this transaction which I should have no wish to disclaim if I had any right to it. He really attributed to me the principal part in the moving for the appointment of this Committee. [Some Ministerial cheers.] There is, fortunately for me, a much higher authority than I am in this matter. Who is the first person who announced to the world that there was to be a searching inquiry into this matter? The only point in which I differ from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman is his statement that the promise was made to the House of Commons. No, it was not made to the House of Commons. It was an announcement made by the Sovereign of this country to the world at large. In the Speech from the Throne in the year which is just past the Queen, referring to this transaction of the raid, said:—

"A sudden incursion into the South African Republic by an armed force from the territories under the control of the British South Africa Company resulted in a deplorable collision with the burgher forces. My Ministers at the earliest possible moment intervened to prohibit, through the High Commissioner, this hostile action, and to warn all my subjects throughout South Africa against taking part in aid thereof. The origin and circumstances of these proceedings will form the subject of a searching inquiry."

"Mr. Chamberlain desires you to note that the South African Republic is a foreign State with which Her Majesty is at peace and in Treaty relations; and in this connection I desire to remind you that the obligations imposed by the 22nd Article of the Charter of the British South Africa Company to perform and undertake all Treaty obligations of Her Majesty towards any other State."

"Since the Convention of 1884, Her Majesty's Government have recognised the South African Republic as a free and independent Government as regards all its internal affairs not touched by that Convention."

"They would feel that there was one thing more important than money, more important than men, more important than ships, when they dealt with the affairs of such an Empire as ours. It was honour and good faith, that the word of an Englishman should be maintained, and that, when we made a Treaty, we should keep it. [Cheers.] It was that our neighbours should know, wherever they were—in Europe, or Africa, or America, or Asia—that the word of an English Government was the bond of England. [Cheers.] They might depend upon it that, however great our power and our means, our Empire was maintained more surely than by anything else by honour and good faith."

said that the right hon. Member had uttered his usual panegyric on the policy of the Colonial Secretary, and had made statements in the course of his speech which it would be exceedingly difficult to substantiate. The House, he thought, would have noticed from the speeches of both the right hon. Gentlemen who had spoken that there was a very considerable feeling even in their minds against the institution of this Inquiry. The House was apparently pledged to this Inquiry of statements made in the past, statements made rather prematurely and too much under the direct inspiration of the Leaders of the Opposition. Of course, there was no doubt that the two men chiefly responsible for this Inquiry were the hon. Member for Northampton and the right hon. Member for West Monmouth, who usually followed the lead of the hon. Member. He admitted that it was exceedingly difficult for the Government to avoid proceeding with the Inquiry, but he was at the same time convinced that it could only result in evil, and he believed that that was the real opinion of five-sixths of the Members of the House. What good would the Inquiry do? It would drag on to a weary and very possibly exasperating length. If it had any results it would end either in the acquittal of the persons who were likely to be accused, or in a recommendation for their prosecution. Such a prosecution could not well be brought to a close in less than 18 months from the present time, and for a year or more the bitterness of race antagonism, which it was so desirable to allay, would be kept alive in South Africa. The Colonial Secretary's speech was a practical confession of the failure of the policy of the last twelve months. The tone of the right hon. Gentleman that afternoon was very different from his tone in August last, when he delivered a speech full of roseate promises, and led the House to believe that all was going smoothly between the two Governments and the two races in South Africa. The right hon. Gentleman declared on August 13 that everything was going on in the most promising way, and that the Boers were passing valuable measures of reform. But what were those measures? The first was a sham Education Bill. Then there was the promise of a Municipality for Johannesburg, which had never been fulfilled, and the law relating to the sale of liquor to natives, which had not been carried out. But what had the Boers done on the other side of the account? No sooner was the British Parliament prorogued than the Volksraad at once passed laws of the most repressive character. The Colonial Secretary never tired of telling them that President Kruger showed a most conciliatory spirit and a desire to promote good will. Could the right hon. Gentleman be ignorant of the fact that President Kruger held the Volksraad in the hollow of his hand, and that he was responsible for the legislation of the Transvaal? What was the character of the recent legislation there? First there was the Aliens Expulsion Law, under which the Boer Executive was entitled to expel from the Transvaal any non-Boer citizens without trial. The whole of the 80,000 Uitlanders were thus placed at the mercy of the six persons who constituted the Boer Executive. Then there was the law for gagging the Press, which gave the Executive special power to fine, imprison, and exile. Thirdly, an Aliens Immigration Law had been passed, under which the Executive was able to prevent the entry into the Transvaal of any aliens whatever. [Mr. T. M. HEALY: "They got that idea from Lord Salisbury's Bill!"] In their negotiations with the Transvaal on these subjects it would be well if the Government were to exhibit a little less patience and a little more courage. How could the Leader of the Opposition tell the House that President Kruger was the friend of moderation, conciliation, and peace, in view of the fact that these monstrous and oppressive laws, so contrary to the tenour and spirit of the Convention of 1884, had been passed and put into execution? Those laws had been put in force, and already the most independent and pro-British newspaper in the Transvaal had been violently suppressed by President Kruger, thereby depriving the Uitlanders of the only means of making their grievances known to this country, and inflicting great financial injury on the proprietor. Those facts changed the situation altogether. The acts of President Kruger were not conciliatory; they were most hostile. The Transvaal was steadily increasing its armaments, and foreign mercenaries were being imported in large numbers. [Ironical cheers.] The situation in this country had also changed. Those responsible for the raid had been tried and punished, and this was another reason why it was not necessary to pursue this Inquiry further. The Leader of the Opposition said that the object of the Inquiry was to redeem the good faith, the pledges, and the honour of this country. Those sentiments from the right hon. Gentleman reminded him of the "unctuous rectitude" they had heard of on another occasion. No Member of the House had done more to break the pledges and depreciate the honour of this country than the right hon. Gentleman. [Ironical cheers.] Almost every pledge given to British colonies in the past by Governments of which the right hon. Gentleman had been a prominent Member had been deliberately broken, to the great injury of the colonists. The principal object of the Inquiry had never been concealed. The hon. Member for Northampton had committed himself in the strongest way to an ex parte view of the conduct and character of the Inquiry, and his wish was to drag down if possible the eminent man who had done so much for British dominion and commerce in South Africa. If the Inquiry was to be satisfactory to the Boer Government, who hated Mr. Rhodes with a bitterness that could scarcely be expressed, it must result in injury to the position and influence of that great man. In view of the practical confession of the Colonial Secretary that the policy of conciliation, tried with so much patience and persistence and at the expense of very considerable humiliation, had been proved to have completely and absolutely failed, he thought it most unfortunate that the Committee should be constituted.

said that during the 12 years he had been in the. House he had not spoken with a greater feeling of responsibility than he did now. When the speech of the Colonial Secretary was read by President Kruger and the Boer Government he thought that it would hardly tend towards peace, or to that union of the States and colonies of South Africa which was so much desired. The policy of the right hon. Gentleman, as declared that day, would, he feared, prevent certain reforms which were necessary in the Transvaal from being carried out so quickly as might otherwise have been the case. The Colonial Secretary had again repeated certain statements which he ought to know the Transvaal Government repudiated. The right hon. Gentleman said that certain Uitlanders paid nineteen-twentieths of the taxation. The Transvaal Government asserted that this was utterly untrue—that it was a fiction. The Boer Government denied that there were legitimate grievances among the Uitlanders. [Ironical cheers.] The two charges that had caused a great deal of trouble in South Africa and had rankled in the minds of certain Africander statesmen had been made, one in the House and one outside. The Colonial Secretary at a South African banquet accused the gentlemen who formed the Government of the South African Republic with being corrupt. The right hon. Gentleman had not repeated that charge in the House; but he had now made the charge that the condition of things in Johannesburg and the grievances there were such that unless the Boer Government brought about a radical change there would probably be a recrudescence of troubles. Those two charges might be true or not, but he asked the House to contrast the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman with what occurred a few years ago. The Jameson raid was not the first raid. The first raid was the Shepstone raid. For four years the British Government controlled the Transvaal—from 1877 to 1881. Did the Government during those four years give a vote to the Uitlanders? Did they carry out the pledge made by the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman that representative Government would be granted? No; during those four years the Transvaal was ruled by the British Government as despotically as Turkey or Russia was now ruled. With regard to President Kruger he believed him to be as honest a man as there was living. Could they say so of the British Government and the Colonial Secretary (Sir Theophilus Shepstone) who formerly administered the Transvaal? If anyone wanted to ascertain the facts he had only to inspect the letters to the Colonial Secretary by the right hon. Member for Bodmin, where it appeared the Colonial Secretary swindled and cheated us, where his presents, his mistresses, even his fishing-rod were all put down as forage, and the British Government had to pay for it, and stopped Sir Theophilus Shepstone's pension for the purpose of making up for the money stolen by himself or his family. Well, it was too strong to say "by himself," for he should not think the old man knew the work he was doing by his sons. With that fact before them, however, it was not advisable to bring a charge of corruption against the men who formed the present Government of the Transvaal. Speaking from the standpoint of the Boers he said they had done all that men possibly could do to aid the Outlanders. He must be frank, however; he did not think the powers given to the Second Chamber were adequate and that reform in this direction was necessary. But the Outlanders appeared to think they ought to be allowed to hold the country in four years for nothing. Why, it was not yet ten years since he went down from Pretoria to lay the foundation stone of the first house in Johannesburg. What had caused all this estrangement? It was the policy adopted by Lord Derby. He agreed with the Secretary of State for the Colonies that the Aliens Bill was not in accordance with the provisions of the Convention of 1884, and if he, by force or otherwise, compelled the Transvaal Government to see that that Convention, as regards the rights given by the Sands River Convention, the Pretoria Convention and the London Convention were carried out, he would be perfectly justified in doing so. Apart from reform of the Second Chamber, the only other grievance was that the Transvaal Government carried on a system not of free trade, but of protection, and gave monopolist concessions for the purpose of developing industry. But was not that the case with other Republics, the French and the American, with the German Empire and other civilised countries. If there were any special taxation put upon aliens different from citizens there would be reason to complain, but the alien had almost the same rights and privileges, so far as taxation was concerned, as the native, and no special burden was placed upon him. All the gold was open to everyone, native or alien. There was no royalty at all in the country, though there ought to have been. With regard to Mr. Cecil Rhodes he had a high respect for him on account of his great ability, high character, and charming personality; and he regretted to see him placed as he was. In his reply earlier in the day the Colonial Secretary seemed to say that one of the questions that must be considered by the Committee was whether the condition of things before the raid was sufficient to justify a rising. He could only say that if the Committee accepted evidence on that point the Boers would tell them it amounted to a breach of the 1884 Convention and affected their right of self-government, and would refuse to give evidence; and if we persevered Heaven knows what terrible results would follow. He regretted that he had been compelled to state so strongly the view held by the Transvaal people in regard to this matter; but it was better that that view should be stated as it was held in the Transvaal.

said that the question which many hon. Gentlemen had been asking themselves, independently of Party considerations, in regard to this Committee was, Cui bono? If the agent of this country did a wrong there must be a complete and drastic inquiry into the whole transaction. And if this country entered into obligations to bring certain people to trial, the promise must be carried out. But the obligations of this country had been carried out to the letter. There had been trials both here and in South Africa, and every possible issue had already been raised in regard to some of the subjects of this proposed inquiry. The Committee would inquire into the administration of the territory of the Chartered Company, into the circumstances of the raid, and into the internal administration of the Transvaal. As to the first of those subjects, he could see very little harm in the inquiries of the Committee; though he could not agree with the Leader of the Opposition in comparing the position of affairs with the position of the East India Company. The East India Company was a separate and substantive governing authority outside the authority of the Colonial Office. The Chartered Company had been subject immediately to the Colonial Office, and the Colonial Secretary last year altered the whole constitution of its military arrangements. But in regard to the other two subjects of inquiry he saw every promise of difficulty and danger. A great English proconsul was to be put on his trial. He did not know Mr. Rhodes, and he had never seen him; but he could not help feeling that, a hundred years hence, the men who had added to the Empire a territory seven-fold as great as the United Kingdom, would stand in the rank of men like Clive and Hastings. And if a man like that were to be brought to trial, for a great offence against the State, he ought to be tried by a proper and judicial tribunal. A Committee of the House of Commons, the Members of which were selected because they were partisans, and everyone of whom had more or less made up his mind as to the issue, was not the proper tribunal for such a case. The trial might have been transferred to the grandest Court of Justice in the world—Westminster Hall—where Bacon and Strafford were tried. As it was, the verdict of the Committee, whatever it might be, was discounted beforehand both here and at the Cape. If the Commitee found that no blame at all attached to this great proconsul, he would go back with such power and prestige that he would be a dangerous citizen of the Empire, because he would be sore and angry that he had been brought here not to be impeached for high crimes, but to be brought before a mere Committee of the House of Commons. And was such a Committee to be intrusted with the very delicate questions of alterations and reforms in the internal Government of the Transvaal? He would rather leave such questions in the hands which hitherto, under desperate difficulty and strain, had conducted affairs with admirable skill and prescience. From the day when the Colonial Secretary jumped in front of the German Emperor with that famous dispatch, he had conducted the affairs of South Africa with singular prudence and skill. It must not be forgotten, either, that ours was not an Empire of Englishmen only: and that in these matters we had to deal with a large population which did not speak our language, and which possessed different traditions. In Holland he had seen many newspapers with correspondence from the Cape, showing that angry feeling had been roused in Cape Colony; and he could not help feeling that unless we were careful in handling these questions, we should have a fire ablaze in South Africa which could not be put out without a desperate strain on our resources. It was impossible to deny the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman—that if this matter were to be settled with the concurrence of this country, the Outlanders must he conceded the rights and privileges hitherto denied to them. The right hon. Gentleman had fought hard for that position; and it was impossible to face with equanimity the question being left to a tribunal so inappropriate as a Committee of the House. This was not the time for blustering words. Recriminations ought to be avoided, in order that those subjects of the Crown, who had always been very loyal, but who were very sore just now, should not feel that this Mother of Parliaments was, where Englishmen and Dutchmen were at issue, treating the latter with any want of justice.

said he had had hopes of not taking part in this discussion, because he was satisfied that, whatever might result from the labours of the Committee, very little good would result from any more speeches which might be delivered. ["Hear, hear!"] After the speech of the Colonial Secretary the House might wisely have allowed the discussion to lapse. [Cheers.] The hon. Member for Salford had spoken anxiously as to the effect of appointing the Committee; but one comfort was that, at any rate, the Committee would not make speeches. [Cheers.] They would ask questions and elucidate facts, and possibly they would come to conclusions which would command respect. But they would not make speeches. [Cheers.] There would not be that danger of exasperating opinion in South Africa which, he feared, would result from a continuance of this discussion. The hon. Member for Caithness had used language which he could not accept as accurate, when speaking of corruption in the administration of the Transvaal, when the country was under the British Government, and had referred to letters bearing his signature as having exposed that corruption. It was quite true that when the Transvaal was administered by our Government the accounts were kept in an exceedingly loose fashion—especially at the beginning of affairs—and vouchers were not forthcoming for much of the expenditure, or when they were produced they were not considered satisfactory by the Treasury. But the whole amount involved was exceedingly small, and nothing transpired that could sustain a charge of corruption. However, he did not rise to continue the discussion. He felt sure the speech of the Colonial Secretary had persuaded everyone that if we were to clear ourselves this Commission should sit, and that we should wait in patience until its exhaustive inquiries were concluded.

said that, after the discussion which had taken place, and especially after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary, that the Government thought they were bound ill honour to reappoint the Committee, he would ask leave to withdraw his Motion.

rose to move an Amendment which stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. P. O'Brien (Kilkenny), proposing "That the Committee do consist of 17 Members."

Order, Order! An Amendment of which notice must be given can only be moved by the hon. Member who put it down.

pointed out that a Member of the Government had often introduced a Bill of which notice had been given by another Member of the Government.

All Members of the Government are considered one person for all such purposes.

who had been absent from the Chamber, now returned, and moved his Amendment. He said he understood from the statement of the Colonial Secretary that the Government were prepared to accept his proposal.

said he should not object to the enlargement of the Committee from 15 to 17 Members if the reason were that the Opposition were not fairly represented upon it. But his right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary had stated as the reason for the proposed increase in the membership of the Committee that a certain section of the Irish Party was not represented upon it at present. He had no personal objection whatever to Nationalist Members sitting on the Committee. He acknowledged their ability and he had experienced their eloquence. [Laughter.] But he failed to see a sufficient reason why another Irishman should be added to the Committee, in the fact that the Nationalist Party happened to be divided into sections, and that no Gentleman in that Party could speak on behalf of all his colleagues. [Laughter.] Besides, there were other Irishmen in the House besides the hon. Gentlemen Opposite. It appeared to him a strange thing that when the Government came to the conclusion that it was necessary to add another Irishman to the Committee they should have overlooked that Irish Party which was mainly responsible for placing them on the Treasury Bench. [Laughter.] He did not see why the divisions in the Nationalist ranks should be officially recognised by the Government, especially in view of the fact that it was not at all improbable that before long there would be 80 Nationalist Parties. [Laughter.] Great constitutional and Imperial questions might arise before this Committee, and if it were necessary to add another Irishman to the Committee he should not be chosen from the ranks of those who had never shown that Imperial instincts dominated their policy. ["Hear, hear!"]

said the hon. and gallant Member was entirely mistaken in the view he had taken of the matter. The Government in the course they proposed to pursue in regard to the enlargement of the membership of the Committee were not doing a special favour to any section of the House. They were simply doing a bare act of arithmetical justice to the Nationalist Members. When the Committee consisting of 15 Members was appointed last year with only one Nationalist Member upon it he urged that, in proportion to the strength of the Opposition, the Nationalist Members were entitled to two representatives on the Committee. He failed then to carry his point, but the Government had now yielded to that view, and in order to equalise the representation of parties on the Committee they proposed to add also to the Committee one of their own supporters in the person of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for London University. It was quite true that, as the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh had said, great Imperial questions were to be considered by this Committee. But all those who took alarm at the prospect of its appointment might be assured by the recollection of what had happened in the case of the Financial Relations Commission, for if the Government were not satisfied with the findings of the Committee they could appoint another. [Laughter.]

I desire to say that the Government understood it was the general wish of the House that the Committee should be increased, and they put down the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for London University as the Member they suggested as the representative of this side of the House in the event of another Member being-added to the Committee as the representative of the opposite side of the House. Of course, if the House should decline to increase the Committee, and should retain the original number, 15, the name of my right hon. Friend will be withdrawn. I would point out that in the appointment of a Committee practically only two parties have to be considered—that is to say, the Government of the day, and the Opposition, and the Committee is divided in proportion to the Members sitting on the two sides of the House. In the case of a Committee of 15 Members the Government nominate nine members, but they have nothing whatever to do with the nomination of the remaining six. We did nominate our nine members, and a difficulty arose—with which we had nothing whatever to do, and as to which we wash our hands entirely—as to the composition of the other six members. We understood there was a difficulty in substituting another Irish member for one of the members from the Opposition side who had already been nominated, and in order to meet the wishes of the other side we suggested that in that case it might be convenient to increase the number to 17, so that the difficulty might be removed. The decision which the Government came to was really with a view to conciliate everybody; if it has not that effect, and any objection is taken, the Government are perfectly indifferent in the matter. If we have any preference, I may say we would rather go back to the Committee of 15. [Cheers.]

said that as his name had been mentioned, perhaps the House would allow him to say that he thought, from the turn the discussion had taken, it would be very much better to leave the Committee with 15 members. ["Hear, hear!"] Personally it would be a great relief to him.

said the right hon. Gentleman had said himself that he knew there were charges brought against him. He thought those charges were most abominable, and he was not in the least implying that there was one word of truth in them. [An HON. MEMBER; "What are they?"] The right hon. Gentleman alluded to them himself, and was it not rather strange, if these charges were made, that the right hon. Gentleman should sit upon the Committee and act as a judge? That was a rather difficult position for him to be in.

hoped his hon. Friend would not press the point. This Committee would be utterly useless unless they had the Colonial Secretary upon it—["hear, hear!"]—who had had all the means at his disposal of placing before them the information on the subject which they had had. The name of Mr. Chamberlain was then agreed to, as were also the names of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Cripps, Sir W. Hart Dyke, Mr. John Ellis, Sir W. Harcourt, and Mr. Jackson. On the Motion that Mr. Labouchere be appointed to serve on the Committee,

said he desired to take the opinion of the House whether the hon. Member for Northampton should occupy a place on this Committee. The hon. Member stood in a category by himself, as he had expressed in his interesting journal views hostile to the Chartered Company and to Mr. Rhodes, which, it seemed to him, absolutely pledged the hon. Member to one side of the question. ["Hear, hear!"] It was impossible to suppose that any evidence brought before the Committee would alter the hon. Member's opinion.

I hope my hon. Friend will withdraw his objection. I think I can give him two reasons why he should do so, which, I trust, may be conclusive to his mind. The first is a general reason which applies to the appointment of the members of all Committees. The arrangement is, as I have said, that, the proportions being settled, the nomination of the members on each side is left to their respective side, and for the Government, therefore, to interfere and to object to a nomination from the side of the Opposition, or vice versâ, would be to strike at the system under which our Committees are elected and would give rise to endless difficulties in the future proceedings of Parliament. ["Hear, hear!"] As to this particular objection, I am bound to point out to my hon. Friend that it is entirely in accordance with precedents that the hon. Member for Northampton, who has undoubtedly taken an extremely strong view, and expressed an extremely strong view in respect to this matter, should be a member of the Committee, and be enabled thereby to bring his charges to the test. ["Hear, hear!"] If a Member of this House thinks that he has an allegation to make of serious importance against any person who may be a witness before a Committee of Inquiry, that is the only proper and reasonable way in which his allegations may be brought to the test. I can quote precedents, such as that of the Hyderabad and Deccan Committee, in regard to which very strong charges were made, I think also by the hon. Member for Northampton. [Laughter.] The hon. Member, however, was appointed to that Committee, and did very useful service to the Committee in their endeavour to elucidate the question. Another precedent is the case of the Foreign Loans Committee, in regard to which my noble Friend Lord James of Hereford had made certain charges, and Lord James of Hereford was appointed to serve on that Committee. I think, therefore, we are only following a course in accordance with precedent.

said he would withdraw his objection. The name of Mr. Labouchere was then agreed to, as also were the names of Mr. Wharton and Mr. Wyndham.

moved to reduce the Vote by £20,000, which was approximately the Irish contribution to that sum. He took this course for this reason. This was a large Vote for the physical education of the English people, and there was no similar provision for the physical education of the Irish people. This Vote was placed among the Army Estimates, but they knew that that was not a correct description of the Vote. From the military point of view, no one could seriously contend that the Volunteers were a great advantage to the country.

said the hon. Member would be quite out of order in discussing the general question on this Vote. The hon. Member must strictly confine himself to the limits of the items of the Vote which was now presented to the Committee.

said he saw the Vote related entirely to Volunteer Corps. These Volunteer Corps were entirely in Great Britain. There was not a single Volunteer Corps in Ireland, and he took objection to that distribution of Imperial expenditure. This expenditure was confined solely to one part of the United Kingdom.

Order, order! That argument is applicable to the original Vote. It does not apply to this part. The hon. Member must confine himself strictly to this Supplementary Estimate. He must not discuss the general principles of Volunteers Corps or whether the money applied to Volunteer Corps should be applicable to Ireland or not. It does not arise on this Vote.

said he should postpone the greater part of his remarks until they came to the Army Estimates. On that occasion he should go into the whole subject. He wished merely to move, as a matter of protest, the reduction of £20,000. He wished to ask why it was that this extraordinary course was taken every year in succession, of presenting an enormous Supplementary Estimate for the Volunteers. He wanted to know why this payment, which was really made in April, should not be included in the original Estimate, and why there should be an entirely fallacious decrease shown on the original Estimate. Surely it was known that the Department would have to propose this additional sum before the close of the financial year? It was a false principle to proceed on the basis of first bringing in an estimate which they knew would not do them, and then bringing in this fresh Estimate, having got some sort of apparent credit for having kept their Army Estimates down. He saw nothing in the items of this Supplementary Estimate which could not in the ordinary course have been foreseen in the original Estimate that was set down by the Department. The present course was not, in a financial sense, being quite fair with the House. This Supplementary Estimate was vicious in principle, and it was entirely contrary to the financial principles which ought to guide that House. It was not right to cut down at the beginning of the year and to claim credit on a ground which they knew was baseless, and on these grounds he moved to reduce the Vote. They knew it was usually done; they knew it had become customary, and he would like to ask this simple question—whether it is contemplated by the Government to make this an exceptional arrangement, or whether they intended to repeat it year by year?

said he desired to offer his hearty thanks to the Government for the enormous deal they had done for the Volunteer Force. In reply to the hon. Gentleman opposite, he would like to ask how was it possible for the Government to foretell what was the number of efficients in the Volunteer year before that year was completed? The Volunteer year only ended on the 31st of October, and it was quite impossible for the Department to tell what would be the number of efficients at the end of the Volunteer year, be was sure the Committee would be delighted to see the great increase in the number of efficients in the Volunteer Force, and the diminution of those earning the third-class grant. There was one point on which he would like to ask his right hon. Friend for information. That had reference to the matter of Sergeant-Majors of Volunteer Corps.

said it would not be in order to discuss this matter, which was not included in the Vote.

submitted that there would not be a capitation grant at all without sergeant-majors.

said it was not the capitation grant that came under discussion, only the Supplementary grant.

said he would not trespass further on the time of the Committee; he simply gave this indication of the desirability of giving attention to the matter.

asked the right hon. Gentleman in his reply not to confine himself to meeting the argument advanced on behalf of Ireland, but to give some explanation of what this increase of the capitation grant meant. If it was to provide more efficiently for the Volunteers in order that they might be an economic substitute for the army, then he would be very glad to hear it. He would far rather vote for better provision for the Volunteers than add to the extravagance of the regular army.

said there was one item in the Vote he did not quite understand, and it seemed to him to be original, and if so, it raised a question of principle, and that was the additional capitation allowance for engineers efficient in submarine mining. As this stood, it would seem to be, not a continuation of the original Vote, but a new additional grant. All the other portions of the Estimate were continuations of the original Vote, but with regard to this item, as it was described, it looked as if it were not in the same category. He only wished to know whether any new method was to be adopted for promoting efficiency of engineers in submarine mining. His own idea was that this duty ought not to be confined to engineers, but, should be entrusted to sailors. Did this involve a new grant?

said he thought, perhaps, the description was not the best that could have been chosen. The intention was that it should be a special allowance for efficiency in submarine mining. The fact was, engineers had to spend considerable extra time to make themselves efficient, and bad greater wear and tear of clothing than other Volunteers, and in consequence it was found extremely desirable at the ports to offer inducements to Volunteers to enter this particular service, and about ten years ago the War Office offered this special capitation allowance, enabling these corps to be kept up. His hon. Friend, who was continually taking the Navy under his charge, thought that sailors would do the work better, and he could inform him that sailors did undertake the work at some ports, and did it very well. As to the general criticisms offered by the hon. Gentleman opposite, there was nothing in the nature of that evasion the hon. Member assumed there was in presenting these Supplementary Estimates. The fact was, that last year about this time the Government asked Parliament to give the whole capitation grant to the Volunteers, in order to bring up to date payments they considered, in some eases, remained in arrear, and such, according to the War Department's view, were made in advance. The hon. Member was of opinion that the Volunteers began their year with the financial year, but the Volunteer year began in November, and consequently in paying them in April they were paid when live months of the year had run, and some of the officers said they were paid only half way through the year. For this reason, the Chancellor of the Exchequer assenting, and it being convenient, public funds permitting, the advances were made at a rather earlier period this year than in other years. There was no fetish about the 1st of April, and this was done in the present year because it was convenient to public funds, and there were economies also allowing it, and so it was arrange the payments should be made in January and February. It was, he understood, convenient to the Volunteers, and there was no reason whatever why it should be withheld until the month of April.

said the right hon. Gentleman had not met the point raised. He could not see any reason why this should not have been estimated at the time the original Estimates were drafted. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, who invited him to join his regiment, took the ground that it was impossible to foretell how many Volunteers there might be to come in for these grants for efficiency, but he did not understand it was the view of the War Office that there was this extraordinary fluctuation in the Volunteer force. Their point was, that certain capitation grants were due on April 1, and they asked Parliament to allow them to adopt the course of paying them in the same year before April 1. That was a bad principle. If the Volunteers ought to get payment in February before it was absolutely due, then this ought to be done every year. The Volunteers were not more hard-up this than another year. Naturally they wanted it every year, and if there was a good reason for it then the payment should be made in advance every year. What would happen if this were not paid now, but allowed to go over? The payment would come into the new Estimates for a new year, and probably at the end of that year there would be another payment to meet because it was convenient, and working out this it would be found that the Volunteer Estimate for one year might be double what it was the year before. He did not suppose that would be done, for it was perfectly clear that if the Treasury adopted the principle of allowing payments to be made in advance they must follow it out every year, or there would be loud complaints from Volunteers of going back on the arrangement. It must have been known at the beginning of the year that this would have to be paid out before April, and therefore provision should have been made for it in the Estimates.

was not at all satisfied, and did not think that a satisfactory reason had been given for not including this in the original Estimates. He was quite sure that if a board of directors in a commercial enterprise were to make such a blunder in an original estimate they would be bundled out of office by the shareholders. Why did not the War Department conduct its affairs in a businesslike way?