To call attention to the Tenure and Ownership of Land in Towns; and to move a Resolution.—[Tuesday, 25th May.]

To call attention to the Election Expenses of candidates for Parliament; and to move, "That, in the opinion of this House, the Official Expenses in connection with Parliamentary Elections should be a charge upon the Public Revenue.—"[Tuesday, 25th May.]

To call attention, to the expense incurred by the Incorporated Law Society in performing the Judicial Duties imposed upon it by 51 and 52 Vic., c. 65; and to move a Resolution.—[Tuesday, 25th May.]

To move, "That this House desires to express its grateful and fraternal recognition to the Government and people of the Dominion of Canada of the generous and patriotic fiscal proposals in favour of British trade and labour announced on 23rd April in the House of Commons at Ottawa and already in force, and expresses its hope that similar action may commend itself to the wisdom of the people of Australasia, Canada, and other Colonies." ["Hear, hear!"]— [Tuesday, 25th May.]

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, having regard to the fact that a large number of torpedo and picket boats are lying idle at Portsmouth and Chatham, he will place at the disposal of the Scottish Office one or more of these boats for service on the northern coasts of Scotland for the purpose of protecting the interests of the line fishermen against illegal trawlers?

No, Sir.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he would state the total sum provided by the Government, to make good deficiencies in connection with trustee savings banks since the passing of the Savings Bank Act? The HON. MEMBER also asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he would state the total profits on the Post Office Savings Bank since the foundation of that institution?

The statement asked for by the hon. Member as to Trustee and Post Office Savings Banks cannot be conveniently given in the form of an answer to a Question. I would refer him to House of Commons Paper No. 75 of this Session and to the last Report of the Postmaster General, where he will, I think, find all the information he requires.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is now in a position to state when the construction of a lighthouse at Tuimpan Head will be commenced?

The Board of Trade have now sanctioned the necessary expenditure for the construction of this lighthouse, and I am informed by the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses that steps will at once be taken for the preparation of the required plans, etc., with a view to the early commencement of the work.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if he has concluded his arrangements for the purpose of enabling Members of both Houses of Parliament to witness the procession of Her Majesty Queen Victoria, intended to commemorate the sixtieth year of her reign; if so, will he be good enough to inform the House the nature of the arrangements; and whether any and what number of places will be allotted to Members in addition to their own?

The arrangements are concluded so far as I am concerned. Members of both. Houses of Parliament will have one ticket free and two tickets for which 12s. 6d. each will be paid. [Cries of "Oh, Oh!"and "Hear, hear!"] Members of the House of Lords will have a stand set apart for them in front of the National Gallery. Members of the House of Commons will have allotted to them stands on Speaker's Green and in New Palace Yard.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether, when he is considering the accommodation for Members and officials of the House to view the Royal Procession on the 22nd of June, he will endeavour to find space for the members of the Press in the Lobby and Gallery of the House of Commons?

I hope it may be possible to make some provision of the nature indicated for members of the Press in attendance at the Houses of Parliament.

asked how many seats the right hon. Gentleman hoped to be able to place at the disposal of the Press Gallery?

The hon. Gentleman must give me a little time to consider that question, but I hope to be able to provide ample accommodation.

asked whether it was intended to erect any seats in St. James's Park?

No, Sir; the only seats we propose to erect are those for the accommodation of the Members of the two Houses of Parliament and of certain. Government officers.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Dundee (Sir JOHN LENG), I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can now state what arrangements have been or are likely to be made For the representation of Crimean veterans in the Diamond Jubilee celebrations of Her Majesty's reign?

The military authorities have carefully considered the proposals to secure a representation of the veterans if the Army on 22nd June, and it is considered that they will be most fittingly represented by the pensioners of Chelsea Hospital, who number over 400, and are ill men of long service, of whom the great majority have campaign records. A special position will be allotted to them to see the procession.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland has received a communication from the Lewis District Committee ex pressing deep regret that the promised grant for the construction of piers at Bayble and Valtos, Island of Lewis, has been withdrawn; whether he is aware that plans for these piers have been approved by the Board of Trade, and lodged within the specified time; that tenders have been advertised for; and that the people of the district have undertaken to give a large proportion of the cost of the piers in free labour; and whether, in view of these circumstances, he will arrange for the construction of these piers at an early date?

The Secretary for Scotland has received a communication from the Lewis District Committee, as stated by the hon. Member. He is substantially correct in what he says as to the proposed pier at Bayble, but the project for the one to be constructed at Valtos has not yet been entertained by the Secretary for Scotland, nor, so far as he is aware, have the plans been yet submitted to the Board of Trade, for the reason that the County Council has not vet given the guarantees always required in such cases. The Secretary for Scotland is not in a position, to give a definite undertaking at present as regards the construction of these piers.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether any, and, if so, what, reply has been received to the representations made by the Postmaster General on the subject of an improved Limited Mad Service from Dundalk to Cavan, Belturbet, and Enniskillen?

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the postal authorities at Dublin have communicated with the traffic manager of the Great Northern Railway Company of Ireland respecting the acceleration of the morning mails from Dundalk to Enniskillen and the intervening districts; and, if so, with what results?

The Post Office has been in communication with, the Great Northern Railway Company of Ireland respecting the acceleration of the day mail to Enniskillen. It is found that the Company are not willing to effect the improvement, except upon terms which the Postmaster General would not be justified in accepting.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can inform the House whether the pro memoriâ presented to the Porte by the British Ambassador at Constantinople (Turkey, No. 7, 1897), on or about the 17th of December last, respecting Hakki Bey, the Kaïmakan at Eghin, Colonel Kara Bey, the Mayor of Eghin, and Sehlik Zadé Hafiz Effendi, with whom, as Sir Philip Currie states, rests the responsibility for the unprovoked massacre of the Armenians, by Kurds and Turks, exteneding over three days at Eghin, has met with any satisfactory reply from the Porte; and whether those individual or any of them, have been dismissed from the Sultan's service, and receive the further punishment which the Ambassador considered they deserved?

Her Majesty Ambassador at Constantinople reports that, in reply to constant representations on his part, the Porte has ordered that a searching inquiry shall be held at one to establish the responsibility of those concerned in the Eghin massacre, an to punish severely those who shall be proved to have abused their authority and that instructions had been sent the Vali of Kharput.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he could explain to the House what was the reason for the order by the Officer Commanding the Aldershot Division suspending all firing at Pirbright Ranges on Saturday, 10th April whether it was necessary that such, order should extend to firing after 4 p.m.; and whether, in view of the fact, that considerable number of Volunteers who have been accorded the privilege of using these ranges on Saturday afternoons were present, at considerable expense, on that afternoon and unable to use the ranges, any such order which may be necessary in future may be promulgate two or three days in advance, in order to give officers commanding Volunteers reasonable time to inform those under their command of the order, and so that unnecessary expense to corps and much needless discouragement to officers and men may be avoided?

The General Office Commanding at Aldershot, in response to a request from the Master of the Hounds, who were to draw Chobham Ridges o the 10th April, suspended firing at the Pirbright Ranges, on that day. He was not aware that the Pirbright Range had been promised on that day to certain Volunteers; but on learning the fact, telegrams were sent to the headquarters of the Volunteer corps concerned. Apparently these failed to stop about 50 Volunteers, who arrived on the 10th, and were allowed to fire that afternoon on the Bisley Range. Arrangements will be made that longer notice shall be given in future.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any agreement has been come to by the European Concert in regard to the evacuation of Crete by the Turkish troops now in that island; whether, if so, these troops will be allowed, after leaving Crete, to join in active operations of the Turkish forces against Greece; whether, in view of the advantage to the Ottoman Empire of being relieved from defending Crete against the Greek forces, by the Concert having proclaimed the neutrality of that island, it is intended to declare any portion of the Greek kingdom neutral, and to forbid its attack by the Turkish, forces; and, whether the prohibition, in regard to landing provisions in Crete is still operative?

No agreement has been come to for the withdrawal of the Turkish troops from Crete. It is the opinion of the majority of the Powers that the Greek troops should leave first. Moreover, the Admirals reported a short time ago that the deportation of the Turkish, troops was a grave question and must not be hastily conducted, there being 49,000 unprotected Cretan Mohammedans in Candia alone, whom the withdrawal of the Turkish garrison would expose to imminent peril. The conditions in regard to the troops being employed subsequently on either side would no doubt be similar. The Powers have no intention of occupying any portion of Greek territory, and declaring it neutral. The question of the exact method in which the blockade shall be applied as regards provisions is one for the Admirals; but the latest report from, them, dated yesterday, is to the effect that there is no scarcity of food in the interior.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman could say whether this country was one of the majority?

I would rather give no answer to such a Question as that. ["Hear, hear!"]

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Colonel Vassos and the Cretans have been informed what is the precise extent of Cretan territory which the Powers; regard as neutral ground; and, whether the Powers guarantee that no troops, regular or irregular, shall be allowed to sally forth from that neutral territory for the purpose of attacking Colonel Vassos or the Cretans?

Her Majesty's Government are not aware of the exact terms of the communications that have recently passed between the Admirals and Colonel Vassos, nor to what extent such communications are now possible. At an interview which the Italian Consul had with him on the 20th April, Colonel Vassos stated that he feared great complications might arise, but would do his best to prevent them. The insurgent leaders have unquestionably received full information as to the limits of the military cordon established by the Powers. The object of the latter is that the whole island should be neutral, and the Turkish troops are restrained as far as possible from attacking the Christian Cretans, but as the latter are constantly assailing the positions round the towns occupied by the Powers, and have been supplied either from Greek sources or otherwise with cannon for the purpose, the attempt to obtain a cessation of all hostilities has not hitherto been successful, and measures of resistance are at times necessitated for the safety of the European forces and the population under their protection.

May I ask whether the neutralisation of this territory is carried out by the authority of the Powers, exclusively under the authority of the Sultan, or whether it is against the wishes of the Sultan?

There is no reason whatever to believe that it is contrary to the wishes of the Sultan, but the constitution of the military cordon has undoubtedly been undertaken on their responsibility by the Admirals of the allied Fleets.

Has the sanction of the Sultan been formally obtained?

The entire proceedings of the Powers in Crete are subject to and have received the sanction of the Sultan. [Cheers.]

Are we to understand that a declaration has been made by the Powers that the whole island should be considered neutral, or simply the territory within the military cordon?

I think the lion. Member is confusing two different things. The territory within, the military cordon is under the protection of the Powers exercised by means of their forces. It is the design and the desire of the Powers that in the war between Greece and Turkey the whole island, which they have taken under their protection, should be regarded as neutral.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, war having been declared between Turkey and Greece, coal in a neutral bottom intended for Turkey or Greece is contraband of war; if coal in a Greek or Turkish bottom intended for Greece or Turkey is contraband of war: and, if coal in a Greek or Turkish bottom intended for a neutral State is contraband of war?

I am afraid that I can only reply to the hon. Member in the same sense as in replies to similar Questions that have been addressed to Her Majesty's Government on previous occasions. It would be ii dangerous and unusual course for Her Majesty's Government to attempt to define by a general statement what is or is not contraband of war. Coal has been held not to be contraband as a general rule, but it is possible that it might in certain cases become so.

wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether in case of war the question of what was or what was not contraband of war was not one exclusively for the Prize Court to determine?

I always refrain from expressing any opinions in this House upon questions of international law. ["Hear!"]

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to a statement in The Times newspaper of yesterday (26th April), in which their special Correspondent, writing from Pentepigadia Pass, asserts that the Turks killed and mutilated all the Greek wounded who fell into their hands; and whether he is able to confirm or disprove this assertion?

I have seen the passage referred to, but we have received no official information with regard to the allegation. May I add in reply to this and similar Questions, of which the hon. Member himself put two to me yesterday, that it is impossible for the Government to have any official information of detailed incidents at the scene of war, as they have no representative on the spot.

asked whether, considering the serious nature of the allegation which had been made by The Times Correspondent, the Government intended to inquire into its truth?

I am afraid that it lies outside the scope of Government duties to inquire into the accuracy of all the various statements on one side or the other that appear in the newspapers. ["Hear, hear!"]

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, according to the theory of the Government—[Cries of "Order!"]

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether any and what notifications have been issued by the two belligerent Powers, Greece and Turkey, relative to neutral flags and neutral merchandise; (2) will such Power respect the enemy's flag unless carrying contraband of war; and (3) can he state whether corn and other articles of food will be deemed neutral or contraband?

The Greek Minister notified to Her Majesty's Government on the 21st instant that orders had been given to the Hellenic land and sea forces in conformity with the Declaration of Paris of April 16th 1856. No notification on the subject has been received from the Turkish Government, but they are parties to the same declaration, and may lie equally expected to observe it. In answer to the second paragraph, Turkey and Greece Mould presumably respect neutral goods in enemy's vessels with the exception of contraband of war, and as regards the latter, Her Majesty's Government have uniformly declined to define it.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether authority would be given to the Historical Record Commission to print copies of the volume descriptive of the records of the Mayflower, which has been given by the Archbishop of Canter bury to the late American Ambassador for transmission to Washington, in order that the same may be more generally distributed in this country and in the United States of America?

I assume that the hon. Member means the Historical Manuscripts Commission. It is not for the Treasury to decide' what documents that Commission should select for publication, and I would therefore suggest that the hon. Member should communicate direct with the Commission, the Secretary to which is Mr. Cartwright, of the Public Record Office. As to the general distribution of copies in this country, apart from any question of distribution in the United States, it should be remembered that the publications of this Commission are treated as Parliamentary Papers, and, as such, are sold at rates which do not at all represent the real cost of production. It is also the fact that a large number are circulated gratis to Members of both Houses of Parliament.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Military Commander at Tokat, who is referred to in the correspondence relative to the Armenian Question, presented to Parliament, in February 1896 (Turkey, No. 2, 1896, p. 329), as having shown great energy in protecting the town and preventing an attempted massacre of Armenians there on 15th November 1895, was removed by the Turkish Government shortly before the recent massacre at Tokat?

We have never heard that the Military Commander at Tokat to whom the hon. Member alludes, was removed under the circumstances mentioned in the Question.

asked whether, in view of the fact that the report of the removal of the Military Commander in question was reported in the Daily News of the 24th of last month, the right hon. Gentleman would inquire into the truth of the report?

I think that the hon. Member is under some misapprehension. The Military Commander of Tokat, to whom I think he refers, is the officer who was removed after the massacres, because he was held to have been partly responsible for them.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury when will copies of the remaining contracts entered into by Her Majesty's Stationery Office be printed and circulated, in continuation of those dated 12th and 13th January of the present year?

The four contracts already presented to which the hon. Member refers are contracts for Parliamentary printing, and the Resolutions passed by the House of Lords and the House of Commons on March 30th and 24th respectively, 1882, require those contracts to lie upon the Table for 40 days before taking effect. It has not hitherto been the practice to make public the other contracts for printing, but I am distinctly in favour of publicity whenever there are no practical arguments against it, and the contracts referred to shall, as they are completed, be laid upon the Table. I do not, however, think that it is necessary to incur the cost of printing them, as the form is in all respects practically identical with that of the four already printed.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he can state when the proposed division of the Officers' List of the Royal Artillery is to be carried out?

Some details of this division are still under consideration: but the necessary arrangements will shortly be completed.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, under the working of the Bill to amend Suction 97 of the Elementary Education Act of 1870, the Chesterfield School Board (which makes tip its next animal accounts in February 1898) will receive any benefit from this Bill before March 1899?

All School Board accounts are made up to the 29th of September. Any tyrant to which the Chesterfield School Board may be entitled under the Bill will be paid as soon after the 29th of September of this year as the claim has been received and the Education Department are in a position to examine it.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether Welling-borough should not be included in the list of School Boards entitled to grants under the Elementary Education Act (1870) Amendment Bill; whether there are other School Boards in the same position; and whether he will issue a supplementary list of Boards so entitled?

Yes. Sir; the Wellingborough School Board is entitled to a grant. No doubt, there are many Boards in the same position; but, as I have several times stated, the materials in the possession of the Education Department do not enable them to furnish anything like an accurate Return.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Dr. Gover has resigned the Medical Inspectorship of Prisons; and, if so, whether he will take the opportunity to appoint a medical man to be a member of the Prisons Board, in accordance with the recommendation of the late Committee on Prisons, and thus assimilate the constitution of the Prisons Board in England to that of the Prisons Board in Ireland?

It is the case that Dr. Gover has reigned his appointment, but I have already decided, after giving full consideration to the recommendation of the Prisons Committee that if is not possible to dispense with the services of a medical inspector, and have, therefore, appointed Dr. Smaller, the medical officer at Parkhurst, in succession to Dr. Gover. This does not, of course, determine the question of the appointment of a medical member of the Board, but I do not at present contemplate making- any such appointment.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether he has observed that the new Canadian tariff provides for preferential trade relations with the Mother Country; and (2) whether Her Majesty's Government will embrace the earliest opportunity of recognising and, if practicable, reciprocating the action of the Government of the Dominion in this important matter?

The answer to the first part of the lion. Member's Question is in the affirmative. Her Majesty's Government cordially appreciate the friendly spirit which is shown by the action of the Dominion Government, but I understand that the proposals do not depend on any alteration of the system of free trade established in the United Kingdom.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the County Council for the County of Cornwall, after holding' the inquiries required by Sections 9 and 10 of the Local Government Act of 1894, made an Order authorising the Parish Council of Veryan to hire certain lands compulsorily for allotments; and that the Local Government Board have disallowed such Order: and whether he will state the reasons for reversing the decision arrived at after inquiry by the representatives of the ratepayers of the county?

The facts are as stated in the Question. A local inquiry was held by one of the inspectors of the Board, at which the evidence of those interested was taken, It appeared that there was no sufficient proof that the Parish Council were unable to hire laud by agreement, or that there was any general demand for allotments in the parish. At the time of the inquiry there were only two applicants for allotments in the land proposed to be hired compulsorily, and it appeared that the Parish. Council had not been able to let for allotments a field which they had previously hired for that purpose. For these and other reasons, and among them the probability that a burden would have been imposed upon the parish, the Board arrived at the conclusion that the Order should not be confirmed.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether his attention has been drawn to a statement made by Bishop Tucker, that should a slave run away in Mombasa and take refuge within the ten mile limit, the Commissioner, on being applied to, issues what is practically a demand for his surrender; (2) why soldiers in the pay of the British Government are employed in the search for runaways; and (3) whether he can give the House any information on the subject?

The facts on the mainland are not quite correctly represented in the first paragraph. Her Majesty's Commissioner has instructions to exercise his own discretion in each particular case, and is under no obligation to act in the manner suggested in the Question.

It will be convenient to a large number of persons at Crowe and elsewhere if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be good enough to say whether he has received any intimation from the present sitting Member for Crowe that he is anxious to serve Her Majesty as Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds, and whether, if so, a favourable answer has been given? [Laughter.]

This appears to be one of the numerous instances in which a newspaper report is incorrect. No such application has been received.

Then may I ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies how it comes that he, a Minister of the Crown, sent a letter to Mr. Marriott sympathising with him as a candidate and hoping he would be returned? [Laughter.]

I always reply to all letters addressed to me in suitable terms. [Loud laughter.]

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government of Cape Colony has received an intimation that under no circumstances would the Imperial Government insist upon the redress of the grievances of the Transvaal Uitlanders?

No communication of the kind referred to has passed between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Cape Colony.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government would consent to take Class II., Foreign Office Vote, next Friday night?

I had not proposed to take Class II., Foreign Office Vote, next Friday, though I am perfectly ready to conform the plans of the Government to the wishes of the House with regard to the arrangements of Supply, as I have always been under similar circumstances. The state of the ease with regard to Supply is this: We are pledged to take Friday, May 14, for Irish Supply. There are two Fridays before that. We have had seven discussions upon foreign affairs in the course of the present Session, and on the whole I am disposed to think, unless a demand is made upon the Government by the front Opposition Bench, that it will be more convenient to proceed in ordinary course with the Civil Service Votes next Friday than to take the Foreign Office Vote on Friday. No doubt a discussion later on in the Session will lie imperatively demanded in the interests of free debate. Therefore. I will give no definite reply at the present time: lint will endeavour to find out whether there is any widespread wish for another discussion on foreign affairs, and if an intimation is made to me to that effect from responsible quarters, I shall of course accede to such a desire.

asked the President of the Board of Trade why the Government did not proceed last night with the Merchant Shipping (Undermianning) Bill, the second principal Measure of the evening, in consequence of which the House was counted out shortly after 9 o'clock?

:I do not think it was in consequence of that. The reason the Bill in question was not proceeded with was that there was a general desire expressed by those interested that, having regard to certain matters of controversy that, would arise, it would not be desirable or in accordance with custom that such a Measure should be taken the first night after the House reassembled.

rose to call attention to the grievance of the Officers of the General List (Indian Army) in the matter of their pensions; and to move:—

"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the grievances of the officers on the General List of the Indian Army in the matter of their succession to Colonels' allowances, and to report to the House thereon."

He pointed out that the officers felt that they had a real grievance to complain of, and that there was no tribunal to which they could appeal except the House of Commons. He could not. conceive why it was that the Government, who were so ready to refer every controversial question to the consideration of a Committee or a Royal Commission, should have hesitated to refer this matter to a Committee. The Government had been very prolific in appointing Committees and Royal Commissions. These officers felt they had a legitimate grievance, and the question was of serious importance to them, because it represented a loss of something like £400 a year. They claimed that they were entitled to Colonels' allowances. It was felt by them also to be a hardship that officers who were their juniors in the Service should have the advantage of the privileges which were denied to them. One case had been brought to his notice in which an officer who had served in command of a regiment did not receive his Colonel's allowance, while his second in command and actually his junior in entering the Service did. These were officers who joined the Service between 1859 and 1861, and were nominated under the old conditions of things by the directors of the East India Company. Every one joined under the same conditions as the officers of the East India Company's Service. They were appointed by the directors; they paid their passage out to India, and they had to this day to subscribe to the old East India Company's funds, established for the relief of widows and orphans. At the time when these officers were nominated, their future position was uncertain. The Mutiny was scarcely at an end, and there was a question in the minds of the authorities at home as to what would be the future of the East India Company's Service. When nominated, each officer was asked to sign a paper, which continued, among other questions the following:—

"Have you been informed that all the appointments now made are to be subject to any alterations that may be decided on?"

He thought the last words were of considerable importance in estimating the position of these officers at the present day. What was the position of affairs at that time? First, considerable variations had been introduced in the wording of that question from time to time. When it came under the consideration of the India Office, it stood there simply "subject to any alterations that may be decided on," but the India Office, in considering these claims, bad more than once altered the phraseology, turning the question into one asking these gentlemen, if they accepted their appointments "subject to any alteration which may be subsequently made in the condition of service." The explanation was perfectly plain and simple. It was to be found in a Despatch written by the Secretary of State for India to the Viceroy on September 30, 1859, in which a communication was made in reference to the probability of some change being made in the constitution of the Indian Army. It was decided in December following by the Government that all future appointments should be made "subject to any alteration that may be decided on." This showed the reason and the intention of putting the question to those gentlemen who had been appointed. A Royal Commission was sitting at that time to decide on the future position of the officers, and on what lines the Indian forces should be reorganised. He contended that the words "decided on" imported a conclusion of the matter at the moment under consideration. It was not subject to any alteration hereafter; it was subject to any alteration which might be decided on. He suggested that the House must lay weight- on the word "decided," and the answer to that was to be found in the Royal Commission which was sitting to decide on the future of the Indian Army. The Henley Clause gave particular privileges and rights to those who had served in the forces of the East India Company; but- while the officers did not base their claim on that clause, or on the fact that as cadets they were appointed as officers of the East India Company, they did base their case on the fact- that they were officers of the Indian Army. The Henley Clause stated (21 and 22 Vic. c. 106, 1858) that the officers were—

"to be entitled to the like pay, pension allowances and privileges, and the like advantages as regards promotion and otherwise as if they had continued in the service of the Company."

Then, according to Section 57 of the same clause, it was—

"lawful for Her Majesty, by Order in Council, to alter or regulate the terms and conditions of service under which persons hereafter entering Her Majesty's Indian Forces shall be commissioned."

Any Order in Council was to be laid before Parliament, but he had searched, and he did not believe any such Order could be found which purported to alter the conditions of the service under which these gentlemen joined. They were officers of the Indian Army, and as such were entitled to those rights and privileges which had since been taken away. There was a distinction between the Honourable East India Company's Service and the Indian Army. A great deal of the confusion which had attended the consideration of this particular question was due to the fact that no sufficient distinction had been drawn between the officers of the East India Company's Service and those who belonged to the Indian Army. The officers for whom he was speaking claimed—and claimed rightly—to be officers of the Indian Army. That they were entitled to that position was made sufficiently clear by the Governor General's Order of 1861. When these officers arrived in India, the condition of things was an uncertain one. It was not known what their future was to be. But the result of the Royal Commission was practically that the Indian Army was split up into three divisions. There was the local list, comprising those who opted to serve in the local forces in India; there was the general list, comprising those who volunteered for the general service of the Crown; and there was the Staff Corps, created fur the first time, of which every officer who had since joined the Indian Army had been a member. All the officers who belonged to the East India Company's Service were given the right of choosing to which of these Services they would belong. The Governor General's Order, No. 960, of 1861, said:—

"According to the; declaration made by these young officers, they have no choice, but the option may lie given them, in common with oilier young officers of the Indian Army, to volunteer for general or local service or for Staff Corns."

He laid stress on the words "in common with other young officers of the Indian Army," because those words clearly indicated that they were officers of the Indian Army, and this option was given to them, in common with other officers of the Indian Army, to volunteer for general or local service or for the Staff Corps. They volunteered for the local, service. In a Despatch dated July 31, 1862, Sir Charles Wood, the then Secretary of State, dealt with the whole question. Apparently the Government of Bombay had recommended that each Lieutenant-Colonel should he promoted to a colonelcy, and receive a Colonel s allowance after the expiration of ten years. Sir C. Wood decided that:—

"all officers -who may have held the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel on January 1, 1862, will also be entitled to promotion to the superior grade of Colonel, with Colonel's allowances, if the step come to them in the ordinary course, before the completion of 12 years' service as Lieutenant-Colonel; but when these Lieutenant-Colonels have been removed from the lists the promotion of those whose Commissions hear date on January 1. 1862, or subsequently, will only be made, as in the Staff Corps, after 12 years' service in that grade."

Here it was clearly laid down that those officers who attained the rank of Lieu-tenant-Colonel after January 1st, 1862, would be entitled to a Colonel's allowances after 12 years' service as Lieu- tenant-Colonel. In this Despatch Sir C. Wood also said:—

"The principle upon which the succession to Colonel's allowances of officers of the Indian Army who have not joined the Staff Corps or the new Line Regiments is to he hereafter regulated, is to be considered as determined by this arrangement."

Here, then, they had this 12 years' arrangement clearly laid down, and it was expressly stated that the principle upon which the succession of these gentlemen to Colonels' allowances was to be regulated was to be considered as determined by this arrangement. He did not know whether the India Office proposed to rest their case upon the ground that these gentlemen were not officers of the Indian Army. If that was their intention, he would refer them to the official Army List for this year, where they would find the names of these gentlemen under the head of "Indian Army, General List." The next Despatch to which he would call mention was the Despatch of June 17, 1864, written by Sir C. Wood to the Governor General of India. It began by raying that—

"it was also considered desirable, on general grounds, to remove, as far as possible, all distinctions between the officers of Her Majesty's general and Indian Armies, and to form them prospectively into one united body, retaining for the Indian officers in the meantime such advantages as were peculiar to their service."

Here it should be observed be distinction was drawn between the Indian officers and the general officers—in other words, between those on the local list and those on the General List. The distinction drawn was not between officers of the East India Company and the officers of the "Indian Army." Sir C. Wood went on to say:—

"It might perhaps have prevented a good deal of misunderstanding if the measures for these various objects, which were distinct in themselves, had been undertaken separately, but so much was inevitable, and it was so desirable that the full extent of any changes should be known at once, and that men's, minds should not he left in uncertainty as to their future condition, that it was determined to carry into effect, without loss of time, all the measures required for the changes which were to be made."

Those were grave and serious words, and the men who read that Despatch, and determined their future careers on the wording of that Despatch were entitled to rely upon it. In view of that declaration, it passed belief that in 1882 a new and further change would be made wholly to their disadvantage. In the 19th paragraph of the Despatch the Secretary of State said:—

"It appears that of the officers of the Indian Army who joined the Line Regiments the whole of the Artillery and Engineers, and those who joined the Staff Corps, have been generally benefited by the change."

Then came the words: —

"If to this number be added the whole of the officers who entered the Service since 1858 on conditions subject to any change that might be introduced into the Service, it will be seen that there will remain a comparatively small number who can have any real cause of complaint."

Showing clearly that these officers (for there were none others to whom this description could apply) were to be "benefited by the change." A subsequent paragraph of the Despatch ran:—

"The general promotion of the Indian officers will be accelerated, and to every officer, including the Cadet who entered the Service so lately as December 1861, his promotion through every grade, with the pay thereunto belonging, as if the whole native Army of India had been kept up is assured, and his right to Indian pension is maintained."

These extracts showed what assurances were given to the officers on the General List of the Indian Army, to whom alone they were applicable. In another paragraph these words occurred:—

"Nor is it probable that more than a very few eases can occur in which an officer will not attain the Colonel's allowance after a shorter total period of service, even though he may remain rather longer in the grade of Lieutenant-Colonel."

Then the 81st paragraph stated:—

"With this measure the arrangements as regards the officers of the Indian Army will be closed. The advantages which have been conferred upon the majority of those officers have already been pointed out. and it cannot be doubted that under the system now established the officers of the Indian Army will, for the most part, attain to the several regimental grades, including that of Colonel, with Colonel's allowance, in a shorter period of service than they would have done had the several Staff Corps not been formed and had no change in the constitution of the Indian Army taken place."

He did not think a more explicit pledge could be given to any body of men than that which was given in the Despatch of 1864 from which he had read. That that was the view taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton was clear from an answer the right hon. Gentleman gave to a question put by Sir Richard Temple in 1895 on this subject. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir Henry Fowler) said:—

"The passage in the Order of 1864 refers to the prospects of promotion and pension under the rules then in force, including the succession to the Colonel's allowance; but as regards the officers who entered the Service since 1858, this promise is subject to any change that might be introduced into the Service."

The House would see that the right hon. Gentleman distinctly called it a promise —["hear, hear!"]—a promise that these officers should have the right of succession to the Colonel's allowance after 12 years' service as Lieut.-Colonel. He now came to the last Act. The House would hardly believe that 18 years afterwards—in 1882—although in the meanwhile entrance into the Staff Corps had been closed to these gentlemen, entrance into which would have secured to them this allowance, they were told that instead of getting their rights after they had served 12 years as Lieut.-Colonel, they were to be put on a pension of £750 a year, which meant a clear and absolute loss to them of nearly £400 a year. Thus these particular gentlemen had been singled out from among all those serving in Her Majesty's Indian Army for this treatment. After relying on the promise given in the Despatch of 1864, and after having done good service for Her Majesty, they were told that instead of being entitled after 12 years' service as Lieut.-Colonel to the Colonel's allowance, they were reduced to a pension of £750 a year, and were told to be thankful for that. He need hardly say that he had no personal interest in the case of these gentlemen. ["Hear, hear!"] He had taken it up as a matter of duty. He had been exercised in his mind to see what possible answer could be made to the claims of these. Gentlemen. Of course, he was well aware that the Government had always the power to deal with those in their service as they pleased; but power was one thing and right was another—["hear, hear!"]—and he did not propose to discuss the question from the basis of what it was in the power of the Government to do, but from the basis of what was the right and honest thing to do. He believed that considerable reliance was placed on the declaration which these gentlemen had signed, but there could be no question that all the subsequent alterations and emendations did not exist in the original answer received. Then, again, the question had sometimes been raised that these gentlemen were not officers in the Indian Army, but to this day their names appeared in the official Army List as such, so that that ground of objection disappeared. Again, it had sometimes been repeated in the voluminous correspondence on the subject that these officers were better off than they might have expected to be; but they had not got what had been promised to them, and they were not so well off as they had a right to expect. The probability of succession to the Colonel's allowance had been considered by a Committee, whose finding was embodied in a Despatch, and he found that that Committee reported that the 12 years' term was two years in excess of the fair term, the average of which had been a little over 10 years; so that these officers might fairly have expected to get their Colonel's allowance after 10 years' service as Lieut.-Colonel. ["Hear, hear!'"] Then, finally, they were told that the assurance given in the Despatch of 1864 had been fulfilled. These gentlemen would not be asking the House to consider their ease that day if that assurance had been fulfilled, and he believed it would pass the ingenuity of the noble Lord to make out that it had been fulfilled in any shape or form. ["Hear, hear!"] He had not elaborated the ease as he might have done. He had felt it his duty to put it as shortly, and he hoped as intelligibly, as he possibly could before the House. What he was asking for was not n decision of the House on the claims of these gentlemen, but that they might be referred to the impartial judgment of a Select Committee, and he failed to see why Her Majesty's Government should refuse that. The Government seemed to have made it a Government matter in issuing a Whip of four lines against the Motion. He had always thought there was a lack of the sense of proportion in those who were responsible fur Government Whips. A Whip of three lines only was issued on the Necessitous School Boards Bill. That showed the comparative importance which the Government attached to a Measure like that, and the investigation of the conduct of a department of the Government for which they themselves as a Government could not be in any shape or form responsible. ["Hear, hear!"] The Government had shut the door against anything like inquiry into this question, and had made it a Government matter. There was a passage in Lord Macaulay's Essay on Lord Clive, to the effect that the strength and foundation of British rule in India was that the Sepoy, however humble and poor he might be, felt that under the rule of the Company his bread and salt were assured to him, however long he might live. If that was so with the Indian soldier, should it be less so with the English officer, who had led him in many hard-fought and difficult engagements? ["Hear, hear!'] That was the view taken in early days under the Honourable East India Company, and now it was found, in contrast to that, that no inquiry could lie made into the manner in which the India Office from time to time had treated these men who had served them so well. He could imagine only one thing more damaging to a Government than an accusation that they had treated harshly and unfairly those who had done good service in years past. ["Hear, hear!"] To such an accusation any Government might be exposed and no harm was done, but when those who had an opportunity of having such an accusation honestly and fairly inquired into turned away from it and endeavoured by all the means at the disposal of a Government to shut the door against inquiry into it, there was only one conclusion likely to be drawn. ["Hear, hear!"] He felt that this ought never to have been made a Government matter. These gentlemen had a strong and legitimate grievance, as he had shown, and he would, therefore, conclude by moving the Resolution which stood in his name. ["Hear, hear!"]

, in seconding the Resolution, asked for the indulgence of the House if he traversed again some of the ground covered by his lion. Friend; but this grievance of officers in the general list was so intricate in itself, and depended so much on the interpretations of warrants and dispatches that he was bound to trespass on the patience of the House to a certain extent, and to ask for the indulgence hon. Members were always ready to give. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University, who dealt with this matter as Under Secretary for India on a former occasion, stated, in opening the case for the Government, that he believed the subject was one which hardly anyone understood, and which no one could solve. He could only say for himself that for years he had studied this question, and the more he studied it, the more difficult and the less clear it seemed. He agreed with his hon. Friend that it was next to impossible to make the subject thoroughly clear to Members of the House except through, the medium of a Select Committee. That was. why they appealed for a Select Committee. He knew his noble Friend would say that he was quite able to put before the House how they ought to vote on this question, but all he could say to his noble Friend and the House was this—if they could make out a primâ facie case for an inquiry, they were entitled to it. ["Hear, hear!"] He thought that his lion. Friend had made out such a case. Now, what would his noble Friend say? He would say that he was advised by his Departmental advisers that these gentlemen had no case; but most people who had gone into the facts, as he had conscientiously done, were convinced that they had an excellent case. He thought that that was the interpretation placed on the warrants and dispatches. Of course, lie did not blame his noble Friend for the attitude which he assumed. He was more or less at the mercy of his military advisers, but if his noble Friend said that he was only taking the same view which had been taken by every other Secretary of State, he could only reply that that was one more reason why they should come to that House. What was the good of arraigning the officials before the Secretary of State? Why, his noble Friend was their mere mouthpiece in that House. He said, on behalf of those whose cause he advocated, that they were willing to trust the House of Commons, and if it was satisfied, after inquiry, that they had no case, they would abide by that decision. As matters stood, the only appeal they had was to people who had already prejudiced their claims. He had, as he said—and the House would believe him—gone very carefully and honestly into the facts, and he had endeavoured to understand the question, and, looking at it impartially, had come to the conclusion that there was a legitimate claim on the Indian Government. These officers had rendered their services when India was passing through its most critical moments, and now their allowances were not to be granted. The hon. Member proceeded to read a number of extracts from orders and dispatches bearing on the claims of the officers, and urged that the whole circumstances called for investigation. One extract he quoted was the following" statement of the Military Secretary, who said:—

"The General list Officers were appointed to the Indian Army subject to any alterations in the conditions of service which might hereafter be determined on."

He asked hon. Members to mark the wording of that sentence—" the conditions of service which might hereafter be determined on." As his hon. Friend had pointed out, there was not one syllable about "hereafter" in the original. What was said in the dispatch confirming the form of declaration was that they were to be subject to any alteration in the conditions of the Service, meaning, of course, the whole Indian Army, and meaning the alterations then being considered by the Royal Commission sitting on the reorganisation of the Army. In 1858 the exact wording was:—

"All future appointments of Cadets should be made subject to any alteration that may be decided upon."

Why? Because a Royal Commission was sitting. What alterations were contemplated? Alterations suggested by the Royal Commission. When, therefore, the Cadets agreed to abide by any alterations that might be decided upon, it was quite clear they agreed only to the alterations to be made by the Royal Commission. Yet it was now- pretended that this "declaration"—this agreement—not only debarred the General List Officers from the advantages which the General Order of 1864 "assured" and "maintained" to them in common with all officers of the Indian Army, but bound them to accept "any alterations in the conditions of service which might thereafter be determined upon." The words of the General Order of 1864, which was an honest and straightforward document, described the General List Officers as officers who entered the Service on "conditions subject to any change that might be introduced into the Service." It did not say "might or may hereafter be introduced." Such were the weapons which the India Office placed in his noble Friend's hands, and he had no doubt the noble Lord would make the best use of them. He dared say the noble Lord would trot out again the question of expense, but he would undertake to prove, if a Committee were appointed, that the expense would be very small indeed. Of course his noble Friend would produce numerous figures to contradict him, but that, again, would be obvious proof that the House was not the place to decide such a question. It was not across the floor of the House of Commons that the question could be settled. What was wanted was some small independent tribunal. He could not understand why his noble Friend resisted the suggestion made, unless there was something they knew nothing of in the background, and that he could not believe for one moment. There was no doubt his noble Friend did betray great mistrust of the House of Commons, and perhaps he was wise in doing so, because that mistrust was the strongest evidence of the strength of their case. The noble Lord was afraid to let the case go before a Committee, because he knew what the decision of a Committee would be; he knew that justice would be done there. What was the course the noble Lord had pursued? He had not left them free and unfettered to decide this matter, a matter which was purely administrative, and in which Party obligation was in no way at stake. He had seen a good many four-line Whips, but he had never known such a Whip issued in order to enable a Department to avoid a free inquiry. He asked the noble Lord to remember that if it was excellent to have a giant's strength, it was tyranny to use it like a giant. It was unworthy to invoke the aid of a big majority in jockeying 58 poor officers out of their rights. Just as he would refuse to be dictated to on a question like this, he hoped and believed there were many Members of the House who would not listen to the Front Bench, whether it was occupied by Members of this or that Party. Both Front Benches were tarred with the same brush. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton was just as bad as the noble Lord. They all knew that whichever side was in, there was no justice to be got out of a man when once he got on the Front Bench. Let him end as he began. They had not the slightest fear of the House of Commons. They asked for justice. They did not ask hon. Members to pronounce any opinion on the merits of the case. They simply asked to be allowed to go before an impartial tribunal, and not to have their case decided by a packed jury as it were. Before an impartial tribunal he undertook to prove their case up to the hilt. ["Hear, hear!"]

said the hon. Member for Horsham had made a very able speech, but he very naturally based it on information supplied to him. He did not wish to interrupt the hon. Gentleman when he was wrong, indeed, had he done so it would have been necessary to interpolate a correction at every sentence. He thought he would be able to show, in the course of his remarks, that there never was a weaker case put before the House of Commons than the present. But before he dealt with the question of the appointment of a Committee, he desired to say there were certain sentiments enunciated by his hon. Friend with which he entirely agreed. He agreed that the Government were bound to keep faith with those they employed. He further agreed that the Government had no right whatever to wriggle out of an engagement by the ambiguity of the language employed; but after all, the Indian Exchequer and the Indian tax-payer had their rights just as much as anybody else. What was the object of the appointment of a Select Committee? It was to reverse the decision of successive Viceroys, of successive Commanders-in-Chief, of successive Secretaries of State, and of every military and civil member of their respective Councils for the last 16 years. There was an absolutely unbroken record of authority against this case, and it must be remembered that military opinion dominated the Indian Government to a greater degree than it did any other administration in Her Majesty's dominions. It was a matter of notoriety that the arrangements made by the Indian Government in connection with these servants were far more generous and liberal than those sanctioned by this House or the Treasury, and, therefore, a very strong case must be made out before the House would attempt, to interfere with the Indian Government, and put upon the Indian revenue a charge which the Indian Government considered an injustice. What was the case which his hon. Friends bad presented? It was that these officers had been robbed—the hon. Member for Hull used the word jockeyed—out of their right to Colonels' allowances. But these officers were allowed Colonels' allowances; they were entitled to a certain establishment of Colonels' allowances. The number of Colonels' allowances to which this particular branch of the service was entitled was 13. These officers claimed that they had an unlimited right to Colonels' allowances, but the East India Company in the past and the Queen's Government since had always put a limitation on the number of Colonels' allowances, with one single exception. What had made this case complicated was that a number of facts, wholly extraneous to the case, had been dragged in in order to give colour to it. There were two sets of facts kept entirely distinct. The first related to the reform and re-organisation of the Indian Army after the Mutiny, and the second related to those officers who joined the Indian Army subsequent to the date of the transfer of authority. He thought he would be able to make it clear that both his hon. Friends had been misled in the statements they had made. The Indian Mutiny was a terrible Imperial disaster, but it was largely caused by the defective military organisation of the native army in India. It was, therefore, self-evident that as soon as the Powers of the East India Company were transferred to the Crown, the first duty of the Crown would be thoroughly to reorganise the native army. Great sympathy was felt with the European officers of the Company, many of whom had died at their posts during the Mutiny, and though the rapid rehabilitation of British influence in India was largely clue to the skill and valour of others, there was a strong feeling in the House of Commons that when the transference of powers took place the officers of the old Company should not be prejudiced by the change. While the Bill was before Parliament, a Committee was formed for the protection of the interests of these officers, and the Committee entered into various negotiations with the Government for the insertion of words, and ultimately certain words contained in the well known "Henley Clause" were agreed to. Those words were extremely wide, and were such as no Parliament nowadays would assent to. It was laid down that these officers—

"shall be under the same obligation to serve Her Majesty as they would have been to serve under the said Company, and shall be liable to serve within the same territorial limits only ….and be entitled to the like pay, pensions, allowances, and privileges, and the like advantages as regards promotion and otherwise as if they had continued in the service of the said Company."

Those words applied to the old East India Company's officers alone. They were purely retrospective in their action, and a subsequent clause was inserted applying to all the officers who came in afterwards:—

"It shall be lawful for Her Majesty from time to time, by Order in Council, to alter or regulate the terms and conditions of service under which persons hereafter entering Her Majesty's Indian Forces shall be commissioned."

There were, therefore, two sections in the Act. Under the one came all the old East India Company's officers, and under the other came all those who joined subsequently to 1858. What his hon. Friend wished to do was to transfer the officers under the latter section to the former. If that proposal were assented to, he must say distinctly that it would be a gross breach of faith with the Indian Government, on whom the Henley Clause had placed a tremendous obligation. In the work of reorganising the Indian Army, the Henley Clause was a millstone round the neck of the Indian Government. They could not move in any direction without coming into contact with the guaranteed interests of the old officers. In the old days the Army was organised under a system analogous to that in this country, and promotion was strictly by regimental seniority. To every regiment were attached some 30 officers, on the average; and to every battalion was apportioned one Colonel's allowance and no more. After the Indian Mutiny, half the battalions disappeared. Various Commissions reported in favour of reductions, and the Army was reduced from 250,000 to 120,000 men. An entirely different system of officering was also introduced—the irregular system, first applied to the cavalry and then to the infantry—under; which the number of officers attached to a regiment was reduced to less than one-fourth of the old number. And yet, the Indian Government had to give to every single officer the same pay, allowances, and promotion, as would have existed if the old system had continued. Commission after Commission was appointed to see that the terms of the Henley Clause was complied with, and concession after concession was made to meet the difficulty. The first of these concessions took the form of the Order read out by the hon. Member, giving Colonels' allowances after 12 years' service as full Lieutenant-Colonel. That Order applied only to the officers of the old East India Company, and was in no sense applicable to the officers whose case was brought forward by his hon. Friend. In 1866, when the present Prime Minister was Secretary of State for India, a further Commission had reported that, notwithstanding all the concessions made, the guarantee clause had not been fulfilled as regarded the colonels' allowances to the old officers, and in despair the Government made a tremendous concession to those officers. In order to have a free hand in future in dealing with all those military problems, on which the security of India depended, it was necessary to buy out all these officers; and the Government allowed them to come into the Staff Corps, and, after 12 years' service as Lieutenant-Colonel, to obtain Colonels' allowances without regard to the number on the list. Now his hon. Friend wished to apply those terms to the officers who had joined subsequently to 1858. Every military authority admitted that from the laxity of wording in the Henley Clause the reorganisation of the Indian Army had cost India millions more than would otherwise have been necessary; and Parliament ought to be very careful before adding to the already heavy non-effective charges of the Indian Army. As to the officers whose case had been brought forward by his hon. Friend, every one of those officers joined subsequently to the termination of the powers of the East India Company.

If my right hon. Friend will pardon me, I have the names here of the directors who nominated them.

said that he thought his hon. Friend had fallen into error. What occurred was that the whole of the powers of the Board of Directors ceased, and were transferred to the Secretary of State in Council, But a certain number of the directors were on the Council, where, however, they no longer acted as directors. So careful were the Indian Government, that they put under the Henley Clause all the officers who up to that time had been nominated by the East India Company, but who had not actually joined the Service. His hon. Friend had referred to the Report of the Commission appointed to inquire into the terms under which those officers should serve. His hon. Friend must know that that Commission laid down that all these officers came in under the new conditions. It was idle to pretend now that they did not know they were coming in under the new conditions. They went out to India, and were put on the general list; but in 1861, after two years, the reforms in the Indian Army had so far established themselves that certain alternatives of service were offered to these young men. They might join the British regiments, which had been transferred from the Company to the Crown, taking with them the Indian pensions, but having no claim to Colonels' allowances, or they might join the Staff Corps—a service which had been instituted for the purpose of officering regiments on the irregular system. In that corps the promotion was regulated by length of service, and the officers were entitled to Colonels' allowances at the ratio of 1 to 30—the old ratio under the Company. Some of the officers selected the one service and some the other. Between 1861 and 1866 every officer on the general list —all those whose claims were advocated by his hon. Friend—could have joined the Staff Corps; but all did not, because they got better terms by remaining on the general list. When this tremendous concession was made in 1866, officers were requested to join the Staff Corps before a certain day. Having done that, they were entitled, after a certain term of service, to full Colonels' allowances. There were a certain number of officers of the general list and from British regiments who had come in between 1861 and 1866, and the question which the Indian Government had to consider was whether this exceptional privilege should be extended to those officers. For the purposes of uniformity, and to avoid having to deal with men on the same list in different ways, that concession was extended to the limited number of these men then in the Staff Corps. With the exception of this special concession of 1866, the ratio maintained had always been that of 1 to 30. His hon. Friend talked about "robbery." The facts showed how groundless was that charge. Under the Order of 1864 the old rates of pensions were, after 20 years' service, £191, which was raised by the new Order of 1882 to £250; after 24 years' service £292, raised to £365; after 28 years' service, £365, raised to £500; after 32 years' service £456, raised to £700; and after 38 years' service £456, raised to £700. With the fullest desire to do justice he had looked carefully into the matter, and had found an absolutely unbroken record of official opinion against the claims put forward on behalf of these officers. But he was desirous, before coming to a final conclusion, to consult an authority higher than a Committee of the House of Commons—he meant the Military Committee of the Council of India, consisting of Field-Marshal Sir Donald Stewart, Sir Archibald Alison, and General Gordon; and he asked them to look into the matter, with the result that they had reported as follows:—

"There are no grounds for admitting the claim that all the officers of the General Lists of Cavalry and Infantry should receive the Colonel's allowance after 12 years' service as substantive Lieutenant-Colonel. This concession was originally granted in 1862 to officers of the East India Company's Army, whose names were borne on regimental cadres and on the gradation lists of Cavalry and Infantry in the three presidencies, and was subsequently extended in 1866 to all officers of that army and to all officers who joined the Staff Corps on or before, the 12th September 1866. The officers of the General Lists were not officers of the Company's Army, and consequently not under the Henley Clause of the Act of 1858, which guaranteed to the latter pay, pension and promotion, 'as if they had continued in the service of the said Company.' The officers of the General Lists were appointed by Her Majesty to Her Majesty's Indian Military Forces after the transfer of the Government of India to the Crown, and the 57th Section of the Act gave Her Majesty full power to frame new regulations as regards pay, promotion, &c., for all these officers. There is no foundation for the statement that, by orders issued subsequent to 1858, the officers of the General Lists acquired the status and privileges of officers of the Company's Army. The General Order of 1864, on which they found their claim, stated that to every officer, including the Cadet who entered the service so lately as December 1861, his promotion through every grade, with the pay thereunto belonging, as if the whole native army of India had been kept up, is assured, and his right to Indian pension is maintained." This assurance has been fulfilled. The officers of the General Lists have received their promotion at rates quicker than those previously prevailing, their pay has been improved, and their pensions are considerably higher than the Company's rates. They were given an establishment of 13 Colonels' allowances, that is, at the rate of one to 30 officers, which was the ratio originally fixed for the Staff Corps, and more than this they had no reason to expect. It cannot be maintained that the Order of 1864 gave them a right to a concession granted in 1866 to a different class of officers, in order to remedy a grievance alleged to have arisen from non-fulfilment of the guarantee given by the Henley Clause of 1858, which did not apply to the General Lists."

It was said that this was a small matter—that there were only a few officers concerned; but if the House appointed a Committee to investigate the conditions under which those officers had enlisted, they would have to inquire into the cases not only of those on the effective list, but of those who had retired from the effective list in the belief that the decisions of the Secretary of State were final. He would ask, Would this claim be granted if it were to apply to English revenue? ["Hear, hear!"] It seemed to him it was a claim that the House could not possibly assent to. At the present moment there was great sympathy with the Indian Government, and proposals had been made from both sides of the House that assistance should be given to the Indian Exchequer to enable them to tide over the temporary difficulties against which they were now contending. He did not think that they needed that assistance. He believed the Indian Government would manage to struggle on, provided they got fair play and were protected from Motions of this kind, which he was sure would not, be moved if they were to apply to the English taxpayer. ["Hear, hear!"] He undertook that there should be a complete fulfilment of any contract or engagement made by the Indian Government in regard to these officers, and he would take care that the Indian Government did not get the advantage of any ambiguity of phraseology in those contracts or engagements. Therefore he thought he had the right to ask the House to protect the Indian Government from this Motion, which he should characterise as one of the most unjustifiable raids ever made upon the Indian Exchequer.

said that as, like his noble Friend, he had served for some years in the Army, as he had been Under Secretary for India in 1866, when the Commission was appointed, and as his service in India had given him considerable1 knowledge of the position and claims of the officers in question, he desired to say a few words on the Motion before the House. No doubt upon the Paper circulated those officers had a certain case; but the statements made in those Papers must be read with their context. He thought the Seconder of the Motion had put his case on too high a ground. It was not necessary to accuse the Members of the Government and the successive officials who had borne the responsibility of administering the affairs of India, of having robbed these officers. Strong expressions of that kind were only resorted to when there was a weak case. To say that when men obtained places on the Treasury Bench they lost all sense of right and wrong was ridiculous. At any rate, he, having sat on the Treasury Bench, had not been sensible of having had any such loss. He, for his part, thought that the officers of the Old East India Company were treated with great liberality. If any error had been committed at all, it was an error of liberality. If the letter of the law held out the promise of expectation to those officers that they would be entitled to the succession of Colonels' allowances when they had reached thirty-eight years' service, they ought to have those allowances. He could not get over the fact, admitted by these officers themselves, that they had agreed that their appointments were to be subject to any alteration that might be decided on. His hon. Friends who moved and seconded the Motion said that that did not cover the alterations in the conditions of pay and service generally. That was as great an assumption on the one side as on the other. He had looked into this question as long ago as 1866, and he thought then, as he had thought ever since, that it left the Government of India free to make such conditions for these officers' services, after they had organised the service of the Army, as seemed proper to them. He did not think a primâ facie case had been made out for an inquiry by Select Committee, and a Select Committee of that House ought not to be appointed unless such a primâ facie case were made out. ["Hear, hear!"]

said a good many of his constituents believed that a grievance existed. These officers did not wish to have their case prejudged; what they wished was to put the matter before an impartial tribunal. The noble Lord seemed to have jumped to the conclusion that this Committee was going to report against him, and talked about the burden which would be cast on the finances of India. The whole question appeared to him to be a very difficult and complicated one, and he did not intend to enter into it, but what he did contend was that these officers were entitled to have their case examined by an impartial and entirely unbiassed tribunal. ["Hear, hear!"] Secretaries of State for India had always taken advice and been coached by officers of a rival corps—the Staff Corps. They all knew that rivalries and jealousies existed in all Services—in the Army, the Navy, and even, he was told, in the Church. These unfortunate officers could control no votes, but they had passed their lives in India, and served their country gallantly, and therefore he hoped that hon. Members would vote for this impartial inquiry by a Committee of the House.

said he felt bound to intervene on two grounds. He wished to express his entire approval of the policy which was being pursued by the noble Lord, as well as his admiration for the masterly speech which he had addressed to the House on that occasion. ["Hear, hear!"] He must also say a word or two on the speech of the hon. Member for Hull, who seconded this Motion. He did not think that speech ought to pass unnoticed. He had always demurred in that House to reflections being made on the Government of India, especially when they were groundless. In this country we understood the criticisms which opposing political parties passed upon each other, and upon Ministers with reference to party politics. But when a responsible Member of that House, and especially a Member occupying the position relating to India which the Member for Hull did, distinctly told the House of Commons and the people of this country that the Government of India, as represented in that House by those Ministers whom Her Majesty had been pleased to appoint Secretary of State for India were absolutely devoid of impartiality, that they prejudged every case that came before them, that they were entirely in the hands of their military officials, that if they objected to an inquiry there was something in the background, and that they had jockeyed officers out of their just claims, he could only say that that long catalogue of charges against responsible Ministers in that House was one which he was not anxious to see reprinted in the Press of India. He felt that it was his duty to enter a strong protest against applying that language to the present Government or to their predecessors, or to the Government of the Viceroy in India, or to the Indian Council in Whitehall—["hear, hear!"]—for they were all involved in the sweeping criticisms of the hon. Member.

said he did not intend to convey anything of the kind. He had listened with utter amazement to the right hon. Gentleman. On the contrary, he had said that the right hon. Gentleman and his noble Friend had come to a decision which they believed to be perfectly accurate. He himself, however, honestly took the view that the matter should be submitted to an impartial tribunal.

said he was quite willing to believe that his hon. Friend did; not intend to convey what he said, but he had quoted verbatim the words which had been used. He demurred altogether to the statement that this matter had been prejudged. He believed it had been investigated by five Secretaries of State—the Duke of Devonshire, Lord Kimberley, Lord Cross, the noble Lord opposite, and himself. The hon. Member stated that he approached this question with impartiality, and with a conscientious desire to do his duty. Did the hon. Member suppose that Secretaries of State were incapable of impartiality, or were devoid of conscience or regard for duty? He did not think the hon. Member meant that, but unfortunately he implied it, and he, therefore, wished to enter his protest. After the clear statement of the noble Lord, he was not going into the merits; he would only recall to the House what was the crux of the situation. The same advantages were asked for by officers who had joined the service after the transfer of the Government of India to the Crown, as was granted by the Act of 1858 to the old East Indian Army by the East Indian Government. The hon. and gallant Member who had just sat down said that there was a rivalry between the Staff Corps and other branches of the service, but these gentlemen got all that the Staff Corps got, and were put in precisely the same position. He disagreed totally with the construction which had been put upon the dispatch of 1864, but the real point on which the controversy rested was whether these officers were entitled under that dispatch to what, with all respect to the present Prime Minister, he would venture to call the disastrous concession subsequently made in 1866, by which Colonels' allowances were given to the whole of the officers who were in the old East India Company's service. His opinion was that if the Indian Government had been disposed to press the point they might have been able to deprive the officers on the General List of any Colonels' allowances, but they had been given an establishment of 13. So far as his knowledge extended, he considered the Indian Government had treated their servants with the amplest generosity, and he thought they were treated with special liberality in 1882. There had been, he might almost say, a dozen inquiries, and the matter had been fully and carefully considered, and if the House appointed a Select Committee to inquire further into it, it would avowedly be a declaration of opinion on the part of the House that injustice had been done, and that the case had not been properly investigated. In the event of the Committee reporting in favour of graining these allowances, the House would find itself in a difficult position, for the Government of India was the sole judge of the charges that were to be imposed on the revenues of India. The Secretary of State had but one vote in the Council, and that House had by Standing Orders adapted to the case of East Indian expenditure the same rule as existed with reference to Imperial expenditure—namely, that no proposal could be made for any charge upon the revenues of this country or of India unless it was previously recommended by the Crown—in other words, by the Government of the day. He thought that groundless charges had been made against the Government of India with reference to their expenditure; but it would be a very heavy additional charge if this application was granted, for the noble Lord was quite right in saying that they would have to open the case of every man who had retired and taken a pension. He thought it would be a serious thing if the House of Commons, in spite of the deliberate opinion of the Viceroy and his Council, in spite of the deliberate opinion of five or six Secretaries of State and their Councils, recommended a charges on the revenues of India which every one of those authorities thought ought not to be put upon them, and a burden they should not be called upon to bear. As far as the military question was concerned, surely the hon. Member would not impute to three such distinguished officers as Sir Donald Stewart, Sir Archibald Alison, and General Gordon any jealous rivalries, or a desire to do injustice to any part of the military service. They would be the first to recognise even shadowy claims, if they rested on justice. In the face of their advice, not only to the Secretary of State, but to the Government of the day, and with all respect to the House of Commons, he thought it would be an unwise thing for the House to take a step indicating a desire to reverse the policy which had been pursued, and implying that the Government, both in India and at home, had been influenced by improper motives, or had prejudiced the case, had not acted impartially, and had not done what he himself knew they intended to do, and what the Secretary for India, speaking quite as much for the Opposition side of the House as for his own, said that the Government would always do—whatever was fair and just to the distinguished men who, whether in. a civil or military capacity, had served the Crown in the Government of India. [Cheers.]

rose to call attention to the great increase in the importation of foreign manufactured goods into the United Kingdom, and the consequent loss of employment to the working classes in Great Britain and Ireland; and to move:—

"That fully manufactured goods brought into this country from any foreign country should pay a toll for the benefit of the British labour thereby displaced of Ten pounds per centum ad valorem, and partly manufactured goods a Customs toll of half that amount, and that the proceeds should be applied in forming the nucleus of a national fund for the granting of weekly pensions to deserving and necessitous persons over 65 pears of age incapacitated from earning a livelihood by sickness or infirmity, or otherwise utilised for the benefit of British trade and labour."

The hon. Member said the Motion which stood in his name appeared very formidable upon the Paper. It was, however, extremely simple. He laid it before the House not only as representing a manufacturing constituency, but also in the hope of applying a solution to the difficult problem of how to provide old age pensions for the industrial classes—a problem in which the whole Unionist Party was interested. To show that the Motion was not framed in the selfish interest of the manufacturing or artisan class, it would be seconded by his hon. Friend the Member for West Wilts, who represented a purely agricultural constituency. It was not necessary that he should say more by way of introduction. But if the House would permit him he would make good the preamble of the Resolution. To do so he would have to transgress the sound unwritten rule as to the avoidance of statistics. But he hoped for the kind indulgence of hon. Members, as in no other way could the point in issue be proved. Material of an authentic character was fortunately not lacking. There were first of all the Returns moved for by his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade in 1882, when a private Member inclined to protection; upon Foreign Trade, Revenue, etc., between 1854 and 1880, and which were known generally as Mr. Ritchie's Returns; and then the Tables of British Trade and Production between 1854 and 1895, presented last year; and then the very able memorandum of February last of Sir Courtenay Boyle to the President of the Board of Trade. He was bound to acknowledge the general fairness of the Reports and Tables furnished by Sir Courtenay Boyle and Sir R. Giffen. One saw them driven by force of fact into admissions which they vainly tried to explain away. He would confine himself as strictly as possible to proving what the Resolution truly called "the great increase in the importation of foreign manufactured goods." The Secretary to the Board of Trade said, p. 18:—

"The import of articles called manufactured into the United Kingdom has enormously increased, viz., from £53,000,000 in 1883 to £81,000,000 in 1896."

No one could say in the face of such figures that Lord Rosebery was exaggerating when he said last year, "these are grave and striking facts." But they became much more grave if one looked further back still, as one was assuredly entitled to do, namely, to the commencement of the time when this country, once the workshop of the world, began to become the dumping ground for the surplus products of foreign states—often sold under cost price, thanks to foreign bounties and duties. The total importation of manufactured goods in 1855 was only just over £9,000,000. Since then it had gone up year after year, until now it was nine times that amount. Indeed, this was below the mark, for the Trade and Navigation Returns for the 12 months ending March 31 showed not only that £82,348,337 worth of manufactured articles were imported, but also £15,148,000 worth of miscellaneous articles, mostly manufactured, and one million worth through the Parcel Post— not far short, therefore, of 100 millions worth, or tenfold the importation of manufactures 40 years ago. Whence, then, came this greatly increased competition? Sir Courtenay Boyle said:—

"Our imports from France have increased sensibly, notwithstanding its slow increase of population, and the increase on analysis is found to be largely an increase of the imports of silk and woollen manufactures. Our exports to France, on the other hand, show a sensible decline."

Then as to Germany. The Secretary to the Board of Trade said, p. 27:—

"It is evident that the Returns relating to imports from Germany do not tell us the whole story of our trade with that country. It is impossible, therefore, to make up anything like an exact account of the real progress of our imports from Germany."

He explained this on page 13, when he said,

"A not inconsiderable amount of our import trade with Germany is carried on through Dutch and Belgian ports, and appears in our official Returns as imports from Holland or Belgium."

The hon. Member was afraid that the President of the Board of Trade, in trying recently to reassure the Wolverhampton Chamber of Commerce as to German competition, had quite forgotten this caution from the Permanent Secretary of his Department. The only fair thing then was to consider the imports from Germany, Holland, and Belgium as a whole, and for brevity's sake they might well include France. The total average annual importation from Germany, Holland, Belgium, and France, was in the quinquennial period 1855–59 but £34,000,000, while in 1895 it was £120,000,000, an increase of £86,000,000, while our export to those four countries only rose in the same period from £25,000,000 to £49,000,000, an increase of but £24,000,000. The House would recollect the passage he had just quoted from the latest Board of Trade memorandum, as to the increase of manufactured imports from France, and the difficulty of precision as to Germany. Sir Courtenay Boyle said, however, "There is a distinct increase in our imports from Germany," and it was necessary to read this, not only by the light of every man's visual experience, and by the candid statements of Mr. Williams' striking book, entitled "Made, in Germany," which everyone should read, but also by the official table, that the exports of manufactured articles from Germany had risen from £83,000,000 in 1880 to £109,000,000 in 1895. In the latter year, moreover, France exported £76,000,000 worth of manufactured goods, and the United States £38,000,000 worth, or nearly double the export of 15 years before, and the greater part came here, to this the only free market. The main lines of the imports of manufactures into this country were soon stated. In 1896 we imported £3,500,000 worth of cotton manufactures £2,740,000 worth of glass manufactures, £4,500,000 worth of iron manufactures, £7,500,000 worth of leather manufactures, besides nearly £3,000,000 worth of boots, shoes, and gloves, £3,000,000 worth, of paper, £16,700,000 worth of silk manufactures (or a third more than the whole export of British and Irish produce to France in 1895, on which we paid nearly 40,000,000 francs of duty), £12,500,000 worth of woollen manufactures, £1,500,000 worth of watches and clocks. In all, £57,500,000 worth of principal manufactured articles, and £23,500,000 worth of other articles. In face of such facts as these, with an increase of some twelve millions in the population since 1855, to provide with wages for food, it was evident that there had been, as the Resolution declared, a displacement of British and Irish labour. If these articles were required for consumption in this country, the making of them in the United Kingdom would have given increased employment to tens of thousands of our own countrymen. We exported in 1896 £208,000,000 worth of articles manufactured or partly manufactured, compared to £231,000,000 worth in 1872, and nearly £215,000,000 worth in 1882, when the population was tire millions less. He might be pardoned perhaps for referring particularly to the staple industry of Sheffield—hardware and cutlery. In 1857 we exported £4,000,000 worth of hardware and cutlery, and in 1895 only £1,800,000 worth. Although, there had been a slight increase in 1896, surely this decline showed there was something wrong. The latest conclusions and statistics of the Board of Trade would have amply justified this Motion being brought forward, even if his duty to his constituents had not necessitated it. Sir Courtenay Boyle said of Germany and the United States, that

"they are travelling upwards more rapidly than we—that they, and, to some extent, France also, are certain to increase their rate of upward movement, and their competition with us in neutral markets, and even in our home markets, will become increasingly serious. Every year will add to their required capital and skill, and they will have larger and larger additions to their population to draw upon."

The recent memorandum went on to say:—

"It is necessary more than ever that attention should be given in the United Kingdom to the business of manufacturing for export. The change of conditions must be recognised, and we can scarcely expect to maintain our past undoubted pre-eminence without strenuous effort. The question is one which interests consumers as well as producers, labour as well as capital."

The proposition he submitted was that this wholesale importation of foreign manufactures or the products of foreign labour was never dreamt of by Mr. Cob-den, Mr. Bright, and the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton the respected Father of this House, when they prevailed on Parliament to open the British market to all the world, without tax or toll. No nation had followed that example, notwithstanding positive assurances to the contrary. Only that afternoon the Secretary of State for the Colonies talked about the Free Trade system of this country. There was no Free Trade system in this country. The system they had was one of free imports without reciprocity, without that interchange which was the very basis of trade. "Free Trade" was an absolute misnomer as applied to their present fiscal system. What they then said, with the Secretary of the Board of Trade, was, "the change of conditions must be recognised." The State should therefore charge a toll for the use of the British market in the same way that every municipal or market owner in the country did on the produce entering it, and that this sum should be applied for the benefit of the working and industrial classes. It was these classes who suffered. Capital knew no frontier, but labour, saddled with family ties and burdens, must stay at home. He readily admitted that a portion of the manufactured imports were really raw materials for manufacturing processes in this country. These partly manufactured goods, or imports, giving some employment to British labour, being placed on the market for sale, should, in his opinion, pay a lower toll than fully manufactured goods imported ready for immediate sale and employing no English labour. He would only detain the House a few minutes more in a brief examination of the amount such a toll might place in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and of how he might use it for the benefit of the working and industrial classes. The later Returns did not discriminate between fully manufactured and partly manufactured imports—why he could not conceive. But assuming their proportion to be much the same as formerly, about one-fourth of the whole would be partly manufactured. Let him put the partly manufactured at three-eighths of the whole, and take the manufactured imports at only £80,000,000 instead of £100,000,000, as they would be found to be under a stricter Customs system. A 10 per cent. toll on £50,000,000 worth of fully manufactured imports would yield £5,000,000, and 5 per cent. on £30,000,000 of partly manufactured imports would yield £1,500,000 a year, or together £6,500,000. From the Re-turns moved for in 1891 by the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt), it would appear that in round numbers 245,000 persons—88,000 males and 157,000 females—over Go years of age were in receipt of permanent poor law relief, and of these about one-third were ending their days in the workhouse. Double those figures and they had 500,000 persons out of the 1,800,000 over 65 years of age in the country who could establish a claim to pension as being necessitous. This £6,500,000 would give 5s. a week to every one of these 500,000 persons. But even less than one-third of the amount—namely, £2,000,000 would give 5s. a week to over 150,000 persons, or all the women over 65 now upon the rates, leaving in such case £4,500,000 to be applied to other purposes. It might be objected that the income would be fluctuating and of uncertain amount. But if in one year it was less than another, it was certain that the prosperity and employment in the country would be greater, and the demand on the fund less. Compared to the great gain of such grants and the aid they would afford to the rates, the toll would not be felt in the least. Indeed, as our exporters to the United States, France, and other countries nearly always had to deliver their goods duty free, taking the duties off their profits and the wages of their workmen, the foreigner would probably pay it all. In any case, as our Customs Revenue was over £21,000,000 a year, very little less than in 1845, despite boasted free trade, and larger than that of any other country in Europe, this small addition would be felt by no one, home competition would prevent any advance in price. The Resolution favoured British possessions, and, if there was one thing more satisfactory than another in Sir Courtenay Boyle's Report, it was the admission of the Board of Trade that

"the greater proportion of the trade in British possessions everywhere is carried on with the United Kingdom."

["Hear, hear!"] The important step just taken in this direction by the Dominion of Canada—[cheers]—could not fail not only to be very gratefully received in this country, but also to contribute very materially to the development of trade within the Empire. ["Hear, hear!"] This would assist them more than anything else, he believed, to meet the fierce competition with which they were assailed in markets throughout the world. The Leader of the House would doubtless recollect having once said that it might be desirable to bring foreign nations to a better frame of mind by taxing their manufactures. He submitted that this was an opportunity for bringing them to that better frame of mind, and that in doing it they would confer a signal benefit upon the working and industrial classes of the country. It was absolutely incumbent upon them—and be said it as the representative of a working class and manufacturing constituency, and as knowing something of the feelings of working men in all parts of the country—to do something at the present time to defend the home market. If he were told that retaliation was to be feared, he replied, Was it possible for any foreign country to raise their duties against us higher than they were now? Every country on the face of the earth had done or was doing everything it possibly could to injure British trade, and really the best way, as Lord Salisbury himself had said, to obtain better terms from foreign countries was to show that we were not fast wedded to any system, but that we would meet increased duties by higher duties here; that, in short, we would trade with those who trade with us. He begged to move the Resolution which stood in his name.

, in seconding the Resolution, observed that he represented a constituency which had suffered by unfair competition from foreign countries. The town of Trowbridge at one time took the lead in the cloth trade industry of the West of England, whereas now, whenever he went there, he had nothing to deplore but empty mills, distressed industry, and hands loafing about the street corners, unable to obtain work. He submitted that every thousand pounds sent abroad necessarily meant that the money was spent in employing foreign labour, whilst the circulation of it was taken away from this country, and consequently led to the employment of a smaller number of English hands. Why was it we were unable to remedy those evils, which not even Free Traders would deny? It was because we went into the fight with our hands tied and unarmed. We endeavoured to compete with foreign nations whilst we had no weapon to use against them, they being armed with all the tariffs directed against our goods. What would be the results if the Resolution were accepted? It must, mean either reciprocity of trade with foreign Powers by making them come to terms, or else it would mean imposing a tariff upon their goods, with one or other of two effects—either to keep out their manufactured goods altogether, in which case there would be an enormous increase in the number of men employed in this country and increased prosperity, or else, if they accepted the tariff and still imported their goods, it would mean that in using our "shop" they would be paying for the use of it. ["Hear, hear!"] He believed the acceptance of the Resolution also would help the Government to redeem many pledges they made previous to the election by doing something in the direction of affording old-age pensions for the benefit of the working classes displaced by the present unfair competition.

My hon. Friends have spoken in defence of the Resolution with great ability and with evident conviction, and they have taken the view that it is in the interests of the working classes and of the manufacturers, and I gather, also in the interests of the agriculture of this country, that some such Resolution should be recorded in our journals and acted upon by the Government of the day. I confess it was with a certain amount of surprise that I heard my hon. and gallant Friend who seconded the Resolution take the view that this Resolution is a Resolution in favour of agriculture. I can imagine a form of protection, a duty upon foreign imports, which would undoubtedly be an advantage to the classes engaged in the production of imported articles into this country. I have no doubt that those engaged in growing wheat and barley would gain by a duty on the importation of wheat and barley; but what I confess I wholly fail to see is how a duty on the articles consumed, among others by the classes engaged in agriculture, could benefit those classes when no corresponding duty is placed on those articles which the agricultural classes themselves produce. [Opposition cheers.] How it could be an advantage to my hon. Friend's constituents that they should pay more for all the articles they import from foreign countries, while they have no advantage in the things they produce in the home market, I confess passes my ingenuity to conceive. [Opposition cheers.] The truth is that this Resolution is advanced by the Mover of it on the ground that it is not for the benefit of the agricultural interest, but for the benefit of the great manufacturing interest of the country; and it is from that point of view I will say a few words. My hon. Friend has lamented that England no longer maintains its relative position among the manufacturing communities of the world and he brought forward statistics of undoubted authenticity to prove the fact. The fact is an undeniable one. Most unquestionably two or three generations ago England stood in solitary grandeur, so to speak, as the great manufacturing country, and now it sees other countries following its steps, and in their turn learning the lesson we have ourselves learnt in the past. I do not deny that in some respects and from some points of view this new condition of things is of the nature of a national danger, and that the facts to which my hon. Friend calls attention deserves most careful watching by those responsible for the conduct of our affairs. But do not let the House take the view that it is a pure and absolute loss, as my hon. Friend supposes, either that other countries should manufacture or that we should import. [Cheers.] It is an advantage to us that we should be able to import goods, and my hon. Friend's ideal, to which he appears to point, is that the nation which imports nothing but raw material and pays for it in manufactured goods is really not the ideal to which we should look as giving the greatest development to our own manufactures. Now, my hon. Friend compares exports and imports in his statement; but the two things are co-relative. You cannot import unless you pay for the goods, and you can only pay for your imports by your exports. [Cheers.] [Mr. JAMES LOWTHER interrupted with a remark which could not be heard in the Reporters' Gallery.] My right hon. Friend says that we are £200,000,000 short. Let it be what you please, what my right hon. Friend means is that what in the old-fashioned discussion was called the balance of trade is against us, and we import more than we export. How does that come about? It comes about, as every one knows, largely from the fact that we are great creditors of other nations. They have to pay their debts to us, and they cannot pay in specie. International trade is a question of barter, and their debts to us are paid in goods. That is a fact which accounts for the fact to which my right hon. Friend has just called attention. If it were not so there would be an accumulating balance of unpaid debts against us, an accumulation of indebted-ness which would rapidly bring us to the verge of bankruptcy. I therefore assume that the debts between the foreigners and this country are roughly balanced in the course of each year, and if that is so, you cannot expect to increase your exports, as my right hon. Friend rightly desires to increase them, without at the same time increasing those imports for which the exports are in effect the payment. The truth is, speaking for myself, I am not afraid of imports into this country. What I am afraid of is the competition in neutral markets between the manufactures of this country and the manufactures of other countries. [Cheers.] I think that if my hon. Friend will give full consideration to that aspect of the question, he will probably see that the best way of bringing our manufactures up to the standard at which they can compete effectively in the neutral markets is not to surround or swaddle them in protective tariffs. [Opposition cheers.] These observations are restricted to the neutral markets. If we are to compete with Germany, France, or America, or any other nation in neutral markets, the way to produce that most desirable result is not to do anything which would take off the competitive strain, without which very little good is done in the world, either in the realm of manufactures or in any other region of human endeavour. Let me say in passing, that there was one point of my hon. Friend's speech which I did not quite follow. He told us that no rise in prices would, in his judgment, follow from the imposition of protective duties. If no rise in price is to ensue from protective duties, it seems hard at first sight to see how manufacturers in this country are to profit by the imposition of the duty. The reason our manufacturers naturally desire that there should be a protective duty is that the price should rise. That is their object, and if that object does not succeed, then one of the main instruments by which my hon. Friend proposes to improve their position would lose all its efficiency. One other point occurs to me in connection with what fell from both speakers. They have stated that the imposition of the duties would produce prosperity, diminish the number of unemployed, and prevent strikes. I profoundly distrust most arguments on economic subjects drawn from what is crudely but inaccurately described as experience. I think it is worth my hon. Friend's consideration whether in the countries which have adopted the system he advocates there are fewer unemployed, fewer strikes, or a greater amount of prosperity. I confess that the indications I have obtained on the subject do not lead me to accept this as a fact, though I do not say that it should not be taken into account. There would be a certain absurdity in the House adopting at the present time a Resolution for fostering manufactures, when, broadly speaking, our manufactures are in a specially nourishing condition—["No!"]—and not in adopting a Resolution at the same time dealing with others which are not in a flourishing condition. If we are to tamper with our traditional fiscal system it ought to be, I should think, in the direction of protecting that which is obviously not flourishing, rather than in the direction of protecting that which is flourishing. While I see all these difficulties in the way of my hon. Friend's contention, and these defects in the reasoning and the arguments, do not let it be supposed that I think our present fiscal system is one wholly without its own difficulties and dangers. I believe my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given expression to this view before. I think that the very small taxable area with which we now have to deal is a chronic difficulty, or may be a chronic difficulty in certain very easily foreseen contingencies, which would make the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer an extremely embarrassing one; and, while much is to be said for the extreme simplicity of our fiscal system, it has its own difficulties and dangers which it would be folly of the House to ignore. We have gained greatly by the simplification of the system. Let us remember that while we have gained we have put ourselves in a difficult and delicate position, and that we shall find it hard to raise new revenue if new revenue is required; and it is possible that some modification of the existing system may from that point of view at no distant date be absolutely necessary. The second weakness in our present fiscal system is one to which my hon. Friend referred, and in respect of which he quoted an election answer which I gave to an election question in 1892. To the terms of that answer I absolutely adhere. I have always felt, and I now feel, that we have, one after another, deprived ourselves of every weapon by which we may negotiate with foreign Powers in regard to that matter. I regret that, as a person who thinks that immense advantage can be derived by this country from the system of free trade, because it is evident that by negotiations we were enabled in times past, if not to break down altogether, at all events to modify in our favour those hostile tariffs which foreign nations raised against us. [Mr. MUNDELLA made an observation which could not be heard in the Gallery.] The right hon. Gentleman is a Member of the Cobden, Club, and is necessarily a great admirer of Cobden. I do not say that under the commercial treaty with France, which was Cobden's work, there was anything really given up by this country, but I do say that the possibility of giving it up—in other words, the possibility of modifying our tariff to suit the tariff of France did obtain from France modifications of her tariff in our favour from which we derived some benefit. ["Hear, hear!"] But that process cannot go on now, because now we have nothing to negotiate with. [Mr. MUNDELLA: "It was wine mainly that was the weapon;" and several HON. MEMBERS: "Silk!"] The right hon. Member makes all the concession I desire. He has admitted that the power of this country to manipulate its tariffs is a weapon that can be used in negotiations with foreign countries. But I say that now it is scarcely possible—I do not say absolutely impossible—for us to find any further modification which may be used for that diplomatic purpose. When I said in the answer which my hon. Friend has quoted that I could conceive circumstances in which it would be necessary for us to take up as a diplomatic weapon, a diplomatic threat, some form of fiscal charge upon foreign manufactures, I only said what every wise man would say did not go beyond what might be the commercial necessities of this country. Of course, I grant that that is practically an act of fiscal warfare, and fiscal warfare, like every other warfare, is a very costly operation. But war is an operation which, however costly, nations must sometimes engage in, and I can conceive circumstances in which we should be perfectly justified in undergoing the cost and risk which must inevitably accompany any such diplomatic contest as that to which I refer. I have now, I think, covered all the ground of the Resolution excepting the latter part of it dealing with old age pensions. On that subject it would be obviously premature for me to say anything. We have always entertained the hope that something substantial might be done by this House of Commons in aid of the deserving poor—["hear, hear!"]—and when that is done no doubt it will throw upon those who are responsible for the finances of this country the necessity of finding means whereby to meet any charge that may, as a consequence of such a plan, be imposed upon our finances. But as it would be premature and inexpedient for me to say one word either with regard to the suggested plan of aiding the aged poor or with regard to the financial methods by which the plan could be carried out, I hope my hon. Friend will feel that I am not discourteous to him if I put aside that portion of the Resolution. I do not think that this discussion has been without advantage, but I am not of opinion that much would be gained by asking the House to go to a division upon the Resolution. I could not support it, and the Government could not support it. I hope that in the circumstances my hon. Friend will be content with the opportunity which has been given him of so ably expressing the views which he has long held and strenuously supported, and that now that the discussion has run its course he will not require the House to divide. ["Hear, hear!"]

said that he took great interest in this question, because he represented a constituency where trade had been materially affected by the force of foreign competition. The increasing importation of manufactured goods was such as must cause everyone considerable uneasiness. In his constituency he saw every day the evil results of the pressure of foreign competition. The cheap boot trade, for example, was one class of industry which had been entirely driven out by the stress of Belgian competition. That meant that numbers of men were forced to seek employment as casual labourers at the docks and elsewhere. They swelled the ranks of the unemployed. In the very heart of his constituency there were foreign depots and American depôts competing with English manufacturers on their own ground. Surely it would not be unfair to make foreigners pay some toll for the privilege which was extended to them? In New South Wales, a Free Trade Colony, a charge in the shape of a tax on profits was imposed upon foreign manufactured goods sold in the Colony. The income tax of this country was being paid more and more by mere agents, by shopkeepers, buyers and sellers of goods. When they saw one native industry after another falling away, it was high time to take this subject into serious consideration. He was a disciple of the hon. Member for Sheffield, having been converted to his views by hard facts. He felt sure that the spread of education was opening the eyes of the people. They were beginning to realise where the shoe pinched, and it would not be very long before constituencies like his own would ask that some sort of protection should be given to their industries.

said that, after the declaration of the Leader of the House, that the question of old age pensions would receive careful consideration, and after the opportunity which he had had of giving the Chancellor of the Exchequer a hint as to the source whence the right hon. Gentleman might obtain the necessary funds, he would ask leave to withdraw his Motion.

had given notice of the following Motion:—

"That, in the opinion of this House, in the interests of trade and communication by sea between places on the coasts of England and Wales, and with a view to the protection and development of sea fisheries and the safety of the persons engaged in them, it is desirable that a Departmental Committee be appointed to inquire in what way and to what extent the existing provisions of piers and harbours on those coasts should be improved."

He said that the subject to which his Motion referred had occupied the attention of the House on many occasions in the last 20 years. In 1884 a Committee recommended, after a most exhaustive inquiry, the provision of more piers and harbours of refuge, in the interests, chiefly, of the fishermen of this country. He knew that the Members of the Government responsible for the spending departments would call attention to the Treasury Minute of 1861, by which it was laid down that money might be advanced for this purpose by way of loan; but what was the use of loans to poor fishermen who could not raise the interest and had no security to give? ["Hear, hear!"] This was not a small matter. It concerned a very large number of fishermen on the coasts, and if the fishermen had the power of combining, or could exercise the power of the vote, it would be impossible for any Government long to resist their just demands.