I was under the impression that this Bill would have gone over in the ordinary way, as I had placed on the Paper notice of opposition.

Unless the hon. Member rose to object it would not go over. Very frequently hon. Members place notices of motion on the Paper, but do not insist on them. Of course, if the hon. Member had risen, the Bill would have been postponed.

I was advised that the fact of putting a blocking notice on the Paper was sufficient to secure delay.

The hon. Member was badly advised. But he will have the opportunity of raising the question on the Third Reading.

Thank you, Sir. I will reserve myself for that.

said he had listened with very great regret to this motion being put from the Chair at so late a period of the session. It was very necessary, if this information was to be of any use, that the motion should be made earlier in the session. A year or two ago he ventured to put himself into communication with the Home Office, and he then secured an assurance that in future the motion should be made earlier in the session. As matters now stood it would be the middle of July before the Return was in the hands of hon. Members, and it would be practically useless for all purposes of discussion. He wished strongly to protest against the habit which had grown up in recent years of presenting this Return so late in the middle of June. There was no reason why it should not be presented before Easter. Many years had elapsed since the House discussed the administration of these Acts, and a further discussion would certainly be necessary when the House was able to give its attention to less exciting matters than those which had occupied it during the whole of the present session.

Attention was given to the representations of the hon. Member, and an effort was made to forward the preparation of the Return. I may tell the hon. Member that, though the motion is late, the Return is ready for the printer, and will, I hope, be issued in a week or ten days. Next session an effort shall be made to still further meet the hon. Member's wishes.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the War Office have received the proceedings in the courts-martial held on those concerned in the disappearance of stores at the hospital in Intombi Camp during the first two months of the siege of Lady-smith; and whether any further notice is to be taken of the matter.

The only court-martial proceedings that have reached the War Office answering the right hon. Member's description are those concerning a staff sergeant of the Indian Commissariat Department, acting as sub-conductor, who was found guilty of fraudulently misapplying public goods to his own use on the 6th and 7th February in Intombi Camp. He was reduced to the ranks and given six months imprisonment with hard labour.

Has any report been received from Sir G. White?

I do not think so.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if reports have been received from Sir George White on the siege of Ladysmith; and, if so, when will they be published.

As I have already told the House, I am not prepared to anticipate by way of question and answer any exercise which the Secretary of State for War may see fit to make of his discretion as to the publication of the despatches and reports on military operations.

Although men who were shut up in Ladysmith have been home two months, we have yet no official information of what took place there.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any information to the effect that a claim has been made by the Imperial Government on the Mayor of Ladysmith for food supplied during the siege from the military supplies for the maintenance of the inhabitants, many of whom had joined the fighting ranks.

I have no information.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether an English infantry patrol of twenty men, while raiding near Dundee, entered the farmhouses of the absent Boers and outraged their wives and children, and were surprised in the act by Republican soldiers, and some of them shot; whether, in another place, also near Dundee, a family of six females, named Bester, aged respectively forty-five, eighteen, fourteen, twelve, and two younger children, were outraged by men of an English patrol; and whether he has any official information of such occur- rences to communicate; and, if not, whether he will cause inquiry to be made into these allegations.

No, Sir, we have no information. I understand that the allegations referred to are based upon the reported conversation of an officer serving in the Boer army, and I do not think that we should be justified in asking the generals in the field to investigate charges which rest upon such evidence. The crimes referred to, if committed on active service, would be punishable by death; and I am confident that the authorities in South Africa would require no instigation from us to investigate any charges of the kind.

But in view of the fact that it is stated that three or four soldiers were caught in the act and shot, is it not worth while to inquire?

I bog to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the indemnity which the Chartered Company of British South Africa undertook to pay on the release of the prisoners after the Jameson Raid has become the property of this country by right of conquest; and, if so, whether immediate steps will be taken to claim a reasonable sum from the Chartered Company on account of the said indemnity, with interest for the last four years, and to apply the same towards the expenses of the present war.

The claim to the indemnity would remain that of the Transvaal Government. It is premature to say now what action may be taken by Her Majesty's Government in the matter hereafter.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the House any information with respect to the reported resignation of the Schreiner Ministry at the Cape.

I am not in a position to say more than that Mr. Schreiner and his colleagues have tendered their resignations to Sir A. Milner, and that they have been accepted.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the deaths and suffering of the troops at Aldershot during the recent review were caused by unsuitable headgear and want of proper food; and, if so, whether he can state who is responsible, and what steps it is intended to take by the War Office in the matter.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the attention of the Secretary of State has been called to the verdict of the jury regarding the field day arrangements at Aldershot on Monday last, to the effect that the cause of the deaths of four men and 400 reported (besides unreported) cases of sickness was want of proper food before starting for the field day, want of adequate refreshment whilst actually engaged in the operations, and unsuitability of headdress worn; if so, can he inform the House who is responsible for the defects in the arrangements and what measures are to be adopted to avoid similar occurrences in the future.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the possibility of issuing a forage cap which will protect more than a third of a man's head, and an emergency ration for home service; and if the War Office will discourage the drill and manœuvre of troops when the temperature is of abnormal severity.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what are the results of the inquiry into the fatalities and casualties among the troops in the operations near Aldershot on Monday, and whether such risk will be obviated by amended regulations in future.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he can state how many soldiers suffered from the effects of sunstroke on Monday last at Aldershot, and how many died; whether the head-covering worn by the troops on that occasion was the same as that worn at the Salisbury manœuvres in 1898, when sixty-one cases of sunstroke occurred; and whether any, and what, steps have been taken since 1898 with a view of supplying the troops with some head-covering suitable to protect them from the effects of the sun.

There are five questions on the Paper arising out of the deplorable and, I believe, unprecedented casualties which occurred at Aldershot on. Monday, the 11th, in the names of hon. Members for East Clare, South-cast Essex Sunderland, East Northamptonshire, and North Islington. If those hon. Members will allow me, I will endeavour to cover all the points raised with which I am at present in a position to deal. The Commander-in-Chief directed by telegram on the 12th that an inquiry should be hold, and a reply was received on the same day to the effect that action had already been taken. Reports have been received from the General Officer commanding, Aldershot, and the Surgeon-General. I have-also had the advantage of speaking to the Adjutant-General, who returned from Aldershot this morning, but further particulars will be forthcoming from officers commanding the various regiments. The facts were as follows:—On Monday, the 11th of June, a field day was ordered at Aldershot, and a total of 18,002 men came on parade. The general order in. force on all such occasions is that the men are to get their breakfast before starting, and that they are to be provided with light refreshments at some time during the day. The method of carrying out that order is left to the regimental authorities. The breakfast consists of bread and tea; and there is no reason to believe that any regiment failed to get breakfast before starting. The light refreshment may consist of sandwiches, but the most popular thing with the men is bread and cheese. The men dine on their return to camp, and very much prefer these arrangements to carrying an emergency ration, which would not be palatable unless a prolonged halt were made for cooking it. The light refreshment of sandwiches, or bread and cheese, may either be served out to the men before they start, for them to carry in their haversacks, or it may be arranged that a canteen cart shall meet the regiment at some specified point. That is a matter entirely for regimental arrangement, and one upon which it would be injudicious to lay down uniform regulations. On Monday morning when the troops started there was, the General commanding states, no exceptional heat; on the contrary he expected rain. But about 10 o'clock great heat began to be felt, and as it continued the "halt" was sounded at 10.30 and the "cease fire" at 11.15. It was then directed that the men should be inarched back as easily as possible and with such periods of rest as their officers might think desirable. There is general testimony to the suddenness with which the heat wave came on; and, in particular, Major-General Hemming, commanding the division in which was the Highland Light Infantry, testified from personal observation that not a man of that battalion fell out before the march back was begun. On the previous day the General Officer commanding had personally instructed brigadiers and divisional commanders that their men, should they show any signs of fatigue, were to be halted, and, if necessary, to take no further part in the operations. But during the march back the severe heat was very much felt; a large number of men fell out; twenty-eight cases were received in hospital suffering severely from effects of the sun, of whom four have died, and twenty-nine suffering slightly. With the exception of those four men the other patients have made rapid recoveries. The whole distance covered by the troops was at the outside about fourteen miles, and in many cases less. On the question of the head-dress. In most regiments the head-dress worn was the field cap, of which I have placed a specimen in the Tea-room. This cap was designed to afford greater protection than the Glengarry, which it has superseded in the great majority of our regiments. The problem of designing an ideal field cap is not an easy one. The cap must be sufficiently light and compact to be carried conveniently in the breast or haversack of the soldier when wearing his helmet, and it is also impossible to ignore altogether the soldier's view of what constitutes a smart head-dress. Before this melancholy occurrence the Adjutant-General was at work on a sunshade to be attached to the field cap. But the best course is undoubtedly that all men in possession of helmets should wear them in summer time, whatever the forecast of the weather; and that men, principally in the Royal Reserves, who are still, owing to the exigencies of the: war, unprovided with helmets, should not, be allowed to undergo severe exertion at a distance from their barracks. The Colonel in command has notified to the General Officer commanding, Alder-shot, his regret that this course was not adopted, and has directed that it shall be followed in future. Amid much that is regrettable I am glad to know that fourteen doctors and an ambulance were in attendance to mitigate the sufferings to which the troops were exposed by a sudden and unforeseen rise of temperature. I cannot conclude without expressing my regret at the attempt which has been made in some quarters to fix blame on particular individuals who. are in no way responsible.

I hope the hon. Gentleman, will be able to tell us, if not now at a later date, what actually happened with regard to the supply of food to the men. He has. not told us at what hour the men started, whether the men were supplied with food before they started out, and whether food reached them when out or not.

I did state that the men were supplied with food before-starting. I do not know whether food in all cases reached the men, because that is a matter as to which I must get the reports of the officers commanding the individual regiments. With the exception of the Army Service Corps and the Army Medical Corps, no troops started before six o'clock, and some not until eight o'clock or twenty minutes past eight.

Do I understand that the head-dress worn on Monday was the same as that worn during the manœuvres in 1898, when there were sixty-one cases of sunstroke?

In the majority of cases the field cap was in use in 1898.

But did not considerable discussion take place at the time, and was not some promise held out in 1898 that there would be a reform in the headdress?

There has been some discussion, and attempts have been made to improve the head-dress. I still hold that the better solution is to wear the proper head-dress—the helmet—and not attempt to use the field cap for purposes for which it was not intended.

Is not the adoption of the slouch cap which has given so much satisfaction in South Africa under consideration?

I hope that some day the forces of the Empire may wear the head-dresses which have become dear to many of us owing to recent operations.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the difference between the temperature of Sunday and Monday was only five degrees?

The heat came on suddenly on Monday morning, but it was because the temperature had been excessive on Sunday that the General Officer commanding gave personal instructions to the brigadiers and divisional commanders. In reply to a question by MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis),

There were no signs of distress up to the time of the operations coming to a close. All the cases arose during the march back. Whether the men should be halted is a matter entirely in the hands, and it was left on this occasion exclusively in the hands, of the commanding officer of each particular unit.

But were the men halted in accordance with the orders of the General? Will you ascertain that?

When I get all the evidence I will see what steps were taken. I have evidence that some of the regiments showed a great disposition to march on and were not checked by their officers.

Have I understood aright that the helmet is in future to be universally worn during manœuvres?

The Commander-in-Chief has issued instructions that in summer, whatever the weather, the helmet is to be worn, and that troops unprovided with helmets are not to take part in exhausting operations.

On behalf of the hon. and gallant Member for the Central Division of Sheffield, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if, having regard to the fact that numbers of Volunteers are working men needing weekly pay for the support of their families, and that neither the State nor private employers can allow more than fourteen days leave on civil pay, arrangements can be made for Volunteers receiving the allowances granted by the War Office if in camp for fourteen days or over every week during the camp instead of some time afterwards, when the returns and proportion of attendance to strength has been checked.

Under Paragraph 24 of the Memorandum of Instructions relating to pay in Volunteer camps, the pay and allowances in question are payable at such intervals as the brigadier or the commanding officer of the unit may direct. The matter is left to corps arrangements. The interpretation put by the hon. and gallant Member on the notification as to leave of Government employees is incorrect. The intention of the Government is to give a special extra leave of fourteen days. This, together with the Volunteers' ordinary holiday which many of them have usually devoted to the Volunteer camps, will in the majority of cases go far to make up a month's time in camp.

On behalf of the hon. Member for the Central Division of Sheffield, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if, having regard to the belief of some employers that if they give facilities for the Volunteers in their employ to go into camp for at least fourteen days, as required by the War Office, they will be expected to do the same every year, he will once more give a positive assurance that this special effort is only made this year, in consequence of the number of Regular troops out of the country.

May I remind my hon. and gallant friend of words which I used on the 12th March?—

"I wish the House to understand distinctly that this is an emergency scheme for this year and this year only …. I wish the House to keep it in mind that it is because we are in a year of emergency, and it is because the Militia are embodied, that we make these emergency proposals with regard to the Volunteers, "†

On behalf of the hon. Member for the Central Division of Sheffield, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if the capitation grant for Mounted Infantry Volunteers has yet been fixed, and if the camp allowance for the current year will be at the same rate as that decided upon for the Yeomanry.

The first question has led to a good deal of correspondence and discussion, but I shall be able to give the required information very shortly. The camp allowance will be at the same rate as for Yeomanry, provided that 50 per cent. of the strength of the company is present in camp for a fortnight.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can state the number of days H.M.S. "Europa" took to steam to Australia, and what was her average speed during the voyage and consumption of fuel per day; whether he has any report of the Belleville boilers, fitted on this vessel, from the Admiralty inspector who was on board; what is the extent of the repairs necessitated to the boilers after her arrival on the station; and if the heat between decks was insupportable to the crew.

The number of days of actual steaming occupied by the "Europa" on the voyage from Plymouth to Sydney was forty-nine days. The speed varied from eleven to thirteen knots, the average being a little under twelve, which is about the usual speed for these voyages by Her Majesty's ships when there is no urgency. The total coal consumption was about 6,000 tons.

† See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxx., p. 612.

The coal consumption of the "Europa" was known to be very large before she left England compared with that of her sister ships fitted with similar boilers, and for that reason an inspector of machinery was sent out in her to investigate the cause. This, so far as we know at present, he has not been successful in doing, and it is not probable that we shall be able to find out the cause of the high coal consumption until the ship returns to England, and the necessary examination of the engines, where the main fault probably lies, can be made. The ship was detained at Malta for some time while some experimental trials were being made, but these did not throw any sufficient light on the cause of the high consumption. No report has been made by the inspector of machinery attributing the fault to the Belleville boilers. No report has been received as to any repairs being required to the boilers since her arrival at Sydney. The stokers suffered considerably from the heat in the passage through the Red Sea, especially some of the younger men. There is no reason to suppose that the heat between decks was greater than is usual in other cruisers when passing through those regions.

May I ask how many days the ship took in steaming from Plymouth to Australia?

I have answered the hon. Member as to the number of days she was steaming. She was detained at Malta for a considerable time for trials.

Is it not a fact that the men could not live between decks of the ship during her passage to Australia on account of the heat, and have not the men classed the ship as "H.M.S. Hell"?

I have no information as to that.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Governor of Malta, without the advice and consent of the representatives of the Maltese people, imposed a special tax on the use of tunny nets in Maltese waters; whether he is aware that last January, by a resolution in the council passed unanimously by the elected representatives, this order was declared to be rescinded, but was four days subsequently promulgated afresh by the Governor; whether remonstrances against this action, which affects the poorest class of the Maltese community, have reached the Colonial Office; and whether any communications on the subject have passed between the Colonial Office and the Governor of Malta; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter.

The Governor of Malta has not altered the local laws relating to fisheries by the imposition of a special tax on the use of tunny nets in Maltose waters, but, in consequence of the increased attention which is being given to tunnyfishing in Malta, it has been decided to offer for public competition leases of sites for permanent tunny-traps in the territorial waters. On the 17th of January a resolution was passed unanimously by the elected representatives of the Maltese Council of Government, in which they objected to the grant of such leases by public competition, but the Governor disagreed with the resolution, because it appeared to be in the interest of private profit, and detrimental to public welfare. A memorial has been received from a Maltose respecting the grant of a licence for tunny-fishing, and has formed the subject of correspondence between the Colonial Office and the Governor of Malta; but I have received no general remonstrances of the kind suggested in the hon. Member's question. I am not prepared to take any steps in the matter.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, with a view to the removal of existing uncertainties, he has any objection to stating the precise purport, scope, and operation of the proposed compromise clause of the Australian Commonwealth Bill referring to appeals to the Privy Council.

The effect of the proposed compromise is to prevent any appeal to Her Majesty in Council on any question of the class specified in the Amendment of which notice has been given, unless with the consent of the Governments concerned.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is a fact that in the negotiations the Queensland delegate was not consulted?

No; that is not exactly true. Of course, the particular communication in the first instance was with the delegates of the four colonies who had objected to the Amendment which we proposed to the original Bill. As soon as we came to an agreement with the four delegates in question the new agreement was communicated to the Queensland delegate.

Is it a fact that complaint was made on behalf of Queensland that its delegate was not consulted?

No such complaint reached me.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any official information has yet arrived in reference to the mission of Mr. Basil Thomson to Tonga; and whether there is any ground for the impression conveyed by recent telegrams that the conditions of the proposed Protectorate are not acceptable to the King and Government of Tonga.

Only a brief telegram has been received from Mr. Thomson stating that he had proclaimed a Protectorate with the approval of the majority of the Tongans, and that the King stated he was satisfied.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Church Missionary station at Rabais, East Africa, has been declared to be outside the dominions of the Sultan of Zanzibar, and that the Protectorate flag now flies there in place of the Sultan's; and, if so, does it mean that all persons residing there and all persons settling there are free, and could the same course be adopted in regard to the mission stations at Mazeras and Ribe, both of which are in the same neighbourhood of Rabais.

Her Majesty's Government have no knowledge of any declaration placing Rabai outside the dominions of the Sultan of Zanzibar; the position both there and at Mazeras and Ribe remains unaltered.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he can state what proportion of the British cavalry in India is still armed with the Martini-Henry carbine.

The Government of India anticipate that by the end of this month the whole of the British cavalry in India will be armed with magazine carbines. At present one regiment still carries single-loaders.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he can state the total number of persons on relief works in India, how long the present famine has continued, how many persons have died from hunger and disease, and what is the number of deaths from bubonic plague since the outbreak of the epidemic to the present date.

The total number of persons on relief works in India, according to the latest accounts, is 5,802,000. The famine was caused by the failure of last autumn's rains, and has therefore lasted about seven months. It is absolutely impossible at present to form even an approximate estimate of the number of deaths which it has caused directly or indirectly; in some parts of India where famine has been aggravated by cholera and small-pox the mortality, I fear, has been very heavy; in other large districts where the famine is equally severe, but has not been, associated with wholesale epidemic disease the efforts of the Government of India and its organisation of relief have been so successful that the death rate is hardly above the normal. The total number of reported plague deaths from 1896, when the epidemic began, down to last April, was 358,685—that is to say, about one death per annum to every three thousand living inhabitants of India. At the present moment the plague mortality in Bombay is lower than at any period in the three preceding years.

Can the noble Lord promise to give us the number of deaths that have occurred from famine?

I hope the hon. Gentleman will recollect that the area covered by famine contains 85,000,000 people, and that the number of Europeans and of officials in that district is very small. He will see that, necessarily, a considerable time must elapse before anything like adequate statistics can be obtained, but I shall accelerate the collecting of information as far as I can, and I shall see that it is published as soon as possible.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if his attention has been called to the report of Dr. Kloptsch, administrator of the fund raised in Now York for the relief of distress in India, and whether he has any information to the effect, as stated in the report, that vultures, dogs, and jackals have been found devouring human bodies left unburied; and whether in view of the suffering caused by famine and plague throughout India at present, the Government will recommend at once the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the best and speediest method of dealing with the state of affairs now existing in Her Majesty's Indian Empire.

I have seen the telegram of Dr. Kloptsch, and have read similar statements in one or two of the numerous reports that have reached me. These statements only apply to the districts, limited in number, I am glad to say, where cholera and small-pox have attacked the famine camps, thus forming a combination which for the moment baffles any administrative palliation. A Commission of great weight and authority was appointed in 1897 to report on the best method of dealing with famine in India, and its suggestions, which wore published in 1898 after a most elaborate and searching inquiry, have been of great value. Another similar Commission was appointed in 1898 to deal with the plague, and has produced a very important and exhaustive Report, part of which only has yet been published. I do not, therefore, propose at present to advise the appointment of a Royal Commission, though it may hereafter be advisable when the present epidemics are over to utilise the experience gained by making it the subject of further Reports.

Arising out of that answer, may I ask whether the Government propose to wait until millions of people meet their death by starvation before they will inquire as to a remedy?

I hope the monsoon which has begun will very shortly put an end to the famine. I think the hon. Gentleman will see that it is quite impossible with only a limited number of officials at our disposal to ask them to put on one side the more pressing work of ministering to the wants of the distressed in order to make inquiries and ascertain statistics.

The noble Lord admits that the deaths are so numerous that bodies are unburied and are even being devoured by the dogs. Will he urge on the Government the desirability of raising at once whatever money may be necessary in order to put an end to this scandal and give some relief to the people?

It is not a question of money. The only method by which you can deal with the enormous number of people who are suffering from hunger over great areas is to aggregate them in camps in healthy sites. Unfortunately, in the west of India there has been no rain for the last seven months, and the difficulty is not so much the scarcity of food as the purity of the water. If cholera attacks in its worst form one of the camps, it so terrifies the people that they fly in all directions, carrying with them the germs of disease and dying by the roadsides and in the ditches. And the difficulty does not end there even, because not only does the panic affect the people who are congregated in the camps, but it affects the hospital assistants, camp followers, and camp scavengers. I believe that on more than one occasion the European officer after a panic has found himself with but few assistants in the presence of the dead and dying, all the rest having fled. It is due to such a state of things and not to a lack of money that this mortality arises.

The noble Lord has not said whether it would not be possible by the application of money, by the employment of a sufficient number of assistants—

Order, order! This is now becoming a debate. The hon. Member must give notice of any further question.

With great respect, I desire simply to ask a question—

I have said that the hon. Member is proceeding to debate the answer given. That is not proper.

Oh, of course not. You spend sixty millions of money on war, and let the people of India die of famine.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has received a memorial from the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce affirming the responsibility of this country for the well-being of the people of India, and urging Her Majesty's Government to at once invite Parliament to vote an Imperial Grant in relief of the Indian famine; and whether he will state what reply has been given to the memorialists.

I received about a month ago a memorial from the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce, the purport of which is correctly stated in the hon. Member's question. My reply was to the effect that the Government of India had undertaken to prevent deaths from famine, and to relieve suffering so far as those objects could be attained by the expenditure of money and the administrative machinery at their disposal; that they had been informed that, if their financial resources should prove insufficient to carry out this undertaking, Her Majesty's Government would be ready to give help in whatever form might be thought most advisable, and that, having regard to what the famine had already cost, and might be expected to cost on the one hand, and to the state of the Indian finances on the other, there seemed to be at present no reason to apprehend that such help would be required.

They are collecting for India in America.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is the intention of the Government to vote a sum of money for the relief of the famine-stricken people of India.

I do not know of any ground at present for initiating the great change of policy suggested by the hon. Member.

Although six millions of people are starving!

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if any steps are proposed in order to isolate the National Gallery in view of the grave danger from fire to which the building is now subject.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he intends to adopt any measures to ensure greater security from fire of the buildings and contents of the National Gallery; and, if so, what measures, and when does he propose to adopt them.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been directed to a fire which took place on 30th May in the corner of the block of buildings in 12, Pall Mall East, adjoining the National Gallery; and whether, seeing that Block B, the south end of St. George's Barracks, forming the canteen, and presumably containing combustible material, absolutely abuts upon the wall of the Great Gallery containing Turner's pictures; chat the gable wall of this canteen is only 18 inches thick and has a chimney flue running up it, apparently built into the walls of the National Gallery itself; also that the back windows of the gallery are at right angles to those of the canteen, and, as they are only some six or eight feet from the latter, in the case of the canteen catching fire and the wind blowing from the north, it would be almost impossible to prevent the flames being driven into the windows of the gallery; and also that no precaution could prevent damage to the national collection from flames, sparks, smoke, or heating of the party wall, he will consider the desirability of cutting off the building containing our priceless national collection from the barracks on the one hand and the group of inflammable shops on the other.

The fire which occurred on the 30th May last in premises adjacent to the National Gallery tested the arrangements hitherto made for the protection of the gallery against fire, and the result was in the main satisfactory. In the opinion of Her Majesty's Government the risk at the present time is slight, but in order to reduce it to a minimum, negotiations have been commenced with the owners of the adjacent property with a view to the isolation of the western end of the National Gallery. Should these negotiations fail, which I hope may not be the case, Parliament will be asked in the usual manner to furnish powers to the Government for the immediate acquisition of the property in question. I do not know whether after this the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire requires me to give the answer prepared to his question to the First Lord of the Treasury.

If the right hon. Gentleman has any further information I shall be glad to hear it.

The second paragraph of the question of the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire is apparently taken en bloc from the file of the Daily Graphic, of 6th June, 1895, which I have with me. This statement is out of date and consequently inaccurate. I have already on more than one occasion explained to the hon. Member in the House that Block B of St. George's Barracks is not in actual contact (save by a screen wall) with the wall of the National Gallery; and that the canteen has boon removed to the other end of the barracks. The statement with regard to the position of the chimney flue and the gallery windows is not correct — the flue being part of the National Gallery and not of the barracks, and, further, is not in use. The House will recollect that the barracks will be removed as soon as those now in course of construction at Millbank are completed, and further, that the Government last year purchased a large block of property in St. Martin's Street, which has since been cleared.

It is always difficult, in considering a Vote of this character, to discuss it with any approach to accuracy, when we have not before us, as is the case today, the Report for the past year on Education. I only wish, on this occasion, to say a few words with regard to one or two topics raised by this Vote. The first is as to the position of the teachers. The right hon. Gentleman is well aware that the teachers of this country are the only persons of their class in the world who are subject to arbitrary and capricious dismissal. It is necessary, I think, if we are to have a body of self-respecting men engaged in the great work of education, that they should not be subject to arbitrary and capricious dismissal at the hands of a single individual. As we were informed by the Report of the Royal Commission, in too many cases the whole management of schools—of State supported schools—is practically entirely in the hands of a single individual. It is not a position in which any elementary teacher should be placed that he should be dependent entirely upon the goodwill of one individual for the permanency and security of his position. There is just one other point to which I should like to refer, and that is the question of training colleges. The right hon. Gentleman told us that it was open to Nonconformists to found training colleges, and that the State would be ready to make a grant to them. But we hold it is the business of the State in this country, as it is in every civilised country in the world, to establish these training colleges on its own account. It is perfectly monstrous that Nonconformists, as such, should be asked to establish colleges for the purpose of training teachers who are to teach in our public elementary schools, and it is absolutely unreasonable. Such a demand would not be made in any other civilised country in the world. We ask that the admitted deficiency in the supply of training colleges should be made up by the State, and that men who are inclined to enter into the teaching profession should not be excluded from that profession simply because they do not happen to belong to a denomination which has an ample supply of training colleges. There is a question relating to Wales to which I also wish to ask attention for a few minutes. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President has always treated Wales with great fairness and courtesy, and I wish to ask him now whether the Board of Education have taken any steps in the course of the reorganisation to which they have now set their hands to deal out justice to Wales in the matter of Museum grants. Speaking on the 4th of August last year^* the right hon. Gentleman said that Wales would no doubt receive favourable consideration in regard to this matter, and I would again remind him that out of the money which is set apart for this purpose, while Scotland receives £12,000 per year and Ireland £22,000 for their museums, Wales gets absolutely nothing whatever. Scotland and Ireland too get many thousands of pounds for purposes which are slightly outside the Museum grant. While successive Ministers have expressed the utmost sympathy with this desire on the part of Wales for a due and proper share of the Museum grant, nothing practical has yet been done, and I can only hope that the right hon. Gentleman, if he is not in a position to give us a definite promise, will at least not weaken in any respect declarations previously made by Ministers on this subject. In visiting provincial museums on the Continent I have been very much struck to see how far they are in advance of us, and I have almost been ashamed to think that a wealthy country like this should not do more for its provincial museums. The amount which appears on the Vote by way of grant to local museums has, I believe, been increased from £1,000 to £1,500. I venture to say that that is a miserably inadequate sum for an object of this kind. These museums are intended for educational purposes, and in Wales we have done our best in past years to promote such purposes in connection with them. I think we deserve well of the Government for what we have done, and I earnestly appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give us help in this respect.

I have no intention of retraversing the wide field occupied in the course of this debate, but I wish as a Nonconformist to express my strong dissent from the views of a brother Nonconformist—I refer to the hon. Member for West Fife—who appears to be under an

^✶ See The parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxv., p. 1005.

impression which is, I think, shared by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that these religious grievances of which we hear in connection with education are to a considerable extent manufactured grievances: that they are the grievances of agitators. The hon. Member for West Fife pointed out that we hear nothing in this House of complaints by parents themselves, with regard to the character of the religious education to which their children are subjected. Now, the hon. Member is a frequent attendant in this House—

Order, order! This question was fully debated yesterday, and a division was taken upon it. I do not think it would be regular to raise the same debate again to-day.

I am about to refer to the action of the Department in connection with several cases in which children have been compelled to attend Roman Catholic or Church of England schools, contrary to the wishes of their parents. If I am not in order I will not, of course, proceed.

That very point was debated yesterday, and, a division having taken place upon it, I must assume that the debate is closed. I do not think, therefore, it is open to the hon. Member to raise the same point again today, although the same Vote may be under consideration.

There is one case to which I wish to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, because I believe that very shortly the Department will have to deal with it, if it has not already done so. It is a case at Bolton-cum-Seacombe, where the school board has lately introduced not only the Apostles' Creed, but also a portion of the Church Catechism into the religious teaching in its school. A large number of the parents have undoubtedly shown by their action that they are not indifferent in this matter. On the contrary, they have evinced a most lively interest in it. A vigorous protest has been entered against the action of the board, and I believe that no fewer than 948 have signed returns expressing strong dissent from the course which has been pursued. If the parents of the children attending elementary schools are indifferent to religion so far as they themselves are concerned, it is clear from this that they are not indifferent where their children are affected.

Order, order! The hon. Member is now replying to a speech made yesterday in a former debate, and I do not think he ought to do that. If he wishes to ask a question with regard to any particular case he may fairly do so, but he cannot re-open a debate which occurred yesterday, and upon which a division was taken.

Very well, Sir. I will conclude by expressing the simple hope that the facts to which I have drawn attention will receive careful attention at the hands of the right hon. Gentleman; because undoubtedly the decision the Department may come to in this case will affect the action of the school authorities in several other places.

I have a question to ask with regard to a rather small matter of administration. In the Vote now under consideration there are two classes of servants of the Department —senior examiners, of whom there are six, with salaries ranging from £650 to £800, and junior examiners, of whom there are eighteen, with salaries varying from £250 to £600. There is also an assistant examiner, with a salary rising from £250 to £550. I wish to ask what are the special functions of these examiners, and whether they are called examiners by way of giving them a different name, so that they may be nominated instead of being called upon to pass the examination which ordinary Civil Service clerks have to submit themselves to. I understand that the duties of these officers are almost the same as those of the ordinary clerk, and that the name of examiner is simply a title. I believe the Treasury has pressed on several occasions that these offices should be thrown open to competition, instead of being filled up by patronage or nomination, and I should like an explanation why this has not been done, and why this injustice is inflicted upon those who have to pass the examination. No doubt, in a Department of this kind, it may be desirable to have certain offices requiring superior know-lodge filled by nomination, but I would venture to suggest that there are already far too many such offices thus filled, with the result that men quite incompetent for the work are enabled to avoid the examination and creep into the service.

Before this debate concludes I wish to add my appeal to that made by the hon. Member for Flint Burghs that something should be done in order to secure teachers against arbitrary dismissal. I am afraid there are a great many cases in which injustice has been done. I know the right hon. Gentleman takes the view that he cannot interfere except in certain specific cases. But surely if there is an abuse—if money voted by Parliament for definite purposes is used by the local authorities in such a way as to create an abuse, then the Department which has in charge the administration of the Act has a right to interfere and to withhold the grant if it is used for improper purposes. I believe that Parliament would back up the right hon. Gentleman in any action he might take in that direction. It is not merely a question of Voluntary schools. I am told that some of the board schools are quire as bad as the Voluntary schools in this respect, and that there is a lot of petty oppression, arising sometimes from personal pique, and at other times from party or sectarian disputes. The only difficulty is in dealing with the manager, whose position is practically paramount and permanent, and who is not responsible to any local authority or to the people of the district. In his case there is no court of appeal, whereas in the case of a school board at the end of three years there is an appeal to the ratepayers of the district, and my experience is that when such an appeal is made the people usually back up the schoolmaster. I trust that, before this debate concludes, the right hon. Gentleman will be able to hold out a hope that something will be done in this direction, seeing that there appears to be a pretty unanimous opinion in the House in favour of administrative action. Then I should like to know whether any general directions have been given with regard to the audit of the accounts of Voluntary schools. I believe that under the Act of 1897 there was provision made for some general supervision over this audit. One case which has been brought under my notice is, I must say, rather extraordinary. I find that in a good many cases the managers of Voluntary schools charge rent in respect of the buildings. I do not think that ought to be, and under the general instructions to auditors the right hon. Gentleman might prevent a thing of that kind happening. What is done is this. A building is erected by an educational trust, and the local managers find that they should like some money for the rebuilding of a church or the payment of an organist, or something of that sort, and they manipulate the accounts in such a way as to be able to get £50, £100, or in some cases even £300, in name of rent. It is really utilised for other purposes—that is to say, we are voting money here for educational purposes which is used with the connivance of the Education Department for totally alien purposes. Surely the right hon. Gentleman could stop this. I will give you a case in point. In this case I do not know what is done with the money. In the town of Eastbourne the school accommodation was not sufficient, and the Education Department interfered and said, "You must increase the accommodation for the children there." What was done? A company was got up— everything is run on limited liability principles in these days, even sectarian schools—and one of the shareholders, I believe, is a gentleman known to the Vice-President of the Council. He is the largest shareholder, having, I believe, 500 shares in this educational sectarian syndicate. There are no voluntary subscriptions at all towards the maintenance of that school, but I find that rent is charged amounting to £117 10s. Out of that £12 10s. is payable to his Grace the Duke of Devonshire in respect of something or other; I do not know what it is. This company pays a dividend. Surely this is the introduction of a novel principle into the educational policy of this country. Would the right hon. Gentleman say that the Education Department would tolerate a thing of that sort in connection with the training colleges? Would he allow Nonconformists to build a training college and pay 3, 4, or 5 per cent. dividend on it out of money voted by Parliament? The Duke of Devonshire gets 3 or 4 per cent. on excellent security—on the money voted by Parliament. Surely 2½ per cent. is enough for his Grace. Besides the interest he gets £12 10s. I do not know what it is—ground rent or what not. It is too trivial a sum to amount to anything in the nature of a scandal, and I am sure the £12 10s. or the interest on the shares is not a material matter to the Duke of Devonshire, but it is a novel principle that £117 10s. voted by Parliament for education goes to a private enterprise. In fact, we are voting money to pay dividends. This is a novel principle which ought not to be tolerated, and I say that the right hon. Gentleman ought to give general instructions as to what is to be allowed and what is not to be allowed in the auditing of these accounts. It is perfectly competent to do so. The section is a vague one, and it is left to the right hon. Gentleman, himself. As far as I am able to see there is no Return to show what has been done. I will ask one or two specific questions about this case. I think it is an important one so far as the principle is concerned. I should like to know whether there are any voluntary subscriptions towards this school at all. I am told there are not. I should also like to know with regard to the management of the school whether there is any kind of control. I am told it is managed simply by the syndicate and board of directors under the Companies Acts. If that is so it is an extraordinary case, and a novel case.

In the case of the school at Eastbourne you have not only a novel case, but something like a scandal. There must be some element of a public nature about the management and constitution of a school to justify the payment of a grant towards that school, but in this case at Eastbourne a precedent has been created and permitted by the Board of Education in the establishment of a public elementary school and a grant-receiving school by a limited liability company. It has among its shareholders the President of the Board of Education. It is a dividend-earning, and perhaps a dividend-paying company. I am not sure whether a dividend has been paid. I submit to the Government that is a position which ought never to have been allowed to exist, and I question if it ever would have been allowed to exist but for the peculiar circumstances of the case and the persons connected with it. I know that the Presi- dent of the Board of Education is not personally interested. I doubt whether he knows very much about the matter himself. It may be all done by his agent in the locality, but I wish to press upon the notice of the Government that this kind of tiling ought not to have been allowed in connection with public elementary education. I hope, now that my hon. friend has drawn attention to the matter, this anomaly, not to say scandal, will cease. There is one matter to which I should like to refer further, because in his second speech last night the Vice-President of the Council did not refer to it himself, although some discussion took place regarding it. It is the question of further facilities for the training of teachers. The view of the Vice-President himself is that there should be an extension of the opportunities afforded by the training colleges, and in that view we all concur. A day training college is not of that cloistered, seminaristic nature which attaches to the other training colleges. The students in a day training college are not wholly separated from other students. They do not all belong to the same class. They intend to follow the same course of instruction, because in professional and technical matters they can specialise. They are in fact students of a university college. A good many excellent day training colleges do exist in the university colleges of this country. There is one in my own district, and one of the most successful of all, in Nottingham. The number of students attending the day training colleges would be larger if the grant to the colleges were more liberal. For some reason which I have been unable to understand a grant of £50 a year is made for a man, and £35 a year for a woman —that is to a residential college. The grant paid to a day training college is less. It is in respect of a man £35 and in respect of a woman £30. Part of that is paid towards the student's maintenance and board, and £10 goes to the college for paying fees and tuition expenses. There is a disparity of £15 in the case of a man and of £5 in the case of a woman. There were last year something less than 1,000 students. There are this year something more than 1,000. I cannot get the exact figures, because the Blue-book is not detailed on this point. I estimate that it will take £10,000 to raise the grant to the day training college students. It will take more than £10,000 as you multiply the students in these colleges. The colleges are petitioning, and I believe the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, directly or indirectly, have asked that this grant shall be made larger. I respectfully urge upon the Vice-President the propriety and almost the necessity of increasing the grants to the day training colleges, so as to enable students who wish to go to these institutions to proceed thither. At present it is easier and cheaper for a, student to go to a residential college than to a day training college. The right hon. Gentleman expressed himself in favour of the day training colleges. A simple and obvious method of adding to their usefulness is to grant £10,000 or £15,000 for the purpose. I hope he will not sit-down without referring to that point.

I have already gone at considerable length into the question of training colleges, and I have nothing to add. As to the grants to the residential colleges and the day training colleges, I expressed my own personal opinion that they ought to be equalised,

The right hon. Gentleman did not say in what way he thought they should be equalised. I hope there will be no levelling in the way of bringing the higher contributions down to the point of the lower ones.

Will that be done?

I can assure hon. Members that their arguments and their views will be laid by me before the proper authority—the Board of Education. The practice is really quite unfair that is growing up in this House of speaking to me as though I were a member of the Government, with absolute power to do as I like.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not say that I wish to treat him unfairly. I only wish to know what his proposal will be on behalf of the Board of Education.

Several of these matters were discussed last night, and I have said that in my opinion they deserve very careful consideration. How can I within such a very short time state what decision my noble friend has come to? It is perfectly unreasonable to ask it. The Treasury have to be consulted on the subject; the financial consequences of any reform have to be considered; therefore it is quite impossible to come down to the House the very day after the matter has been brought up and announce the decision of the Government. I have nothing to add to what I said yesterday, and I do not know that any advantage is obtained by raking up again this afternoon matters which were fully discussed yesterday. The same remark applies exactly to the question of the dismissal of teachers. I stated yesterday what my personal opinions were, and that the questions raised would receive most careful consideration. I admitted there was a grievance, and I can say no more in answer to the appeal of the hon. Member for West Nottingham.

I made no appeal on that point. My appeal was with regard to the day training colleges.

I beg the hon. Member's pardon; it was the hon. Member for Flint who raised the point. With regard to the question of a Welsh museum, I have often expressed the regret of the Department that it is impossible to establish a central museum in Wales until we know what the capital of Wales is. That we have never been able to ascertain. But I think hon. Members who advocate this proposal are getting a little out of date, because the whole trend of the policy of the Board of Education is to have one great central museum in the Victoria and Albert Museum at South Kensington, and from that museum to send collections—very important and valuable collections, which are from time to time exchanged—to various provincial museums. We have now nothing whatever to do with Edinburgh or Dublin— they are quite separated from our Department; we have now only one central museum for which we are responsible— namely, the Victoria and Albert Museum. I can only say that within recent years enormous progress has been made there, both in the number and in the character of the collections which are sent to provincial museums. For instance, there are now no fewer than three collections of extremely beautiful water-colours which give examples of the whole history of water-colour art in this country. These collections are continually being sent about the country from place to place, and I believe Wales has had its full share of those collections. There are other collections arranged from time to time in regard to which local authorities are consulted; collections are sent which contain the objects the local authorities consider most useful to the educational requirements of the neighbourhood. I feel myself quite certain that it is by far the better policy for the diffusion of interest in art to have a great central museum such as we have in the Victoria and Albert Museum — a museum which has no rival in any part of the world. That museum is of its kind quite unique, and it is extraordinary that, while the people of this country perhaps scarcely understand its value, foreigners from all parts of Europe come to see it, and they all admit that there is nothing of its kind to be found in any foreign country in the world. That museum is not a museum appropriated to the people of London; it is a museum which forms the nucleus of a great number of collections which are continually being sent about the country, by that means diffusing a knowledge of and an acquaintance with art in a manner which is perfectly extraordinary. That, I think, is a policy to which it is far better the finances of the country should be directed than the establishment of provincial museums, which, if established at all, should be established by the people of the locality. It is certainly much better that there should be this circulation from a great central museum. The question of the examiners has been raised, and I have been asked why they are called "examiners." There is nothing more difficult than to find out why certain names are given to certain people. I do not know why I am called "the Vice-President," nor do I know why an examiner is called "an examiner," or a clerk "a clerk." But these officials exercise most important functions in the Board of Education. They are the officials who receive and deal with the enormous correspondence which is carried on by the Board of Education with various schools, inspectors, teachers, and so on all over the kingdom. They are divided into two classes, "Senior" and Junior," because it is thought that after a man has served the country for a certain length of time he deserves promotion, and the two classes are made in order to mark the advance of a man in the service of the country. The examiners are most useful officials, without whom the work could not possibly be carried out. I am asked why they are not admitted by competitive examination. That question has never arisen in my time. The hon. Member said that constant representations had been made by the Treasury to the Education Department that they ought to be selected by competitive examination. All I can say is that no such representations have ever been made in my day, and therefore I have not had occasion to consider the subject, and I am not prepared off hand, without any notice, to say why it has been thought desirable in former years by succeeding Governments to have these officers nominated instead of selected by competitive examination as are the officials in some Departments. If the hon. Member had given me notice of his intention of asking this question I would have tried to put myself in a better position to answer. It is a practice which has existed over since the Board of Education was constituted, it has been approved by successive Governments, and I have had too many things to think of since I have been at the Education Department to trouble myself with considering questions which nobody else has raised. The hon. Member for Carnarvon is very much exorcised as to the payment of rent for schools. A reasonable and proper amount of rent is an expenditure without which it is impossible that education can be carried on. You must have a building, and if you do not possess one you must hire. Rent is constantly paid by school boards, voluntary associations, and managers of schools all over the country, and as long as the amount of rent is reasonable and moderate it is an entirely proper expenditure for the purposes of education. It is quite true there have been a good many scandals connected with the matter from time to time, and I am sorry to say that some of the worst offenders have been not Churchmen, but Nonconformists. Rent has been charged for chapels and so on which has been quite unreasonable and improper. I think, however, that that is only a matter of past history, and that at the present day, under existing arrangements at all events, no such improper charges are made.

I think the motive for charging those rents has disappeared.

Since the abolition of the 17s. 6d. limit there is no object in making that kind of fictitious charge. The hon. Member then asked me a very proper question with regard to the audit of school accounts. In 1897 it was made compulsory on all schools receiving the Aid Grant, and by an article in the Code of the same year the Department made it compulsory on all Voluntary schools, that the accounts should be audited. Those accounts have to be audited by a banker or a professional accountant.

Who selects the auditor?

The auditor is selected by the school itself. That auditor has to be either a banker or a professional accountant, or, if they cannot obtain such an auditor, they may apply to the Education Department for permission to appoint someone else, and in a few cases persons such as agents, auctioneers, and people of that kind have been sanctioned. But the audit is now in every case a very real and proper audit. The hon. Member seems to think that the Education Department might select the auditors. That would be an enormous task, and one which the Department could not possibly perform. It would be impossible all over the country to pick out men to audit the accounts of village schools, which are frequently extremely simple and short and really do not require so important a person as a district or Local Government Board auditor or any such public official. I think I have now answered all the questions which have been asked—

What about Eastbourne?

The hon. Member not having given me any notice of his intention to ask questions about Eastbourne, I have not provided myself with the: information necessary to answer him. I cannot tell him whether or not there are any voluntary subscriptions there, nor can I tell him what arrangements are made for the management of the school. It is quite true the building was constructed by a limited liability company, which receives from the school managers a reasonable and moderate rent for its use, and that rent enables the shareholders of the company to receive a very moderate dividend. That is really the way in which the school was built, when there was no other means by which it could be done. If the hon. Member will propose to build a training college in the same manner and on the same principles, I can assure him the Board of Education will welcome any such efforts, and that every assistance and encouragement shall be given to provide training colleges on similar terms.

There is just one question I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman. In the higher grade schools about to be established I understand that a grant of about £6 per head will be received from the Government. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that we in Wales are doing the work of these higher grade schools. We rate ourselves, and while it is true that we receive a Treasury grant, that grant amounts to only £2 per head. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will help us to carry out the admirable suggestions made in his excellent speech yesterday with regard to the training of teachers. We are doing our best in the different counties of Wales to induce managers of schools, both Board and Voluntary, to send their pupil teachers to the secondary schools. The difficulty in the way is, of course, financial, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to promise that, as we are doing this work —work of which I know he thoroughly approves—and as we receive only one-third as much with respect of each scholar as will be received in England, our case in regard to help for pupil teachers should be sympathetically considered by him. I will say only one word with regard to the museum question. Our claim for this museum and art gallery stands entirely apart from the educational museum to which he has referred, and his remarks do not apply to that.

I was very pleased to hear what the Vice-President of the Council said in regard to the circulation of art objects. Very great progress has been made at the museum within the past fifteen or eighteen months, and I hope the Vice-President will continue to urge forward that system as much as he possibly can. At the same time I hope he will not carry that system too far, and that he will not carry out the principle of decentralisation as much as he indicated in his speech. He said that the Victoria and Albert Museum was not appropriated for the purposes of London alone, but that it is a national and not a metropolitan museum. We must remember that we are spending an enormous sum of money upon this building, and we are not erecting this enormous building merely as a depôt or warehouse for objects exclusively for the provinces. I think a great deal has been done latterly to improve the whole condition of things, and there is really only one point with regard to the organisation of that Department to which I wish to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, and that is the absolute necessity of having trained and expert officials among the staff upon whom the duty of buying objects of art devolves. There have been famous scandals in the past about what they have done. They have made extraordinary purchases under extraordinary misapprehensions, and some of the purchases are mentioned in the famous Minute which is a masterpiece of bluff and casuistry quite worthy of the traditions of its illustrious author. There was some doubt as to whether one object was a Tudor piece of work or a piece of work made in Ceylon in the last century. If the right hon. Gentleman will use his influence to secure a better training for those who have to buy these objects for the museum such ludicrous mistakes as those which have been made in the past will be impossible in the future. At the present time an effort is being made to limit the employment of officials at this museum to one particular department. At present the right hon. Gentleman cannot guarantee that when a man is placed in one department he shall stay there. The result is that this man is master of no subject, and as a rule, I am afraid, he is inefficient in most subjects. That is not the fault of the official, if he is constantly moved from one department to another. If the right hon. Gentleman would have separate and distinct departments governed under regular rules and not under the capricious system by which the museum is divided into departments, he would secure a far more highly efficient staff than under present conditions it is possible for him to expect. We are going to build this great museum, and judging from the plans, it will be one of the finest in the world. Here is a splendid opportunity to make this museum a model of classification. The museum at Dublin, which, up to a short time ago, was under the Science and Art Department, is one of the best classified museums in Europe, and there is no reason why this Victoria and Albert Museum should not be as good as the Dublin Museum. In conclusion there is one question which I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, and that is, if he can say when the Report of the Departmental Committee, which has now finished its investigations, is likely to be issued to the public. The Report is of the most vital interest to all who have studied the question of museums, and I hope the publication of this document will not be much longer delayed.

I wish to allude to the appointment of auditors. In many cases the schools are entirely in the hands of the local clergyman. Here is public money being spent, and the clergyman is left to select his own auditor. This is public money, and there ought to be a public auditor. The right hon. Gentleman told us that if we would start a limited liability company to build a training school the Government would accept it, and take on lease the buildings we erect. My hon. friend beside me cited a case—which the Vice-President of the Council approved of—at Eastbourne, where the dividend was paid out of the public grant to a public company. I want to know what is the agreement which the right hon. Gentleman suggests. Is he prepared, if my hon. friends and myself subscribe the capital, or induce others to do so, for these buildings, to give us a repairing lease and pay 3 per cent. interest? That is very good interest from the Government, and I am perfectly certain we should find the capital. These institutions would be built, and the Government would get the benefit of these colleges, and the subscribers would get 3 per cent. interest. Will the right hon. Gentleman give us a specific undertaking to that effect, for as business men we want to know this. It is all very well to answer in this vague way and say that we ought to subscribe the money. We will underwrite it if he likes without any charge, if we have a distinct understanding from the right hon. Gentleman that we shall get 3 per cent. interest on a good repairing lease for fifty years. The right hon. Gentleman can appoint his own auditor. What we require is an understanding that the Government will take our buildings over on a repairing lease, giving us a clear 3 per cent. interest.

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the power of the Board of Education to make proposals regulating the grant to elementary schools is limited to the annual occasion of the presentation of the Code. I understand that it is not presented to the House under any statute, but by Her Majesty's command. It appears to me, therefore, that there is no necessity whatever for the Board of Education to wait till next year to make a proposal to Parliament with regard to the dismissal of teachers. I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether such a proposal could not be made immediately without waiting until next year. There is also another point which I wish to raise, I take it that whenever managers of a Board school or a denominational school give to the Department a reason for the dismissal of a teacher that reason would invariably be communicated to the teacher accused.

The Board of Education can make a distribution of the Parliamentary grant whenever it likes. The Minute will be laid on the Table of the House as soon as it is made. If any financial question is concerned the Board of Education have to obtain the sanction of the Treasury.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question about the dismissal of teachers?

I do not wish to pledge myself upon this question, but I may say that the question of giving a dismissed teacher in all cases the reasons for dismissal is being considered by the Lord President of the Council.

I might be permitted to point out that if the reasons were given it would only be in accordance with precedent. At the present time, in the case of the medical officer or a relieving officer being dismissed, the reason for his dismissal is always communicated by the Department to the official concerned, and I hope this practice will be followed in the case of the teachers.

desired to obtain from the right hon. Member the Vice-President of the Council an expression of opinion on the matter of specialised training colleges. He was himself satisfied that the reason for there being some difficulty in obtaining suitable teaching staff for the several kinds of elementary schools in town and country, was that these colleges were all run on similar lines as regarded curriculum. The requirements of teachers in regard to the subject matter with which they should be familiar varied in accordance with the position they sought in town and country. The curriculum should many to meet this; just as high a training being required for the one position as the other, only in a different direction. It might be the best policy to sever that part of the present college course which bore upon secondary education from that which was directed to the training of the teacher as such; even to the extent of requiring a would be teacher to deal with secondary work elsewhere, and prior to his coming to college. At the present time only one-third of the student's time in college is given to the study of methods of teaching and experimental teaching under professors of the art, though it is for this alone these colleges nominally exist. We want more of the training of the teacher in teaching, and less of the secondary school work in the college. If, however, secondary school work is to be carried on in the college, it was obvious some colleges must be found to take up the subjects required by the rural teacher. He was led to make these few remarks at a late hour in the discussion because he had just received a communication from which it appeared that a training college with such a curriculum specialised for rural teachers might be started in 1902, provided the Board of Education would recognise the experiment. He would ask, what were the possibilities of such recognition?

I wish to refer to only one point, namely, the payment out of public funds of the rent of Voluntary schools. It involves this anomaly. At present the proprietors of Voluntary schools claim the right of management on the ground that they have erected the buildings, and they then proceed to charge a rent for them. It seems to mo, if rent is paid out of public money for these buildings that they are no longer strictly private property, and that the right of management becomes at least disputable.

With reference to the remarks of my hon. friend the Member for the Woodstock Division, I have already expressed myself as favourable to the idea of special training for rural teachers, and if any training college makes a proposal to the Board of Education to have a special curriculum for rural teachers, I am quite certain the question will be considered.

I did not understand the Vice-President to make any reply to the representations of my hon. friend the Member for the Kirkdale Division of Liverpool with reference to the loss which will be inflicted on certain schools in Liverpool by the Block Grant. I should like to ask whether any consideration is to be given to these schools, and whether the Vice-President will consider the local situation which has arisen.

I cannot hold out any prospect of the scheme being now altered, but the case of the Liverpool schools shall be very carefully watched. On a former occasion I pointed out that the School Board of Liverpool could very easily make good any loss sustained, by a very small fractional rate. With regard to the Voluntary schools in Liverpool, no doubt the new Block Grant will be a great gain to Voluntary schools generally, and the number of schools now receiving subsidies from the Special Aid Grant will also be very much benefited, and they might very well spare a part of their gain to make good the loss from which a few-schools will suffer. I have now the figures relating to the Eastbourne school. The rent is £76, and the voluntary contributions for maintenance £290.

, who stood at the Table, said: I presume there is no objection to my enjoying the luxury once in a way of speaking from this position, especially as the legitimate Opposition appear to be taking a holiday. I desire to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he would be good enough to explain to the Committee, and especially to the Irish Members, the position which the question of the Irish gold ornaments now in the British Museum occupies. I do not think there is any necessity to go into the history of the circumstances connected with these ornaments, but I may say, for the benefit of hon. Members not acquainted with the question, that some years ago a very valuable discovery was made in the north of Ireland of certain antique Irish gold ornaments of great value in themselves and of much greater value because of their historic interest. These ornaments were discovered by quite a poor man, and he sold them, as I understand, to a Mr. Day, who re-sold them to the trustees of the British Museum for a sum of £600 or thereabouts. The noble Lord the Member for Chorley Division of Lancashire stated quite truly that there is in Dublin a museum which, in some respects, is one of the best in the world, and especially with regard to ancient Irish objects the museum is most perfect. It is felt not only by the authorities of the museum in Dublin, but by all classes of the Irish public, that the proper place for these ornaments would be in that museum, for several reasons. In the first place, these ornaments are of great interest to the people of Ireland, who will have no opportunity of seeing them if they are to remain in the British Museum, and, in the second place, the museum in Dublin contains the most perfect collection of Irish ornaments in the world, and therefore we consider it would be most suitable if the latest find were also deposited there. When this question was brought before the House of Commons by me some years ago it was received with the utmost sympathy by hon. Members of all parties, and the First Lord of the Treasury expressed the greatest sympathy with the desire of the Irish Members to have these ornaments deposited in the Dublin Museum. Other members of the Government, the Members for Trinity College, or, at any rate, one of them, and various representatives from Ireland, also expressed a similar view. Then we were told that the British Museum had no power to part with anything it possessed. I introduced a small Bill for the simple purpose of giving the trustees of the British Museum power to transfer these ornaments to the museum in Dublin, but, directly there was a prospect of the Bill getting through, the trustees changed their ground and made it perfectly clear that they did not intend to part with these ornaments, notwithstanding the strong feeling expressed in the House of Commons that they ought to be deposited in the Dublin Museum. Then the Government appointed a small Committee to inquire into all the circumstances of the case. I was not a member of that Committee, but my hon. friend the Member for West Kerry was, and the result of that inquiry was that, if at all possible, these ornaments should be restored to Ireland, and the Committee laid down the principle that similar finds should, as far as possible, be deposited in the Dublin Museum. How does the case stand now? I am informed that the Law Officers both of Ireland and England have expressed the opinion that the British Museum has no right to the custody of these ornaments, for the simple reason that they are really in the nature of treasure trove, that there was no right to sell them, and that the whole transaction was illegal and unwarrantable. That is the position at the present time. These ornaments, having been found in Ireland, naturally belong to the Dublin Museum. The First Lord of the Treasury is in favour of having them restored; the Committee appointed by the Government have practically reported in favour of their restoration; and the Law Officers of both Ireland and England have given the opinion that the trustees of the British Museum have no right to them and that they were illegally acquired. In face of all these circumstances, I ask, is it not unreasonable and unwarrantable that the trustees of the British Museum should set themselves up against the Report of the Committee, against the opinion of the First Lord of the Treasury and the Law Officers for both Ireland and England, and the universal sentiment expressed in this House? The Secretary to the Treasury will correct me if I have misstated the case, but I do not think I have. No one had a right to sell these ornaments; they are illegally in the possession of the British Museum, and what action is to be taken? I am told that the British Museum authorities take up the position that they do not care a snap about the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, and I ask the Secretary to the Treasury, if the facts be as I have stated them, what action does the Government propose in order to enforce the opinion of its own Law Officers. If it be necessary to introduce a Bill to restore these ornaments to Ireland and the Dublin Museum, will the Government introduce such a Bill, or support a Bill if I or any other Irish Member introduce it? And if they will not proceed by way of legislation in this House, I ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, who, as I have stated, is in sympathy with the Irish Members in regard to this question— [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR at this point entered the House.] I am rather sorry that the right hon. Gentleman was not here during the brief statement I have made; but it is unnecessary for me to do more than to remind him that the Committee which he appointed reported practically in favour of the restoration of the ornaments to Ireland. It is unnecessary for me to mention that the Law Officers of the Crown reported that these ornaments were treasure trove, and that no one had any right to sell them to the British Museum. I was just asking what steps the Government intend to take to enforce the opinion of their own Law Officers and restore these illegally obtained ornaments to Ireland and the Dublin Museum. I understand that the authorities of the British Museum have said that they are not satisfied with the mere opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, but want the case to be decided by a court of law. What means have we of obtaining the opinion of a court of law, and what action are we to take to enforce the opinion of the Law Officers of the right hon. Gentleman's own Government, and to secure that these ornaments, which have been taken in an illegal manner by the British Museum, should be restored to Ireland and placed in the Dublin Museum? Some people may say that this is a small matter, but the Irish Members of every shade of opinion most earnestly desire to have these ornaments, so as to complete the very fine collection of Irish antiquities in Dublin. Certainly the First Lord of the Treasury cannot accuse us of any want of patience in this matter, and I confidently appeal to him now to give us some hope that the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown will be enforced, and that these ornaments, after their long and adventurous career in this country and in Ireland, from the time that they were found, may be at length deposited in the museum at Dublin, where all such similar ornaments, are now held in national trust and placed on view.

I wish to add my congratulations, to the hon. Gentleman on his accession to the position at that box, which has been deserted by the Leader of the Opposition. I think his appearance at the box does him credit, and he bemeans himself with that dignity which we find on all front benches.

You may be there yourself some day.

That's as may be. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to be content with something like a compromise. There is a Vote of £600 for autotype copies. Cannot the hon. Member do with an autotype copy?

No, no! From the very outset of the controversy the authorities of the British Museum offered to give us facsimile imitations of these ornaments, but such an idea was scoffed at. We say, "Let the originals be deposited in the Dublin Museum; the facsimiles will do very well for the British Museum."

The original claim seems to be a very good one. This Vote is levied from the United Kingdom, and when ornaments, works of art, or whatever they may be, are purchased, they ought to be placed in the most appropriate part of the United Kingdom, and the appropriate part in this case is Dublin. As to the question of law, it is said that the British Museum cannot part with these things without an Act of Parliament. I believe the same is said about old newspapers. I am informed that in a few years time no human being will be able to move about in the British. Museum for these old newspapers, and the trustees have been compelled to introduce a Bill into Parliament to enable them to burn the old copies of Truth. There is a difficulty, but it may be got over. The British Museum can surely part with these gems on payment. [An HON. MEMBER: No, no!] Is it pretended that the British Museum cannot sell anything? There is, however, another "way out of the difficulty; it might buy the gems from itself. It has a grant of £5,800; and no questions would be asked if it paid out of that grant £600 for the gems, buying them from itself. Having recouped itself for what they had paid for the gems, let the British Museum present them to Dublin. I think it is a, mean thing that we should hold on by these Irish gems, the proper place for which is undoubtedly Dublin. If it be true that the sale of the gems to the British Museum is illegal, being treasure trove, the British Museum is in the position of being a receiver of stolen goods; and that is not a position in which the trustees of that great national institution should stand. I cannot believe that any legal difficulty exists, and therefore I do trust that Her Majesty's Government will be able to find some means of restoring these gems to Ireland, to which they properly belong.

It seems convenient for me to deal with this question without delay. The hon. Gentleman who opened this discussion stated, with perfect truth, that there is a very strong feeling in Ireland upon this subject which is not confined to one section or one class of the population. The hon. Gentleman was also perfectly accurate in saying that the matter has now hung on from month to month and from year to year, and is not even at this late hour finally settled. Some hon. Gentlemen seem to be under the impression that the obstacle in the way of the British Museum restoring these gold ornaments to Ireland or to Dublin is a legal disability under which the museum finds itself of getting rid of any property which it has acquired. That legal disability is complete as regards anything which has lawfully come into the possession of the museum, and it would require nothing less than an Act of Parliament to compel the British Museum to give up anything of which it was the lawful possessor, however strong the reason of policy or justice might be which might induce such giving up or such destruction, as in the case of the newspapers to which my hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn referred. But, as I understand, that legal disability does not arise in this case. The Law Officers both of England and Ireland have had the case submitted to them and have come to the conclusion that these ornaments were treasure trove and belonged to the Crown, and that the person who found the ornaments, not being the legal possessor of them, had therefore no right to transfer thorn to the British Museum for payment, to sell them in fact, and consequently the museum is not now the legal owner of them. There is clearly no difficulty in the way of the museum restoring property which is not its own to those to whom it belongs. But the museum, as I understand the matter, is not prepared to accept the verdict of the Law Officers of either England or Ireland. I do not know what has induced the trustees to throw doubt upon such high legal authorities. I do not criticise their action, and certainly I do not mean to justify it. It is not my province to adopt the rile either of critic or defender of the trustees, but I am disposed to think that as they constantly appeal to the Law Officers for advice in legal matters, they might trust their decision in this case, even though it is not agreeable to them. If there is no other way of settling the matter, I presume an appeal will have to be made to the courts of law, but that would be course which I would greatly regret. The hon. Gentleman opposite asked, if the trustees of the British Museum maintain the attitude they have taken, what facilities he or his friends had for bringing an action. I do not think it ought to be left to private individuals to do that. I think that the Government must take on themselves the responsibility of asking a court of law to give a decision on the point, provided there be no other moans of coming to a satisfactory conclusion of the matter. It is quite evident that we cannot acquiesce in the continuance of the present state of things. The Law Officers have informed the Government that the trustees of the British Museum are in the wrong, and I express the earnest hope that they will see their way to retire from a position which I believe is wholly untenable, without arousing that friction and unpleasantness which cannot be disassociated from even a friendly action taken in the law courts.

I beg to express the gratitude which I and the other Irish Members feel at the attitude which the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury has taken in this matter. The reply which he has given will be received with great satisfaction throughout Ireland.

said he only wished to point out that the Royal Irish Academy had shown great supineness in this matter. They knew for months that these articles had been found, and that they had been publicly exhibited in London, but they never moved. They were a public body receiving large sums from the British Treasury, and it was their duty to watch over treasure trove. They had a perfect legal remedy in their hands, and a right to take action against the finder. He was opposed to the transfer of these things which the hon. Member for King's Lynn called gems, although they were gold collars, etc., as the trustees of the British Museum were backed by the opinion of the Lord Chancellor, and did not accept that of the Law Officers of the Crown. Hon. Members opposite had a magnificent museum in Dublin. It was a case for generosity on the part of Ireland more than on the part of England. These articles were of far greater value to science and art in London than in Dublin. There was only one single object in this find of which specimens of three and four times the value did not exist in Dublin. As the specimens wore treasure trove, no doubt they would be taken out of the British Museum and transferred to Dublin, and many people would greatly regret the transfer. But there was another question which arose —a question of principle quite apart from treasure trove—and that was whether local interests were to take precedence of national interests in these matters. In his opinion, in the British Museum everything British should be represented, and the Royal Irish Academy which had displayed the most extraordinary apathy in this matter, might at least compromise with the British Museum, to the extent of leaving them one or more, specimens.

said he did not desire to go further into the matter, although the noble Lord opposite had made some rather curious remarks. The noble Lord was closely connected with one of the trustees of the British Museum, and the Committee had listened to a speech delivered ostensibly by the noble Lord, but really by the trustee. Was there really anything in this contention that, because the collection of antique Celtic ornaments existing in Dublin was a fine one, it should not be strengthened by the latest finds? One complete collection in Dublin would be much better than partial collections in different places. Supposing there was a great find of antique objects of extraordinary interest to this country and they were transferred to the Dublin Museum, what would be the result? The idea was preposterous. As regarded the charge of apathy brought against the Royal Irish Academy, it never occurred to them that those ornaments would be sold to the British Museum, or, if they were, that the trustees would refuse to restore to Ireland objects discovered in Ireland, and naturally of most interest to the Irish people. He thought it would only be a graceful act. to restore them.

asked whore this system of restitution was to end. Was the British Museum to be pledged to restore the objects we had got from Athens to Athens, and those which we had got from Egypt to Egypt? For the sake of all who wore interested in archaeology, these antiquities ought to be in the British Museum. He hoped that if it ever came to a question in the House of Commons, an opportunity would be given of showing by vote whether Members believed that the British Museum ought to be forced to give up what was now in its possession— and of infinite value to the public in its possession—and hand it over to Ireland.

It does not belong to them.

said the collection was in the British Museum. If —as was contended—it belonged to the Crown, the Crown ought to give it to the British Museum.

said the question had been so narrowed down that it became a mere question of whether the British Museum was in possession of property which had been stolen or not. If the Lord Chancellor accepted the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown and decided that this property belonged to the Crown, he thought the Crown would be showing an ungenerous spirit not to give it back to Ireland. But inasmuch as a legal decision in the matter must be arrived at by the Lord Chancellor and the Law Officers of the Crown before anything could be done, the Committee could do nothing more in the matter at present.

was of opinion that the ornaments in question were either treasure trove or property which had been properly acquired by the British Museum. If they had been properly acquired then the British Museum had a right to keep them. If they were treasure trove they could dispose of them or not as they thought fit. It was ungenerous to a degree to suggest that these ornaments should be transferred to Dublin Museum, which already had a unique collection. He protested against the notion that because these were Irish works of art they should be all kept in Dublin. If Dublin had no specimens, or the specimens which they possessed were poor, by all means let them have the best; but the Dublin collection was a better collection than all these things put together, and it seemed to him that we certainly ought to have a collection like this in London. It was to him a most extraordinary thing for the First Lord of the Treasury to make the offer which he had made. If these ornaments were the property of the Crown, the proper thing to say would be that a fair selection of them should be deposited in London. If once the suggestion of distributing these things among the places from which they came were acted upon, the, British Museum would cease to exist. By all means let Ireland have the best collection, but let also a fair collection remain in England. He did not think it would be fair to allow the whole of these ornaments to be sent to Dublin.

said he believed there was no subject on which Irish archaeological opinion had felt more strongly than this. The Academy in Dublin was a great centre to which from all over the world people went to study Irish antiquities. It was evident that there had been some neglect in Ireland, otherwise the objects in question would never have gone to the British Museum, but seeing that the Law Officers of the Crown thought that the British Museum had no right to keep them and that the feeling in Ireland was against it, he most sincerely hoped that the British Museum would take the advice of the First Lord of the Treasury and give them up.

Now may I bring to the attention of the Committee another item. It is a question of account. I find in this Vote an item of £5,800, a grant-in-aid. I do not quarrel with the amount of the grant or the application of it, and I do not think, having regard to the importance of it, that it is excessive. But I think the expenditure of the £5,800 should be left to the British Museum, and no surrender should be made of any balance which is left, because if the British Museum were allowed to retain it they might be able to purchase objects of art which they could not otherwise hope to obtain. Neither do I comprehend the necessity of the grant being audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General. I say you have no right to audit these accounts. No one is a greater scrupler than I am for auditing, but it is ridiculous to have these accounts audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General. Nevertheless if the Committee will look at the bottom of page 368 they will see that the expenditure out of the grant-in-aid is subject to the audit of the Comptroller and Auditor General, but there is to be no surrendering of the money. If you are not going to surrender anything what is the use of the audit? I should like an answer to that question. It is absurd when you vote a large sum to the British Museum that it should be an out-and-out grant, and that there should be no power to compel any redistribution of the money, nor any return to the Treasury if nothing has been done of the unexpended balances. In that case why should you go on having the accounts audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General?

"What really happens in regard to this Vote is this. Up to 1896 if the money was not expended the balance had to be returned to the Treasury. The result was not to induce the trustees of the British Museum to save a large sum, but to fritter away the money on things that might turn out to be not of sufficient value or importance. That being so, the system was altered, and now they receive grants in-aid, but they are not required to return any of the unexpended money. The balance which has not been used can be devoted to the purpose in succeeding years. That being so, the Comptroller and Auditor General is called in because his audit enables Parliament to retain some control over the expenditure, and, in fact, to see how the money has been spent. It is simply by acting in that way that the Public Accounts | Committee of the House of Commons has some check upon the expenditure.

This point has arisen with regard to the National Portrait Gallery, of which I am a trustee. Previous to 1896 the object of the British Museum and the National Portrait Gallery was to try to use the money voted each year as wisely as they could. The system was altered in that year with excellent results. The matter was gone into by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it was recognised to be absolutely necessary that the Treasury should have some knowledge of what the balances were when carried forward. It is rather astonishing to hear my hon. friend objecting to the Comptroller and Auditor General being brought in.

The noble Lord has entirely misapprehended my position. I am an advocate of giving a lump sum. I approve of that. The noble Lord says the Treasury knows what is being done. I do not care two pence what the Treasury knows. The Comptroller and Auditor General is an independent officer of this House, and he is a person whose interference is wholly unnecessary after you have settled the principle of giving an out-and-out grant either to the British Museum or the National Portrait Gallery.

Will you allow me to say that when we had the inquiry about the South Kensington Museum, exactly the same question arose? We carefully investigated the whole subject, and came to the conclusion that the regulations which have been made in regard to the grant are thoroughly sound and wise. Under the new system we are not compelled to spend the whole of the money in the same year. At the same time, I think Parliament ought to exercise some control of a general character in the way of supervising the expenditure. That provision is made by means of the audit, and I believe it is carried out in a wise and sound manner.

I wish to call attention to the grant-in-aid of £1,000 to the Marine Biological Association. I do not complain of this grant; on the contrary, what I desire to advocate is that the grant to this association, which, to put it in a popular form, is an association for the study of the habits of sea fish, should be very largely increased with the view to the better study of sea-fish life. The ignorance of sea-fish life in this country is almost incredible, and hence we have presumptuous Presidents of the Board of Trade introducing nefarious Bills to regulate the size of fish that are to be sold. Nobody can tell why fish are here one year and away the next. We aught to do in this country what the United States have done, and erect a permanent institution for the study of the habits of sea-fish life. That is done to a very large extent in the United States. Tens of thousands of pounds are spent every year, and the result has been the accumulation of a large amount of useful knowledge. We can do little with this miserable contribution of £ 1,000 to a semi-private association. They have an establishment at Plymouth. They keep a kind of show or aquarium to which the public are admitted, and they prosecute to a very small extent, but I believe with great energy and ability, the investigation of the habits of fish. It is in consequence of the ignorance prevailing in this country on the subject that you have to measure and say the size of fish that may be sold. It is absurd to say that we know enough of the sole, or any other fish, to indicate the number of inches they ought to be before being sold. I have been a sufferer from the ignorance of Presidents of the Board of Trade in connection with a measure which I have hitherto successfully resisted. The right hon. Gentleman may be able to pass it over my head this year. I feel that some stand ought to be made against the dark ignorance that prevails on this subject, especially upon the Treasury Bench. There is only one way of becoming acquainted with the habits of sea fish, and that is by studying them. This is a good beginning. This society is a good society. They have published some very remarkable pamphlets, characterised by so ripe judgment that I have been able to quote their remarks against the Undersized Fish Bill. If that is so, do not be content with giving them a beggarly £ 1,000. In this marine fish inquiry launch out with a generous hand, so that a larger number of scientific men may engage in the investigation of the habits of sea fish. Have a certain number of vessels engaged in trawling in the sea in pursuit of knowledge of that kind, and then you will be in a position, which I hold you are not in now, to propose legislation which will be useful to fishermen and to the community generally. I wish to ask whether the Treasury intend to proceed on this entirely inadequate system of making a very small contribution to a small semi-private society of £1,000 a year, or whether they are prepared to consider the extremely important nature of the problems involved in the acquisition of a knowledge of fish, and also whether they are prepared to entertain the idea of setting up an establishment like that in the United States, which will enable them to get a fuller and more accurate knowledge of the habits of sea fish.

The Vote includes a sum of £ 7,000 as a grant in aid of the cost of building and equipping the National Physical Laboratory. The Secretary of the Treasury has promised to receive a deputation representing these who believe that a more suitable site than that selected for the buildings could be found. I should like an assurance from my right hon. friend that the voting of this sum of £ 7,000 does not in any way bind him or the Treasury to adhere to the site that is proposed, and that if the deputation can persuade him that a more suitable site could be found elsewhere, he will not be prevented by this from accepting their view. We do not wish to be met with the answer that the money has been voted and nothing can be done. I might appeal to the First Lord of the Treasury to continue some grant-in-aid, if only for a reduced amount, to the British School at Athens. It is a most interesting work that is being done, and I think there are many people in this country who will show warm sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman if he should be successful in continuing this grant.

With regard to the question raised by the hon. Member for King's Lynn, I think he is under some misapprehension when he supposes that this is the only grant-in-aid for scientific purposes. As a matter of fact we give a grant to the Scottish Fishery Board for the purpose of scientific investigation, and similar assistance is given to the Irish fisheries. I am not aware whether any further sum is given for scientific investigation in England. The association has already a larger income than it spends, and under present conditions there does not seem to be any urgent necessity to increase the grant of £ 1,000 a year. In. regard to the Physical Laboratory, which has been referred to by my noble friend behind me, the Treasury, after all, have had very little voice in the matter. We acted entirely on the recommendation of the Committee of the Royal Society. It was absolutely necessary to find a spot near Kew Observatory, where this laboratory is proposed to be situated. After looking at every possible site, they reported that no other site would answer the purpose so well as this one which adjoins Kew Gardens. I quite agree with my noble friend that nothing ought to be done that would interfere with the amenities of Kew Gardens, and I think he will see when he looks at the plans that this has been considered. One is a building for machinery, and the other is a building for carrying on the more delicate scientific operations. The former does not interfere with the amenities of the place. It is entirely out of view of Kew Gardens. It is placed in a corner surrounded by trees, far away from the Queen's Cottage and its surroundings. The other building is placed nearer the Queen's Cottage, but it will be surrounded by trees. It will be in a position that will not interfere with the view, and, of course, it is not a building that will be entered by many people, as the machinery building will be. It will be confined to a few scientific people, and in no sense a building that will interfere with the amenities of the Gardens. That is the information I have at the present moment, but I do not wish to anticipate what my noble friend may have to say when I receive the deputation. I can give him the promise that the voting of the sum of £7,000 will in no way pre judice the case.

In regard to the archæological research in connection with the school at Athens, I do not think the money expended has been creditable to this country when it is compared with the work done by other countries. If it is a fact that the grant is to be reduced or withdrawn— I was not aware of it—I hope we shall have some explanation of the grounds on which that decision has been taken. Possibly the right hon. Gentleman will be able to hold out some hope that such a retrograde step will be reconsidered, and that he will continue to subscribe this miserable pittance towards the great work of archaeology.

While I have had no opportunity to consult the authorities of the Treasury or the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this point, I imagine that the only ground for the alarm expressed is that the original grant for the British School at Athens is for five years, and that this term is drawing to a close. Nothing has been said in this House, as I understand, as to the possibility of renewal. The matter has never been under consideration. It has never been brought under my notice. The whole question of Government subvention of scientific investigation is a very important subject, and there is no doubt that this country has, from a traditional policy, lagged greatly behind other nations in this respect. It never occurs to us to do what the Germans, the French, or even what our cousins in America have done in making certain grants for investigations; and whether we are right or wrong I do not pretend to say. My own personal inclination is rather in the direction of Governmental aid in cases where you can hardly expect private aid to come forward; but at the same time I confess that I often think how strange it is in a very rich country like ours there are not found some people who, in a difficulty to find other and more profitable investments, do not attempt to earn glory for themselves by carrying on these investigations with the money that is required. I can only say that certainly the grant will not be discontinued without full consideration of the facts and interests involved.

I wish to appeal to the Government to exercise a more generous policy towards the colleges and universities of England. The contrast between the amounts of the grants to two English universities, and to the University of Wales is, I think, not fair to the English universities. I am a. member of the Court of the Victoria University, and therefore have some knowledge of the action taken by that university and of its proceedings. I do hope the Government will have some regard to the services rendered both to education and to science by the Victoria University. This is a new university, it has all the vigour, all the strength, and all the hope of youth, and I feel myself no doubt that in coming years, if the supplies granted by this House are equal to the occasion, it will perform a most distinguished part in the technical, classical, and highest culture of this country. If that be the case as regards the Victoria University I think it is as true as regards the university colleges. I can speak from an intimate knowledge of the services of the Yorkshire College at Leeds. That institution is greatly hampered for want of a larger grant. There was an inquiry some years ago conducted by highly scientific men who investigated the position and comparative claims of these university colleges. The sum assigned to the Yorkshire College at Leeds is entirely inadequate to its wants. We have by private gifts and the liberality of the city companies largely extended our buildings, our apparatus, and our plans. The inquiry which took place some years ago pointed to the fact that our buildings were not adequate to the work we desired to do. Since that time these buildings have been increased by private benefactions and by the magnificent gifts of the public companies, but we are still unable to perform the duties we are called upon to discharge. We have extended our education in agriculture, we have still further improved our arrangements for instruction in textiles, and we are hoping to raise that great industry to a condition more in accordance with the wants of the country and the importance of that pursuit. I trust the appeal I am making to-day will not be in vain, and that when the next occasion comes for a revision of these grants greater liberality will be exercised. I am not in a position to speak from personal knowledge of Owen's College, Manchester, but the information has been forthcoming from distinguished members of the controlling staff that they are suffering from the same difficulties that we experience in Yorkshire. I certainly hope, as we have had larger aid from the Government for elementary and technical education, that like generosity will be shown to our universities and university colleges. It is useless for this or any other country to improve the elementary and secondary education except the higher culture also is improved. It is by the constant development of the higher departments of education that the lower departments continue to prosper, and if the improvement of the higher departments ceases, decay must ensue in the lower departments. I am grateful to the committee for allowing me to make this representa- tion on behalf of the Council, and I hope the time will come when my words will prove to have been spoken not in vain.

I most heartily sympathise with the wish expressed that this grant should be increased, and I desire to raise a point which is perhaps closely connected with such possible increase. I believe the £25,000 a year which is divided between the specified colleges in Great Britain is allocated in accordance with the Treasury Minute of June, 1897, which, after considerable inquiry, distributed certain sums to various university colleges, allocating the money to them for a period of five years, on the understanding that the question should be again investigated and reported on before the end of that period. As the time is running out, I should be glad to know what are the intentions of the Government with respect to this investigation, and as to the way in which they intend, or expect, or wish that the claims and views of the different university colleges should be brought forward. It is important that these bodies should be heard before such an inquiry. Some difficulty has arisen in the past because these bodies have not been adequately heard. The point with regard to which I wish to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman is one that affects the University College of Dundee, in. the well-being of which, in my capacity as rector of the University of St. Andrews, I am very personally interested. My reason for raising the matter is that there has been an irregularity and a want of continuity of action in respect of the University College of Dundee such as has not taken place with respect to any other of these institutions which are now under consideration. The University College of Dundee was started on exactly the same footing as university colleges in England. When this sum came to be given to university colleges a small grant of £500 was given to Dundee, and even that was not obtained without some considerable difficulty. £500 a year is a very much smaller sum than is given to the colleges in England, and one of the reasons then alleged is a reason which I trust the right hon. Gentleman will not allege now—namely, that the universities of Scotland receive a large grant from the Treasury. They do receive a large grant from the Treasury—a grant of £42,000 a year; they also receive a por- tion of the Probate Duty in the same way as a portion is devoted to secondary education in England. But let me remind the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee that that is done in accordance with the Act of Union between England and Scotland. While the Scotch provided for the maintenance of the castles of Stirling and Dunbar in good repair, they also had the good sense to insist upon adequate provision being made under the Act of Union from the Treasury of Great Britain for the maintenance of the universities. We may, therefore, put aside that portion which is given to the Scotch universities as being any reasonable argument against classifying the town of Dundee with other towns like Nottingham, Sheffield, and the like, which participate in this grant. Dundee stands exactly towards the University College of Dundee as Sheffield stands towards its college or as Newcastle stands towards the Newcastle College of Physical Science. The College of Physical Science in Newcastle is partly endowed by the University of Durham, as the college in Dundee is now partly endowed from the University of St. Andrews; there is no difference in character between them. As I say, £500 was given to the University College of Dundee. In 1894 that small grant was withdrawn, and it was not renewed until 1897, when there was a second investigation and a second distribution. It was then renewed at the figure of £1,000 a year, at which amount it has continued since. But why that change? Why that irregularity of action? It is not because of that irregularity of action in the past that I wish to make any complaint, but because of the difficulty which is introduced into the management of the University of St. Andrews and the University College of Dundee—of whose managing body I am president—by the uncertainty of action I have endeavoured to bring before the right hon. Gentleman. Why was the grant dropped in 1894? Here is the Report of the Committee to the Treasury, which Report was adopted in the Treasury Minute of 1894—

"Your Committee do not recommend that a grant should be made to the University College of Dundee, inasmuch as they consider that that College, being now part of the University of St. Andrews, has been withdrawn from the scope of the present grant, and will participate in future in the increased grant for Scotch universities."

That was the decision in 1894, in conse- quence of which the grant was dropped. There arose between 1894 and 1897 considerable doubt as to whether or not the University College of Dundee was incorporated in the University of St. Andrews. The matter was the subject of litigation, and the echoes of the contest still remain. I do not think they are fated to remain very long, nor do I say the subject is absolutely decided at this moment. Let us see what was done in consequence of the existence of that doubt. The Treasury Minute of June 2nd, referring to or acting upon the advice of the eminent scientific authorities to whom reference has just been made, reads as follows—

"My Lords take note of the terms of the Committee's Report with regard to the Dundee College."

That was a Report recommending a grant

"In acceding to the Committee's recommendation that for the present "

—those words are underlined—

"the College should receive £100 a year my Lords are guided, as they understand the Committee to have been guided, by the exceptional position in which the College is now placed."

The "exceptional position" which I have tried to describe is one of doubt as to whether it is incorporated or not with the University of St. Andrews.

"My Lords are of opinion that when the relations between the University and the College are settled this matter should be subject to reconsideration, and they must not be understood to admit the claim of the College to share permanently in the grant for University Colleges."

If those two Minutes mean anything, they at any rate run the risk of meaning that when the University College of Dundee is working harmoniously with the University of St. Andrews it shall then be mulcted to the extent of £1,000 a year. Is that a very hopeful prospect to hold out to one who, like myself, in the position I occupy with respect to these two bodies, is earnestly anxious to bring about a happy co-operation? It is really, so far as it goes, though I do not say it is made as such, an absolute bribe to disagree. What I want to point out is that when we are endeavouring to bring together the ancient University of St. Andrews—a university which has a more glorious history than almost any other educational institution in Great Britain, and certainly the most notable educational history of any such institution in Scotland—and the modern School of Science in Dundee, as an Act of Parliament has declared they should be brought together, it is extremely undesirable there should be hanging about the whole action this uncertainty as to the grant. It will not do to say that the University College of Dundee is getting an unlimited share of the grant to the Scotch colleges. It is strictly limited so that it cannot receive more than a certain amount, and that amount—which is £3,000—is in comparison with the general endowments of other colleges no large figure. Therefore I do earnestly hope we shall get some assurance that the University College of Dundee will not be treated in the spirit of the first of these two Minutes, and because of its incorporation, when it is brought about finally and completely, with the University of St. Andrews, deprived of the grant it is enjoying just now. The Committee must also remember that the University College of Dundee is doing a work with which the University of St. Andrews has nothing to do. The University College of Dundee is certainly part of and incorporated with the University of St. Andrews, but, on the other hand, it does a large amount of local technical and evening work which does not prepare people for a degree in a university and is absolutely comparable with the evening work of the University College of Nottingham, all of which work is part of the recommendation of such colleges to the enjoyment of the grant. One other point which I wish to bring before the right hon. Gentleman is that of this £25,000 a year which is divided between the university colleges of England on the one hand, and this one college in Scotland on the other, only £1,000 goes to Scotland. You are giving to the university colleges of Wales— and I am glad you are; do not think I grudge it at all—the sum of £12,000 a year; you are giving to those in England £24,000, the two sums together amounting to £36,000 a year; you are giving to the University College of Dundee £l,000ayear, and that is the whole amount that goes to Scotland. I know, as I have said before, that the Scotch universities have a grant, but it is in virtue of the Act of Union. Remember, too, that the educational ambitions of the Scotch nation are very great and worthy, and that they have done so much for the nation. It is well that they should be supported in a way which is in no sense pauperising, but which will not only assist those who have assisted themselves, but actually help forward the union of the University College of Dundee and the University of St. Andrews, and it is extremely desirable in every way that we should see ancient traditions united with modern institutions. Let the right hon. Gentleman not think there need be any difficulty in carrying out the allocation of this money to the right purposes. All I would say in conclusion is that I do earnestly press it on the right hon. Gentleman and the Government that they should give an assurance that when they again consider this matter such persons as represent the University of St. Andrews and the University College of Dundee and other bodies will be enabled to lay before the Treasury their views in the matter. I earnestly hope that this matter may be decided at an early date, so that this sword of Damocles may no longer hang over this young institution in Dundee. Everyone knows that when you have to draw up a programme of studies, erect laboratories, and be on, the uncertainty as to whether a grant of £ 1,000 will or will not be continued is a very serious drawback to all the work you are undertaking, affecting with uncertainty and insecurity a great many more steps in connection with the college than are affected by the mere sum of £1,000 a year. On behalf of the university which I so inadequately represent at the present moment, and of the University College of Dundee, knowing how closely it is related to the other university colleges in England, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take into very careful consideration the remarks I have ventured to make.

As one of the representatives of Dundee and a member of the college council, I desire to express my indebtedness to the Lord Rector of St. Andrews University for the clear manner in which he has put before the Committee the case for the Dundee University College. There is reason for taking this course, inasmuch as my hon. friend has referred to the fact that in the year 1894, when the members of the college council had no opportunity of being heard, they were astonished to find that the very small grant of £500 was recommended to be withdrawn. It is, therefore, desirable that when this question comes to be reconsidered under the terms of the Minute of 1897, the representative of the Dundee University College shall have an opportunity of being heard. My hon. friend has referred to the fact that out of the £25,000 the almost microscopic grant of £500 was made in the first instance to Dundee, and yet this ewe lamb, as one may call it, was roughly slain and the grant taken away. My hon. friend's contention is that in equity Dundee has as strong a claim to have its grant continued, and not only continued, but increased, as any town in England. The college in Dundee is a comparatively modern institution. It was founded by the great generosity of a family of merchant princes. As time went on it was found necessary to increase the number of chairs, and others of the merchant princes of Dundee gave sums varying from £6,000 to £12,000 to bring the chairs up to date and the requirements of the time. Dundee has therefore done its part. Nearly £200,000 has been given within the last twenty years by those who have made their wealth in Dundee in order to secure that the young people of all classes may have the advantage of this local college, in connection with which there is an excellent technical institute, the classes of which are overflowing. The buildings are not large enough to hold the hundreds of intelligent youths and artisans who desire to attend these classes night after night. If there is any town in the kingdom which has done its duty by the poor and the working classes it is Dundee, and the fact that it has helped itself is a strong claim, if any claim is to be made on the Treasury, that at least it should be dealt with on the same conditions as the colleges of England. The terms of the grant which is now before the House are for university colleges in "Great Britain," and Scotland is part of Great Britain. At present, Scotland is receiving only £ 1,000 out of £25,000, and there have been threatenings that it should be deprived of even that. If there was any serious intention to that effect I am sure it would be protested against throughout the whole of the country north of the Tweed. Without enlarging upon what my hon. friend has so well placed before the Committee, I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will give an assurance that when this question is reconsidered the representatives of the College shall be fully heard, and that the grant shall not, at any rate, be diminished.

I had no intention whatever of taking any part in this debate over the University College of Dundee, but I can speak with some degree of feeling upon this question, seeing that I am a Dundee man, and have witnessed the growth of education in Dundee more or less for over half a century. That we should be discussing in this House to-night the paltry sum of £1,000 for the University College of Dundee is something remarkable to me. I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman sitting on the Treasury Bench has never been in Dundee; I do not think he knows what Dundee is, or how that great manufacturing town has grown. I have seen it when it was very small, and I have seen it now it is very large, and the right hon. Gentleman should remember that he is concerned here with one of the principal towns in Scotland as far as manufacturing interests are concerned. It is the centre of the jute industry, of engineering, and of shipbuilding; it produces the best mechanics and engineers that can be found almost anywhere; and the question of a paltry £1,000 for the University College should never be discussed in this House, while there certainly should never be any question as to whether it should be continued. Thousands of young men there attend the night classes and the technical school; they go there after they leave the factory, the machine shop, or the shipyard, in order that they may get a higher education. It is a sorry sight that any Member of this House, or at any rate any Scotch Member, should stand up here, practically with cap in hand, to beg—a word I detest. We have no right to come here and beg for money for the University College of Dundee. We subscribe more than our share to the national wealth, and we have no right whatever to beg for this paltry £1,000. The right hon. Gentleman is always an advocate of progress, and always stands up for the education of the young men of the country. Why, then, should there be any question about this grant? You may say that the St. Andrews grant will suffice for both. Not at all. What the right hon. Gentleman ought to do he knows perfectly well. He should give them £5,000 a year for the purposes of education there, simply from the fact that it is the centre of a great manufacturing industry, and one of the first cities of Scotland in manufactures. But I am not going to beg from the Treasury, for Scotchmen never beg. We stand here and claim our right to a fair share of the wealth of this country to be devoted to education in Scotland. We have no right to come here and beg for the Dundee University College, and why should this £1,000 be taken away from the Dundee College? We ought to have a much larger sum for this college. The Lord Rector of the University knows nothing about Dundee, and I know all about it, and I say there should be no question whatever of giving this money to a young and energetic educational institution. Why rob this college of their little pittance? Such a proposal is not right, it is not fair or honest, and it is not just to Scotland.

I am glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is present upon this Vote, because I think there is likely to be a misconception on the part of the Government officials that Scotland is getting a larger sum of money on this Vote than it really is. Here is the sum of £ 42,000 set down for the Scotch universities, but that sum should never have been on this Vote at all. By the Treaty of Union the Universities of Scotland were to be placed upon the Imperial Exchequer, and in order to discharge that burden the Exchequer got the whole of the Scotch estates. It was part of the Treaty of Union that the universities of Scotland were to be kept up at the national expense. That was a part of the bargain, and it continued until a few years ago, up to which time the whole expense of the Scotch universities were born upon the Imperial estimates. But what took place a few years ago? The Government tried to get rid of this responsibility, which was bestowed upon them by the Treaty of Union, of contributing this £42,000 a year for the Scotch universities. What did they do when they came to treat the equivalent grants between Scotland and Ireland? A sum of £30,000 was taken out of the money from Scotland, and given in subsidies to Scotch universities which it was the duty and always had been the responsibility of the Government to maintain out of the Imperial purse. You now have this £ 42,000 paid out of the Imperial funds for Scotch education, and you also have Scotland itself out of its own funds providing £30,000 for the Scotch universities. I venture to say that is an unfair way of getting rid of your obligations under the Treaty of Union. Down to the last few years you had the whole burden of these universities upon the Imperial Exchequer. You cannot wipe off a Treaty of Union by saying, "Here is a few thousand pounds more, and we will wipe you off for the future." What have the Government done? Here is a Unionist Government in power, with a majority of English Members. You have had the Scotch money at your disposal, and you have taken this £30,000 against the votes and. the wishes of Scotch Liberal Members out of Scotch money, and you have applied it to discharge what was the duty of the Imperial Government—namely, to keep up the Scotch universities in a manner suitable to the times. If you had done this duty properly you would be paying the whole of the expenses of the St. Andrews University, and you would not have had to come upon Scotland for £30,000. In this way Scotland has been compelled to pay £ 30,000 a year for something which was an Imperial obligation. You are now adding to these sums the money for England and Wales. It is not very long, since this Vote came on to the Paper, and it is since the University Act was passed. The result is that you are giving this new money to England upon the footing that you have already provided for Scotland. But you have done nothing of the kind. You are giving all this money to England, and Scotland is only getting £1,000. I wish also to refer to the College of Science in Glasgow, which is one of the largest attended colleges in the whole kingdom, and is doing admirable work. This college is now getting subsidies out of the grants in aid of the local authorities. This college does not get one single copper out of the Imperial fund. I ask if it is fair that, having an Imperial obligation under the Treaty of Union to keep up the universities of Scotland as a national undertaking; having got all the revenues of the universities upon the condition that you took over the obligation of maintaining these universities, is it fair to come here now and try to get rid of this obligation and take £30,000, by force, out of Scotch money. I venture to say that that is not a creditable way of dealing with public education in Scotland. When we find that you are giving these grants to England we do not object. We are quite agreeable that England should get these grants, but we do say that Scotland ought to come in for a reasonable share of those grants. We are doing a great work at the College of Science in Glasgow, and we are not getting one single copper for that great work from the Imperial Treasury. In this matter of education we simply ask for justice, and for the discharge of your legal obligation. As regards the future, with reference to these new sums, you should give us an equivalent with England, but do not treat Scotland as having nothing to do with these matters. I am very glad to find the Member for the Universities of Glasgow and Aberdeen here, for I am sure he will corroborate me when I say that oven with the £ 42,000 from the Imperial Funds and the £30,000 from the Scotch Fund there is not sufficient money to carry on the work of these universities as it ought to be carried on at present. The right hon. Gentleman also knows the valuable work that is done in the College of Science in Glasgow, and that it is entirely by local aid that that institution is being kept up. I hope that before this discussion closes we shall have a few words on this subject from the right hon. Gentleman.

I cannot refrain from saying that while I do not agree with the hon. Member opposite in all his complaints as to the way in which the Scottish universities have been treated by the Imperial Treasury, I do agree that in Scotland we have a claim to equal treatment with England with regard to the assistance given for new or additional university work. I hope that there is no reason to fear that this grant which has been enjoyed by the University College of Dundee will be withdrawn. I have known something of this college from its beginning, and I am sure that this money is needed there, and that it has been well bestowed upon that college. I am aware of its connection with the University of St. Andrews, and I agree that the effect of that connection does not place the University College of Dundee outside the need of such assistance as it has been receiving. I have no disposition to continue this discussion, which seems to imply some suspicion upon the intentions of my right hon. friend the Secretary to the Treasury, for which I hope there is no justification.

Practically the whole speech of the hon. Member for Mid Lanarkshire was an attack upon recent legislation with regard to the Scotch universities. After all, we must regard that legislation as being in existence, and that being so we must assume that that Act dealt fairly with the amounts which were allocated to these Scotch universities. With regard to the arguments which the hon. Member has raised in reference to this fund belonging to Scotland and being put aside for this purpose under the Act of Union, those are arguments which were no doubt raised when the Act I have alluded to was considered. We have now to deal with the Act as it stands, and under that Act undoubtedly it is a fact that a large sum of money is allocated to these universities. That being so, we are now asked with regard to the University College of Dundee whether we are going to continue this grant of £1,000. We reply—as we replied some time ago—that it is quite impossible that the Dundee college should have the advantage of a grant on its own account, and at the same time receive the advantages which it would derive from the grants made to the University of St. Andrews if it were entirely affiliated to that university. That, I think, is a reasonable ground to take up. If the University College of Dundee was placed in that position it would be different to that of any other college in England or Wales, and I think hon. Members opposite ought to be content with the very reasonable plea put forward by my right hon. friend behind me, that in matters of this kind the colleges in Scotland should be treated in exactly the same way as the colleges in England and Wales. That is a reasonable request, and so far as the colleges in Scotland are entitled to these grants they will be treated in exactly the same way as the colleges in England and Wales are treated. When Dundee College once becomes entirely affiliated with the University of St. Andrews, it will receive all the advantages and endowments which are given to that university, but it cannot expect to have in addition the advantages it is now receiving as a separate college. I understand from the speech of the hon. Member for Hoxton that his complaint is not so much as to the actual amount of the grant, but that he is anxious that the present condition of things should not continue, and that the connection between this college and the University of St. Andrews should take place as soon as possible. What has really happened is this. We have been in communication with the Scotch Office upon this question, and they have told us that as the connection between this college and the university is not yet entirely established we should not be justified in at present removing this £1,000 from the Vote. Until that connection is established this grant will, of course, be continued. My hon. friend the Member for Wigan complained that the sums allocated to these different colleges are not sufficient. I would point out to my hon. friend that towards the end of 1896 a Committee went very carefully through the whole subject, and it was upon the recommendations of that Committee that the Treasury acted, and the sums fixed are entirely in accordance with the recommendations of that Committee. As to the sum of £ 25,000 not being adequate, I do not think the hon. Member has any right to complain of this, because until two or three years ago the sum granted for the purpose was only £15,000; but in 1896 the sum was raised to £25,000, and that is the sum which will remain up to the year 1901. No doubt a fresh allocation will be made, and fresh claims will be brought in, and if the authorities of Dundee College can establish a fair claim to this grant no doubt their case will be favourably considered by the Treasury. We have now only to deal with the grant for the present year, and all I have to say is that that grant is considerably in advance of the annual grant made three years ago when the sum was only £15,000.

I happen to be officially connected with the University College of Dundee, and it is to that portion of the right hon. Gentleman's speech which dealt with that matter that I shall confine myself. I must express my disappointment at the substance of his reply. He has practically told us, notwithstanding the opinion expressed by the Member for the Universities of Glasgow and Aberdeen, that there is every prospect of this grant being lost, and he has given us the Treasury's reason for it. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that the University College of Dundee would be entitled to a continuance of this annual grant of £ 1,000 if it retained its separate existence, but he says it will not be so entitled when it is incorporated with the University of St. Andrews. And why not? Because, he says, it will share in the endowments granted to the University of St. Andrews. As far as I know that is not so. The University of St. Andrews when it completes the incorporation of this subordinate body will not derive one single farthing of additional public money to sustain its corporate existence. It simply comes to this—that this Act of incorporation between the University College of Dundee and St. Andrews University is to be penalised by the Treasury to the extent of £1,000 a year. In other words, that which has been felt by all the local educational authorities in the country to be a most desirable grant is to be abolished to the extent of the withdrawal of this annual grant of £1,000. I cannot see any reason to justify that contention. There is to be no change in the position of St. Andrews University. On the contrary, it is very probable that it will incur additional expenses on account of incorporation, and there is no change in the position of the University College of Dundee. The intention of the incorporation is merely to facilitate the working of both institutions, and because of this the money allocated to the College of Dundee is to be withdrawn. I say that is a principle which requiries reconsideration, and I hope that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman is not to be taken as the last word of the Treasury upon this subject. I do hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accord a full and fair hearing to the official representatives of the University College of Dundee. I will venture to repeat the appeal which my hon. friend has made, and I ask the Secretary to the Treasury to give us some assurance that before the preparation of next year's estimate and before he decides to withdraw this annual grant he will at least do us the favour of allowing us to be heard in support of the maintenance of this grant, and give us an opportunity of placing before him arguments upon that question.

I think the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury might give us satisfaction by answering the appeal I made to him, and which has also been alluded to by the hon. Member who has just spoken. As I brought the matter forward in reference to the continuance of this £ 1,000 a year which is granted to the University College of Dundee, and as the uncertainty in which we have been left is a very serious matter, I really think that it is a little hard for the right hon. Gentleman to assume that he answers my position by saying that this college shares in the endowments granted to St. Andrews University. I think that is drawing the line a little too far. I also want to point out to the right hon. Gentleman the very solid fact which I think ought to affect the right hon. Gentleman in reconsidering the attitude he has taken up. He has spoken about the incorporation of St. Andrews University and the University College of Dundee as being a reason for withdrawing this £1,000 grant, because the Dundee College is to get the benefit of certain grants which will be made to St. Andrews University. But as I pointed out in bringing this matter before the Committee, that is exactly the position at the present time of a large college in Newcastle, which profits very largely by the grants made to the ancient University of Durham. That is not looked upon as any reason why a sum of money should not be granted to this college at Newcastle-on-Tyne. I have received but cold comfort from the right hon. Gentleman upon this question. His reply is cold comfort to every educationalist in Scotland who is desirous of seeing harmonious working between the ancient University College of St. Andrews and the new University College of Dundee. This has been indicated as desirable by Parliament, and yet it is held over our heads that as soon as that is brought about the joint concern is to be deprived of £1,000 a year. I do not think there is any reasonableness in that proposal at all. I do not desire to do more than point out my dissatisfaction with the reply of the right hon. Gentleman, and to express the hope that the authorities and the representatives of the University of St. Andrews and the University College of Dundee, whose interests are affected in this matter, will be afforded an opportunity of being heard, and that full consideration will be given to the arguments which have been laid before the Committee on this subject.

It now appears that as soon as the college at Dundee becomes part of a national university of Scotland it will then cease to have any claim on this fund. The total sum borne on this estimate for England, putting aside what is given to national universities, is £63,500, and the Scotch proportion of that amount, on the basis of eleven-eightieths, would be £8,730 for similar purposes, but only £1,000 is actually given to Scotland, and that is given to Dundee. You now propose to take that sum away from Dundee, but that will only make stronger the claim of the Glasgow College of Science for support from this fund. All we ask is that if you are going to give grants to colleges of science apart from national universities, give Scotland her equivalent share, which is £8,730. We have always complained that under this Vote Scotland gets practically nothing, and we have been told that Scotland gets money for her national universities; but that is an entirely different matter, as the Secretary to the Treasury has now been compelled to admit. As far as the Glasgow College of Science is concerned it is one of the best schools in the United Kingdom, and it is subsidised out of the Glasgow rates to the extent of £6,000 a year; and if English colleges of science get grants from this fund, why not the Glasgow College of Science also; not necessarily to cover all its expenses, but to assist the local subsidy, and to render its work, which is now much impaired for want of money, more efficient. I call the attention of the Scotch Office to the matter, and I ask the Lord Advocate to note that Scotland only gets £1,000 out of this fund, and that even that is to be taken away.

As the right hon. Gentleman is being laid under pressure, it is necessary to mention other deserving cases lest they be forgotten. A hardship has arisen in the case of the University College at Sheffield, owing to the fact that the departmental committee examined into the case of that college at a time which happened to operate unfairly against it. The scheme of the departmental committee was that the grant in each case should be proportioned to the amount locally contributed. In the case of Sheffield the inquiry was held just before a very exceptional local effort had been made in connection with the Diamond Jubilee. If the inquiry had been hold after that effort, the claim of the Sheffield College would have been in a very different position. I think the Secretary to the Treasury foreshadowed that there is going to be a reconsideration of the allocation of these grants, and I venture to express the hope that that reconsideration will not be put off on account of the disputes connected with the Scotch colleges, as to which I wish to say nothing.

I have put down a motion for the reduction of this Vote, not so much with a view to pressing it to a division as in the hope of being able to elicit some assurance from Her Majesty's Government with reference to a subject which I confess I view with great anxiety—namely, the reduction of our Consular establishments in the internal provinces of Asiatic Turkey. On the 22nd March last I put a question to the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs with regard to the Vice-Consulate at Bitlis, and the reply I received was this—

"The British Vice-Consulate at Bitlis has not been abolished. The post is at present vacant, but is visited as occasion arises by Her Majesty's Consul at Van, and, if events should occur in Armenia rendering an appointment desirable, Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople has authority to take the necessary steps."^*

^* See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxxi., page 42.

That reply only served to increase my anxiety, because it seems to show that Her Majesty's Government have in contemplation the reduction of the number of our Consulates in the interior of Asiatic Turkey. I do not ask for any declaration from Her Majesty's Government as to their general policy with regard to Turkey; but I think when we are asked to vote this large sum of money for consular and diplomatic services we have a right to ask for some explanation of what appears to be a grave departure in policy, involving, as I think, consequences of a serious and even disastrous character. Before I proceed to details I should like to place the general facts before the Committee. I think it is hardly realised that at the present moment we have no British consular representatives permanently residing in any one of the internal provinces of Turkey between Konia, Sivas, and Aleppo on the west and Van on the Persian frontier. That is to say, except in Trebizond and Erzerum on the north, we have absolutely no means of acquiring first hand information as to what is going on in any one of the great towns which were the principal scenes of the serious disturbances five years ago. That is not a situation which we can regard with equanimity. I do not want to revive unpleasant memories. Whatever view we may hold as to the culpability of Turkey for past events, I am quite certain that the Turkish Government is sincerely anxious to prevent similar occurrences in the future, and that so far as its power extends in the interior it will take steps to do so. But that does not justify us in withdrawing any guarantee we now possess. We have undertaken a very serious responsibility under the Berlin Treaty to help Turkey to render easier the conditions of life of the subject population of Asia Minor, The least we can do in fulfilment of such a responsibility is not to grudge the expenditure of a few hundreds of pounds in maintaining our representatives in the country, who can do much to avert breaches of law and order. I feel that we are bound not to withdraw any safeguards which we at present possess to help the Turkish Government to render happier and more tolerable the lives of the subject population in Asiatic Turkey. I think, therefore, we should do nothing to lessen the number of those Consuls through whom we can at present bring influence to bear. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman may say that these Consuls in the interior have very little power indeed, and that their whole time is generally occupied in tendering advice to the provincial governments which is never taken, and in writing reports which are pigeon-holed in the Embassy at Constantinople. That is not the view entertained by anyone who knows the country. I believe from my own experience that there have been instances in which the mere presence of these men has prevented acts of tyranny and injustice by individual governors and acts of folly by revolutionaries and others which might lead to fresh outbreaks of popular fanaticism and another series of disastrous consequences. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not use the argument that the presence of these Consuls is not justified by the amount of British trade in these provinces. The amount of British trade in the interior has never been very great, and it is perfectly notorious that, but for political reasons, we would not have placed any Consuls there at all. I said that we have no consular representatives in any of the central provinces of Asiatic Turkey. It is true that we have an arrangement at the present moment by which the British representative at Diarbekr spends six months of the year in that town, and the other six in Kharput. I do not wish for a moment to throw any doubt on the capacity and ability of those who have undertaken the dual duty, but I am quite sure it is practically impossible for anyone to keep himself in touch with what is going on in the combined provinces of Mamoureted, Aziz and Diarbekr. This argument applies with tenfold force to the case of Bitlis. The right hon. Gentleman, in his reply to me, stated that the British Consul at Van had instructions to go over to Bitlis whenever circumstances arose which made his presence desirable. I should have thought that a mere glance at the map would have shown the inadequacy of that arrangement. The Consul at Van not only has an enormous amount of work to do in the town itself, but he has to make extended tours in the mountains of the Nestorian district south of Van, and also on the Persian frontier, where inroads by Armenian revolutionists and Kurdish raids are a perpetual menace to the peace of the vilayet. Even if he does go across once or twice a year to Bitlis he is only on the fringe of the vilayet which extends to the borders of Kharput, and includes the most poverty - stricken district of Mush. These are the points to which I wish to direct the attention of Her Majesty's Government. The assertion that we can always intervene if occasion arises seems to mo to be perfectly useless. Past history shows that intervention after the occasion is generally nugatory, and that in 1894–5 almost every case in which disturbance arose and where the population got out of hand, was in towns where we had no British representative on the spot. I think one of the greatest blunders, to call it by its mildest term, ever made by a Government was made by the Government in 1882 when they withdrew our Consuls. Surely Her Majesty's Government having that warning before them will not commit a similar blunder. There are a great many circumstances in the Near East which give rise to considerable anxiety. We have been told that Russia has obtained from Turkey the power to veto the construction of all railways in the northern provinces, and to prevent Turkey—because Turkey cannot build railways herself— from using the only possible means of developing the country and increasing the happiness of the population. I confess I cannot understand how any Government which has undertaken in diplomatic phraseology to superintend the introduction of reforms which I suppose are not limited to reforms of the constitutional machinery of Government, but which extend also to the material improvement of the country, can acquiesce in that claim of Russia. However, that is a question of high policy which I will not enter into now. We have taken it upon ourselves to help these people, not merely Armenians or Christians, but the whole of the poor population of the interior, and I do think that the very least we can ask for is that we shall not deprive ourselves of one of the means ready to our hand, by which we can make our influence felt, particularly as there are a good many circumstances which are giving rise to a considerable amount of anxiety.

I should like to support the remarks of my noble friend. It does seem to me an enormous mistake to withdraw from the whole of Asia Minor the sources of information which Her Majesty's Government have. It cannot be forgotten that England is under special responsibility with regard to Asia Minor. We have undertaken to defend Asia Minor against Russian attack in case any further attempt were made on it. That is a very serious responsibility, and in order to keep ourselves in a position to fulfil that responsibility, it does seem to me essential that we should retain the Consuls we have there. These Consuls have been regarded as the local advisers of the governors of these provinces, who go to them for advice and assistance, and what we see now is the wholesale withdrawal of those sources of information. Undoubtedly this withdrawal is very much more serious when we consider the circumstances to which the noble Lord has alluded, and which are a matter of notoriety, and the events which have quite recently occurred. It is hardly too much to say that the whole of Asia Minor is now divided between Germany and Russia into two spheres of influence, Germany claiming the whole of the south, and Russia the whole of the north. That is a very serious matter. We know how these spheres of influence begin, and we have sometimes seen how they end. First of all, a sphere of influence is supposed to be nothing more than the exclusive right to construct railways, and then the people who come to look after the railways sometimes take the form of troops. Are the Government prepared to tear up the treaty we made with Turkey, under which we have assumed responsibility for the safety of Asia Minor? I do not know, but there are people who think we have a very serious future before us. I believe there are persons in high authority who believe that we may be at war with Russia, and not only with Russia alone, but perhaps with Russia and Germany combined. What is quite certain is that we cannot make an effective war against Russia unless we have access to the Black Sea, and if we are to give over Asia Minor to Germany and Russia we may find ourselves in such a position that even the Sultan himself cannot give permission to our fleet to pass through the Dardanelles. If there is one place in the whole world where we have undoubtedly done good—and considerable good—to the people and the governors of the country, that place is Asia Minor. I therefore, with my noble friend, very much regret the continuance of the policy of withdrawing these Consuls. I would especially direct the attention of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs to the very threatening aspect of affairs which seems to be developing in Asia Minor, which is being divided as it were between Russia and Germany. I hope my right hon. friend will be able to tell us that the statements in the press are either exaggerated or altogether unfounded. I hope, also, he will tell us that the Government do not intend to go on with this policy of withdrawing British Consuls from Asia Minor.

I assume the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs does not wish to reply before we pass to other matters connected with this Vote. With regard to Item M, the question of the arrangement made with Abyssinia is one with reference to which I think we have been left very much in the dark. We are aware from other sources of the general nature of the arrangement come to a long time ago between the Government and Abyssinia. I cannot help thinking that the time has come when the publication of the arrangement which has been come to as to the boundary between Abyssinia and the Soudan would be wise. The reduction of which notice has been given by myself and others concerns a point we have discussed before, but which we are obliged to go on discussing, because the Government will not clear their own minds on the subject. I refer to the question of slavery in Zanzibar, and I propose to move a reduction of the salary of Sir Arthur Hardinge in respect to the position in Zanzibar. I wish to move this reduction without making any sort of personal attack on Sir Arthur Hardinge. I have, in common with all members of the Committee who have watched his public services, the highest respect and regard for Sir Arthur Hardinge, who is one of the best men in our service. But we think him out of place in this one particular station, not because of any defect or inability, but because of the particular and very special views which he holds—views different from the views of the vast majority of hon. Members—on the question of slavery. I do not think that that will be denied by anyone who has had the advantage of studying this question, and especially Sir Arthur Hardinge's replies to the Government. It cannot be denied that Sir Arthur Hardinge does hold these peculiar views. Indeed, on the two occasions in which he came into conflict with the Foreign Office and Lord Salisbury he maintained them with great ability. It is said that a promise as to slavery was given at the time we took over the administration of Zanzibar. Lord Kimberley was responsible for the conditions on which the administration was taken over, and he has altogether rejected the; view that any such promise was given as the present Government think was given as regards slavery. Sir Arthur Hardinge's was the official speech, and there was not a word in it of which anyone could complain. The so-called promise under which we were supposed to be more tender towards slavery in Zanzibar than elsewhere was contained in a speech not of Sir Arthur Hardinge, but of Sir Lloyd Matthews, in command of the forces of Zanzibar. He is a man who is deeply imbued with the Zanzibar feeling, but I cannot help remembering that even in that speech of Sir Lloyd Matthews the word "slavery" was not used. The phrase relied upon was that in which he alluded to the intention of the British Government that the faith of Islam and all the ancient customs of the country would be maintained there. Now, Lord Kimberley, who gave the instructions on which that speech was made, denied that there was any light to commit this country to upholding slavery, and for a long time this so-called promise was not alleged as a defence of the recognition of slavery. Other reasons were given for not acting; by Sir Arthur Hardinge we were told that the country was disturbed. The First Lord of the Treasury had made a promise to this House that as soon as practicable the same steps would be taken in regard to the abolition of slavery in East Africa as had been taken in other parts of the British dominions. These promises to maintain old customs have often been made in regard to India, but they have never been held to mean that the laws of England with regard to slavery would not apply. There have been cases where direct promises have been made in regard to slavery. In Canada we promised the French that the institution of slavery would be main- tained; but, of course, that promise was not acted upon. The case of the Soudan is very closely analogous to that of British India. In a series of speeches by Lord Kitchener he used language very similar to that, in regard to ancient laws and customs, employed by Sir Lloyd Matthews and Sir Arthur Hardinge. But slavery has been abolished in the Soudan, and what we want is that similar action should be taken in East Africa in regard to slavery as has been taken in the Soudan. I can say for those who are interested in this question that if the British Government would at once do in British East Africa what was done in. India in 1843 we should, for the time, be satisfied. The abolition of the legal recognition of slavery which took place in India in 1843 is in advance of anything which the Government have been able to do up to the present time in East Africa. I repeat we do Sir Arthur Hardinge no injustice when we maintain that the arguments he has carried on with the Foreign Office point to a gradual alteration of slavery into a system of apprenticeship, which is, however, only slavery in another form. One of the greatest dangers we have to encounter is the keeping on in our protectorates of apprenticeship. Sir Arthur Hardinge has attacked particular missionaries in East Africa, and picked out one for special praise, because he held views differing from every other, and "at variance with popular prejudice," and particularly with the views of Bishop Tucker. I believe the views of Bishop Tucker are far more consonant with the views held in this House than are those of Sir Arthur Hardinge. Then there is Colonel Lugard, whose views are emphatic, and who believes that British East Africa has been prepared for the abolition of the legal status of slavery, and that it should be abolished. Very largely in consequence of what was stated in this House, and the debates and promises made in this House, we admit that some progress has been made in that direction in East Africa, although we think that progress has been slow. I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £100.

In seconding the motion of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, I desire to endorse all the words which have fallen from his lips in paying a tribute of admiration to the ability of Sir A. Hardinge; but I also entirely endorse what he paid in regard to the pro-slavery policy which has been pursued under Sir Arthur Hardinge and this Government throughout the area over which he has very large powers. I know that Her Majesty's Government feels somewhat inclined to resent these constant debates in reference to slavery, but I would point out that we have, as a result of these debates, on more than one occasion, got some steps in advance. The pressure we have been able to bring in this House has produced a better state of things in Zanz bar and the islands which otherwise would never have been obtained. One good that has been effected is that those who have charge of the slaves now know that they must treat them in a very different way from what they did a few years ago, and therefore our debates have done something for the cause of humanity. But it seems to me there has been something lacking in the policy pursued by the Government in the desire to see the immediate emancipation of the slaves. Two years ago Sir Lloyd Matthews in a despatch alluded to the "hasty and ill-timed interference of friends at home." These words are somewhat remarkable when we remember that Sir John Kirk sixteen years ago, in 1884, said that "the time was ripe for the entire emancipation of the population of the Zanzibar Protectorate." Sir Arthur Hardinge two years ago said, "It is idle to treat the African negro as if he were a full-grown free man." I am not one of those who think that the raw Kaffir or negro should "be given the same amount of freedom as a white man. Naturally, they should be put under some kind of restriction, but they ought to have freedom as free men, and ought not to be considered the goods and chattels of another human being. As an illustration of the character of the spirit displayed from time to time by our officials in Zanzibar, I might allude to a case in which their policy of endeavouring to conciliate the Arab owners of slaves was shown. Soon after the present Government came into power an Arab was found guilty of most inhuman conduct towards a particular slave. In the Zanzibar Gazette it is recorded that this man, Abdulla Bin Ali, punished his slave by welding the irons on his flesh, and feeding him with one cocoanut morning and evening. Well, I am very glad that the Government prosecuted that individual, that he was found guilty, and sentenced by Judge Cracknall to seven years imprisonment. But the moment that Judge Cracknall's back was turned that cruel brute was released and practically white washed by the Government. I do not think that the policy pursued by Sir Arthur Hardinge and his subordinates is to be surprised at when we find Her Majesty's Government acquiescing in all these sort of acts in regard to slavery. For instance, the Sultan, who was put on the throne by the British Government, and who was not the natural successor of the previous Sultan, was allowed to inherit 30,000 slaves, and the excuse put forward was that the decree which prevented the inheriting of all slaves except by the sons of previous owners did not affect the Sultan himself. The pledges given by Her Majesty's Government have been very specific. On coming into power they said that slavery would be removed at the earliest possible moment, and as the right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean had quoted, the Government pledged themselves to extend to the mainland the process already carried out in the islands. Sir Rennel Rodd stated that it was impossible to administer the mainland differently from the islands. Lord Curzon, when Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs two years ago, as an excuse for delay, said that

"the conditions were not favourable on the mainland to carry out the pledge of the abolition of slavery. We must wait for the result of the experiment in the islands."

Now, from recent despatches we find that the result of the experiment has been successful in the islands, and to a large extent satisfactory. Let me read one paragraph from a despatch by Sir Arthur Hardinge dated 6th January this year—

"The progress of the emancipation decree is at once radual and steady, and is now attended with comparatively little trouble to the owners of plantations, who, with few exceptions, are adapting themselves to the new system, and paying their workmen, whether free men or nominal slaves, in pice."

I call upon the Government to carry out the pledge which Lord Curzon in this House, when Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, gave in the name of the Government two years ago. The present Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs at the commencement of last session said that the

"strip of the mainland was only taken over in 1895, and since then there had been a rebellion and a mutiny to deal with."

Three events had been reported: first, a mutiny of black troops; second, an attack on the Indian contingent; third, the slaughter by a tribe of a British officer and nine men, and he gave these as an excuse for not carrying out their pledges. But he added that

"the Government did not depart from Mr. Balfour's pledge that at the earliest opportunity they hoped to extend to the mainland the process already carried out in the islands. It was Lord Salisbury's opinion that until the Government became more settled on the mainland it was impossible to take further steps."

The Government finds an excuse for its inaction in the dispatch of Lord Kimberley, and as has been explained by the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean, it has only occurred to them as a suitable afterthought for throwing over the pledges of the First Lord of the Treasury and of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs as to the abolition of slavery on the mainland. When we analyse it what does that excuse amount to? We find that Lord Kimberley did not allude to anything except law and religion. Now, the Mohammedan law does not give any approval to slavery. It is well known that if an individual who belongs to the Mohammedan faith frees his slaves he will, according to the Koran, have a better time of it in a future life. Slavery is now permitted because it is said to be in accordance with ancient customs. Instead of correcting Sir Lloyd Matthews and the impression he may have left on the minds of a few Arabs, the Government are riding off on an excuse to prevent them carrying out their pledges. It seems to me that the Government have had many opportunities of carrying out their pledges, and if they had desired to do so they could have abolished slavery throughout the whole of the Sultan of Zanzibar's dominions. When the Sultan was appointed, and the mainland was quiet, they might have adopted some measure to release the 200,000 slaves in the mainland strip of the Sultan's dominions. That area is under the direct control of the Foreign Office, and they can do whatever they like on it. This strong Government seems to mo to ride off on an excuse instead of giving instructions that any wrong impressions in regard to law and custom should be removed; and they keep to views which are contrary to the opinions of all Englishmen. I appeal to the House to support the resolution, not that we really want to reduce Sir Arthur Hardinge's salary, but because we want to abolish slavery in the protectorates, and as a protest that the Government in not carrying out the pledges they have given have committed what is little short of a breach of faith.

Whilst we get any number of expressions of sympathy from gentlemen representing the Foreign Office with the views we have expressed on this side, we never get any further on the real question of giving freedom to the slaves under our own protection in the islands of Pemba and Zanzibar, and it is not far to look why we do not get any forwarder on this question. You have a gentleman connected with the island of Pemba as a public servant who is not in sympathy or harmony with the views the Government has expressed repeatedly in this House. That gentleman in the despatches we all read carefully has done this repeatedly. He has argued in those despatches time after time to allow a legal status to slavery in the island, to allow that to remain as it was before we established a British Protectorate. The Government in their despatches have given Sir Arthur Hardinge distinct and clear orders what to do, and in reply to these orders anybody who reads the Blue-books can see that he does not say he will carry out these orders, but that he argues against them. No public company, and no master with a servant would argue with him after a certain time. After giving him absolute and clear orders the time for argument is gone. If a public or private servant, after you have given perfectly clear and distinct orders, does not obey, all I can say is that I should join issue with that servant and say, "You must carry out my orders and policy or go your own way and make room for somebody who will." What I wish to ask is what is the policy of the Government? Is it Sir Arthur Hardinge's or is it not? If it is not the policy of Sir Arthur Hardinge, will they tell us what their policy is, and whether they will put servants in who will carry out their policy? We want action, and I think the country will call upon the Government to carry out their policy. We are the only European Government in Africa whose servants have acknowledged the legal position of slavery. A nice position for us to occupy at the end of the nineteenth century. We were the leaders of the great anti-slavery movement at the beginning of the century, and we are the last European power in Africa to-day paying, by a Vote of this House, a servant who acknowledges the legal status of slavery. That is a strong statement to make. Let us see whether it is correct or not. It is well to bear in mind what the facts are. In Mr. Lloyd's court near Mombassa there is a British judge paid for by a Vote of this House under the Consul General whose salary we are discussing at the present moment. On the court house the British flag flies, and the whole process is carried on in the name of Her Majesty. A slave owner appears before him and declares that a certain woman is his property. She repudiates the claim and asks for freedom, but does not get it. Mr. Lloyd in a British court hands her back to her master. We want to know what the Government are going to do. Is Mr. Lloyd to go on handing back slaves from the mission stations to their masters who claim them? If the Government say they propose to make no change, all I can say is that if they will stick to that then they are in absolute harmony with Sir Arthur Hardinge, and not in harmony with what they stated here last year. Are they or are they not going to carry out the able policy of Sir John Kirk and Sir Harry Johnstone? If either of these men was Consul General at the islands of Pemba and Zanzibar, the country would have unlimited confidence in him doing the best he could. If we had men there like Lord Cromer or Captain Murdo, who has charge of the Egyptian slave department, the country would have unlimited confidence, but anybody who reads the despatches of Sir Arthur Hardinge knows that his opinions are diametrically opposed to the opinions which the Government have expressed. Are we going to give up the fight with Sir Arthur Hardinge, or are we going to acknowledge that the civil servants in Africa are as lawless as some of the church clergymen who are civil servants in this country? It is a very serious position for the Government to take up. When they make statements from that bench on this question they have a right to be true and loyal to the House of Commons. They should see that their servants in Africa, whoever they are and whatever they are doing, carry out the policy which they lay down and which this House lays down as the proper and correct policy. Clearly the policy of Sir Arthur Hardinge is not the policy which has been laid down, and it is quite time that the Government said which of these two policies is going to be the policy of the future. There are some very ugly rumours in these two islands which I think require investigation—rumours that British subjects, in a way which we all know is absolutely illegal, are themselves interested directly or indirectly in this slave traffic, and that that is one of the reasons that Sir Arthur Hardinge does not carry out the instructions of the Government. I do not know whether it is true or not. It has been told me often enough that that is one of the reasons. If it is so, the Government should not protect any British subject who has got any remuneration or advantage from the slave trade. The law is perfectly clear that it is a criminal offence for any of Her Majesty's subjects to hold slaves, or take any profit or get any advantage from slavery. If there is not some truth in these ugly rumours, why does not Sir Arthur Hardinge carry out the policy so often expressed by Her Majesty's Government? These magistrates are acknowledging the legal status of slavery. What is their position if they come to England and you had one of these decisions to cite against them? Their position is that they have committed a criminal offence, and you would have the Attorney General defending these men in a criminal charge. We, as a great nation whose traditions have been on this question honourable and true, have taken the islands of Pemba and Zanzibar, and an immense territory in Africa, with the responsibility of tens of millions of natives—we have taken these in the face of Europe to do what? To stop the slave trade, and we have not up to the present time done anything at all to make things better. Before we took over these islands, we had a certain number of men-of-war protecting the seas from the slave trade. Have we the same number of men-of-war there now, and are we spending the same amount of money? Why, only the other day a ship was going from our own territory with a lot of slaves on board. It is an impossibility in these two countries to run free labour and slave labour side by side. You must make up your mind which it is going to be. Sir John Kirk told you in 1884 that one thing was certain—that until slavery is dealt with we shall never get free labour, that the present system is certain ruin, that it is neither free labour nor slavery. If you have slave labour, what is the position of free labour? You have got to wipe your hands of the whole thing, or let the people go on with their slavery. Sir John Philip knew the country, and fought for the principle of freedom which the present representative of Her Majesty is not fighting for. Sir Arthur Hardinge is fighting to the best of his ability for vested interest, and the party of slavery. He said on 13th March, 1884, that he believed the non-recognition of slavery by the law was essential to prosperity. Is the Government of that opinion? If the Government is of that opinion, why don't they carry it out and take away the then who are not carrying out their instructions? There is no greater authority than Sir John Kirk, and so far as you have gone in pemba in the direction of giving freedom, which is very little, and even Sir Arthur Hardinge in his last report admits it—so far as you have gone you have only touched the fringe of it. There is an amount of prosperity going on now which Pemba never knew before. You should be strongly determined to carry out the policy which has been so often stated on that bench without any waverings or argument with your servant. It is past the time for arguing between master and man, and if you take the strong position the country expect, and which you promised to take, you need not fear anybody, but you may rest assured that when you do something to elevate these two islands, and to bring prosperity to them, you will leave at any rate a record that at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century you have done something for the freedom and betterment of humanity.

I wish to say how greatly disappointing our attitude to-night is on this subject, which has been brought so repeatedly before the House. The progress of emancipating the slaves in East Africa is very slow, and I am sure it must be to the right hon. Gentleman himself very unsatisfactory. The decree abolishing the legal status of slavery in the islands of Zanzibar and Pemba was passed in Parliament in April, 1897; that is three years ago. What I want to emphasise is that, not only has there been no progress, or very little progress, in there islands, but what to my mind is more serious and important still, that nothing has been done on the strip of mainland which is administered from the Foreign Office, and where we are told there are some 200,000 slaves. I put a question to the right hon. Gentleman asking if anything had been done on this strip of mainland, and he had to reply in the negative. I had been informed during the recess that something had been done, and I sent a letter to the right hon. Gentleman, which he never answered. Hence my question to-day. In August, 1897, the First Lord of the Treasury promised in this House that the same conditions should be brought about on the mainland that obtained in the islands. In February last year the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs said to a deputation that waited upon him that the Government had not departed from Mr. Balfour's pledge, and at the earliest opportunity they hoped to carry out the same measures on the mainland as were already in existence in the islands, and yet he has to come before us to-night and admit that nothing whatever has been done in reference to the freeing of the slaves on the mainland. It must be very disagreeable to the right hon. Gentleman himself to have to stand before this House so repeatedly with excuses. Just look at these excuses brought before us in answer to our questions and arguments from time to time. At one time they say they are watching the experiment in the islands before they do anything on the mainland. Surely the time for experiment is long ago past. Then they go on to say that they are afraid there may be outbursts and disturbances on the mainland if they begin to unsettle affairs. Then the troubles in Uganda are pleaded as an excuse why nothing is done. Then the difficulty, forsooth, of obtaining free labour has been pleaded as an excuse. But the last excuse is, I think, the emptiest and most unreasonable of all. The right hon. Gentleman has said again and again as an excuse why nothing has been done, "We cannot break our pledge to the Sultan." I wish the Government were as strong in keeping their pledges when human beings are before them or interested in what they are doing, as they are when it is a matter of bonds and gold which are at stake. We gave pledges to protect the Armenians, but allowed 100,000 of them to be butchered. Now when about 200,000 slaves are in existence on this strip of mainland, we are year by year met with this excuse that nothing is done on their behalf, and the right hon. Gentleman is compelled, I am sure much against his own nature, disposition and feeling, to stand in his place and simply make excuses to the House. What is there in this last excuse, so often used, and which very likely will be used again by the right hon. Gentleman tonight? It is said that Lord Kimberley before he left office in 1895 gave some pledge or understanding which is binding on the present Government. What is this pledge or understanding?

"On the 1st July, 1895, Sir Arthur Hardinge, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, took over at Mombasa the administration of the mainland territories of the Sultan of Zanzibar, previously carried on by the Imperial British East Africa Company. Previous to doing so he had inquired of Her Majesty's Government whether, on assuming the administration, he might assure the Arabs that the Mohammedan law and religion would be maintained. The Earl of Kimberley, then Secretary of State for foreign Affairs, replied that he might make it clear that as regards religion and law and the Sultan's sovereignty, no difference was made by the change."

How was this interpreted to the Arabs and the slave dealers on the mainland and in the islands of Pemba and Zanzibar? This is an extract given from the despatch written by Sir Arthur Hardinge, in July, 1895, describing a public meeting which had been held in Mombasa, and attended by the Wali and the leading Arabs, when Sir Lloyd Matthews is stated to have made a speech in Swahili, of which the following is a translation—

"I have come here to-day by order of our Lord, Seyyid Hamed-bin-Thwain, to inform you all that the company have retired from the administration of his territory, and that the great English Government will succeed it, and Mr. Hardinge, the consul-general at Zanzibar, will be the head of the new administration, and will issue all orders in the territory under the sovereignty of His Highness. And all affairs connected with the faith of Islam will be conducted to the honour and benefit of religion, and all ancient customs will be allowed to continue, and his wish is that everything should be done in accordance with justice and law."

That is now interpreted as something intended to cover slavery. Since then we have had Lord Kimberley's emphatic denial that any pledge with regard to slavery was given at all. I shall not repeat it. It has been brought before the House, and it has been in the public press. I have emphasised the words that "all ancient customs will be allowed to continue." It was never intended that these words should be put there, but they have been read into it purposely, I am afraid, to include the continuation of slavery on the mainland. Why have not the Government pointed this out to their officials? Why have they allowed five years to go on without pointing out that they made a great mistake? They have done that to their credit in another instance to which I will now refer. In April there issued from the Foreign Office a remarkable paper. I suppose it has been sent to all Members of Parliament as it has been sent to me, but perhaps many may not have gone through it carefully. It is worthy of careful perusal, for it is a most remarkable document. It refers to correspondence respecting slavery and the slave trade in East Africa and the islands of Zanzibar and Pemba. This correspondence referred to the capture of slave dhows in Zanzibar Harbour, and also to an inquiry as to certain kidnapping of people by Arabs, who watched their opportunity, ran on to the mainland, set the villages on fire, and while the people were running half mad with fear they kidnapped them, put them into these dhows, packed like herrings, and sailed away in order to sell them as slaves in Arabia. This shows that there is still need for great vigilance on the part of those who are sent to coast about in these waters, and it is very interesting to find that our "handy men" can not only fight in South Africa, but can also look after their duty on these coasts, and endeavour to prevent this kidnapping of people and the selling of human beings into slavery. Wherever they can they pounce on these inhuman fiends and bring them, as they deserve to be brought, to justice. These papers reveal another striking instance, showing the bias of our officials in favour of the Arabs and against the freedom of these people according to law. I will not trouble the Committee, as I might, by reading the correspondence in this paper; Members can read it for themselves. I will merely summarise a few of the things so as to give a clear idea of the facts of the case. It appears that a circuit court, at which a British official presides, was instituted for the purpose of carrying out the Sultan's decree, and slaves who claimed their freedom under that decree, and gave their names and the names of their masters and satisfactory proof of their identity, were liberated in great numbers. That this was satisfactory to the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor in office is shown clearly enough. Mr. Curzon said on the 10th February, 1898—

"that the case of any slave thus applying for his freedom must be settled at once."

This was evidently too wide a door and too easy a way for these officials on the mainland. They complained that many of these freed slaves became vagrants, and so, forsooth, to prevent men becoming vagrants they must be deprived of their liberty and kept in slavery. These officials put into force a supplementary article of the decree, which said—

"that any person whose right of freedom shall have been formerly recognised shall be bound on pain of being declared a vagrant to show that he possesses a regular domicile and means of subsistence."

I take it that there are a great number of men in this country who would have a difficulty in doing that, but we do not put them into slavery or even into prison because of their inability to do so. But that is not the worst. These freedom-loving representatives of ours interpreted this article in their own way. They said that it referred to the condition of a slave before, and not after, he secured his liberty, and so they sent out notices that before they were freed the slaves must agree with someone to give them a home and land to cultivate, and secondly—

"When they have found a place to live in they must bring with them the owner or some responsible person or a letter to state that they (the proposed employers) will be responsible for the future of the freed slave settling on their land and will give them land to cultivate."

This is part of a letter, and if I could give the Committee the whole of it they would find that the writer, Mr. Armitage, one of the agents of the Friends' Industrial Mission, goes on to say that many cases of hardship occur through obstacles being placed in the way of slaves obtaining their freedom. Marry had to walk long distances; they waited about the Court for several days and then returned very much disheartened because they had not secured their liberty. And no wonder! He then goes on to say—

"A slave now to obtain his freedom must leave his master's shamba and run the risk— no light one—of being arrested as a vagrant while he is endeavouring to find an employer, and when he has found such a man the question asked will be, 'Are you free?' and if the reply is 'No,' 'Go and get free first' is certain to follow. The man goes to the court, and, after waiting probably several days before he can even obtain admission there, finds all his trouble in vain, he must tramp back again to his prospective employers, who in all probability will decline to go to the Court or give the man a letter. And who could conscientiously make himself responsible for the future of a free man who could at any time leave the shamba when he chose? How is such a man to live honestly while endeavouring to carry out these orders? Is not this new rule more likely to cause vagrancy than to stop it? If, on the other band, a man has got his freedom, and can show his medal or his papers (papers are not being given now), and say,' I am a free man,' he will, without doubt, at once obtain work. Mr. Farler himself supports this view, for you will notice he says in his letter: 'There are hundreds of people ready and glad to make arrangements with freed slaves,' but he does not suggest they would make arrangements with them before they are freed. The sort of people likely to trouble the country as vagrants are not those, in my opinion, who take all the trouble which is involved in attending the Court and obtaining freedom. In nearly all cases it occupies several days, and is tedious and trying in the extreme."

If this is not a way how not to do it, I do not know what is. I could say a great deal more upon this point, but I will not detain the Committee. I am very glad that in this matter the Foreign Secretary, Lord Salisbury, has put an end to this nonsense, and I wish the Government would show the same decision, firmness, and determination all through. What has he done? He has shown very clearly that these officials have put their own interpretation on this matter. Let me read the following—

"The Marquess of Salisbury has had under his consideration your letter of the 23rd ultimo, in which you draw attention to the circumstances in which effect is being given in the Island of pemba to the decree issued by the Sultan of Zanzibar in April, 1897, abolishing the legal status of slavery.

"The interpretation which Mr. Farler appears to have placed on Article 4 of that decree, and to which you specially allude, is not one which commends itself to Her Majesty's Government.

"In Article 4 the expression, 'Any person whose right to freedom shall have been formally recognised under the second Article, shall be liable to any tax, abatement, corvée, or payment in lieu of corvée, which our Government may at anytime hereafter see tit to impose on the general body of its subjects, and shall be bound, on pain of being declared a vagrant, to show that he possesses a regular domicile and means of subsistence,' should not be interpreted as laying any obligation on the slave to find someone to be responsible for his future good behaviour.

"Lord Salisbury has accordingly instructed the Acting British Agent and Consul General at Zanzibar by telegraph in this sense, and has at the same time directed that the cases which had been decided in accordance with the above interpretation of the decree should be reheard without delay."

Would the Committee believe it—the right hon. Gentleman himself who sits opposite signed that telegram, and yet he comes here and stands up in his place and screens these officials. Again and again he has attempted to screen them, to defend them, and to apologise for them. Even the reply sent to this telegram, which will be found in this Paper, shows the spirit of those men and that they ought to be dealt with as we should all deal with them if they were servants of our own. Acting Consul Basil Cave has learned his lesson from Sir Arthur Hardinge, and he shows in his reply to the Foreign Secretary what sort of man he is, clearly indicating that just as a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still, so he is, in spite of what Lord Salisbury says. He goes on to lecture Lord Salisbury, and to tell him what the consequences will be if such a course is carried out. The Consul General has been on his holidays he is back again at his duty; but while he was on his holidays he touched at the Cape, and attended a public meeting there, at which he brought up this question of slavery and sneered at the sentimentality of Exeter Hall and about "unctuous rectitude. The fact is, that these officials hob-nob with the Arabs in these quarters, as if quite clear from the letters in the paper to which I have referred. When Sir Arthur Hardinge got hack to his duties he went to inspect the different places, Of course, when people know that the "head boss" is coming they prepare for him, and he sees what they want him to see. A man can go to Africa without seeing lions, but if he goes to see lions and looks for them he will find them. And so the head man, the Consul General, wont round to see these places, and he concludes his Report to the Foreign Secretary with these words—

"The Arabs, reassured by the regular payment of compensation, are appreciative of its justice, and, on the whole, are well disposed towards it. They recently showed, indeed, their good feeling by the unprecedented step of decorating the town of Chaki Chaki with Hags and bunting last Christmas Day in honour of the chief religious festival of the English officials working in their midst. The impression derived by me from my visit of inspection to Pemha was one of steady progress, reflecting much credit on the Sultan's Government and its officers. The contrast between the state of the island to-day and on the occasion of my first visit to it in the latter part of 1894, before any attempt had been made to introduce European control, is undoubtedly very striking."

What a burlesque! Mohammedans celebrating Christmas with Christians, and both preventing the slaves who have a legal right to their liberty from securing it. This is a serious matter, and I feel sure that Parliament will not much longer allow the right hon. Gentleman to stand up and excuse these officials, who are not carrying out as they ought the law of the country. What is more, I feel sure that the country will not stand it. There is a very strong fooling in the constituencies on this question, and if it were not that so much attention is taken up by the lamentable war in South Africa, we should hear more of this matter than we have hoard. England is still the homo of the free, and I hope she will continue to be.

"'Tis the land of the free,

So it ever shall be;

Her children no fetters can bind.

Ere Britons are slaves

She shall sink in the waves,

And leave not a vestige behind.

If the African stand

But once on her strand,

That moment his shackles are broke;

A captive no more,

He leaps on her shore,

And shakes from his shoulders the yoke.

But not only have poets sung the praises of the liberty of this Empire, but orators and statesmen have used their burning eloquence on this glorious theme, and in the words of one who was able to speak on this subject with great eloquence, I will close these remarks.

"I speak"—said he—"in the spirit of the British law, which makes liberty commensurate with and inseparable from British soil, which proclaims, even to the stranger and sojourner the moment he sets his foot on British earth, that the ground on which he treads is holy, and consecrated by the genius of universal emancipation. No matter in what language his doom may have been pronounced; no matter what complexion, incompatible with freedom, an Indian or an African sun may have burned upon him; no matter in what disastrous battle his liberty may have been broken down; no matter with what solemnities he may have been devoted upon the altar of slavery—the first moment he touches the sacred soil of Britain the altar and the god sink together in the dust, his soul walks abroad in her own majesty, his body swells beyond the measure of his chains, that burst from around, and he stands redeemed, regenerated, and disenthralled by the irresistible genius of universal emancipation."

By the rules of the House I can only deal with the discussion initiated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean, and the particular motion with which he concluded his speech. But I can say that the remarks made by hon. Members respecting Asiatic Turkey will receive careful attention, and that I do not think there is any indication of a serious change in the policy which the Government have previously carried out. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the question of Abyssinia, and asked the Government to make a statement as to the present position of the frontier negotiations. That is not in our power at the present time to do. The negotiations have been going on for a considerable period, and are being conducted in a wholly amicable fashion with the Emperor Menelik, but they depend almost entirely upon the progress of the survey of territory. That survey has made some progress, but the surveying party have met with very great difficulties, and until that work is accomplished it will be impossible for us to make any statement as to the line of demarcation to be adopted. The right hon. Gentleman very rapidly diverged from that subject to one which has always interested the House very much— namely, the question of slavery, chiefly on the mainland of East Africa. I find some difficulty in answering the criticisms which have been made to-night, not be-cause they contain any fresh matter, but because though I have been Under Secretary of Foreign Affairs for something less than two years; but during that time I have had to trouble the. House with no less than six or seven set speeches—made in reply not to fresh orators, but on every occasion to almost identically the same speakers, who have, if I may say so without disrespect, almost always employed identically the same arguments. I do not say they have all diverged into the poetic vein of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. He, at least, has added a fresh lustre of quotation to a well-worn theme, but most of the speeches I confess I know almost by heart, and a great deal better than I know the speeches I have made in reply to them. The point I have to make in the very few remarks I propose to address to the Committee on the subject is that there is no difference of principle between Her Majesty's Government and those who have addressed us with such vigour. The desire for the abolition of slavery is absolutely identical in all quarters of the House. The only question between us is whether in this particular case it is practicable or desirable that the transition from the one state to the other should be abrupt or gradual. Hon. Members who have spoken to-night press for an abrupt transition; the Government think they should content themselves in the case of the mainland strip of about ton miles in breadth, with a gradual transition. I submit that, in view of the decision which has been come to on previous occasions, it lies with those who oppose this policy, which is the policy of the late Government as well as of the present Government, to show that some evils are occurring, that those who have administered the law have been found not to have acted in accordance with the expectations which had been formed. But this evening we have not had one shred or suggestion of evidence that anything has occurred in connection with slavery on the east coast of Africa to justify this House in supposing that the expectations which were held out have not been fulfilled. We have not had one case of cruelty or of complaint brought before us; we have had only one breach of the law, and that was three or four years old, and had already been disposed of.

Her Majesty's representative at Mombasa is yet acting contrary to the law with regard to slavery there; he is doing so to-night I believe.

The hon. Member did not bring before us any specific cases. What the hon. Member did was to content himself with a very general charge against Sir Arthur Hardinge of a most libellous character, and which he did not support by a tittle of argument or evidence. The hon. Member said that Sir Arthur Hardinge acted as he did because some British subjects were interested in the slave traffic.

Excuse me; I said there, were rumours to that effect, but that I did not believe them.

Oh, I beg pardon. The hon. Member omitted that important qualification. These are only rumours, and yet the lion. Member says Sir Arthur Hardinge laid himself out to protect the slave trade from a corrupt motive, to assist a certain number of British subjects whom he did not specify.

I said distinctly that that was a rumour which was pretty generally held.

Then I appeal to the House whether it is desirable that hon. Members speaking on mere rumour —which I have never heard before, although I take a good deal of interest in the question—should, without a single fact or quotation or tittle of evidence to support it, get up here and advertise to the four winds of heaven the charge that Sir Arthur Hardinge had from a corrupt motive over and over again—

I never used the word "corrupt."

Over and over again—at least half a dozen times—the hon. Member declared that Sir Arthur Hardinge laid himself out to frustrate the intentions of the Government. Now he says it is a pure rumour that certain British subjects are interested in the slave trade. The whole suggestion is an absolute fabrication, and the currency the hon. Member has given to it appears to me to do very little credit to his position as a Member of the House of Commons. The hon. Member who has just sat down said there had been very little progress in the islands of Zanzibar and Pemba, and that nothing whatever had been done on the mainland. These statements are, if he will permit mo to say so, the very reverse of the facts. In the first place, with regard to Zanzibar and Pemba, it is perfectly true, as I have told the Committee on various occasions, that a great many of the slaves will not take advantage of the power of becoming free which has been given them—a power which is perfectly well known to every slave throughout the two islands. Inexplicable as it may seem to us, everybody who has had anything to do with the islands or with the position of slavery in the islands is aware that there is a certain old feudal system between the masters and the slaves, that where the slaves have been well treated, they are not desirous of changing their position. Consequently, the number who have come to the court for emancipation has not been as large as we had originally hoped and supposed it would be. There were, however, nearly 5,000 last year, and a very large number were freed without coming to the court. In the island of Pemba last year there was a very serious outbreak of small-pox, which carried off a large number both of slaves and of free-men, and caused an almost total cessation of appeals to the court. I do not think that anyone, reading the Report laid before the House with regard to the state of slavery in Zanzibar and Pemba, can deny that there is great evidence, not only of complete contentment, but of the fact that the change being carried out in this gradual manner has led to an increase in the prosperity of those two islands. When we come to the mainland strip, it is perfectly true that the full measure of emancipation which has been given in Zanzibar and Pemba, and which my right hon. friend foreshadowed in a speech made four or five years ago in which he said that the same system would be carried out as soon as possible on the mainland, has not yet been given. I have pointed out on previous occasions the difficulties in the way of making a further move in that direction as rapidly on the mainland as has been done on the islands. But there is no question whatever that the situation of the two places is wholly distinct. The power and influence of the Sultan over his subjects in Zanzibar and Pemba has been very considerable, and has gone a long way towards bringing about the present state of things in the islands, but that power is not equal on the mainland. There has, however, been a gradual process of emancipation going on there. In the first place the sale and purchase of slaves is not allowed, and has not been allowed for many years on the mainland strip; then all children born of slave parents since 1890 have been born free; then there are removals from the mainland strip, and the employment given in the interior being considerable, the inducement to remove increases emancipation.

But they go into slavery when they return.

No, I think the hon. Member is mistaken.

When they come within the ten miles limit their master can claim them.

I have never heard of a case. Then no inheritance can take place in slaves except by direct succession. The slaves of any man who dies without direct or lineal heirs are all freed. The consequence is that progress is gradually being made towards complete emancipation. It is our desire that that process should be accelerated, but in the meantime it must not be supposed for a moment because we have not been able to accept the views of hon. Member's opposite that any injustice is going on. Those who are still slaves on the mainland strip are equal to their masters before the law and before the courts. As in India, under the Act which is quoted here as the palladium of the liberty of the slave, every man who has been a slave is not declared by law to be free, but it is declared by law that every man who is a slave is able to come before the law, equally with his master, and as against his master. That is the case on the mainland of East Africa. The consequence is that cruelty, oppression, violence, maltreatment; has been, as far as we can judge, stopped. If it has not been so, we can count on it that the missionary and other bodies would have informed us of cases which required looking into. I said that I would not trouble the House at any great length, because we have on many previous occasions put forward these views, and I can only say that I do not believe Sir Arthur Hardinge deserves the strictures passed upon him. When the time comes to look back upon Sir Arthur Hardinge's administration as a thing of the past it will he remembered that it was under his administration that the whole of Zanzibar and Pemba had become free, that the process of emancipation was carried on at a rapid rate along the East Coast of Africa, and that, while there were frequent debates in this House, not one single case of violence or oppression of slaves by their masters on the mainland could be alleged.

I think the right hon. Gentleman was not well advised when he commented in a somewhat sarcastic way upon the frequent debates on this subject, and on the fact that the same speeches were made on each occasion. What does the right hon. Gentleman expect? This House would not represent the general feeling of the great body of the British public if on every occasion when that Vote came up a discussion was not raised upon this question. It is only a small point, and it is not easy within so limited a compass to use now arguments. The same old arguments are in force now that were in force four or five years ago, and what we complain of is that those arguments have so little effect on the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, and their representatives in East Africa. The country has had remarkable patience in this matter. I do not know that that patience has always been displayed in the same degree as now, for I remember that under the late Government—when I confess I was not paying very much attention, except in that left-handed sort of way which a man in one Department looks upon the affairs of his colleagues in another Department—a furious onslaught was made on that Government for their negligence and remissness, in not dealing with this matter, in a much more summary and energetic way than has since been shown, by the present Secretary for the Colonies. I think the right hon. Gentleman therefore has no reason to complain of the temperate and quiet way in which my hon. friends have discussed this question to-night or of any renewal of this discussion which may periodically occur. The right hon. Gentleman has said that there could be no abrupt transition, and that the transition must be gradual. Nobody has asked, I understand, for an abrupt transition, but what is meant by a gradual transition? The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of the automatic effect on slavery of the fact that all children born of slaves since 1890 were free. They are, of course, increasing, and I suppose there is a certain automatic process in the introduction to the world of children in those regions; at the same time, that is very small comfort to those born before 1890. They remain in the same condition in which they were. It is not necessary to bring forward cases of excessive cruelty; what the British public and British sentiment object to is the thing itself, the status of slavery. What we object to is the existence of men in that condition, whether the slaves are well or ill treated. Undoubtedly many of them are well treated, just as in the Southern States of America there are thousands of slaves who were exceedingly well treated; and they showed no desire in this case to take advantage of the freedom offered. I remember a story told by a traveller who met a wealthy negro found in a state of slavery. The traveller said, "Why don't you, who are so wealthy, purchase your freedom? "The reply was, "No, sir; nigger property is very bad property." He would not invest money in himself, That might be the case in Zanzibar and elsewhere, but it does not touch the fringe of the question. The Government must recognise the strong and hereditary sentiment in this country in favour of the abolition of slavery—the proud idea that wherever the Queen's authority exists there can be no such thing as a man being the chattel of another. The right hon. Gentleman has not shown the Committee that there has been any active effort on the part of the Government to carry the process to the utmost extent in which it could be carried. Everyone knows that Sir A. Hardinge is one of the most efficient servants possessed by the country, and I have not a word to say against him; but everyone in a position such as his is naturally largely influenced by the genius loci; he sees the difficulties, but he is not so alive to the profound sentiment of this country. My hon. friends have brought forward this matter again from the same motives which actuated them before. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Government have every desire to accelerate this process. Let them show some evidence of this desire and some result of it. Let them make it plain to Sir A. Hardinge that the country is really in earnest in this matter, that it is not a mere pious opinion, a mere decayed tradition that there should be no slavery under the Queen, but that it should be put into force, not as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, abruptly, or in spite of all the difficulties that may stand in the way, but, at all events, with the greatest possible speed that is consistent with the engagements and the interests of Her Majesty's Empire in that part of the world.

What I think upon this question—and what a great many of those think who speak annually upon it— is that Sir Arthur Hardinge has apparently set himself to put every conceivable difficulty in the way of meeting our views. I will not criticise Sir Arthur Hardinge now, for I daresay he is doing the best that can be done under the circumstances. My right hon. friend has complained that the speeches year after year have been more or less of the same character, but what I want particularly to ask my right hon. friend is that very complicated question which arose two or three years ago. I desire some explanation as to the action of magistrates who are British subjects on the ten-mile strip of the mainland with regard to questions of slavery which are brought before them. The House will remember that two years ago, in a short debate on this subject, the Attorney General then laid down the law with respect to the rights and powers of British subjects in dealing with questions of slavery. We pressed the Attorney General, and my right hon. friend the Leader of the House was good enough to say that he would take care that the opinion of the Attorney General was cabled to the persons concerned; and this was done. We were told that a British subject might not adjudicate upon a person who had escaped from slavery and whoso master asked for him back again, but that they might adjudicate upon the question of ownership of slaves. That strikes one as being a very quaint illustration of the sinuosities of the law. It will be interesting to know what the magistrates who are British subjects upon this ten mile strip now do. Do they adjudicate on any questions at all where slaves are concerned? Do they confine themselves only to those cases where the question of ownership is raised as between two persons? That is to say, if one person has a slave and he is claimed by another, I understand from the Attorney General's decision that the British subject, being a magistrate, could adjudicate. Are those the only cases? It does strike me that it would probably be much better if the British subject refrained from adjudicating upon questions of slavery at all, and those questions might be left to the Mohammedan persons who hold a certain amount of judicial authority in that strip of mainland. It strikes one that if a British official is allowed to adjudicate in such a case as I have mentioned it is very likely that he would attempt to adjudicate on questions of returning persons from freedom to slavery. There would be a great danger of that, and the House would be glad if my right hon. friend could assure us on this point, and, if possible, tell us what are the duties, the power's, and the responsibilities of magistrates upon that ten-mile strip who are, at the same time, British subjects. I will not join in the criticism which has been made upon the general question. I think that probably I do not go quite as far as many hon. Gentlemen on the other side upon this subject. I believe there are enormous difficulties connected with the question, but we must recognise that although for something like thirteen or fourteen years we have been pressing this question, it does not seem that very much has been done,