Measures having a similar object had already been introduced by private members, Mr. J. G. Butcher (York) and Sir John Lubbock (London University), for establishing and extending the powers of the Board of Conciliation, but their special features were not explained to the House. Mr. Bryce, with regard to his bill, said that it went somewhat further than the Government measure of the previous year: a clause had been introduced embodying the principle of allowing local authorities to start Boards of Conciliation and, where necessary, Boards of Arbitration. On the hope of getting the bill read a first time, the President of the Board of Trade did himself injustice by curtailing his explanation of the bill, but his intentions were frustrated by the policy of the Opposition, who were in no hurry for legislation. The debate was accordingly adjourned until the following day (Mar. 5), when Sir John Gorst and Mr. Chamberlain contended that it was necessary to seize the opportunity of discussing the measure at once, because it was not intended to pass-perhaps, not to go even to a second reading-but only to be paraded for electioneering purposes when the Government made up their minds at last to take the plunge and to go to the country. This theory derived considerable support from the refusal of the President of the Board of Trade to give a satisfactory answer to Sir Michael HicksBeach and Mr. Goschen, who urged that the bill should be put down as the first order whenever the House was asked to read it a second time. Sir John Gorst observed that the Prime Minister had already attempted to manufacture political capital out of this measure, telling the people of Glasgow that the Government had introduced a bill which, if it had become law, would have stopped the coal strike, and that the Opposition had prevented it from becoming law. But, as Sir John Gorst showed, no attempt was made even to carry that bill as far as the second reading. Moreover, he doubted the necessity of establishing tribunals for the purpose of arbitrating between people who were perfectly willing to come together. In his opinion the powers sought for by this bill ought rather to be conferred on the Home Secretary than the Board of Trade. He also maintained that Boards of Conciliation established by local authorities should be empowered to take action in disputes without reference to the central department.

Mr. Burt (Morpeth), a typical working man and the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Trade, spoke of the bill as a "tentative measure." The Government hoped the details would be thoroughly threshed out by a standing committee, and they had no desire from any preconceived ideas of their own to adhere rigidly to any of the provisions of the bill that would not bear the fullest discussion.

Mr. D. Crawford (Lanarkshire, N.E.), on the other hand, described it as the "most important bill of the session," and Mr. Mundella (Brightside, Sheffield), who had recently been

President of the Board of Trade, expressed indignation at the idea of retarding a measure of so much gravity. In face, however, of the protests of the front Opposition bench, Mr. Bryce reluctantly gave a promise that facilities for discussing the merits of the bill should be given on the motion for its second reading.

Up to this time, notwithstanding the impediments thrown in their way, the Government had succeeded in introducing a large proportion of their promised measures. They were, however, now brought face to face with the exigencies of supply which opened a field for almost unbounded delay within strictly constitutional limits. At first they hoped that the debate on the second reading of the Welsh Disestablishment Bill could be taken within a fortnight of its introduction. In this forecast, as in many others, of the progress of public business they were doomed to disappointment by the tactics of the Opposition, which, whilst never coming within the meaning of obstruction, impeded the progress of business and upset the arrangements of the Government. The Supplementary Estimates, 1894-95, dealing with public expenditure of every class, afforded materials for long discussion and innumerable divisions. Amongst these, that for miscellaneous legal expenses gave rise to a prolonged discussion on the maintenance of police watching over Dr. Cornelius Herz and on the extradition of Jabez Spencer Balfour (Mar. 5). With regard to the former, the AttorneyGeneral declared that everything that had been done was in accordance with our treaty obligations and nothing more, although the need of some modification of the extradition arrangements with France and other countries seemed advisable. With regard to Jabez Balfour, there was a strongly expressed belief on the Opposition side that the Government had not shown sufficient vigilance to secure the arrest of Balfour before he left this country. The Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Sir E. Grey (Berwick-on-Tweed, Northumberland), went over the numerous answers he had at various times in

the House given with reference to this case. The provincial authorities in Argentina had decided they could not give up Jabez Balfour to the Federal Government until the actions brought against him at Salta had been tried, and the result of those prosecutions was not yet known here. That was the position in which the case now stood. When Jabez Balfour arrived in the Argentine Republic there was no extradition treaty with this country. A treaty had, indeed, been signed by the late Government, but it was not ratified. The present Government, however, succeeded in obtaining an exchange of the ratifications of that treaty, which it was decided applied to this particular case. He assured the committee that her Majesty's Government had spared no trouble or expense to procure the extradition of Jabez Balfour to this country.

Mr. Cremer (Haggerston) referred to certain "ugly rumours

that some members of the House did not desire to see Jabez Balfour return to this country, and that the Government had not made sufficient efforts to secure that return. He also mentioned that the money supplied to Jabez Balfour in Salta came from the Debenture Corporation. This statement, however, was distinctly denied by Mr. Martin (Droitwich).

The Attorney-General, Sir R. T. Reid (Dumfries Burghs), said if the hon. member could show any proper ground for criminal proceedings against any persons in this country he would see that justice was done. With regard to Jabez Balfour, he assured the committee that there had not been the slightest desire on the part of any member of the Government to shield from trial a person against whom such grave charges were made.

Subsequently, when the debate was renewed (Mar. 7), Sir E. Grey added to his previous statement that the real difficulty was that the Procurator-Fiscal of the Provincial Government of Salta, who was entirely outside the control of the Federal Government, insisted on proceeding with the charge connected with a brewery, notwithstanding the fact that the original complainant had abandoned the charge. After some further grumbling and opposition the amount (6,400l.) asked by the Government was voted.

In the course of the same sitting the question of the claims of the British and Canadian sealers which had been settled by arbitration was brought before the House by Sir R. Webster (Isle of Wight), who had been one of the council representing Great Britain before the commission. The Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, in reply, stated that on February 25 the United States House of Representatives rejected the proposed appropriation for the payment of a lump sum in settlement of the claims for compensation on account of the seizure of British sealing vessels by the United States prior to the Behring Sea Arbitration. The Canadian Government, in order to secure a prompt settlement, had consented to accept $125,000 in settlement of the claims. No representation had yet been received from the Government of the Dominion with regard to the present position of the question. On her Majesty's Government hearing that the House of Representatives had rejected the proposal for the payment of a lump sum, our Ambassador at Washington was instructed to urge the necessity of an immediate settlement, and to inquire whether the United States Secretary of State would resume the negotiations for a convention with reference to a commission to consider the claims of British subjects. The Secretary of State (Mr. Gresham) was prepared to resume the negotiations, but the convention, when signed, would have to be submitted to the Senate for confirmation, and unless a special session were called, which was not at all likely, this could not be done until next December.

Among the other matters discussed on the Supplementary

Estimates the most important were the state of the slave trade still flourishing in Zanzibar and Pemba, and the extra charges thrown upon this country (29,500l.) by the retention of Cyprus (March 8). On this occasion the Chancellor of the Exchequer, although representing the Government putting forward the demand, declared that he adhered to his opinion concerning the impolicy of the acquisition of Cyprus, and the mistake which was made in concluding the Anglo-Turkish Convention. The speculation in Cyprus had been a most unhappy one, for it had cost the British taxpayer 500,000l., while no tangible benefits had accrued from it. However, as we had undertaken the responsibility of administering a very squalid possession, we must do our best in the situation in which we found ourselves. Still he did not think her Majesty's Government would be justified in doing more than they did at present in order to discharge the liabilities with which they found themselves.

burdened.

This halting opinion was at once seized upon by the Opposition, and no difficulty was found in talking out the debate in order that the Ministry might come to some better agreement as to our policy, and that some answer might be given to Sir John Lubbock's inquiry why British taxpayers were called upon to make up the deficiency of the revenue of Cyprus. When the debate was resumed (March 19) the opposition to the vote, which had been led by Sir Charles Dilke (Forest of Dean, Gloucestershire), had gathered adherents from all sides of the House. Mr. Pierpoint (Warrington) said the Cypriots bitterly complained of the tremendous tribute which they had to pay. The population of the island, who were extremely poor, and who were a little more that 200,000 in number, produced an annual revenue of about 180,000l., but of that amount nearly 93,000l. was taken in order to pay the so-called Turkish tribute, which was really expended in satisfying the claims of England and France under the financial treaty of 1855. In fact, England took half the revenue of the whole island and spent it elsewhere, and he wished to know whether Cyprus was to go on for ages paying the debt due from Turkey to England and France.

On the other hand, Mr. Labouchere (Northampton) asserted that we obtained Cyprus by one of the most infamous pieces of dirty trickery that a great nation ever resorted to. The acquisition of Cyprus formed only a portion of our treaty with Turkey, under which we pledged ourselves to guarantee the integrity of Asia Minor on condition that the inhabitants were well and properly governed. He attributed all the recent atrocities in Armenia to the "peace with honour" which hon. members opposite were so exceedingly pleased with at the time. He believed the English people were not prepared to pay for suffering humanity all over the globe, as we had plenty of poor people in England and were bound to look after

"number one." In conclusion, he moved a nominal reduction of the vote to the extent of 100l. by way of protest against nothing being done in order to reduce the grant which was annually made in aid of the revenue of Cyprus.

Mr. J. W. Lowther (Mid-Cumberland), addressing himself to the financial aspect of the question, maintained that the British taxpayer had been a considerable gainer by the lease which we had of the island. We practically took from Cyprus 92,8001. a year, and he was very doubtful whether any portion of that amount was paid to France.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, interposing, said the release from our liability in consequence of the occupation of Cyprus was 40,876/. per annum. To this Mr. Lowther promptly replied that this left a considerable surplus, and proceeded to show that the position of the Cypriots had been enormously improved and that their taxation had been considerably reduced since our advent in 1878.

Colonel Bridgeman (Bolton) cited figures in order to show that we had made upwards of 200,000l. out of Cyprus during the last seventeen years, and Sir D. Macfarlane (Argyllshire), while admitting that the island had been pecuniarily profitable to us, thought we had not gained honour in obtaining the money, and urged that we should restore to Turkey a possession obtained under conditions which we were no longer willing to fulfil.

At this juncture, the leader of the Opposition, Mr. Balfour, intervened, saying that in the treaty by which Cyprus came into our possession we endeavoured to give to Turkey the greatest inducements to reform her administration in Asia Minor. There would, he believed, be no reluctance to carry out any part of the obligations into which we entered with Turkey. He wholly failed to see who was injured by the present condition of things. Certainly the British taxpayers and the Cypriots were not injured by it, and they were the only two classes we need trouble ourselves about. There was no reason why the committee should assent to a change such as was suggested by the motion which had been put from the Chair. Until we knew what developments the Eastern question was going to take in the future, he would be a rash prophet and a reckless politician who would say that the possession of Cyprus might not yet prove to be of great importance to us. It would, in fact, be insanity on the part of the committee or of any Government in this country to give up a possession which benefited both the Cypriots and the British taxpayer.

A considerable portion of the sitting having been spent in discussing a number of side-issues and questions of general policy, the Chancellor of the Exchequer at length determined to bring the debate to a close. He deemed it undesirable to raise on this vote the whole of the Eastern question, and he would only say that the obligations entered into under the

E