Commons Sitting of 28 January 1902

Preamble
The House met at Three of the clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT 1899.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,): In moving the Motion which stands in my name, I have only to say it is little more than a formal matter. As the House is aware, under the Private Bill Procedure (Scotland) Act, private Bills originate in Provisional Orders, and all I now ask is that the petitions deposited against Provisional Orders in the Scotch Office shall be sent to the Private Bill Office in the case of those Provisional Orders which are to go forward as private Bills, and they will then take the place of
  1086
  petitions deposited against private Bills in the ordinary way.
  Ordered, That all Petitions deposited at the Office of the Secretary for Scotland, pursuant to the General Orders, in favour of or against a draft Provisional Order shall, on transmission from the Office of the Secretary for Scotland, be received as if duly deposited in favour of or against the substituted Bill.
  Ordered, That this be a Standing Order of the House.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

PETITIONS.
  MIDWIVES BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Wimbledon (four); and Edge Hill; to lie upon the Table.
  RATING OF LAND VALUES.
  Petition from Birkenhead, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  WAGES AND EFFECTS OF DECEASED SEAMEN.
  Account [presented 17th January] to be printed. [No. 31.]
  Papers laid upon the Table by the Clerk Assistant.

  AUGMENTATION OF BENEFICES.
  Copy of Return of Proceedings under The Augmentation of Benefices Act, 1863, up to and inclusive of the 28th January 1902 [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 32.]
  PUBLIC REVENUE (INTERCEPTION).
  Return ordered, "of the amounts of all Public Revenue derived from Taxes levied by Parliament, and from any other sources, which are not paid into His Majesty's Exchequer, for the years 1899–1900 and 1900–1901, with the totals in each case (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No 12, of Session 2, 1899)."—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.)

  RESERVE AND DISCHARGED SOLDIERS, CIVIL EMPLOYMENT (HOUSE OF COMMONS).
  Return, ordered, "showing the persons employed on the fixed establishment of the House of Commons as messengers, hall keepers, porters, night watchmen, attendants, cloak-room attendants, office keepers, cleaners, and

  Name indicated by initials.

  Office or position held.

  Pay received.

  Date of appointment.

  Whether a Reservist or Discharged Soldier, and, if so, rank and corps.

  in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 209, of Session 1898)."—Colonel Brookfield.)

  LEAD POISONING IN EARTHENWARE AND CHINA WORKS.
  Address for "Return of the cases of Lead Poisoning reported as occurring in Earthenware and China works during the years 1899, 1900, 1901, showing (1) the number of cases in each month with, for purposes of comparison, the corresponding figures for all other industries under the Factory and Workshop Acts; (2) the number of cases in the several classes of works in the various processes; (3) the severity of the attacks, the number of previous attacks, and the main symptoms; (4) the number of persons suspended by the Certifying Surgeons for the Hanley, Stoke, Burslem, and Tunstall districts from working in dangerous processes in which such persons were employed (in continuation of Parliamentary Papers, Nos. 60, 61, and 126, of Session 1900)."—(Mr. Jesse Collings.)
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Ordered, That the proceedings on the Address in answer to His Majesty's Speech have precedence this day and Tomorrow of the Notices of Motions and of the other Orders of the Day.—(Mr. Balfour.)
NEW BILLS.

  SMALL DWELLINGS ACQUISITION ACT (1899) AMENDMENT.
  Bill to amend The Small Dwelling
  fire lighters, indicating the names by initials, and showing the pay received by each such person in respect of such employment, the date of his appointment, whether he is a Reservist or Discharged Soldier, and, if he is, specifying the rank he formerly held, and the corps to which he used to belong, in the following form:—
  Acquisition Act, 1899, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Horner, Sir Harry Bullard, Sir Benjamin Stone, Sir Thomas Wrightson, Mr. Bell, Mr. Ernest Gray, and Mr. Harry Samuel.

  SMALL DWELLINGS ACQUISITION ACT (1899) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend the Small Dwellings Acquisetion Act, 1899," presented and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 26th February, and to be printed. [Bill 61.]
  UNIVERSITY OF WALES (GRADUATES.)
  Bill to extend the privileges of the Graduates of the University of Wales, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Brynmor Jones, Mr. Alfred Thomas, Mr. Kenyon, Mr. Humphreys-Owen, and Lieutnt-Colonel Pryce-Jones.
  UNIVERSITY OF WALES (GRADUATES) BILL.
  "To extend the privileges of the Graduates of the University of Wales," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 26th February, and to be printed. [Bill 62.]
  PROVISIONAL ORDERS (WALES AND MONMOUTHSHIRE).
  Bill to provide for improving and extending the procedure for obtaining parliamentary powers by way of Provisional Orders in matters relating to Wales, including Monmouthshire, ordered to be brought in by Mr. D. A. Thomas, Mr. Samuel Evans, Mr. M'Kenna, and Mr. Bryn Roberts.
  PROVISIONAL ORDERS (WALES AND MONMOUTHSHIRE BILL.
  "To provide for improving and extending the procedure for obtaining parliamentary powers by way of Provisional Orders in matters relating to Wales, including Monmouthshire," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 16th April, and to be printed. [Bill 63.]
  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES AND RATING.
  Bill to amend the Law relating to the Housing of the Working Classes, to establish Fair Rent Courts, and to amend the Law of Rating, ordered to be brought in by Dr. Macnamara, Mr. John Burns, Mr. Bell, Mr. Cremer, Captain Norton, Mr. Shipman, Mr. George White, and Mr. Stuart Samuel.
  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES AND RATING BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to the Housing of the Working Classes, to establish Fair Rent Courts, and to amend the Law of Rating," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, 13th February, and to be printed. [Bill 64.]
  CLERGY (DISCIPLINE).
  Bill to make further provision for enforcing Discipline in case of offences committed by Clergymen, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Brand, Mr. Edward Morton, Mr. Mellor, and Mr. Charles M'Arthur.
  CLERGY (DISCIPLINE) BILL.
  "To make further provision for enforcing Discipline in case of offences committed by Clergymen," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 19th February, and to be printed. [Bill 65.]
  CHURCH PARISH COUNCILS.
  Bill to amend the Law relating to Parish Vestries and Churchwardens, and to provide for the appointment of Church Parish Councils in England and Wales, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Mellor, Mr. Edward Morton, Mr. Brand, Mr. Charles M'Arthur, and Mr Humphreys-Owens.
  CHURCH PARISH COUNCILS BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to Parish Vestries and Churchwardens, and to provide for the appointment of Church Parish Councils in England and Wales," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 7th May, and to be printed. [Bill 66.]
  TIED HOUSES ABOLITION.
  Bill to abolish Tied Houses, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Broadhurst, Sir John Brunner, Sir Walter Foster, Mr. Levy, Mr. Thomas Bayley, and Mr. Herbert Lewis.
  TIED HOUSES ABOLITION BILL.
  "To abolish Tied Houses," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 5th February, and to be printed. [Bill 67.]
  VACCINATION ACTS AMENDMENT.
  Bill to amend the Vaccination Acts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Broadhurst, Mr. Thomas Bayley, Sir John Rolleston, Mr. Channing, and Mr. Corrie Grant.
  VACCINATION ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend the Vaccination Acts," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 5th February, and to be printed. [Bill 68.]
(3.30.) QUESTIONS.

  South African War—Peace Negotiations.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether at any time since the negotiations between Lord Kitchener and General Botha any overtures, suggestions, or proposals, with a view to the termination of the war, and purporting to come from all or any of the Boer leaders or Boer ex-officials, or members of the late Volksraad, at the time in Holland, were submitted to the Prime Minister by any member of His Majesty's Privy Council. I beg also to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether, at any time since the negotiations between Lord Kitchener and

  1091
  General Botha, any application to His Majesty's Government has been made in regard to proposals for the termination of the war, to allow any of the Boers in Holland, who occupied high positions in the former Boer Government, to communicate with the Boer leaders in South Africa; and whether, if so, the application was refused.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,)No overtures for peace have been received from any one authorised to speak on behalf of the Boers. A communication was, however, received late on Saturday night from the Dutch Government, which is now under consideration, I propose to lay on the Table as soon as I am in a position to do so a copy of that communication and of our reply to it.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I did not allude to what took place last Saturday, but to what took place previously, I think in August; and I asked whether overtures, or suggestions, or proposals purporting to come from the Boer leaders were submitted to the Prime Minister by any member of His Majesty's Privy Council.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the communications did not come from persons authorised by the Boers they are not a proper subject for question and answer across the floor of the House; they are only part of the private correspondence with which all Ministers are more or less flooded.
  MR. HARWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether British officers or officials will be in order in entering into negotiations for terms of peace with Boer officers who, according to the proclamation of 7th August, have practically been outlaws since 15th September.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,):There is nothing to prevent Boer officers in the field from making overtures to the Commander-in-Chief. If they do so he has been instructed by telegram of April 19th to report such overtures to his Majesty's
  1092
  Government. I think the Question wrongly describes the technical status of leaders mentioned in the proclamation.

  Cape Colony Revenues.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state the cause and give particulars of the increase of £1,266,000 in the revenue of the Cape Colony for the nine months ending 31st March, 1901;and will he say what amount that Colony has spent and is spending on the war, and if it is charged to their Revenue Account.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The increase was principally under the heads of Customs and Railway Receipts, the increase in Customs being £427,000, and in Railway Receipts £653,000. I am not in possession of the figures and cannot say how far it is charged to Revenue.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES: But what is the cause of the increase?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I can add nothing to my answer.

  Rhodesia—Property of Deceased Settlers.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he is in a position to say whether property left by deceased settlers in Rhodesia is affected by the war, or whether the effects of deceased settlers in that region are, on proof, now realisable.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that the answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative, and to the second part in the affirmative.

  Graspan Engagement—Proposed Clasp.
  MR. MAJENDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether, in view of the conduct of the Naval Brigade and troops at Graspan, a clasp inscribed Graspan could be issued.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): I am afraid that it will not be possible to issue a clasp for Graspan. It has been decided to limit the grant of

  1093
  clasps to the chief actions of the war. If a clasp were granted for Graspan, it would be necessary to issue others for several actions of similar importance.

  Martial Law in Cape Colony.
  MR. DILLONI beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether, in accordance with the Minute handed to the Governor of Cape Colony by his Ministers on 16th April, 1901, the evidence in all trials under Martial Law in Cape Colony has been fully recorded, and a copy sent to the Attorney General for record in his office; and, if so, whether he will lay the full reports of the evidence, in all cases where the death penalty has been inflicted, upon the Table of the House.
  MR. BRODRICK: The reports of the full proceedings are retained in South Africa, but extracts from these are sent to England, and will be shown in the Return which I have promised.
  MR. DILLON: I did not ask for full reports of all trials, but only for those in which the death penalty was inflicted, which I think is a not unreasonable request.
  MR. BRODRICK: In relation to any particular case brought before me I will consider if the evidence can be given.
  MR. DILLON: I will ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the case of Commandant Scheepers.

  Trial of Commandant Krietzinger.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether, about the 1st December last, the judicial duties of the Military district commandants in the Cape Colony were transferred to the Colonial magistrates and civil commissioners of the districts; whether the trial of the Boer Commandant Krietzinger is proceeding before a tribunal composed of such magistrates or before one composed of Military officers; and, if of Military officers, of how many; whether Commandant Krietzinger is being tried on capital charges; and, if so, whether, in the event of his being found guilty, the proceedings will, as advised by the Prime
  1094
  Minister and the Attorney General of the Cape Colony, be submitted to a competent legal adviser on Lord Kitchener's staff before the sentence is carried out; and whether the recommendations of that legal adviser will be followed.
  MR. BRODRICK: The Military District Commandant is the supreme authority in all districts under Martial Law. The civil legal officials are being utilised, as far as practicable, under his orders for dealing judicially with ordinary offences against civil law. The trial of Commandant Krietzinger for certain capital offences which are a violation of the laws of war will be conducted by a Military Court composed of not less than three officers. In the event of his being found guilty sentence if involving death or penal servitude will, as in other similar cases, be reviewed first by the Deputy Judge Advocate General, and secondly by Sir R. Solomon. The proceedings with their opinions are then submitted to Lord Kitchener.

  Trial of Commandant Scheepers.
  MR. DAVID THOMAS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will furnish either a full report of the proceedings of the court-martial which condemned Commandant Scheepers, or a summary thereof giving the constitution of the court, and an outline of the evidence against and the defence made by the prisoner on each charge.
  MR. BRODRICK: As I have already informed the House, information as to the proceedings will be included in the Return which I have already promised. The hon. Member had probably better await the publication to see whether what he desires is included.

  Case of D. F. Marais.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Mr. David François Marais, who was arrested at the Paarl in Cape Colony on 14th August, and deported on 17th August 300 miles to Beaufort West and imprisoned, is still in prison; and, if so, will he state where; or has he been liberated and allowed to return to his home, and, whether any charge has been formulated against Mr.

  1095
  Marais, and has he been tried on such charge; and, if so, with what result.
  MR. BRODRICK: Mr. Marais was detained in gaol in Beaufort West pending the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The charge against him was an infringement of the Martial Law regulations. No information has yet reached us of the further action taken with regard to him.

  Dr. Reinecke.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he will state upon what ground, and by whose orders. Dr. Reinecke, a doctor practising at Ceres in the Cape Colony, was arrested on 27th August last, and taken to Malmesbury and imprisoned; whether he is aware that Dr. Reinecke was liberated in September on an order of the Supreme Court at Cape Town, and rearrested the same night by the military authorities; and whether he can state upon what ground Dr. Reinecke was rearrested, where he is now, and whether he has ever been brought to trial for any offence; and, if so, with what result.
  MR. BRODRICK: Dr. Reinecke was arrested as a suspect by order of the Military Commandant of Ceres, and was sent under escort to Malmesbury, where he was lodged in the civil gaol. His wife then moved the Supreme Court of Cape Colony to order the civil gaoler to release the prisoner. The Court issued the order on the ground that a civil servant of the law could not retain in custody a person committed by an order issued by the military authorities. The Court confined this order simply to the civil officer, and the Chief Justice, in giving judgment, added, "What the military will do on the subject, I do not know, and I cannot now restrain them." I have no information in regard to the re-arrest or subsequent action taken.

  Miss Hobhouse.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the communications by telegraph and otherwise that passed between the War Office and the Military
  1096
  authorities in South Africa with reference to the deportation and arrest of Miss Hobhouse.
  MR. BRODRICK: No telegrams or other communications passed before Miss Hobhouse's deportation, and I have therefore nothing to lay on the Table.

  Mr. C. J. Lotter.
  MR. HENRY J. WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, will he explain why Mr. C. J. Lotter, a Member of the Cape Parliament, who, together with his son and manager, was arrested by the Military in the Uitenhage district of the Cape Colony, in January, 1901, was committed for trial only on the 8th of this month. By whose authority and on what ground has he been kept in prison for 50 weeks without trial; what is the charge against him; and what is the tribunal before which he is now to be tried.
  MR. BRODRICK: I have no information of this matter. If the hon. Member will supply me with facts substantiating his statement, I will make enquiry.

  Capital Sentences on Boers.
  MR. WILLIAM LAWRENCE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he can state the reason why the sentence of death passed on the Boers Vanderwalt and Vorster, who were convicted of murder, has been commuted; whether he will furnish a Return of the murderers whose sentences have thus been commuted, with a short statement of the nature of the crimes committed; and whether against white or black subjects of His Majesty; whether, seeing that the use of uniform of an enemy for the purpose of disguise was condemned by the Conference at the Hague, he can furnish a Return of the cases of this use of His Majesty's uniform in attacking our troops; and whether any persons have been punished by court martial in consequence.
  MR. BRODRICK: I have no information as to the reasons for the commutation of the death sentences mentioned. The number of murderers

  1097
  whose sentences have been commuted will be included in the Return of Extracts of Proceedings of Military Courtsheld under Martial Law which I have promised to lay on the Table. A certain number of Boers captured, disguised in British uniform, have been shot, but I have no information of the numbers.
  MR. FLYNN: Is there any guarantee that these men had a fair trial?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  Purchase of Hungarian Horses.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he intends to publish the Report of the Committee upon the purchase of Hungarian horses for the Imperial Yeomanry; and, if so, can he say when Will it be before the Supplementary Estimate is taken.
  MR. BRODRICK: The report was laid upon the Table last night, and will be circulated to Members as soon as possible.

  Deceased Soldiers' Assets.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office, whether, in the case of a deceased soldier for whose assets next of kin are advertised, these assets can be handed over to a person taking out letters of administration in the ordinary way.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,): Yes, Sir. On production of letters of administration to the War Office, the effects of a deceased soldier are in the ordinary course issued to the grantee whether the amount has been advertised or not.

  Army Meat Contracts.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether, in the new contract for the supply of meat to the troops in South Africa, the stipulation that the meat shall be obtained so far as possible in Australia and New Zealand is dependent on the price, and whether this stipulation prevents the supply of meat from the United Kingdom or Canada.
  LORD STANLEY: The contract provides for the supply of meat at one price for fresh meat, and at one price for frozen meat, and there is nothing in the contract which prevents the supply of meat from the United Kingdom or Canada.

  Army Jam Contracts.
  COLONEL LONG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he will have inserted in all Army contracts dealing with jam a stipulation that the jam supplied is to be made from British or Irish grown fruit.
  LORD STANLEY: No, Sir, such a stipulation would have the effect of excluding all Colonial produce and, further, of preventing the troops from obtaining apricot jam or marmalade.

  Royal Army Medical Corps.
  MR. WASON: On behalf of the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he can inform the House when the last examination took place for commissions in the Royal Army Medical Corps, how many vacancies there were, and how many candidates competed for them; and, whether, to encourage the flow of candidates from the medical schools, he will quickly produce the Royal Warrant founded on the recommendation of his Committee.
  MR. BRODRICK: The last examination was in February, 1901, when twenty-two appointments were offered, and ten candidates competed. The Royal Warrant will shortly be published.

  Officers' Uniform Allowances.
  LIEUTENANT-COLONEL PRYCE-JONES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, in view of the extra expense involved on the officers of the army by the purchase of the new uniform about to be introduced, and the intention to reduce their expenses, whether an allowance to cover the same will be granted; and, if not, whether some of the contemplated changes in the uniform can be abolished.
  LORD STANLEY: Will my hon. and gallant friend kindly refer to my reply to

  1099
  a question put yesterday on this subject by the hon. Member for the West Division of Newington.†

  Commissions on Colonial Disbursements.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, if the Government of New South Wales has demanded a commission of three per cent. on all disbursements made on behalf of the British War Office; and, if so, whether this charge is to be paid.
  MR. BARLOW: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether any, and, if so, which of the Colonies which have expended money at the request and on account of the British War Office, have in making up their bills against the Imperial Government charged a commission; if so, at what rate per cent. and is it the intention of the Imperial Government to pay such commission.
  MR. BRODRICK: It has been decided that the usual commission of three per cent. for local expenditure on behalf of the War Office should be allowed to the Colonial Governments in connection with raising and equipping Colonial Contingents from oversea that were raised at the expense of the Imperial Government.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: The right hon. Gentleman has used the word "usual." Is there precedent for such payment?
  MR. BRODRICK: In the case of military pensions paid to pensioners residing in the Colonies, the Colonial Governments have always been allowed three per cent. on behalf of the Imperial Government.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is the payment made to the colonies or to the Crown Agents?
  MR. BRODRICK: I fancy it is paid to the colonies. I will make inquiry.
  MR. WHITLEY: What is the total amount?
  †See page 958.
  MR. BRODRICK: The operation is not yet concluded, so I cannot tell the amount.

  H.M.S. "Condor."
  MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether he can state what was the co-efficient of fineness of H.M.S. "Condor," reported lost, and what was the height of her bulwarks above the deck.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): The block co-efficient of fineness of the "Condor" is ·52. The height of the bulwarks above the upper deck is 4 feet, 3 inches.
  MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: Does the hon. Gentleman consider this co-efficient of fineness necessary for a ship of this kind?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: It is quite the normal fineness for a ship of that class.

  H.M.S. "Diadem."
  MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether H.M.S. "Diadem" has been put out of commission by reason of defects; and, if so, will he state the nature and extent of these defects.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The Diadem" has been put out of commission on account of defects in her boiler cases and columns which are buckled and worn. In order to make the required repairs, it will be necesrary to remove some of the elements. The "Diadem" has been in commission since July, 1898, and would in the ordinary course have been paid off to refit in February.
  MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: Am I to understand that the "Diadem" requires new boilers?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No Sir, as I have stated, it is the columns and cases of the boilers that require repair.

  Portsmouth Dockyard.
  MR. REGINALD LUCAS: I beg to ask the Secretary to

  1101
  the Admiralty, whether he is able to give an assurance that, although the intention of building H.M.S. "Edward VII." at Portsmouth has been abandoned, there is no intention of forsaking the principle that new work should always proceed concurrently with repairs and refits, and that the establishment mentioned will not be solely occupied with the latter operations.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: It is undesirable to give any pledge as to the nature or distribution of the work to be undertaken at any time in the Royal Dockyards, but there is no intention of confining the work at Portsmouth Dockyard to repairs and refits, to the exclusion of construction.

  Keyham Extension Works.
  MR. BROADHURST: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether it is proposed to use concrete instead of stone for the quoins and cornices and other dressings in the proposed new torpedo sheds and boat house at the Keyham Extension Works; and, if so, will he state the reasons why this experiment is to be made in such important works.
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,): The Admiralty have sanctioned the use of granolithic concrete for the coping to the side walls of the Slipways, and also for the window sills of the new Boat Shed for the Dockyard Reserve, Keyham Dockyard Extension. The new Torpedo Store is being designed, but no decision has yet been come to as to the use of granolithic concrete in place of stone dressings. In reply to the latter part of the hon. Member's Question, the use of this concrete is not an experiment, it has been used for a considerable time past, and is found to be cheaper than stone.

  Engine-room Artificers.
  MR. FENWICK: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether any arrangement has been made to enable engine-room artificers to obtain warrant rank before they have reached the age of 35
  1102
  years; if so, can he now state the terms of the arrangement.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Yes, Sir. Engine-room artificers will in the future be eligible for the warrant rank of artificer engineer after 8 years confirmed service instead of 10, and the minimum limit of age at which they may obtain the rank has been reduced from 35 to 29 years.

  The New Hebrides—Land Disputes.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether the Commonwealth Government has recently requested His Majesty's Government to attempt to bring about the appointment for the New Hebrides of a Land Court, and whether any negotiations have taken place upon the subject and with what result.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: His Majesty's Government have proposed to the Government of France the appointment of a Commission for the adjustment of disputes about land in the New Hebrides. The discussion of the matter is still proceeding.

  Pottery Trade Arbitration.
  MR. COGHILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will publish as a Parliamentary Paper, in continuation of the series Lead Compounds in Pottery, the evidence of Dr. A. M. M'Aldowie, the senior physician to the North Staffordshire Infirmary, which he was prevented giving at the recent arbitration at Stoke-on-Trent by the collapse of the Home Office case.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE,): I cannot undertake to publish as a Parliamentary Paper evidence not given at the arbitration and not subjected to cross-examination. But I may say that I understand that the evidence referred to has already been published and put on sale by the Manufacturers' Association. It can, I believe, be bought for the price of one penny.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he will lay before

  1103
  Parliament the Official Report of the whole of the proceedings in the recent arbitration in connection with the pottery trade.
  MR. RITCHIE: I doubt whether the Report referred to would be of such general interest and use as to justify the reprinting and publishing of it at the public expense. There are, however, a few spare copies of the shorthand notes as printed for the use of the arbitrators and parties: and I should be happy to send a copy to the right hon. Baronet or to any other hon. Member specially interested in the matter. There was also of course a daily report of the proceedings in the local newspapers.

  Chinese Imperial Seals.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention has been directed to the advertisement of a sale of the Chinese Imperial Seals on Friday next; whether he will cause inquiry to be made as to whether these seals are stolen or looted property; and whether he will see that they are restored to the Chinese Government.
  MR. RITCHIE: I had not previously heard of this advertisement. The matter appears to be worthy of consideration, and I will consult my colleagues.

  Ecclesiastical Commission.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he is aware that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have arranged to transact within their own office the legal business connected with the conveyance of sites for churches and Churchyards without making any charge for legal expenses; whether this aarangement will include sites conveyed to private trustees for burial grounds in which burials can take place only in conformity with the rites of the Church of England; whether it will involve the expenditure of public funds for purposes the cost of which has hitherto been borne by private individuals; and whether Papers showing the nature of the arrangement and the mode of carrying it into effect can be produced.
  MR. RITCHIE: I understand that an arrangement such as that suggested in the first paragraph has been established, but that it does not apply to the conveyance of sites for burial grounds to private trustees, the Commissioners being not concerned in such matters. The expenses under the arrangement will be provided out of the funds of the Commissioners, from which Solicitors' costs in similar cases have hitherto been paid. I do not think that it is a matter calling for Papers to be laid before the House.

  Sunday Games.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: who had on the Paper the following question—
  "To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether, seeing that the games of football and cricket are prohibited by statute in England on Sunday, steps will be taken to place football and cricket upon the same footing in this respect as lawn tennis and golf."
  said: The question has been altered, and I do not desire to publish it in its present form. May I say that I did not commit myself to the statement that Sunday football and cricket were prohibited by statute. I only asked for information.

  Sparks from Locomotives.
  MR. A.K.LOYD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether the Board has made any investigation as to the efficiency of the apparatus invented by Mr. Drummond for preventing the escape of sparks from railway locomotives without material reduction of the air draught; and, if so, can he state the result of the investigation.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): I have seen accounts in the public Press of the apparatus referred to by the hon. Member, but the Board of Trade have not made, nor have they any authority to make, an investigation as to its efficiency. If officially invited by those interested in the invention, the Board would be happy to instruct their Senior Inspecting Officers of Railways to report to them upon it, but such a report must be for Departmental guidance only. It is not desirable for a Public Department to express an opinion upon the merits of a particular invention.

  Loans to Local Authorities.
  MR. M'KENNA: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether he can hold out any hope that the law relating to the period of repayment of money borrowed by Local Authorities will be amended in the present session of Parliament.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GRANT LAWSON,): As my right hon. friend stated in the Debate on the Address, he is prepared to ask the House to appoint a Committee to inquire into this question. If the Committee is appointed, he must of course await its report before deciding as to any further action in the matter.
  MR. M'KENNA: Is the Committee likely to report during the course of this session?
  MR. GRANT LAWSON: It has not yet been appointed.
  DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.): When is the House likely to be asked to appoint it?
  MR. GRANT LAWSON: I fancy very soon.

  Glasgow Sanitation.
  MR. THOMAS BAYLEY: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Glasgow Building Regulation Act, 1890, whereby it is enacted that all houses must be supplied with proper water sanitary accommodation, has not been carried out, can he state what steps the Corporation of Glasgow are taking to carry out this Act; and if, in the event of the Corporation failing to carry out their own Building Regulation Act, the Government will take any proceedings to insist on their so doing.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): The Statute to which the Hon. Member intends to refer is the Glasgow Police Amendment Act, 1890. Since it came into operation a great deal has been
  1106
  done at the instance of the Corporation of Glasgow to carry its provisions into effect. Further measures designed to secure so far as possible the desired result, have been receiving the attention of the Local Government Board for Scotland and of the Glasgow Corporation, who have assured the Secretary for Scotland that the matter is receiving their earnest consideration. The last paragraph of the hon. Member's Question suggests an hypothesis, and I am not prepared to pledge the Local Government Board in circumstances which have not yet arisen.

  Private Bill Committees—Members Excused from Service.
  MR. DAVID THOMAS: I beg to ask the right hon. Member for Watford, as Chairman of the Committee of Selection, if he will state in how many cases during last session Members asked to be excused serving on Private Bill Committees on the ground of private profession, business, or avocation; and in how many such cases they were excused; whether, when so excused, it was on the general ground of the peculiar nature of the Member's profession, or because of a special inconvenience that he would be caused at the particular time when his name appeared on the Panel: and, if he will lay upon the Table of the House a Return giving the names of the Members excused and the grounds for excuse.
  MR. HALSEY: I am unable to state the number of cases in which Members asked to be excused, or were excused, from serving on Private Bills Committees. I can only say generally, that each application was most carefully considered on its own merits by the Committee of Selection. Many of the communications received from hon. Members are of a highly confidential character, and it would be most undesirable to lay such a Return on the Table as the hon. Member asks for. The object of the Committee has always been to cause the minimum of inconvenience to Members, and at the same time to choose those best qualified, in their judgment, for the work of each Committee.

  Irish Land Act, 1887.
  MR. McGOVERN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord

  1107
  Lieutenant of Ireland, is he aware that a number of tenant farmers in Ireland have been converted from present tenants into future tenants owing to the operation of the Eviction Clauses of the Land Act of 1887; and, will he make any provision in his coming Land Bill to provide a remedy to meet these cases.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): I am aware of the fact mentioned in the first paragraph. Pending the introduction of the Bill I cannot discuss its contents.

  Westmeath Police.
  MR. SULLIVAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether there are at present any extra police stationed in the county Westmeath; if so, will he state their number; and to what special district is their cost chargeable.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir, there are no extra police at present stationed at Westmeath.

  Intimidation in Clare.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether, in view of the fact that extra police have been drafted into Clare in consequence of alleged intimidation, he will be good enough to state the nature of the intimidation practised and the district where it is said to have appeared.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The intimidation is directed against the occupant of an evicted farm and against persons who have assisted or dealt with him. The districts in which the extra police are stationed and which will be charged with a moiety of the expense of the force, are Labasheeda, Kilmurry M'Mahon, and Kilmihill.

  Irish National School of Teachers.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether, in view of the necessity for an adequate staff in National Schools owing to the increased work consequent upon the introduction of the new programme, the Commissioners of National Education have made any demand upon the Treasury for the necessary funds to enable them to appoint an assistant
  1108
  teacher in each school maintaining an average attendance of 50 pupils; whether, seeing that this average of 50 entitles a school in England to the services of a second certificated teacher, will the same rule be extended to Ireland.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The reply to the first part of the Question is in the negative. The statement in the second part of the Question is not in accordance with fact.
  MR. FLYNN: The question is, do the Commissioners intend making application to the Treasury?
  [No answer was returned.]
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he will consent to give the Return on the Order Paper to be moved for by the hon. Member for North Cork.*
  MR. WYNDHAM: It does not appear to me that the Return is of sufficient public importance to lay on the Table as a Parliamentary Paper. But I shall be happy to have the Return prepared and forwarded to the hon. Member.

  Wexford County Council.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the Local Government Board for Ireland have issued a sealed order against the Wexford County Council directing them to pay a sum of £30 on account of the inquiry held last year into the case of increased salaries awarded by the Local Government Board to certain county officers; if he is aware that £20 18s. of this amount is charged for shorthand writing at the inquiry, the Wexford County
  *The Notice of Motion was as follows:
  Mr. FLYNN: Assistant National Teacher (Ireland)—Return concerning Assistant National Teachers (Ireland):—
  Number of Assistant Teachers in National Schools from whom salary has been withdrawn on 31st day of December, 1901, through insufficient average attendance.
  Name of school thus deprived of portion of its teaching staff.
  Average yearly attendance in each such school.

  1109
  Gouncil having already paid a certain amount under this head, and how this sum has been arrived at for the report of an inquiry which only lasted a day and a half; and, in view of the circumstance that these shorthand notes have been utilised for the Return ordered by this House of the report of this inquiry, he will arrange that this charge shall not be made upon the Wexford County Council.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Local Government Board had no option but to charge these costs to the Council, it being mandatory on the Board to do so under Article 32 (3) of the Schedule to the Application of Enactments Orders, 1898. The item of £20 18s. is made up as follows: £4 4s. for attendance of the Shorthand Writer for more than three hours on each of the two days the inquiry lasted, and £16 14s. for transcribing 668 folios of evidence at 6d. per folio. No payment has been made by the Council to the Board in connection with this inquiry. The evidence taken was laid on the Table in deference to the wishes of the Hon. Baronet, but this fact would scarcely warrant transference to public funds of a charge for which the Council is legally liable. The cost to the Treasury of printing the Return was considerable.
  In reply to a further question by Mr. James O'CONNOR (Wicklow, W.)
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid: The shorthand writer was paid the usual Treasury rates.

  Small Dwellings Acquisition Act in Ireland.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he can state how many houses have been purchased in Ireland under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Loans amounting to £3,604 have been sanctioned for the acquisition of 23 houses—8 in Dublin, 14 in the Longford Rural District, and 1 in the Antrim Rural District. A loan of £10,0000 has been applied for from Belfast, and steps are about to be taker to bring the Act into operation in the Rural Districts of Thomastown, Dingle and Castlerea.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: Has the money been advanced to the Longford Rural district?

  Baltinglass Labourers' Cottages.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that the Local Government Board have charged the Baltinglass Rural District (No. 2) Council over £5 law costs for a Provisional Order for thirteen labourers' cottages; and, whether, seeing that the order forms are the same for every rural district in Ireland, he will advise the Local Government Board to remit to the Baltinglass Council a portion of the charge.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The sum of £5 represents the taxed costs paid by the Board to its solicitors in connection with the preparation of the Provisional Order, and under Section 7 of the Labourers' Act of 1883 this item must be recouped to the Board by the District Council. There is no power, therefore, to remit any portion of the charge.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the forms are stereotyped, and only the name has to be put in?
  MR. WYNDHAM: If any suggestions are made to me to cheapen the cost of putting the Act into operation, I will gladly consider them.

  Case of Arthur Trew, of Belfast.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been called to a memorial praying for the release of James Trew, recently convicted in Belfast of conspiracy, and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment, which has been presented to the Lord Lieutenant; and whether he will lay a copy of the memorial and the reply of His Excellency upon the Table.
  MR. WYNDHAM: A memorial praying for the release of Arthur (not James) Trew has been received by the Lord Lieutenant, who decided that the law must take its course. I must decline to

  1111
  be party to any cource of action that may be construed as interference with the Lord Lieutenant in the exercise of the prerogative of mercy, and cannot consent, therefore, to lay a copy of the memorial on the Table.

  Woodlawn Police.
  MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that the sergeant who is in charge of the police hut at Woodlawn, Co. Galway, assaulted a young man named Reilly, and that on the 20th instant this sergeant placed a body of police across the high road at Kilconnell and prevented the band from passing, and also ordered the police to draw their batons against anyone who attempted to pass; and, whether he will state by whose authority the sergeant acted in such a manner.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The sergeant did not assault Reilly, otherwise the facts are correctly stated. On each occasion a disorderly crowd, headed by Reilly, who was beating a drum, marched with the evident intention of intimidating a local landlord. The sergeant, who acted with tact and firmness on his own initiative, prevented the crowd from committing itself further in an illegal course.

  Murphy v. Midland Great Western Company.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, whether, in view of the recent decision of the Queen's Bench in the case of Murphy v. Midland Great Western Company, the Government will take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to have the conditions modified.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): The Judges of the Queen's Bench Division differed in opinion, the majority deciding against the Company on the validity of the condition in the consignment note. I understand an appeal has been or is about to be lodged. Pending the decision of the appeal no undertaking can be given to take the steps suggested.

  Irish Board of Agriculture.
  MR. MOONEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if any steps have
  1112
  been taken to provide suitable offices for the Board of Agriculture and Technical Education in Ireland; and, if so, can he state where, and by whom, the plans for the proposed building are being prepared.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir, but, as I stated the other day in reference to the College of Science, Questions on this and kindred subjects should be addressed to my hon. friend the Financial Secretary of the Treasury.

  Dublin College of Science.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether, in introducing his promised Bill dealing with the proposed College of Science in Dublin, he will make suitable provision for a building to take the place of the present Royal Hibernian Academy, and also to complete the east wing of the National Library.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): I cannot anticipate the statement it may be my duty to make in introducing the Bill.

  Irish Drift Survey.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether he can state what progress has been made with the drift survey in Ireland, whether it is intended to commence the soil survey; and whether those operations will be under the Department of Agriculture in Ireland.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,): The drift survey, of the Dublin area, sheet No. 112, has been completed, and arrangements are being made for the publication of the results. It has been pointed out previously that the carrying out of a soil survey is not the function of the Geological Survey.

  Shankhill (Wicklow) Rifle Range.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office, if he is aware that Naas (No. 2) Rural District Council has applied to the War office for a contribution to-

  1113
  wards the repair of the road lead to the Shankhill, County Wicklow, Rifle Range; and, whether, in view of the fact that the War Office has made contributions in similar cases, he will recommend that Department to grant a contribution to to the repair of the road mentioned.
  LORD STANLEY: No application has been received from the Naas Rural District Council, but an application from the Surveyor for County Wick low was refused on the ground that the county had not made any extra payments to the road contractors.

  Dublin Barracks.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he has yet received an answer to his inquiry as to whether the contractor for painting work at Portobello and Ship Street Barracks, Dublin, was paying the painters at this work the standard rate of 8d. per hour, which is the standard rate of wages recognised by the Master Painters Guild of the City of Dublin, and also that recognised by the Dublin Corporation. and was also laid down by the War Office, in reply to a letter to the hon. Member of St. Patrick's Division of Dublin of the 8th October, 1900, as the current rate for painters in such district.
  LORD STANLEY: Yes, Sir, it is reported that there is at present no painting at Ship Street Barracks, and that at Portobello Barracks the Painters are receiving 7½d. an hour, which is the maximum rate paid by the Association o Master Builders in Dublin.
  MR. NANNETTI: Is the noble Lord aware that a letter sent to the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division from the War Office stated that the rate of the wages was to be 8d. per hour? I will send him a copy of the letter.

  Ministers and Company Directorships.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he is aware that 11 members of the present Cabinet hold among them no fewer than 18 company directorships, and whether, seeing that in some
  1114
  instances Ministers of the Crown are directors of public companies between whom and the Departments of State there are contracts of large pecuniary interests, he will take any, and, if so, what steps to secure in the present administration a separation of the offices of Minister of the Crown and company director, as was the case in the last Government of Mr. Gladstone or in that of Lord Rosebery.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As regards the greater part of this Question, I have answered it many times.
  Mr. SWIFT MACNEILL: Not since the Cabinet was reconstructed.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, only last session. There is one sentence, however, which I do not understand, and which I believe is new. It suggests that "in some instances Ministers of the Crown are directors of public companies between whom and the Departments of State there are contracts of large pecuniary interests." I know of no such directors.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: There is the Hematite Company, of which the Duke of Devonshire is a director.

  Parliamentary Representation.
  MR. PLUMMERI beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether the Government will consider the desirability of appointing a Committee to inquire into the present distribution of Parliamentary representation.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I shall be very glad to consider the proposal of my hon. friend. It is certainly important that the Government should be in a position when this subject comes to be discussed to lay all the material facts before the House. Perhaps if my hon. friend has any particular class of facts in view he will consider the possibility of moving for a Return.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly not forget the Universities?

  New Procedure Rules.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, what course he proposes to take to

  1115
  afford the House an opportunity of discussing as a whole the changes in its procedure to be proposed by the Government, and whether the terms of such changes will be printed and circulated after his introduction of them, and a reasonable interval take place before the matter is again brought before the House.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member was good enough to put off this question till to-day; and perhaps I may now state what I think will be the most convenient course to take, if the House approves, with regard to the proposals which I shall feel it my duty to lay before the House in connection with its Standing Orders. I have looked into the precedents, and have done my best to form a plan which I think will give an opportunity to the House for considering these proposals. I would suggest that on Thursday next—I am assuming that the Address will be finished to-day or to-morrow—I should make a general survey of the proposals of the Government. I hope the House will consent, immediately that is over, that the subject should be adjourned for such time as will give the House an opportunity, not merely of considering the statement which I shall make, but also of seeing in print the alterations of the Standing Orders and the new Standing Orders I shall have to propose. Many of these changes are in the nature of Amendments to existing Standing Orders, and they will appear of course in that form upon the Order Paper when we have to discuss them. But from an Order Paper of that kind a very imperfect idea would be obtained of the character of the rules which I desire to substitute for the existing rules; and therefore I think it would be convenient to the House if I were to circulate to every Member a copy of the rules as they would stand if the proposals of the Government were accepted. Therefore, if the House generally agree to that proposal, I shall move on Thursday something of this kind—the exact terms will have to be considered:—
  "That the House will on such and such a future day take into consideration proposals concerning the Standing Orders of the House."
  That would give the House an opportunity upon the succeeding day, which
  1116
  would be some time next week, for what I may call a Second Reading discussion of the proposals. I hope the House will be content, not merely to let the debate drop on Thursday next, when I bring in the proposals, but that they will not make the Second Reading debate of too long or protracted a character, because I may remind the House, they will have an opportunity on each of the rules of very fully discussing the changes which the Government propose. I may, perhaps, take it for granted that the general outline of business which I have sketched will be agreeable to members in all parts of the House. If that be so, I will tomorrow give notice of the necessary Resolutions. If the House agree to that plan, immediately after I have made my statement I would move a Resolution, as has always been done on similar occasions, taking the time of the House for that discussion.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The last words of the right hon. Gentleman I think require a little explanation.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Well, the House is aware that the actual time under our existing rules which the Government have for discussing these questions is Monday and Thursday. I do not think that any Minister has ever attempted to ask the House to deal with this question without taking facilities for the discussion. That is all I propose to do. I wish also to pass a simple Resolution, if the House will allow, stating that whenever Supply is put down first on Friday it shall be taken. I do not propose that the House should pass the Supply rule on Thursday, but I think it would be convenient if we could at once begin to use Fridays, or one day at least in the week, for Supply; and in order to do that we shall have to pass the simple Resolution I have sketched out. I hope I have made myself clear.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The explanation which the right hon. Gentleman has given will, in the main, I think, meet the desire of the House—namely, that we should be given an opportunity not only of considering the

  1117
  scope of the changes in the rules which he proposes for the acceptance of the House, but also of discussing those changes en bloc, in their general effect, as well as in their details when we come to that further stage. With regard to what he said in expressing a hope that the discussion would not be protracted at what we may call the Second Reading stage, perhaps I may remind him that it depends very much on the nature of the changes he proposes. He will not expect the House to pledge itself in any way in respect to that. But I should hope that, at all events, the discussion will not be more protracted than the importance of the changes demands. Will the right hon. Gentleman say what business he proposes to proceed with on Thursday after he has made his statement, and what will be the business on Friday? What, also, is his idea of the length of the interval between his first statement and the Second Reading debate?
  MR. BLAKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman have the proposed alterations of the Orders printed in italics?
  MR. LOUGH: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that nothing shall be said after he has described the Government proposals? Will he not allow 15 or 20 minutes for Questions?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am very much in the hands of the House in regard to the interval which should elapse. I hope that three or four days will be enough, and that we may begin on Monday next. [Opposition cries of "Oh."] Of course, I do not wish to unduly press the matter. In reply to the hon. Member for South Longford, I have already given directions that the proposed changes in the Standing Orders shall be printed in italics. I can only repeat my hope that on the first day the House will be content to receive my statement without debate. As to the business on Thursday, the first Order will be my statement; and the second the taking of the time of the House for the discussion of the rules and for taking Fridays for Supply.
  1118
  Then if that is all over at a convenient hour, as I hope, my right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board will introduce the London Water Bill. On Friday next I propose to take Supplementary Army Estimates.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to take Tuesdays and Wednesdays?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The form in which this Motion has always been moved is that whenever the subject of Procedure is put down first it shall have precedence; but these rules will take some time to discuss; and if that forecast is in any way justified, as I think it will be, it will not be fair to private Members to deprive them of all the Wednesdays before Easter. I shall be very glad to meet the general views of the House.
  MR. CHAPLIN: May I ask my right hon. friend whether, in view of the fact that these rules cannot, I presume, be circulated until after the statement is made, and will not be in the hands of Members at the earliest untill Friday, Monday is not rather an early date?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think I can only indicate to the House that if it really desires a longer interval I should not think myself justified in standing in the way. I hope, however, that when the rules are in the hands of Members they will see that whatever may be their value, they are not, at all events, obscure in their character, and that they will not require any long consideration on the part of Members.
  MR. BROADHURST: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence to bring the Debate of the Address to a close to-night having regard to the fact that to-morrow there is a Bill down about pensions, which attracts great interests on both sides of the House?
  MR. SPEAKER: That is practically a request that the closure may be asked for at a particular time, and it is hardly a proper one.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep Tuesday next clear for private Members? I have a very important Motion down for that day.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It depends on when we begin the general discussion of the new rules. If we do that on Monday, I am afraid we shall have to take Tuesday. I regret the necessity.

ADDRESS IN REPLY TO HIS MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.
[NINTH DAY'S DEBATE.]
Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Main Question [16th January], "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth—
"Most Gracious Sovereign
"We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament:"—(Colonel Harry M'Calmont).
Main Question again proposed.

National Food Supply.
MR. SETON-KARR: said that when the debate stood adjourned on the preceding night he was endeavouring to show the possibility of a corner in wheat in the United States, and the disastrous effects it would have on this country should we become involved in war with a foreign power. He hoped the House would pardon a personal reference in this matter. He had been chairman of a London company for some twelve years which owns a large line of granaries and elevators in the two States of Minnesota and Dakota. He had often been to that country, and he thought he knew something of the situation therewith regard to the grain trade. If a wheat corner were to take place, the company would probably have the melancholy satisfaction of seeing its shares reach a very high price. As far as we were concerned, he thought this was a very real danger. He could tell the House this, that the whole machinery
1120
was to be found at Mineapolis to buy up future grain and store it, if it would pay the grain merchants to do it. They had no lack of elevators, and the Wheat Exchange was thoroughly well secured. The grain men were only too ready to speculate with the necessities of life, and to take any advantage which might be afforded by an English war to make a large amount of money. The House need not fear that money would not be forthcoming in that country in any quantity. It would not be a political movement at all, but purely a business movement for the purpose of making money. They would only have to start the machinery, and the whole thing would go like clockwork. Some three years ago an individual named Leiter tried to operate a wheat corner in the United States. As everyone knew, he failed, the cause of the failure being that he was a single individual who made the attempt at an inopportune time with too small a capital; still he sent up the prices of wheat very considerably, and put a good deal of the money into the pockets of some deserving British farmers. That fact served to emphasise his argument, that, in the event of the Russian wheat market being closed to this country by a European war, prices might go up very high indeed. Captain Stewart Murray had pointed out the possibility of the French or German brokers being commissioned by their Governments to carry out the operations he had endeavoured to describe. But it was not the least necessary for the German and French brokers to intervene, and they probably would have no chance if they did. The American grain men were quite smart enough to see the opportunity as soon as anybody, they were on the spot, they knew the ropes, and had the whole machinery to hand.
There were other dangers which would probably arise, over which the Navy would have no control. There was the question of marine insurance. It was difficult to estimate the extent to which marine insurance would rise in the event of a war between ourselves and a great naval Power. The mere existence of the Alabama on the high seas half a century ago was sufficient to drive our North American trade off the Atlantic. We

1121
had, he hoped, an invincible Fleet, but it was one thing to win naval battles, and blockade the enemy's ports, while it was another thing to safeguard every grain ship and every neutral bottom crossing the ocean, and bringing to this country food supplies from different parts of the world. This vulnerability had been fully anticipated by other countries. [After quoting a passage from the speech of the Reporter on the French Estimates in 1897, the hon. Member proceeded]: Our so-called friends were perfectly aware of these facts, and were probably quite ready to take advantage of them when the opportunity offered. He could give the House an object lesson from the present war. He held in his hand a letter stating the circumstances under which a comparatively large ship-owner found himself in taking supplies to South African ports, although none of those ports are in a state of siege. This man, carrying freight to South Africa, in some cases under Government contracts, found himself—through circumstances not at all connected with danger on the high seas, the only danger with which the Navy could deal—subjected to a loss of £26,000. That was a danger which might easily arise in this country in the event of a naval war. Ships carrying supplies to England would incur the same expense, and it was perfectly certain that the 20,000,000 working men of the country would have to pay the price, whatever it might be.
Moreover, the general dangers of our present position of dependence on food supplies from other countries were constantly increasing. The arguments adduced when he brought this question before the House five years ago had even greater force in the present day. Our wheat area had slightly decreased, and the amount of foreign imports had, if anything, increased, while that coming from our colonies had not increased. All these facts could be ascertained if the Government would grant the inquiry for which he asked. The dependence of the country on sea-borne supplies of food was increasing year by year, and if it was a danger at all it was one that demanded the immediate attention of the Government.
1122
Another point was that the dependence of the industrial classes on cheap, wholesome food had had its inevitable effect of causing a higher standard of living to be set up, which all were glad to see. Working men could obtain food of all kinds, foreign-imported, at a very low price. That made them in one respect more vulnerable, because they would require more now than they did 50 or 100 years ago. In other words, if foreign nations interfered with the supplies of cheap food, as, in spite of our strong Navy, they could do, the industrial classes would undergo greater suffering and want than formerly. As Sir Edwin Arnold had stated in one of his books, the whole globe was ransacked to supply the breakfast-table of the working man. That was the product of our modern civilisation, but the system introduced corresponding dangers such as he had described. That being the case, it enhanced the importance of inquiries into all the methods by which some reserve of food might be built up, or some method of insurance devised by which the dangers of the present system would be provided against. As to remedies, he did not wish to include in his Amendment any particular remedies which he personally favoured. What he asked for was an inquiry, but he was perfectly prepared to support three, and possibly four, remedies which would to some extent meet the case. There were, however, two or three methods which he would respectfully urge the Government to inquire into. Their merits could not be satisfactorily ascertained except by an inquiry with some official authority behind it.
His first suggestion was a preferential duty in favour of the colonies. If we were to get our wheat supplies from abroad, he should like to see them obtained from Australia, Canada, and other colonies, rather than from Russia, the United States, and the Argentine Republic. Without any serious violation of the doctrines of free trade—in which he had no confidence at all—that method might very easily be applied. He was also strongly in favour of national granaries. Some system of storing grain in this country was, at all events, worthy of the consideration

1123
of the Government. The Americans had reduced the science of storing grain to a fine art; they knew exactly how to do it, and they did it in the best and cheapest way. He would undertake to prove before any tribunal the Government might appoint, that the American elevator system was a very good, if not the best system possible for storing grain in this country. The system could be tentatively started, and if it was found to succeed it might be gradually extended, without any disturbance of the wheat trade. He was perfectly aware that a great many Mark Lane corn merchants were opposed to the storage of corn, because they thought it would interfere with their business. He was only indicating that as a line of enquiry for the Government, should they choose to adopt his request. Another method had been suggested by Capt. Stewart Murray in his pamphlet, and it was that they should have a Food Supply Department, founded upon the system established in France 100 years ago, after the French Revolution. He had elaborated that system, and it was well worth the attention of the House. During the time of the siege of certain towns in South Africa, the military authorities rightly laid hands upon all the food supplies in the besieged towns, and they doled out the supplies as required. Probably that was the only method by which the garrisons were enabled to hold out so long, and if this precaution had not been taken, those garrisons might have been starved out. That was the system which Capt. Stewart Murray advocated in his Food Supply Department. The system did not add anything to their stores, but it provided regulations by which this arrangement could be carried out during time of war. The House would see the advantage of action of that kind being taken, and if a naval war came upon us it would be much better to be prepared beforehand. An operation of this kind would be one of very great magnitude for this country, and the provision to be made ought to be very carefully considered beforehand. This was a matter which his right hon. friend might certainly organise an inquiry into.
He did not wish to delay the House too long, but, in conclusion, he would offer another argument. The position
1124
at the present moment was this. His right hon. friend would tell them that, notwithstanding all this possible danger which he was endeavouring to impress upon the Government, they had not altered their mind, because this was purely a Navy question, and in this the Government were backed up by the permanent officials behind them. But supposing he was right and they were wrong, were they not assuming a very serious responsibility? Did the right hon. Gentleman think that the ordinary man in the street had the same confidence in the foresight and the omniscience of the Government as he had a few years ago? In 1899 they entered upon a war which, to take the official view, was going to cost £50,000,000, last six months, and was going to take 25,000 or 50,000 men. If they multiplied all those figures by five they would be somewhere nearer the mark. That was not the intelligent anticipation of the future which they had a right to expect from His Majesty's Government, who were running the affairs of this great Empire. They had all these great Departments under them, and yet they could not see any further through a brick wall than the ordinary man outside. He did not wish to blame the Government for their want of foresight in this matter, because it had been admitted that nobody two years ago had any idea of the magnitude of this war, or of the amount of money it would cost, or the time it would last. Mistakes had been made all through. At the commencement of the war the great fear on the part of our gallant soldiers was that they would not get to the front in time to see any fighting. No doubt he and his friend would be again told that all their fears were groundless and that they had no cause for alarm. The Government would probably reply, "Leave it to us, and we will provide a strong Navy." But would hon. Members accept that statement with the same confidence as they did two years ago? He thought, considering the history of the past two years, they ought to ask His Majesty's Government to institute on inquiry into this matter. Ministers were only ordinary mortals, and they could not tell the House what was going to happen in the future.

1125
He thought he had said enough to show that there was some foundation for the terms of this Amendment. It was a matter of great and pressing national importance, and, after all, what they were asking for was an extremely moderate request, namely that there should be an inquiry into the condition of own food supply in time of war. The Government were the trustees, in a sense, of the interests not only of the whole country but also of the 20,000,000 of industrial population who inhabited these islands. Therefore it was a poor man's question and not a rich man's question. The rich man could live on champagne and turtle soup, and perhaps go to the Sandwich Islands until the war was over, but the British workman would have to remain in this country, and if famine came, the poor were the class who would feel it most. After all, their welfare would react upon the welfare of the whole country. For these reasons he ventured to say these were questions of very wide and pressing importance. All he urged upon the right hon. Gentleman was that there should be an inquiry, before which experts could give evidence, in order to ascertain what were the real rights and wrongs of the question. He begged to move his Amendment.
SIR HOWARD VINCENT: said he thought their thanks were due to the hon. Member for St. Helens for continually bringing this subject forward. The fact that he represented a large manufacturing community in Lancashire, together with the fact that he (Sir Howard) represented a similar class of constituency in Yorkshire, showed that this was in no sense an agricultural question, and that it had nothing to do with bringing arable land into re-cultivation, but it was a question which vitally affected the welfare and interests of the masses of the people. He had been urged by his constituents to support this Amendment, and to impress upon the Government the paramount necessity of instituting an inquiry into those most serious and important matters. He noticed that the President of the Board of Trade was likely to answer the speech of the mover of this Amendment although he should hardly have thought
1126
that it came within his Department so much as within the province of the Minister for Agriculture, whom he did not see in his place. His right hon. friend had an enormous amount of work upon his hands, and how he could find time to attend to all these other matters was something beyond his comprehension.
If the lessons of the past few years had been lost in any way upon His Majesty's Government, the people at large saw in recent events very serious cause for alarm. They remembered perfectly well the outbreak of the war between America and Spain only a few years ago, and they remembered how the price of bread was increased, and how the price of wheat went up very rapidly in the course of a few weeks from 25s. to 50s. a quarter. If that occurred in a war between the United States and Spain, how much more serious would the condition of affairs be in the case of a war between this country and America, or any of those countries from which England derived so large food supply? The hon. Member for St. Helens said the answer of the Government in the past had been that they would provide a strong fleet which would secure the trade routes of this country. He did not see in his place the Secretary to the Admiralty, but he hoped that his right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade had followed carefully the course of the naval manœuvres which took place last year. In the course of those manœuvres there was an English fleet along the southern coast of England and one of the opposing fleets was a foreign fleet. In a few days the defending fleet was out-manœuvred by the fleet representing our opponents. If that was the case in peace manœuvres it might be the case in real war.
As his hon. friend had said, this question affected the welfare of the masses. The wealthy, whether there was war or not, would be able to provide some means of sustenance. This matter was of vital importance to the masses of the people, and it behoved the House at the present time to see to our defences, and among our defences most assuredly the food supply of our garrisons—he did not mean the military garrisons but the people of this country—was one of the most urgent importance. It would simply show that they were

1127
alive to the necessities of the case, and were anxious to take all possible precautions, and to make all possible provision to meet it. He had no intention to detain the House at any length, because the admirable speech of his hon. friend had gone over a great deal of the ground, but he should like the House to consider the state of affairs which prevailed now, and which did not prevail some 40 or 50 years ago. Forty years ago we had a population of 28,000,000 in round numbers, and to feed these people we required 18,000,000 quarters of wheat. Of these 18,000,000 more than two-thirds were home grown. How different was the case at the present time. So far from our power of producing, the foodstuffs of the people having increased with the increase of the population, our power had greatly diminished. We had at the present time a population of upwards of 40,000,000 people, and we required to feed them 30,000,000 quarters of wheat every year. Of these 30,000,000 quarters no less than about four-fifths came from over the sea. He asked the House to reflect where these 22,000,000 quarters of wheat imported last year for the food supply of our people came from. Fourteen and a half millions came from the American continent—that was from the United States in the greater part, and some portion from the Argentine; some five or six millions came from Europe—mainly from Russia and Roumania; and from our great corn-producing and wheat-growing colonies of Canada, Australasia, India, and South Africa we only brought three million quarters. If we were to have such a large importation of wheat from oversea let us, at all events, do all we possibly could to promote the growth of that wheat in our own colonies, so that, at all events, in time of war if we were besieged, or if invasion were attempted, we should be sure that the export to this country would not be stopped.
One very important matter in connection with this which he asked the House to remember was that of the 14,500,000 quarters of wheat which came from the American continent, by far the larger portion came from the United States. The House remembered what occurred during the Spanish-
1128
American War when Mr. Leiter, who was about twenty-three years of age, bought up all the wheat supply, and rapidly day after day sent up the price until it reached 50s. a quarter. The "corner" which was caused in wheat only broke down because this young man had not sufficient capital. Lord Playfair, who was formerly Chairman of Committees in this House, bore a name which would always carry respect. He had studied this question very carefully and he stated that in less than twenty years America would have no surplus food to send. [An HON. MEMBER: What is the date of that? The statement was made by Lord Playfair seven or eight years ago, not casually in the course of debate but in a carefully thought out lecture after he had studied the whole question in the United States. According to that, the American wheat supply was likely to fail us in twelve or fifteen years. The Government should not leave these matters to chance, but should see where the wheat supply for this country was to come from. There could be no question that, if we were to get into hostilities with the United States or Russia, and the export of wheat from those countries was forbidden, we should be in a serious position at the present time. He deeply regretted that nothing had been done to restore agriculture in this country to the position it used to hold. He was not interested personally in agriculture, nor were his constituents. He supported the Amendment solely on the ground that the question was one of vital interest for the welfare of the people. They were grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire, for setting a good example to the Treasury Bench by being present to hear the arguments brought forward by the hon. Member for St. Helens He could not understand where the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture could possibly be. He ought to be in his place here.
It was absolutely essential at the present time, with the condition of affairs which we found on the Continent of Europe, and when we found ourselves reduced to a bare two months food supply in this country,

1129
to set ourselves to work while there was peace, to see what we should do if we were at war with France or Germany, or any great continental Power. He did not say it was likely in the immediate future, but there were possibilities, and a Government which had the slightest care for the future interest of the people, were bound to look at these things. At the beginning of last century, when the invasion of this country was contemplated by Napoleon the Great, we had food reserves in the country which would have enabled us to hold out for forty weeks. That was not a great length of time, but it was better than sixty days, which was the estimated time at present. He expected some interesting observations on this subject from the right hon. Member for Sleaford, who was formerly Minister of Agriculture. He would be able to state exactly what the food reserves of this country were. If we had only sixty days' supply, we were face to face with a very serious condition of things. It was a condition of things perfectly well known to the ministries of war and admiralty of every continental Power. If the Government said that there was no necessity for inquiry, and that we would trust to the law of supply and demand, and to the enormous price we would be able to pay in time of war, then he thought they were living absolutely in a fools' paradise, and did not realise the danger. The hon Member for St. Helens did not bring forward the Amendment in hostility to the Government in any shape or form; he simply asked for inquiry.
Amendment proposed, at the end of the Question, to add the words,—
"But we humbly venture to express the hope that Your Majesty will direct inquiry to be made into the present large and increasing dependence of the United Kingdom on Foreign imports for the necessaries of life, and the circumstances that might arise there from in the event of Your Majesty becoming involved in war with some Foreign Power or Powers, with the view of ascertaining what measures, if any, can be taken to lessen such dependence or guard against the dangers thereof."—(Mr. Seton-Karr).
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
MR. M. WHITE RIDLEY: I do not offer any apol-
1130
ogies for speaking on a subject which is of great importance to every Member of this House, and every person of British nationality. In regard to the main proposition, which has been advanced by the hon. Member for St. Helens, there can be no room for doubt as to our dependence on foreign nations, and other countries, for our food supply. The acreage in this country under wheat cultivation has decreased in thirty years from five million to two million acres, and the wheat produced here is consequently very small. There is also no doubt that the imports of wheat from foreign nations in the same period has increased from seven millions of quarters to sixteen millions of quarters. These are facts we have got to take as we find them, and to seek some means to remedy. I submit that though we may be in danger as regards our dependence on foreign countries for our food supply, the proper way to meet it is by safeguarding our interests by the fleet of this country. In fact, the question as to what we should do now is hardly one for which we can find a parallel in modern times. I have been at some pains to discover what parallel there is for the erection of granaries, as has been urged by the hon. Member for St. Helens, and I find there was a case where granaries were established by a Minister of very old date. That was a Minister in Egypt, his name was Joseph—a very, very old name. When he saved his country in that way, it is on record that Joseph feathered not only his own nest, but that of his master. Pharaoh, with the result that the whole country belonged to him and his master between them. That story had a very slight bearing on the present question. However, I cannot find a real precedent for the establishment of granaries which would lead us to think it would be of advantage to this country to follow.
The hon. Member for St. Helen's says that we stand in a position which no other nation has occupied in regard to this question of food supply. With all deference to him, I hardly think that that is quite the case. There was a great empire—the Empire of Rome—which, in many respects, and especially in this respect of dependence on foreign nations for a

1131
food supply, which affords very much of a parallel to our own case. Rome was, as ours is, an empire worked from a small country, but which controlled enormous tracts of land—a country which supplied very little corn, and which depended upon the enormous corn-supplies of Egypt and other contiguous countries. We are consequently not the only nation which has had to rely on other supplies than our own. Now, when the end of the Roman Empire came, it was not because it had to depend upon foreign nations in time of war for its food supply. Rome fell through the inherent rottenness of its ruling classes (and of that we are in no danger in this country) and because she depended on other nations for the supply of the material which should make a nation. I submit that we have the advantage of Rome in that matter, and further, that we have the advantage of Rome in the gradual and quickly increasing reliance that can be placed on our colonies for the food supplied that can be obtained from them. The supply of wheat from our colonies amounts now to seventeen million cwts., while forty-nine million cwts. come from foreign countries; but every year the supply from our colonies on which we can rely is increasing, and the large and fertile prairies of Canada and plains of Australia, and those of that great friendly Anglo-Saxon nation of America which contributes more and more to our food supply.
I come now to what I really believe to be the point of this matter; that is, our control of the sea, and the money which we put into the control of the sea. We must look rather to that than to establishing State-aided granaries. We should rather aim at establishing a "corner" in ships than a "corner" in corn. The hon. Member for St. Helens said he took it as an assumption that we should never lose the command of the sea, and that out fleet was invincible. I would not like to go so far as that. I think if we did, we should be living in a fools' paradise; but it behoves us to see that the insurance we pay in the shape of providing a sufficient fleet to safeguard our interests should be a
1132
large one and sufficient for the purpose. Putting it shortly, I should say that if our Fleet is perfect and is sufficient to safeguard our interests, we have no need of establishing granaries in this country; but I also say that it would be a perfectly reasonable conclusion for hon. Members to draw, that if we established granaries it would be a proper thing to reduce the insurance money which we pay on our Fleet. I should think that the hon. Member for Northampton would be willing on these conditions to vote for this Amendment if it meant a reduction of the Fleet. I appeal to the House that hon. Members would be well-advised to pay the money to provide the guarantee for securing our food-supply from other nations rather than in artificially making that supply. I think that the question might be elaborated by the quotation of statistics, but I do not want to trespass further on the time of the House.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: It has been a great pleasure to me to hear, on his first appearance in our debates, our friend who has just down. It is a still greater pleasure to me that I agree with the sentiments he has expressed. I have listened to my hon. friend who moved this Motion, and to the hon. Member for Central Sheffield, but I confess I cannot understand what they can allege in favour of the proposition contained in the Amendment. When I hear the hon. Member who moved this Motion talk of the dangers of "corners" in America, does he really propose that His Majesty's Government should undertake the operation of fighting "corners" in corn? A more risky proposal than that I cannot conceive. Let us see what it means! It means this, that you are to buy up corn—he does not say at what price—a great many millions of quarters of corn in order I suppose, that if a "corner" was made in America you would let the corn out and knock down the price. A more unbusinesslike proceeding I cannot conceive. I know what has happened with "corners" According to my observation and experience no man who ever tried a "corner" ever failed to come to grief. A proposal more incapable of being supported by the English Government I cannot understand, than that the Govern-

1133
ment should expend millions and millions of money on which no interest would he paid. Here you have these great granaries which have cost you millions, and your stocks. And there are the stocks lying dead and idle in order that you may take your chance of running against a "corner" I think we are a business assembly and we may therefore dismiss the "corner."
Well, the hon. Member for Central Sheffield has advanced some arguments which seem to me to contradict one another. He is dreadfully afraid of a passage which he read out from a lecture delivered by the late Lord Playfair, in which it was stated that America, I understand, twenty years hence would not be able to export meat, because it would consume all its own meat. That would be a very satisfactory expectation to the cohorts of Protectionists I see before me. It is said—"Oh! you will have such risk in time of war because the cargoes of wheat which are coming from abroad will be at the risk of being intercepted by the foreign enemy." Now, there is a great deal of delusion on this subject. It is supposed that the wheat from America under those circumstances would be consigned to England direct. It would not be consigned to England at all. It would be consigned to Continental neutral ports, and no foreign enemy would dare to face the neutral world by attacking bona fide neutral consignment to neutral ports. It would go to Antwerp where it could not be touched or interfered with by a hostile fleet. Any voyage which it would have to make, exposed to risk, would be from Antwerp to England—or in crossing the narrow channel from Antwerp or a port in Holland to Dover. Does it seem worth while for a speculation of this kind to go into these enormous purchases, to pile up this great investment of capital? Any hon. Member who brings such a proposal before such an assembly of commercial business men, as I believe the House of Commons to be, ought to be prepared to furnish some idea of the sum of money he is going to lock up in this way. Suppose at the end of five years you have war?
MR. SETON-KARRsaid that he thought that he had made his proposal quite clear. What he was asking for all
1134
the way through was an inquiry, and he had particularly said that he did not wish to go into details of that kind.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The hon. Gentleman was very wise and very judicious when he suggested that the details were unimportant, but the detail in question is of extreme importance if there is to be invested millions upon millions in a speculation of this kind. To my mind such a speculation would be an insane thing upon the part of any responsible Government. Let us see what will be the effect when you have got this stock—and I observe the Motion of the hon. Member applies to every sort of provision, beef, bacon, mutton, and other things, as well as wheat, and you must have a store of those things, of which a large proportion now comes from abroad, but which he says will then come from our colonies—If you get corn in time of war from Canada in British ships it is at greater risk than if you get it from United States, because it is there a belligerent cargo, whereas if it comes from the United States, to Belgium, France, or Holland, it would be a neutral cargo going to a neutral port, and it would not be at any risk until it got to the neutral port, within a few miles of our own shores, from which it would be shipped to us; but if it come from Canada of course it is a British cargo, and therefore liable to capture over the whole of the Atlantic.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Not in a neutral bottom.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Why not? It is treated as contraband.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Because the Declaration of Paris covers it. The right hon. Gentleman is quite aware that the Declaration of Paris lays it down that a neutral flag covers a belligerent cargo.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: My hon. friend is quite right because one of the things that would occur in the case of war would be that the flag would be changed at once and the cargo would be protected by the neutral flag, except in the case of contraband. It has, however, been suggested that provisions

1135
might be declared to be contraband by the belligerent power—a thing which the neutrals would never allow—but if that ever occurred the goods would be consigned not to this country direct but to some neighbouring neutral country, in which case they could in no event be treated as contraband, for goods having a neutral destination cannot be treated as contraband. One part of his proposition, which I venture to criticise, I have not heard advocated except by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield, the great champion of protection in this House, and I shall be a little surprised if the advocates of this Motion are not found to be, gentlemen with a natural feeling towards protection, because that, of course, is what a Motion of this kind means. What would be the effect of the proposal that these stores were to come exclusively from our own colonies? Of course it means that wheat would have to be bought at a higher price because it would knock out of the markets many sources of supply, and the result would be to greatly enhance the price of the produce of these limited markets. Then it was said that it was for the purpose of "encouraging the growth of wheat." Encouraging the growth means that you get more than the natural price for the produce. If natural prices would encourage growth then growth is encouraged now, but that is not so. It would very greatly enhance the price you would have to pay for these stores. I do not know whether people have arrived at a state of opinion, and I sometimes think they have, when they think they cannot be happy without a war. That is not my opinion. Just as happened after the Crimean war, so there will be, I believe, after this war an earnest desire in this country for peace. Will anybody try and calculate what would be this loss to the nation if enormous food supplies had been locked up in the national granaries for the fifty years which have nearly expired since the Crimean war? Why, the National Debt would be a joke to it! It is contended that the proposal would be for the advantage of the working classes. But, from its very nature, the proposal must mean a rise in the price of corn; and how is that going to advantage
1136
the working classes? Has anybody endeavoured to form an opinion of what the position will be? You cannot keep corn for fifty years. The Government would have to lock up stores of corn year after year, and they must be always buying and selling. Fancy an English Government becoming a speculator in corn! They would have to buy at a particular price—it might be a high price. Corn cannot be kept a long time without deteriorating. Therefore they would sell it. But by that time the price might have fallen very much, and thus they would be constantly losing a great deal of money upon their transactions. This is not a case of providing for a garrison. It is a case of provisioning a people of forty millions, and all this on the speculation that at some time or other in the future there might be a "corner" or a war. What is the use of embarking upon wild speculations for risks—which I can only call "fears of the brave and follies of the wise"—of going into a rash gamble that has no justification in any example in the world? I have listened with all respect and attention to all the arguments adduced, and I have not heard a single one which seemed to me capable of being supported; and having regard to the importance of the Motion, and to the many speeches that will be and have been made; I think I have said enough.
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY: said he did not gather from the mover of the Amendment any such suggestion as that which the right hon. Gentleman opposite had thought fit to criticise so severely. He gathere that the main desire of both mover and seconder—and with that he cordially agreed—was that some cognisance should be taken by the Government of this question which was not an academic one, or one the consideration of which could be much longer postponed, but was one on which a great mass of the country and the empire thought very strongly, really, and earnestly. He would therefore pass over the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, which merely consisted of demolishing a phantom which did not exist. There seemed to be among the opponents to the Amendment two lines of thought, the argu-

1137
ments in support of which were pressed home with great insistence, One was that so long as our fleet was intact and stood in its present relation to the fleets of other nations there was no danger, and that no fuss need therefore be made about the matter. The other line of argument was that, if the fleet failed, supposing one could conceive such a thing to be possible and our ports were blockaded, then there was no longer anything to fight for, and we might chuck up the sponge and take up our position as a conquered country. He did not take objection to the first line of argument, but with regard to the second, let the House, if possible, conceive that the fleet had failed; that a foreign combination for the time being had command of the sea; and that the ports of entry to this country were blockaded. It did not follow then that the second line of argument should be accepted, it could only be accepted if it was conceded that the country was to have no storage of food supplies; but granting the position so far that our ports were blockaded, all the power and energy of the country would be put forward to restore and repair the fleet in order to break the blockade. It was not possible to suppose that other nations could have effected a blockade without their fleets having suffered considerably in the actions which would have preceded the blockade, and all our energies would be devoted to restoring as rapidly as possible the powers of resistance and opposition. But the main condition underlying all that—the only thing which would give us a chance of recuperating, would be the certainty that for a definite number of months we could feed the people upon whose energies we depended to put us again in a position of power. He, therefore, thought the second line of argument was an unworthy one, and should never issue from the lips of Ministers or lovers of their country. The House ought to recognise the patriotic intention of the hon. Member for St. Helens in bringing forward this Amendment. Those who supported the Amendment were not putting forward any particular suggestion or plan, but the various suggestions came from those who thought earnestly upon the question and who believed that their suggestion
1138
was the best way of carrying out the object in view. They all recognised that there were two supplies which were absolutely necessary for our continued resistance in such circumstances and for the continued maintenance of our position in any circumstances. One supply was that of food, and the other was the supply of men; and after all the various schemes had been examined they would all revert to this proposal, that the best way to secure a good and appropriate supply of food in this country was that it should be grown within the limits of these islands, and when they considered that the same process which would develop the home industry would also tend to increase the supply of the class of men we required to defend us. He thought, so far as possible, the Government would recognise that probably they had their best chance of satisfying the country while making any movement in the direction of finding a necessary food supply produced at home, in gaining at the same time the supply of men needed.
MAJOR RASCHthought that the thanks of the public were due to the hon. Member for St. Helens for having brought this subject forward. After all it was, at any rate, quite as important as the discussion whether the people should pay the fraction of a farthing more or less for their telephone service. He did not think anyone could suggest that the present system by which this country would be fed in the event of war was an unimportant question and that its present condition did not leave a good deal to be desired. In his opinion granaries were not practicable in this country, because owing to our detestable climate it was impossible to keep wheat sound and hard when stored, the dressing and constant turning over that it would require would make such a thing impossible. Granaries had been tried with success in North America, Hungary, and as the hon. Member said about 4,000 years ago by an energetic Minister of Agriculture in Egypt; but the House must recognise the difference of the climatic conditions existing in those countries and in Great Britain. In an interesting letter to The Times the hon. Member for Basingstoke advocated the keeping of wheat in stacks,

1139
paying the farmer a bonus for doing so. That was what farmers used to do in the eastern counties in the old days, but since 1879 they had been compelled to thresh out the rent as soon as they got the wheat in stack, but no doubt there was something in the hon. Member's suggestion. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had referred to the cohorts of Protection. There was a letter in The Times a month ago written by an old friend of the House—Mr. Albert Pell. Mr. Pell had always been a strong Free-trader, but now his words were "needs must when the devil drives" and "circumstances altered cases." Mr. Pell, in these circumstances, thought that it would be advisable to put a duty on flour, and that wheat should be admitted free. By that means Mr. Pell thought that farmers would be induced to grow wheat instead of letting their fields go down to rough grass as was now so often the case. There was an objection to that proposal which he thought the Government would find it difficult to surmount. It lay in the word "Protection" When hon. Members spoke with an agricultural labourer on the subject, it would be found that some of these men remembered the days of Protection, when the quartern loaf was at 8d.; and these labourers said that they did not wish to see those days restored. He was aware that the hon. Member for Central Sheffield could easily demolish the argument if he had the chance, but there was only one hon. Member for Central Sheffield—there were millions of agricultural labourers. His own idea was that the way to solve this question was by supporting the agricultural interest. Though he was not a Protectionist, he failed to see why we should not have a shilling registration duty. It would produce 2½ millions, and he would give that sum towards reducing the rates on agricultural land. The farmers should be encouraged to lay down wheat on their lands. In the eastern counties there were thousands of acres derelict, and villages full of old women and boys. Land was selling at £2 18s. an acre, and not 200 acres were being cultivated out of every 1,000 acres. The only things grown appeared to be barbed wire and corrugated roofing. The only way to correct this state of things was to back us and support the agricultural interest, and if, as an agricultural man, by so doing he could at the same time assist the country
1140
in obliging a food supply in time of war' he felt he would have done his duty.
MR. JEFFREYSsaid his hon. friend had referred to his scheme of keeping wheat in the country. He quite agreed with what the right hon. Member for West Monmouthshire had said about granaries, and the buying and selling of wheat, and he thought it would be an enormous undertaking, a very costly one—and at the same time it would not have the desired effect. Because wheat was a very difficult article to keep, it would have to be turned constantly, and in the large granaries they would have to have expensive and powerful machinery for that purpose in order to keep it sound. A proposal which he had made, and which he regarded as reasonable, was that of keeping the supply of wheat in this country in the ricks in which it was put when harvested. It was often the practice in former years for farmers to keep a rick for sometimes one year, and sometimes two, and that was because very often when wheat was harvested it was not in a fit state to be milled, and only became fit for use after the east winds had gone through the ricks in March and thoroughly dried it. His suggestion was that the farmers should be induced to keep their wheat in the stack. The War Office had for years paid to certain omnibus and tramway proprietors 10s. a head on a number of horses in order that they might be able to appropriate those horses in time of necessity; that system had been found very useful during the present war. Why should not ricks of wheat be subsidised in the same way?
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: At what price?
MR. JEFFREYS: I will come to that. Farmers could not be expected to keep the wheat for nothing. Under such a system there would be no expenditure on public granaries, or on people to turn the wheat, or on buying and selling and thus upsetting the market. The wheat would be kept in the natural course of events. As to the cost of keeping it, there wouldbe, in the first place, a certain loss of interest to the farmer by keeping his wheat instead of selling it immediately it

1141
was harvested. That would be worth quite 2s. a quarter.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTasked whether, if the price of wheat was particularly high, 2s. a quarter would induce a farmer to keep his wheat.
MR. JEFFREYSthought that in many cases a great deal of wheat was not fit to thresh directly after harvest. Generally, the end of our summers were damp, and wheat was damp and had to be kept. Even though the price was high, the farmer would hope that in the next year it would be still higher. It was only because of the large importation of wheat that the future price of wheat was such a pure speculation. In addition to the 2s. for interest, there should be another 2s. per quarter for loss by vermin, and an additional 1s., making 5s. in all, to induce the farmer to keep the wheat for a year. If the farmers of the country could in this way be induced to keep, say, 4,000,000 quarters of wheat, it would mean an expenditure of only £1,000,000. That, compared with the enormous amount spent on the Army and the Navy was a very small sum; but it would ensure a considerable reserve of wheat for a case of emergency. The acreage under wheat has been decreasing constantly, and there was now less than one half the acreage of thirty years ago. Why should it not increase again? He believed that by some such subsidy as he had suggested, many farmers might be induced to grow wheat, and keep it for a year. Many persons asked—
"What is the good of having a reserve of food at all? You have a good Navy, and as long as you have that Navy nothing else is required."
If that was so, he would ask why it was necessary to have a Volunteer force for home defence? There was always the risk that we might not be able entirely to sweep the seas; there might be an inroad of a foreign force; and then the Volunteer force, and, above all, such food supplies would be wanted. To show that the was no mere scare, he reminded the House that in 1885, when war with Russia was imminent, Mr. Gladstone asked for a vote of £10,000,000 on the chance of war breaking out, and immediately the price of wheat went up 10s. a quarter
1142
If on such a scare the price rose to that extent, what would it do if the country actually went to war? He had no doubt it would go up to 100s., and perhaps a great deal more. Wheat now was extraordinarily low, having been between 26s. and 27s. for the last year, and if a war broke out with a foreign Power it would certainly go up to three or four times that amount. Bread would then be three or four times its present price, and poor people who were now spending 5s. or 6s. a week on bread would not be able to pay it. The only way to allay the excitement and prevent the consequent enhancement of the price of wheat, in case of war, was to have a considerable reserve in the country. By the small expenditure he had mentioned such a reserve could be secured, and it would be a source of great strength to the country.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,,who was very indistinctly heard, was understood to accept the declaration of the hon. Member for St. Helens that the Amendment had not been moved in any hostile spirit, but purely because of the importance of the subject and from a patriotic motive, The hon. Member was evidently not easily discouraged, as a similar Motion had on two previous occasions been before the House without acceptance. The mover of the Amendment had avoided pressing any particular remedy; he had said that what he wanted was not an inquiry into the question of national granaries, Protection, or marine insurance, but an inquiry pure and simple. That, doubtless, was a very wise and prudent line for the hon. Member to take, and to a certain extent it disarmed criticism. But it was no good asking the House to undertake an inquiry without any clear or definite idea of the lines on which it was to proceed. He did not intend to go at any length into the various measures which had been proposed to prevent scarcity of food supplies in time of war. With the criticisms of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire with regard to national granaries, he entirely agreed. It would be in the highest degree imprudent for any Government to embark on such a scheme. The expense certainly would be enormous.

1143
The capital expenditure would probably be at least £30,000,000, and the annual cost certainly not less than £1,000,000.
MR. YERBURGHsaid the figure he was responsible for was a capital expenditure of a little over £17,000,000 for the purchase of 8,000,000 quarters.
MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he might have overstated the amount, but in any case it was clear that it would be a large amount. In addition to that they had to consider that the Government of this country, or of any country, were extremely ill-adapted to carry out that which was in the nature of a speculation in corn. What the effect would be upon those private agencies upon which we at present depended for our supply of corn, it was difficult to forecast, but he had not the slightest doubt that it would weaken and demoralise those agencies. He thought the first effect at the outbreak of war of the existence of stores of corn to be dispensed by the Government, nobody knew how, would be to check the flow of corn into this country from the ordinary sources of supply at the very time when it was most important that such inflow should take place. Similar remarks applied to the proposal for Government insurance. The cost there would be gigantic. He had little doubt that it would be impossible to confine such insurance to corn; it would have to be extended to other kinds of food, and also to merchandise—certainly to raw materials. One or two speakers had dealt with the argument that in time of war it was necessary to make special provision for establishing stores of corn, but in one respect it was even more important to make provision in the case of raw material than in the case of corn. The price of corn might be raised to 30 or 40 per cent. without largely diminishing the consumption; but supposing there was a rise in the price of a raw material like cotton—a rise which applied to this country alone, and not to those countries in which there were cotton mannfacturies in competition with our own—was it not obvious that a rise of that kind in the price of the raw material would absolutely destroy the cotton industry of this country?
1144
It was all very well to say that men could not do without food. It had been suggested that with a sufficient stock of corn in the hands of the Government the Government could undertake the task of rationing the whole community. Such a task, however, had never been undertaken since the days which had been referred to by his hon. friend. With their present political and social system the idea of the Government's rationing the entire population of this country was, to his, mind, one of the most absurd and extravagent ideas that had ever entered into the mind of man. All these remedies were, in his judgment, both dangerous and impracticable. He agreed with those who thought that so long as we had a Navy which had command over the seas it was sufficient for us to depend upon the ordinary operations of supply and demand. His hon. friend the Member for St. Helens was very anxious to impress the House with his view that the Navy, however strong, could not do everything. He quite agreed that if war broke out the price of corn and other materials would unquestionably rise. For a short time the rise might be very great; but his belief was that panic prices would not last very long, and that the price of corn would rapidly reach some relation to the actual risk of capture in time of war. What was the risk of capture in time of war? That was a matter upon which it was very difficult to speak with any certainty; but the best authorities agreed that the average war risk in the French war at the beginning of last century was about 5 per cent. Taking the average war risk of 5 per cent., and calculating that risk upon the hull as well as upon the cargo, the risk would be covered and the war premium provided for by a rise in the price of corn of under 10 per cent. Let them assume there was a period of panic, lasting for two or three months, during which the war premium was, not 5 per cent. but 20 per cent. A rise of 40 per cent. in the price of corn—which the House would observe was a rise well within the fluctuations which actually occurred in time of peace—would cover a war premium of 20 per cent., or four times as great as the average war

1145
premium during the French war at the beginning of the last century.
He knew it was said that a scarcity in time of war was apt to produce a rise in price far greater than, in proportion, it should do; and that no doubt was true. He believed the ordinary estimate was that if the supply of corn was short to the extent of 20 per cent. we might expect a rise, in consequence of that shortage, of something like 80 per cent. But the House would observe that a rise of that kind was the result, not of a temporary deficiency, but of a real deficiency in the world's supply of corn. A real deficiency in the world's supply of corn continued to operate all through the year of scarcity; but a temporary deficiency, arising from the presence of an enemy's fleet in our waters, which intercepted the flow of corn into this country, might raise the price to a very considerable figure at the moment, but would immediately bring into play a compensating action which would bring corn into the country and reduce the price in proportion to the average war risk. It might be argued that the war risk at the present day was much greater than during the French war to which he had referred. He did not suppose that anything but experience would enable them to determine that question. They could not entirely leave out of sight the effect of the Declaration of Paris. The effect of the Declaration of Paris was that a neutral flag covered even belligerent goods, except in the case of contraband of war. Therefore, unless we were at war with a Power which did not adhere to the Declaration of Paris, and unless corn was declared to be contraband of war, we should always be certain of a sufficient supply coming to this country in neutral bottoms. Possibly corn might be declared to be contraband of war; but even in that case we should not be in a worse position than we were at the beginning of last century, when the whole of the commerce on which this country depended was carried in British bottoms, and was therefore exposed to the risk of capture.
Allusion had been made to prohibition of corn exports, but he could not say that it appeared to him there was and serious danger that a belligerent Power would be likely to have recourse to an
1146
expedient of that kind, for the simple reason that the corn market of the present day is an international market, and to have any effect the prohibition would have to extend to export of corn altogether, and then the effect would not fall on this country alone, it would be shared by the rest of the world; the amount withheld from exportation would be abstracted from the world's corn market. It would be a curious policy for a country to adopt in order to inflict a certain disadvantage on a belligerent, to subject all neutral nations to a disadvantage of the same kind. The price of corn in such a case would probably be raised all over the world, and the rise would probably fall far more heavily on the inhabitant of Germany, Italy or France, than upon the inhabitants of this country, for in those countries corn entered more largely into the diet of the working classes than in this country.
He did not think it was necessary to detain the House by dealing with the matter referred to by the hon. Member, namely, the danger that in time of war the supplies would be "cornered" The hon. Member's idea was that the corn supplies might be "cornered," not by purchasing the futures of corn, but by a syndicate of corn merchants who would buy up the existing corn for their own profit. His hon. friend had reminded the House that corn merchants, like other merchants, were not immaculate, and that they would act in accordance with what they conceived to be their best interests. Was it conceivable that, when a war broke out in which this country was engaged, and the price of corn rose in consequence, corn could actually be withheld as suggested, not merely for one or two months, but for so long a period as to starve this country out? That danger appeared to him to be extremely remote, but, if it existed, he should like to ask his hon. friend, why should a "corner" of that kind be attempted in time of war rather than in time of peace? He saw no particular advantage to the merchants in time of war, such as that to which his hon. friend referred.
MR. SETON-KARR: It is much more likely to be successful, the market not being overstocked.
MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid the amount of corn imported from European countries was undoubtedly small even now. The amount from Russia was extremly small.
SIR HOWARD VINCENT: It is five million quarters.
MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that, after some 60 per cent. received from the United States, our principal sources of supply were India, Canada, and Argentina. But in any case, if there had been a prospect of making a gigantic fortune by such successful cornering, there would have been more attempts at it in times of peace. His hon. friend had referred to the notorious case of Mr. Leiter, who attempted, with disastrous results to himself, to "corner" corn, and that illustrated one of the points to which he had referred, the effect of "corners" on prices. The effect of the Leiter "corner" in corn in raising the price lasted only about a month. It was in May, 1898. The greatest fluctuations of price produced by that "corner" told not so much in this country as in America. In America, during the month of May, the price of corn fluctuated enormously day by day. It was fairly steady up to the end of April being about 100 cents per bushel. About the end of April the price rose to 120 cents, and on the 9th May to 183 cents; it fell to 138 cents by the 14th May, rose again to 172 cents on the 26th, and on the 31st May it fell from 166 to 125 cents while another fall of 20 cents was recorded on the 1st June. These fluctuations were very great, but they only lasted a month, and when the month was over the normal price was soon restored. In England these operations had considerable effect, but very much less than in America. In England the price remained steady down to April. It was 38s. at the end of that month, when it began to rise, and it reached 48s. 1d. in June, and then it began to fall off rapidly. It would be so here, he believed, in the event of war. There might be, for a short time, an extremely rapid rise in the price of corn, but the price would soon fall to its normal level.
He thought he had now given
1148
sufficient reasons why the Government should not assent to the suggestion of his hon. friend to appoint a Committee of Inquiry, for there really was nothing to inquire into. Of course, they all knew that there would be a rise in price on the outbreak of war, but that rise would not be such as to cause anything like real scarcity or famine prices. It was sufficient for us if we had a Navy adequate for our needs, and if we had not such a Navy it was not an inquiry that was needed, but rather the impeachment of a Government which had neglected an obvious and essential duty.
MR. CHAPLIN: It has been somewhat difficult for me to follow what the right hon. Gentleman said, but so far as was able to do so, he declined to consider the suggestion of my hon. friend. I own that I regret it. I regret also that I am not in a position to supply the materials to judge of the actual facts which my hon. friend the Member for Central Sheffield thought I should be able to give, because I was formerly President of the Board of Agriculture. I would remind my hon. friend that that is a good many years ago, and I am afraid that my memory does not enable me to afford the information. While I entirely agree with his criticism as to the absence of Ministers from the Front Bench in the earlier part of the evening, I venture to think that this is a question that more directly concerns the Secretary of State for War and the First Lord of the Admiralty, because undoubtedly it is a most serious item in the consideration of the defences of the country.
My right hon. friend concluded his observations by saying that as far as he could see, there was nothing at all to inquire into. Surely there is something to inquire into when we depend for our supply of food in this country, as far as three-fourths are concerned, on imports. If we should unfortunately be involved in a European war, and if we should lose command of the seas even for a very short period, no position in which the country could be placed could possibly be more serious. This fact is patent to everybody, and I know that it is already causing con-

1149
siderable alarm and giving rise to a feeling of apprehension amongst great numbers of the people of this country. It is too much to say that there is nothing whatever to inquire into, in cases of this kind. Whoever is right or wrong in the figures, in my humble opinion the present position is the very reverse of satisfactory. When we are told by the Prime Minister, as we were not long ago, that undoubtedly we are unpopular all over the world, and when that is followed by the statement of the ex-Prime Minister who said, "You are bitterly detested," I think it is unwise on the part of the Government to think that there is no possible reason for apprehension with reference to the subject before the House. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire to some extent took the view of the President of the Board of Trade, because in dealing with the apprehension which had been expressed he said, "Oh, wheat would be all right, it would be sent to some neutral port, Antwerp for instance, and from there it would be sent without difficulty to England." It is quite true that anything carried in neutral vessels would be safe from confiscation if not carrying contraband of war. But suppose that food was considered contraband of war. Remember that the exemption from confiscation of vessels carrying food does not prevent them from seizure, and considerable delay might occur at a time when the food might be absolutely necessary in this country.
I venture to think then that, on the showing of the right hon. Gentleman, the position is bad enough, for he admits the danger, although he says it is remote. He prefers to rely on the law of supply and demand. In ordinary circumstances he is quite right, but in the circumstances we are considering there are many things which must not be left out of account. Suppose, for a moment, there should be a blockade, what would be the use of depending on the law of supply and demand then? Is a blockade of these Islands entirely beyond the reach of practical warfare? I have consulted a speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the present Leader of the House in 1897, in which he said—
"What I believe is a real and a great danger is the impossibility of getting the corn in
1150
through a blockade of our coasts. I do not wish to minimise that. I think it is a possible danger."
Now, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade says that our position in certain circumstances to which he referred would not be worse than it was at the beginning of the last century, But there is the whole difference in the world between the beginning of last century and the position in which we are placed to-day.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: My right hon. friend has misunderstood me. What I suggested, or at least meant to suggest, was that war risks at present, in consequence of the capture of goods at sea, could not be greater than they were then.
MR. CHAPLIN: It may have been my fault in hearing the right hon. Gentleman, but unless he included the capture of corn—
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: All goods.
MR. CHAPLIN: The right hon. Gentleman has included the capture of corn, and therefore my argument is to the point. There is the whole difference in the world between the two periods, because at the beginning of last century we grew nearly the whole of our food ourselves, whereas we now get nearly the whole of it from abroad. Thus in my humble opinion, the possible risks are so great, and the possible consequences are so appalling, that I am not prepared to sit down and take the view that nothing ought to be done and that nothing is required. What we want is certainty that under certain conditions there should be an assured supply of corn in this country for a certain number of months, and the reason for that in my mind, is perfectly simple. If we had that supply for a sufficient time, I do not care much what would happen to us; I do not mean I would not care, but I would not be very apprehensive. But if the worst came to the worst, we can still grow in this country, in case of emergency, all the corn that is required for ourselves. On that I stake my opinion. For that, purpose a whole variety of plans have been submitted to

1151
the House. I will not enter into any of those plans on the present occasion. I would not pledge myself to any one of them without inquiry. What we want to know is the truth on all these subjects. And if my right hon. friend thinks we are unreasonable, and that we ought to be satisfied with the assurances of the Government, he ought to bear in mind what fell from my hon. friend when he reminded the Government of the circumstances of the present war, how completely the Government—and I take part of the blame to myself, for I was a member of the Government at the time—were deceived in nearly all the important circumstances connected with the war. There is therefore very little comfort and satisfaction to be derived in consequence of similar declarations made by my right hon. friend in regard to the position of this country in the event of another great war, especially a European war. The hon. Member for Stalybridge, referring to one of these suggestions, said there was no precedent in any country in the modern world for instituting stores of grain, and that therefore, there was no need for stores of grain. I admit that, but there is more than one great country on the continent of Europe where there are war-chests of another kind. Both in Germany and in Russia they possess plenty of grain, if they should unhappily drift into war, but they have not the gold. We have got the gold, but not the grain. They have war-chests of gold for an emergency; and what we want in this country is an adequate war-chest of grain.
The right hon. Gentleman said that my hon. friend the Member for St. Helens was studiously vague in all his statements, but I think that, so far from being vague, he stated that what he wanted was an inquiry into all the specific proposals that had been made in regard to this question. The great objection of my right hon. friend to granaries was on the ground of cost. It is impossible to say what the cost is likely to be, but taking it at the highest estimate, 30 millions of money, what are the ordinary War Estimates at the present time? I suppose they are more than 30 millions a year, and even supposing the sum required for establishing a
1152
reserve of grain was 30 millions, the interest on that sum would be a bagatelle compared with what we are spending on the War Estimates on a peace footing at the present time. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that this subject was quite unsuited for speculation, and that any proposals of the kind suggested would inevitably interfere with the trade of the country. But there is to be no speculation that I am aware of. All that is suggested is that there should be the purchase of an. adequate reserve of grain—so many millions of quarters—and that, I understand, is to be kept in the possession of the Government and renewed every year by one-third, and never to be touched except in the case of great emergency in the event of war. Would there be, when once that reserve is established, any reason to interfere with speculation or trade or anything else of the kind? It would simply be a war-chest of grain in reserve. The thing was possible in the days of another Joseph in Egypt, who at that time was a man of great force and energy of character. Surely we are not to be told that what was possible and perfectly successful for seven years three thousand years ago is entirely beyond the range and power of British statemanship in the year 1902.
Apart altogether from that, I do not know that any one can deny that the position is really serious, with three-fourths of our food supplies coming from abroad. Why, if unhappily we became engaged in a foreign war, our situation would be the same as that of an army cut off from its commissariat. We were told that there was the supremacy of the Fleet. But if the supremacy of the Fleet is gone, even for a short time, our cotton and other raw materials for our industries would be cut off. And what is the inference we are intended to draw for that state of things? It is that we are to give in. I utterly repudiate the notion that though once in a way our Fleet may be in difficulties for a time, we are to yield to the demands of foreign nations. I say these are the counsels of despair, and I dispute them altogether. If there be one lesson taught us more clearly and distinctly than another by

1153
the results of this recent war, it is the enormous advantage which rests with the defenders; and if we had only in this country a sufficient supply of food we might be attacked by all the nations of the world for ever without the slightest hope or chance of their being successful. Under the conditions of modern arms, a successful invasion of this country I regard as an impossibility, provided we had food. More than that, we have greater facilities for building fleets, I believe, than all the other nations of the world put together. We have any number of harbours and dockyards, and all the material. We have the workers, the men, and the money; and we should at once set to work to build another fleet—aye, half-a-dozen fleets—unless we were induced to surrender by lack of food. Again, a reserve of grain would prevent a rise in the price of food to the poor.
I am bound to say that I cannot see what is the reasonable objection to an inquiry of this nature. On the face of it, it must be admitted that the position of this country is not at all a pleasant one in this respect. There is something in the allegation made in the course of this debate that a very considerable feeling of uneasiness exists on this question in various circles in this country. If there is nothing in them, if these apprehensions are altogether unfounded, an inquiry of this sort is the wisest thing, in order to dispel them; and if you have got a good case they would be dispelled once for all. If, on the other hand, you have not got a good case, it is high time that this country should set to work in earnest to devise a remedy.
MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid that he thought many hon. Members on his own side of the House would agree with him when he said that the last three speeches which had been made from the opposite side of the House revolved, if they did not absolutely hinge, on Protection. A suggestion had been made that the farming industry was to receive an additional bonus over and above that which it had already received amounting to about £1,000,000 per annum, in order to persuade farmers to ward off this danger by stacking their corn in ricks for a certain period of time. Prevention
1154
was better than cure, and all those dire dangers which had been prognosticated could only ensue provided that the British Fleet was crippled or swept off the seas. But even then the difficulties would not be so great as his hon. friend opposite appeared to imagine, because, as Lord Wolseley pointed out two or three years back, it would be impossible, with our extensive coast line, to prevent foreign ships landing or running cargoes of wheat upon our shores for the sake of pelf. The money proposed to be expended upon this scheme would be far better spent upon our Fleet than in the manner which had been suggested.
It was not often that he agreed with the President of the Board of Trade, but in his opinion, the right hon. Gentleman's views were sound upon this matter. He had pointed out the fact that we had other trades in this country besides agriculture. It was perfectly true that we grew some wheat in this country, but we did not grow cotton, and if this country lost the command of the seas even for a month, that would stop the importation of raw cotton and raw wool into this country. He thought that would be even as great a disaster as the stoppage of our food supply. If we had not the raw material there would be no wages for the people, and then the difficulties would be far greater than those which had been pointed out by his hon. friend opposite. If we were going to give a bonus or a subsidy to every farmer who kept a rick of wheat for a certain time, why not give a shilling apiece to every cotton manufacturer for every piece of cotton material which he kept in stock for twelve months; and the same with the woollen manufacturer. There were many other articles which came from over the seas. He believed that "Bovril" was made in Argentina, and why not give every grocer a subsidy of so much per tin to keep a certain amount of Bovril in stock. If we were going to give a bonus for storing wheat, why not extend it to other articles such as champagne and barrels of beer and so on. The proposals which had been made by the mover of this Amendment only needed to be stated in order to show their absurdity. If the Government had any money to spare, by all means let them protect our shores, and instead of pro-

1155
tecting one of the British industries, they would then be safeguarding all the industries carried on in this country. The hon. Member for the Chelmsford Division had told them how land was going out of cultivation, and how agriculture was depressed. He knew the case of a farmer who had been paying £150 a year for a very long period. His lease was now running out, and he had received notice of an increase of £10 a year in his rent. There did not appear any reason for increasing this rent except the fact that the rates had been reduced, and on this account the agent and the landlord thought the farm was worth £10 a year more. This farmer had received £7 10s per annum in relief of his rates, but his rent had been increased by £10.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I think the hon. Member is going rather wide of the subject raised by the Amendment.
MR. GEORGE WHITELEYthought that his hon. friends opposite had also gone a little wide of the mark in suggesting that corn should be stacked in hay ricks. If we gave a bonus to farmers for keeping corn in corn ricks, why not also give a bonus for keeping hay in hay ricks? He thought this House would be better employed trying to remedy real grievances, instead of discussing such fads as national granaries.
MR GIBSON BOWLESsaid he understood that his hon. friends who supported this Motion contended that unless something was done to secure our food supply, wheat would go up to a very high price in time of war. Now, he had always been under the impression that high prices for wheat were exactly what the agriculturists wanted. He did not think that Joseph was a good example to have cited in this connection. It was true that he planted his friends in the land of Goshen, and provided them with food. But at what price? At the price of enslavement to the Egyptians, of the sale of themselves and their cattle and goods to Pharaoh. He did not know whether his hon. friend suggested that that was the price we should pay to secure this
1156
country from purely imaginary dangers. But there was another point. Joseph made a "corner," and although Jews had often succeeded in doing this, no Gentile had ever yet succeeded in making a "corner." The thing that surprised him even more than this was the fact that His Majesty's Government did not seem to have understood the nature of this question. This was either a military or an agricultural question, and he should say himself that it was a military question, and yet they had had the President of the Board of Trade put up to reply to the discussion. The right hon. Gentleman had given them an academic oration upon economic principles, and after listening to that oration he felt himself to be in that state of confusion which generally ensued after one had listened to the statement of a very able statistician. He thought it would have been more appropriate for the Secretary to the Admiralty or the President of the Board of Agriculture to have replied upon this question, but perhaps the experience of last night had induced the Government not to put up the latter right hon. Gentleman again upon this occasion. He thought he should receive the support of his right hon. friend when he said that if this was a, danger at all it was a military danger, and a danger which, in his opinion, was purely imaginary. He was afraid the right hon. Member for West Monmouthshire had forgotten some of the international law of which he had been such in able exponent under the name of "Historicus." The right hon. Gentleman spoke of corn in time of war going from America to Antwerp. Why? It would come straight to England, for if it was neutral property it was safe from seizure under the Declaration of Paris, even though in a British ship. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would acknowledge that proposition; if not he would have to read to him the Declaration of Paris, which affirmed two things. One was that neutral property covered itself from capture, and was not capturable under any circumstances. The other thing was that, in the case of belligerent property, that also was safe from capture in a neutral ship. He undertook to say that if there was a war such as had been suggested, almost all

1157
the ships would be neutral, as the English carrying trade would be swept away by the mere increase in the rates of insurance. We should then have Canadian corn coming in neutral ships to England, and that would be secure from capture under the Declaration of Paris. He was glad the right hon. Gentleman did not now question his international law.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I do not think the hon. Member sees my point. The case has been raised of supposing that corn should be declared contraband of war. In that case if it went to a neutral port it would not be contraband of war, but if it went to a belligerent port it would be contraband of war. I do not think, however, that neutral nations would ever allow provisions to be declared contraband of war.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The right hon. Gentleman has now made another statement as to the law of nations which is not correct. He says that contraband of war cannot be contraband when it goes to a neutral port. He must have forgotten the case of the vessel which took contraband of war and landed it at the French port of Jibutil during the war between Italy and Abyssinia, which was seized by an Italian cruiser, and duly condemned by a prize-court at Rome. I had the pleasure of bringing that case to Lord Salisbury's notice when the question arose whether contraband of war could be shipped to Delagoa Bay, and I understand that Lord Salisbury quoted it to the German Ambassador. On that case it is admitted now that there can be such a thing as contraband of war sent to a neutral port.
Now I come to contraband of war. My hon. friend behind me suggests that there will be great danger of corn, England being at war, being declared contraband of war. But who is going to declare it contraband of war? Do hon. Members and right hon. Members imagine that it is in the power of one belligerent to say it is contraband of war whenever he chooses? There is a settled practice in the prize-courts and the law of nations, that no declaration
1158
on the part of a belligerent can make a thing contraband of war. We saw that in the case of the French war in China, when rice was declared contraband of war by the French. What happened? We said "we do not acknowledge in the least your right to make the declaration," and we did not abstain from trading in rice any more than we did before. It is not a declaration of that kind that settles what is contraband of war; it is, and it is alone, the settled judgment of the prize-court on the facts of the case. I imagine that that makes the danger more remote, because you have first to get that definition, which has never yet been given.
Now I come to the real question. I venture to say it is absolutely impossible that any Court could give such a definition with regard to the British Islands. I can understand that corn might be made contraband of war when it was being imported into a besieged city, but here I come to the kernel of my argument. I maintain that the geographical position of the British Islands is such that you cannot blockade all our ports. You would have to blockade completely something like 1,000 miles of coast line before access to these islands could be prevented, whether we commanded the seas or not. The waterways to the British Islands are so enormously wide and large, that it would be absolutely impossible for all the fleets in the world, with the fleet of England included, to blockade Great Britain. It would be impossible to blockade the seas and prevent any cargo coming in that it was to our interests to buy. You might blockade one port, which I very much doubt, but to suggest that you are going to blockade the whole of our ports is ridiculous and absurd. Well, Sir, that is my reason for saying that we need have no fear.
Now, I come to the question of prices. It is said that prices would rise. If I am right in my contention, and if it be true that the difficulty of getting corn for the British Isles in time of war would not be insuperable or even very great, then I say that prices would not rise very high. Hon. Members who have read the accounts of the blockading of the southern coasts of America in the time of the civil war must be aware that in spite of the stringency

1159
of that blockade, ships went in and out taking everything that the Southerner's wanted even to ladies' stays and bonnets—[A Voice: At an increased price!]—no matter at what price; they got there. It is said the price of corn would rise in an enormous manner. That does not only occur in time of war. That eminent operator, the brother-in-law of the Viceroy of India, I think, pretty well doubled the price of corn in a few days in a time of peace. Therefore it is not only in time of war that you have this inconvenience, it is in time of peace, and if we can bear a rise in price in time of peace we can bear it in time of war. My own opinion is that corn would come to us with so much ease and with so little extra risk that the rise in price would not be very great; but even if the increase in price were as great as that which Mr. Leiter produced, as we could bear it under Leiter, so we could bear it under war. Then we are told that we should encourage our colonies in growing corn. But in sending corn to us in time of war they would be open to the same risks as the foreigner, so there would be no advantage in that, and if there are these tremendous war risks in the supply of corn, to encourage its growth in the colonies would be in some cases to lure the colonies on to their ruin. There is another point. If we are insecure as to the supply of corn from abroad in time of war, we are equally insecure as to the supply of raw material, and that is only next in importance to the supply of corn, because after you get the corn you must have the money to buy it with, and unless you have the raw material to make up and earn the money, you will not have the money to buy the corn. Therefore I think the mover of this Amendment has failed in his duty, because he has only dealt with corn, and if he had been successful, and all the remedies advocated by him had been adopted, he would only secure the free importation of corn into a country where the poor would have no money to buy it—they having no raw material to make up and consequently no wages.
Sir, I am impatient in this matter. This is a vote of want of confidence not in the Government but in the Admiralty. This inquiry which is
1160
asked for is an inquiry which is always going on at the Admiralty, and if the Admiralty have not satisfied themselves that they can keep this country supplied with corn in time of war, they ought to be taken out and beheaded on Tower Hill. Although I have not much confidence in the Admiralty, I have confidence in them, in this case, because, of all the problems they have to solve, the easiest is that of bringing corn to this country. In order to prevent the importation of corn to this country, the whole of our coasts would have to be closed by an enemy. I hope more corn will be able to be grown here, because I believe it is the best, and I always have my bread made out of English corn, but I do hope the House and the Government will not get into a panic with regard to the supply of corn to this country, which I undertake to say will never be seriously interfered with in time of war.
MR. PURVIS: said the Amendment suggested an enquiry into the advisability of committing a certain evil, in order to avoid a contingent and visionary evil. If there was any justification for the Amendment, it would be on the assumption of the right hon. Member for Sleaford, that this country was going to be at war with all the nations of the world for ever. This was a small country, and the question must be treated as one of food supply and not upon the assumption that we were going to be eternally at war. If we were going to war with a particular nation we should have to consider whether it was a European nation with a Fleet capable of meeting our own at sea. If the Amendment meant anything at all, it meant Protection and nothing less. The President of the Board of Trade had shown that it was nothing but a blow at the free trade of the country. If there was Protection, why not protect cotton. We were all farmers in a sense, for although we did not all grow corn in order to buy bread, we had to manufacture cotton and other raw material. By this Motion, it was proposed to put obstacles in the way of free imports in order to benefit the English agriculturalist. But the supporters of that proposal appeared to forget that if they interfered with imports they must also interfere with exports. The imports of a nation

1161
balanced the exports, and the exports balanced the imports. England depended on her exports, and if the imports were once interfered with those exports would be interfered with, in like manner. Much had been said about our dependence on imported food in time of war. But what did we depend on in time of peace? Were we to judge our requirements by a perpetual state of war? Surely the Government did not take so pessimistic a view as that the whole machinery of the country was to be altered because we were supposed to be going to war with all the nations of the world for ever. It had also to be remembered that if trade were interfered with, capital would be driven away. After all, the safeguard of England in the future was the Navy. If an enemy broke through the Navy, these proposed stores would become the prey and support of the enemy. To those who agreed with his views he would say, "In vain is the net set in sight of the bird," while to those who disagreed he would venture to suggest that we had better "choose the ills we have than fly to those we know not of."
MR. DAVID MACIVER: was understood to express his absolute agreement with the Amend merit. The hon. Member for St. Helens had done a public service in calling attention to the growing dependence of the country upon foreign nations for its food supplies. He regretted the terms in which the President of the Board of Trade had declined to grant the inquiry asked for. The right hon. Gentleman had said there was nothing to inquire about. If, however, such an inquiry was granted, it would probably be found there was a good deal to inquire about, that much which had been stated so confidently in the debate was wrong, and that a great deal might be done in the direction suggested. Because certain proposals such as that of national granaries did not appeal to the House, it did not necessarily follow that every proposal of the kind was wrong. Reference had been made to what the Navy would do, but he agreed with the view of the hon. Member for Gates head rather than with some of the glowing accounts of the action the Navy would take in the way of protect-
1162
ing the food supplies of the country. Though the hon. Member for St. Helens might not succeed on this occasion, his proposal would meet with a great deal of sympathy, not only in the House, but throughout the country. Many people felt there was a great national danger in the state of things to which the hon. Member had called attention, and that there ought to be an inquiry. One reason why some people objected to an inquiry was that they feared the result would be unfavourable to what they regarded as the sacred principle of free trade. He believed that the great reason for the depopulation and many of the troubles of Ireland was to be found in the so-called free trade system. He hoped the hon. Member would keep pegging away until the inquiry for which he asked was granted.
MR. FIELDsaid there was no question whatever that the system of free trade as at present practised was one of the main factors in the ruin of Ireland. In his opinion it was not free trade at all; it was merely a question of free imports. Free trade really meant a free interchange of commodities between any two countries, but as practised, it meant that goods, with a few exceptions, were imported free of duty, while all articles going to other countries were severely taxed, and a war of Protection waged against them. A state of things peculiar to the three kingdoms was that agriculture was going to decay. That was a startling state of affairs. The so-called doctrine of free trade had rendered the cultivation of land unprofitable.
MR. SPEAKERintimated that the hon, Member could not discuss the general question of free trade or protection.
MR. FIELDsaid it was free trade that made the country so dependent on foreign supplies, and that was the question before the House. But there was one point to which he desired to direct attention. He had on several occasions put questions to the President of the Board of Trade about the system in

1163
existence on all the Corn Exchanges in Europe of buying "corn futures." He could not understand why the Government of the country could not co-operate in this matter with other Governments, because the food supply was a very important thing to all countries. They had an important system of protecting their corn supply in New York, Berlin, Vienna, and other countries, and why should the producer of corn be left at the mercy of the corn gang.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member seems to be getting away from the question of the provision of granaries.
MR. FIELD: in conclusion, said that, as far as granaries were concerned, it was not likely that there would be any started in Ireland, and therefore, he had no immediate interest in them.
MR. SETON-KARRsaid that after the discussion which had taken place, he would ask the leave of the House to allow him to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question again proposed.

ROYAL PATRIOTIC COMMISSION.
MR. KEARLEYsaid that the Amendment which stood in his name dealt with a subject which he had frequently brought before the attention of the House, but unfortunately, the Government had found no place for it in the King's Speech. As the matter was urgent, he felt it his duty to press this matter seriously upon the attention of the House. There was nobody at present upon the Government Benches, and he wished to know from Mr. Speaker, whether he should go on discussing a very important matter of this kind without a single representative of the Government being present. He asked whether they were not entitled to have some representative of the Government present to hear the debate and give some reply to it?
MR. GERALD BALFOURreturned to his seat.
MR. KEARLEY: Am I to go on now?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes, I will stay.
MR. KEARLEYsaid that the charge he had made during the last ten years was well known, and it had stood the test of two inquiries instituted by the Government. The Patriotic Commissioners had been heard in their own defence, and their policy had been condemned, and what he was claiming now was, that the Government should give immediate effect to the finding of the Committee. The effect of the policy pursued by the Patriotic Commissioners had been that the Commission had lost public confidence and the people who were willing to subscribe money would not hand it over to the Commissioners in consequence. There had been as many as four inquiries instituted by the Government within the last six years. In 1900, two years ago, he moved an Amendment calling attention to the administration to the Royal Patriotic Commission. Upon that occasion he received a great deal of sympathetic support from the opposite side of the House, and so much was this the case that many hon. Members came to him and said if he went to a division they would support him. The result was that the First Lord of the Treasury was sent for and with his usual diplomacy he smoothed matters down and agreed to appoint a Committee of which the present Master of the Rolls was Chairman. That Committee recorded the opinion that, unless the Commissioners radically changed their administration, making it more businesslike and elastic, the public confidence, which had been shaken, would never be restored. This warning was altogether unheeded, and the Commissioners pursued their old policy on the old lines so much that they thoroughly exasperated public opinion, and the demand came stronger than ever from all parts of the country for the abolition of the Commission.
In 1901 he moved another Amendment to the Address to the effect that the administration of the Royal Patriotic Commissioners in regard to the funds under their control had been such as to deprive widows and orphans of the benefits of the funds, to which they were entitled, and asking that the Commission

1165
should be dissolved. The Government stopped him from moving that Amendment by putting a notice on the paper that they intended appointing a further Committee. That Committee was appointed, and it differed from the other Committees because it was a Joint Committee of both Houses. Once again the Patriotic Commissioners were invited to attend before this Committee and state their case, and they were heard very fully. The unanimous decision of that Committee was that there was only one course to adopt, and that was to dissolve the Royal Patriotic Commission and hand the funds over to two other bodies which would be likely to possess public confidence. But it was one thing to arrive at a verdict that a particular body should be abolished, and quite another thing to recommend how the abolition should take place. This Committee recommended a scheme whereby efficient administration would be secured. It was proposed that there should be two new pension Boards upon which there should be a popular element. In handing over these funds to the new pension Boards they were handing them over to bodies which possessed machinery and experience which could be at once utilised, and they were handing them over to persons who had had to deal with kindred work. The Committee suggested a Committee of seven Members, two representing the officials and the remaining five to be popular representatives, so that there should be always a preponderance of the popular element in the management of these two Boards. They laid down that the duty of these Boards should be to actively co-operate with local bodies which would from time to time be taking an interest in the various war funds which would continue to be collected in time of war. That report justified him in moving his Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury had already given him an answer which might be considered satisfactory. It might be felt that it was rather forcing matters to proceed with this Amendment. But, although he had the fullest possible belief in the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to do something in
1166
this matter, he felt that the question was of pressing importance, that no time should be lost in handing over a fund, not now efficiently administered, to bodies who would administer it properly. There was no impediment in the way why the report should not be accepted. It had been accepted by the country, and the Press of the whole nation had approved of it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer could not put forward as an impediment that they were asking him to find any money. The needs arising out of the South African war had not been fully met. There were over 3,000 widows and 4,845 orphans, and he could not say how many dependent relatives, who were not adequately provided for. The Government had spared no money, nor had they hesitated at any sacrifice to put the war through. He was their supporter, more or less, in the war policy. He had not supported it all; but he had never denied any money which they had demanded to carry the war to a vigorous conclusion. The Government had been splendidly served by the bravest and most humane Army the world had ever seen. It was their duty to think of those who had been left behind by the men who had served them so well. The Government would incur guilt themselves if they did not relieve the House and those who administered the fund from the reproach of its administration, which was more like a workhouse administration than that of a benevolent body, who felt there was more honour in giving than receiving. He hoped the Government would be able to give a definite assurance that they intended to accept the report of the Joint Committee, and to act upon it promptly.
MR. WILLIAM ALLANin seconding the Amendment said he agreed with the hon. Member for Devonport with regard to the eleemosynary nature of the pension scheme of this country. Without going into the details of this matter he had come to the conclusion that the Patriotic Fund, Greenwich Hospital, and all the so-called outside departments should be concentrated into one Government Department. All the money of the Patriotic Fund and all the income of Greenwich Hospital should be placed under the

1167
management of a pension bureau so that naval and military pensions should be granted to the relatives of those who were killed not only during "warlike operations," but also while "on duty." There never would be a satisfactory settlement until some such system was adopted. As showing the necessity for the change he proposed, he instanced what happened in the case of the relatives of the men who were killed in the "Cobra" disaster. It was unjust that the widows of those men should only receive 3s. 6d. a week, while the pension was 5s. for the widows of those killed in warlike operations.
Amendment proposed, at the end of the Question, to add the words,—
"But we humbly express our regret that there is no indication in Your Majesty's Gracious Speech that any measure will be submitted to Parliament for the abolition of the Royal Patriotic Commission and the establishment of a Naval and Military Pension Board to administer the funds now vested in the Royal Patriotic Fund Commissioners and others, as recommended unanimously in the report of the Joint Select Committee of the House of Lord and the House of Commons on Charitable Agencies for Relief of Widows and Orphans of Soldiers and Sailors:"—(Mr. Kearley.)
Question proposed, "that those words be there added.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I am sure the hon. Gentlemen opposite know already that the Government are in very hearty sympathy with the general sentiment which animated both their speeches. In fact, I thought I had given to the hon. Gentleman the mover of the Amendment an answer which would have given him a great deal of satisfaction, interested as he is in this work; for I am conscious that he has done a great deal towards calling public attention to the needs of our soldiers and sailors and their widows and orphans. Before coming to the Patriotic Fund, may I say that the Government is hardly open to the reproach of having ignored the claims of the widows, for we have for the first time in the history of the country given them the right to a pension? But the Amendment does not refer to the general system of Government pensions. It refers rather to the organisation of the system of distributing money
1168
partly subscribed by the taxpayers and partly subscribed by the public. The report of the Joint Committee appears to be accepted as a complete and satisfactory report; and, although it would be fully to pledge ourselves to act on every detail of that report, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the proposals which it will be our duty to make on this subject will follow the general lines laid down by the very strong body of advisers who made the report.
MR. KEARLEY: Do you pledge yourselves to abolish the Patriotic Fund?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think I intimated to the hon. Gentleman in my recent answer that the recommendation would be certainly followed by the change he indicates. I read out to him a communication I was authorised to make by H.R.H. the Duke of Cambridge who, after seeing the report and considering all the circumstances of the case, officially told me on behalf of himself and his colleagues that the Royal Patriotic Commissioners would not for a moment think of allowing their charter to stand in the way of any reforms which the Government should desire. In these circumstances, I hope, without any undue delay, we may be able to make a communication to the House. I am not sure what amount of legislation is required; but, at all events, I hope to acquaint the House with a scheme for carrying out in main outline the recommendations made by the Committee to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I hope that general indication of our intentions will be satisfactory both to the mover and seconder.
MR. KEARLEY: Speaking for myself I am perfectly satisfied with the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury, and with the permission of the House I will withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn (8.18.)
Main Question again proposed.

MALTA—USE OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.
MR. BOLAND: Mr. Speaker, the question I desire to

1169
bring before the House to-night is not a new one, for last July I had an opportunity to direct attention to the position of affairs in Malta. At that time it seemed to me they were sufficiently serious to demand the attention of the House, and if that was so then, the state of things now is doubly serious. A period of six months has elapsed since then and the situation instead of being better has become materially worse. As the House knows, the two questions which are very much to the fore at the present time are, first, the language question, and second, the imposition of fresh taxation, to which all the elected members of the Council of Malta have offered their strongest opposition. In addition to those two burning questions which have excited a great deal of attention in Malta for the last eighteen or twenty years, there had been a serious development during the last month. As we all know, Southern people such as the Maltese, are accustomed to express their views openly and to exercise politically the right of public meeting, but at the end of last month, in consequence of the proportions which these movements had assumed, the Executive Government at Malta decided to proclaim a public meeting. That meeting was called together to discuss two perfectly legal questions—the discussion of which to my mind would not in any sense constitute this meeting an illegal one. We are accustomed in Ireland to meetings being proclaimed, but, so far as I know, this is the first time for many years that the right of public meeting in Malta has been abrogated. There is another event which cannot be passed over in silence in connection with this Maltese question. It was only a few weeks ago that the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Lord Onslow, visited Malta, and instead of receiving and listening to a deputation from the elected members of the Council of Malta, a refusal to receive them was given by him, and the people of Malta were therefore unable to bring their views before a Member of the Government, who in conjunction with the Colonial Secretary is responsible for that state of things there. That is a very serious state of things when we consider that while the people of Malta, who spoke through their elected representatives, were unable to lay
1170
before Lord Onslow their views of the situation, there was nothing whatever to prevent the officials at Malta, who carry on the Government there, from putting their views before him; and, further, that subsequently to his visit to Malta, Lord Onslow proceeded to Italy. One knows that the Italian people and Parliament had not been blind to the state of things at Malta, but on the contrary the grievances of these people had been listened to with great interest and sympathy. My contention is that the action of the Government in Malta in proclaiming the public meeting, and in the second place, of the Under Secretary for the Colonies refusing to listen to the deputation, constitutes in itself a new feature in this old question of the Maltese language. There is one topic which I should not have wished to bring forward in this connection, but the documents which have been published in the English Press, and which must be known to many hon. Members, make it necessary to refer to it. It is the religious aspect of the question. I think it will be agreed, that, on the whole, the British Government has treated well the Catholic clergy in the Island of Malta, and I look upon it as one of the great signs of the strength of the Maltese position at present, that now, after waiting for a couple of years, during which the Maltese people and their clergy hoped the representations of their elected members would be sufficient, the clergy and the Archbishop of Malta have come forward.
Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present; House counted, and, forty Members being found present—
MR. BOLAND: The words of the petition which was drawn up for presentation to the King on December 26th last year were—
"The Archbishop of Malta, and the Chapter of this Cathedral Church, find it necessary, in the present political emergencies, to address themselves reverently to the august Throne of Your Majesty, in order to raise their voice against the substitution of English for the Italian language, which is indispensable in these Islands and strictly bound up with the social and individual interest of the Maltese.…."

1171
I read that to show that any suggestion that may have been made in the past to the effect that the Maltese clergy were not in sympathy with the movement of the people of Malta is not based on fact, because here we have the Archbishop speaking for all the clergy in Malta, coming forward with this opinion, and I would remind the House that the fact that they have come forward in this manner shows that the language question is strongly bound up with the religious susceptibilities of the people. A very important aspect of this language question is this. It has been said, and the Colonial Secretary last season brought forward statistics to prove, that the people themselves elected for the English language in preference to Italian. My contention is that a fair choice was not offered to the people of Malta. A language ordinance was brought in in 1899, under which, at the end of 15 years, the English language was to be substituted for the Italian language in the Courts of Law. The very issuing of that ordinance was in itself a coercive measure, and it naturally had a reflex action on the minds of parents when they were asked to choose between the two languages. The very fact that English was to be substituted for Italian made it necessary for those parents who looked to the future education of their children to choose the English language. In my opinion, therefore, the House should not readily judge the matter on any such statistics. It must also be remembered that that language ordinance, applying to the Courts, necessarily had an effect on the future education and future prospects of the Maltese people, and they were not, therefore, in a position to judge impartially the question put before them.
There is another reason why these people had not a free choice. The Government refused to accede to the very natural and, to my mind, fair request unanimously made by the elected Members of the Council, that when any inquiry of this sort was made, at least one Member of the Council should be present to see that no coercion was employed, that arguments were not put forward to influence unduly the parents in their decision—with the view, in fact, that any statistics that might be brought forward
1172
should have the merit of being absolutely sound and fair. I do not intend to enlarge at any great length on the legal aspect of this language ordinance. It has been said over and over again, that the agitation for the maintenance of the Italian language in Malta is caused by lawyers and other professional men to whom Italian would be an advantage. That is not altogether a fair contention. Behind the substitution of English for Italian in the Courts of Law, the people are faced with the prospect of the incursion of English barristers and others, and the speaking of English in the Courts of Law will inevitably have an effect on the judicial systems of the country. Canon law is the foundation of the law in Malta, and I can clearly see that if this language ordinance is persisted in, in a few years there will inevitably be a demand from this country that the English system of law should be substituted for the canon law. The mere contention that this is the cry of a few interested persons is not sufficient to dispose of the claim which the people have put forward.
The Maltese people, I think it will be admitted, have always been loyal to the British Crown. I do not lay so much stress on that; I am more concerned in seeing a subject people maintaining their own language, and the language, which, after all, is best suited to their traditions and origin. I make the statement merely to prove that any action on the part of the Government which may have the effect of undermining that loyalty, is one which should not commend itself to any British Member of this House. I do not adopt the attitude that because a small people were disloyal, I should take up their cry merely with a view to increasing that disloyalty. I speak without any such arrière pensée. My object is to show that the Maltese people have a perfect right to maintain their own language, and my sympathy goes out to them as one who, in his own country, has felt what it is to be deprived of a national language. In all the speeches which have been delivered in Malta, with perhaps one or two small exceptions, I fail to find that the speakers have any objection to the use of English. They say that they would like their children to know English, because it will be useful to them; but they prefer that in the

1173
first instance they should have Italian as their own language, and that English should be used for the necessary commercial purposes.
The necessity of Italian being maintained in Malta is not merely sentimental; it is also economic. Situated as Malta is, with Italy close to it, carrying on trade with Sicily, Greece, and Tunis—where, after all, a great deal of Italian is spoken—it is necessary, for the commercial prosperity of Malta, that Italian should be maintained as the language of the island. Let the children be taught English as an extra accomplishment, but do not adopt any measures which will have the effect of driving Italian out.
I have now to refer to one of the most important developments of this question. In Malta the national sentiment has been growing, in proportion as the Government has been trying to drive it out by the substitution of the English language. Lately a national hymn was composed. The principal theatre in Malta was taken by the promoters of the movement for the production of this national hymn. The production was to take place on January 7th. On January 4th a letter was sent by Sir Gerald Strickland, Secretary to the Government, not to the promoters, but to the manager of the theatre. In the face of that letter, the manager decided he ought to close the theatre. The promoters thereupon took action against the manager. Judgment was given against the manager of the theatre, and the rehearsals immediately proceeded. But on January 6th a public proclamation was made, and posted on the doors of the theatre to the effect that, for reasons of public order, the theatre was to be closed on the following day. This may seem a small thing in itself, but to my mind it is one of the most curious proceedings that have up till now distinguished the Executive Government in Malta. It was not sufficient that a public meeting, at which these public matters were to be discussed should be proclaimed on December 21st, but the natural desire of the people to celebrate their nationality by producing a play—just as might be done in any theatre in England, Wales, or Ireland—has been stopped by a proclamation of the Government, and I daresay that, having started
1174
with the proclamation of public meetings, and having gone from that to representations in the theatre, we shall soon be faced with the stoppage of all meetings, even in private halls.
These three things are, to my mind, sufficient to warrant me in bringing forward this Amendment to the Address. I have not gone into the historical facts connected with the matter, because they are fresh in the minds of the House; they were dealt with by me so recently as last July. But we have this plainly before us, and the House of Commons should bear it in mind. First of all, a language ordinance has been put upon the people against the unanimous wish of the elected Members of the Council. Every Member of the Council has been returned on the understanding that he will support the keeping up of the Italian language. If the Government has any desire to test the real feeling of the people, they have only to dissolve the Council, and order a new election. They will then see for themselves that the opinion of the Maltese on this question is as absolutely sound and lasting as it was two years ago, when the elected Members of the Council were returned. You cannot find anywhere in the British Empire a state of things like this. You have had three Orders in Council passed during the last couple of years absolutely against the wishes of the elected Members of the Council. You have had the stopping of public meetings in Malta, and, in addition to the revolt of the people, you have had the clergy headed by the Archbishop of Malta, presenting a petition to the King asking that this question may be looked into, and asking also that this iniquitous ordinance changing the language, which is to be used in the law courts, should be abolished. You have all these things happening before your eyes and nothing has been done to meet the wishes of the people.
I think I have shown that the state of affairs in Malta has gone from bad to worse since this question was brought before the House last July. The fact that the archbishop and clergy are taking part in the movement is important. They have failed to obtain justice through the ordinary methods of

1175
speaking through their elected boards and councils, and like men of true national feeling they have now decided to make their voices heard. They kept out of it at first because they hoped for better things, and because they thought that the British Government looked upon Malta as a loyal colony. They now find that the voice of the people and the clergy speaking in the ordinary constitutional way has been set aside and they have now joined the movement. I would warn the Colonial Secretary that the last thing he should do in any part of the British Empire is to introduce anything like a spark of religious animosity. This has not been done before in Malta, and I think the Archbishop and the clergy have in the past always got on well with the Government. Behind this natural desire of the people to see the language which has been the language of its culture and literature for generations and for centuries maintained, I fear there is evidence in this ordinance which has been promulgated by the Colonial Office, of an attempt to anglicize the Maltese people, which is bound to fail. Only the other day Lord Curzon pointed out that he would like to see India developed on national lines, and he further stated that in his opinion any attempt to make Indians become Englishmen would prove a failure. Therefore I hope you will not make such an attempt in Malta but will allow the people to grow up freely in the language of their forefathers and continue on national lines, and any attempt such as is being made by these ordinances, will, in my opinion, be an absolute failure, and, in the history of England in connection with this Colony, will prove a lasting disgrace. I beg to move this Amendment.
CAPTAIN DONELANformally seconded the Amendment.
Amendment proposed, at the end of the Question, to add the words—
"But we humbly represent to Your Majesty that the people of Malta have been restrained from exercising the right to hold public meetings, in which the proposed substitution of English for the Italian language in the Law Courts after a specified term of years and the increase of taxation were to be discussed; and represent to Your Majesty that the abrogation of the aforesaid ordinance and the restoration of complete civic rights are essential to the re-estab-
1176
lishment of the peaceful conditions formerly existing in that portion of Your Majesty's dominions."—(Mr. Boland.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN: I desire to ask the leave of the House to say a few words upon this question, because I believe that I am about the only hon. Member of this House who has lately spent any considerable time in Malta. I was quartered there for nearly a year at the beginning of the present war, and though I went out there to serve as a soldier I could not forget that I was a politician, and the political situation there interested me very keenly. I was rather surprised to see an attempt made by the very small oligarchy in Malta to set up something like the methods of the Nationalist agitation in Ireland or the Boer oligarchy in the Transvaal. It must be admitted that the hon. Member opposite, whether we agree with him or not, has made a very temperate speech, and he has endeavoured to prove to us that a most diabolical attempt is being made by the Colonial Secretary to suppress the language of Malta. I venture to say that if the hon. Gentleman knew Malta as I do, and as anybody who has been there knows it, he would see that there has been no attempt to suppress any language in Malta, and the only language which has been affected at all is not the language of the Maltese people. There has been a certain change made with reference to the Italian language, but Italian is no more the language of Malta than the Irish language is the language spoken by hon. Members opposite from Ireland. I believe there is only one hon. Member among the Nationalist Members who speaks the Irish language, and I think there is about the same proportion of the people of Malta who speak Italian.
MR. BOLANDsaid that he knew that the ordinary language of the Maltese was the Maltese dialect; but Italian was the literary language of the country, and as such it was certainly in a better position than the English language at the present day.
MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN: Italian is the language spoken by a close corporation consisting principally of lawyers who are anxious that the English language should not be introduced lest English barristers might go over to Malta and take away from them the work of the courts. Italian is not the literary language of the island in any sense.
MR. BOLAND: Are there any newspapers published in Maltese?
MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN: Certainly there are; and when the agitators urge the people of Malta to preserve the Italian language they address them in Maltese, for the simple reason that the people who attend the meetings, principally because they regard the meetings as a huge joke, do not understand any language but Maltese. It is a grotesque perversion to represent what has been done as the suppression of a national language. Maltese is the language of the bulk of the people of Malta. Certain classes have for generations affected the Italian, which is the language employed in the courts. This has led to a state of things without parallel in any colony under the sun. A short time ago a British subject could be haled before a Maltese Court and tried in a language which he does not understand without having any redress. A British officer was actually committed for contempt of court because he refused to sign a deposition in Italian which he did not understand. Could a more monstrous thing happen in a British colony? The attention of the Colonial Secretary having been called to this, three principles were laid down in regard to the language question. It was enacted that, wherever a British subject was concerned the proceedings should be conducted in English or through an interpreter. Often I have had to attend court in the case of one of my men; and how could I have seen that justice was being done if the proceedings had been conducted in a language which I did not understand? Secondly, it was enacted by an Order in Council that after 15 years English should be substituted for Italian as the language of the law courts. I say that is right and proper and perfectly reasonable, but if the business
1178
in the law courts is to be conducted in a language which is not the language of the people, it ought to be English and not Italian. The hon. Member tried to represent that the opponents of this are the Maltese people. The opponents are not the Maltese people at all. The opponents area narrow clique of Italian lawyers who are afraid that their work in the courts will be taken away. They want to keep up a close oligarchy to control the courts, and they are afraid that if English is made the language of the courts they will not be able to monopolise all the business as they have done up to the present time. I am not surprised that these people are fighting for their own interest, but they are merely a small oligarchy.
The methods of the small oligarchy who are conducting this agitation are peculiar. They circulate the most extraordinary stories; they say we are going to force the people to learn English in order that we may press their sons into going to the war in South Africa, and in order that their women may be forced out to South Africa as washerwomen to the British Army. These are sentiments worthy of hon. Members opposite. What are the facts? There has been no forcing whatever. Up to two years in the schools only Maltese is taught, and through the medium of Maltese other subjects are taught. After two years the parents are allowed to choose whether their children should learn Italian or English; and the result is that 82 per cent. of the parents have chosen English, and only about 18 per cent. have chosen Italian. It is perfectly clear that when the 15 years have elapsed the great bulk of the population will know English, and a very small proportion of the population will know Italian. That is a very strong reason why we should persevere in the policy which my right hon. friend has laid down. Of course, we have this agitation. We have had meetings addressed in Maltese, and we have had the refusal on the part of the elected representatives of the people to carry on the government. They have refused Supplies, and endeavoured to stop public improvements. In consequence of their action, the Colonial Secretary and the Governor of Malta have been obliged to fall back on the power which belongs to the Consti-

1179
tution of Malta, as passed in 1887, to impose the necessary taxation for those improvements. In view of the fact that Malta is a fortress and one of the keys of the Empire, we have given an unduly liberal Constitution to Malta; and they have made very bad use of it. There is a population of about 180,000 in Malta, but there are only 10,000 electors, and at the last election only a few hundreds of the electors took the trouble to vote. Therefore this agitation really represents the views of fewer people than are actually in the British Army and Navy who spend so much of their time at Malta. In my opinion the Governor of Malta and the Colonial Secretary have adopted the only possible course open to them. For these reasons I support the policy of my right hon. friend, which is the only policy which is calculated both to defend the interests of the Empire, and, in the long run, really to benefit the Maltese people.
SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: I am sure the House will recognise that nothing could be in greater contrast to the type of oratory occasionally indulged in by hon. Members on the benches opposite, than the literary words and the cultured and felicitous expressions of the hon. Member for South Kerry. But the hon. Gentleman has based his statement on an entire misapprehension. He seems to believe that the Italian language is spoken by the people of Malta, and that it is in some ways indigenous to them. The fact is, that never since the days of the Roman Empire has the Island of Malta been any part of the Italian Kingdom, nor in any way associated with the Italian people. The language which is spoken is a bastard Arabic, which has gradually evolved from the people who migrated from Africa, and who settled many generations ago in Malta. It may be spoken of as a dialect, but it has no currency outside of Malta, except in a few islands in the Levant. It is true that there are some people in Malta who speak Italian. It is true that those who are anxious for social distinction affect Italian, but I venture to say that that language has to-day no more real connection with the people of Malta and with their every day life than
1180
the English language has. Nay, I go further and I venture to say that the English language would be more generally understood by the ordinary person you meet in the street than if you addressed him in the Italian tongue. In these circumstances what is the proposition the hon. Member lays before the House. It is that in an English fortress, in a place for long under the rule of the British Crown, we should substitute for English as the official language, a language which is quite alien to the people simply because Italy is geographically near to Malta. I listened to the whole of the speech of the hon. Member, and I failed to find in it, with the exception of the reason of national feeling and sympathy, a single logical reason why Italian should be taken as the official language. I challenge the hon. Gentleman to state one logical or useful reason, except the national feeling and sympathy of some of the people, why Italian should be used and why English, should not be used.
MR. BOLAND: I assume that the main question is very well understood. Italian has always been the language of literature in Malta until the English people took it under their protection. I think it was in 1831 an ordinance which was sent out by the King was written in Italian.
SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: It is a question of what is best for the people of Malta as part of the Empire. Is there any reason to show that it would benefit the people of Malta to have Italian superimposed on their own language instead of English? Not a single benefit would be conferred on any man, woman, or child in Malta if the Italian language were used in the courts. I think the hon. Gentleman has demonstrated to the House that he has nothing but the national feeling and sympathy which distinguishes Irishmen to bring forward in favour of the Amendment he has brought before the House. On the other hand, what are the facts? The English language is the dominant language of the world, and in that great country of America you have the same language spoken by 70 millions of people. Everywhere you go throughout the

1181
world English is the language of communication most generally under stood. I remember hearing an in stance of this in China. Not long ago, somewhere near Shanghai, there was some difficulty amongst a company of Chinese in communicating with each other. Men from the northern provinces have difficulty in making themselves understood by men of the southern provinces. In this case communication was found to be impossible. A native of Shanghai was called in as an interpreter, but he could not make himself comprehended. Then someone suggested that pidgeon English should be tried. It was tried, and was understood at once by all the company. There is no language so universal as English; and I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the interest of the rising generation of Malta is not a more practical consideration than anything pedantic or sentimental. They should be encouraged, therefore to learn English in addition to their own Arabic tongue. It is only decent, and right and proper, that the rising generation of Maltese should be taught the dominating and universal language of the world, instead of having superimposed on their own tongue a language which has no connection whatever with them. That is the system which the Colonial Secretary has initiated, and I say it is the duty of the House to to support the policy of the right hon. Gentleman, and reject the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman opposite.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: When we discussed this question last year I found it necessary to take the view the right hon. Gentleman has adopted in regard to it, although I cannot say that I entirely agree with all the steps the right hon. Gentleman has taken. I do not think any one can complain of the tone or matter of the speech of the hon. Member for South Kerry, and I think as a matter of courtesy he ought to have a reply. It must be recognised that the state of Malta at the present moment is not so satisfactory as it was before this question was raised in the island. There have been meetings, agitations and tumults, and those show that some public interest has been taken
1182
in regard to this language question. The Colony of Malta two years ago had some representative element in its hybrid constitution, but now the representative system has ceased to exist, and the island is now governed by the Secretary of State for Colonies by Order in Council. I think the right hon. Gentleman might give the House the advantage of his views in regard to this matter, especially as we have not had any distinct information in the Blue Books for a considerable number of months. There is one point which the hon. Gentlemen raised on which I should like to have some information. The Colonial Secretary has stated more than once in despatches that an option was given to the parents that their children should be taught, after two or three years, Italian or English, and that while 98 per cent. had exercised the option in favour of English, the percentage had since been reduced to 78.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. Chamberlain,): 98 per cent. was the highest, and 75 the lowest.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: At all events, it is between 70 and 80 per cent and I am very glad it is so. But has any pressure, direct or indirect, been put upon the parents to influence the choice? The whole point as to whether the option is satisfactory or not depends upon whether the option was a genuine or honest one. I am not for a moment insinuating that such pressure has been put—I do not believe it has—on the people of Malta.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I recognise with great satisfaction that the hon. Member for Poplar did on a previous occasion give me his approval and support, and I valued that very greatly, as I do on the present occasion, because in all these matters it is desirable, if possible, to have a continuity of national policy in regard to our colonies. The fact that he is disposed to favour the policy I have had to pursue, and which I think he would have pursued had he been in my place, gives the hon. Member the right to call upon me to intervene in this debate. When, however, he goes on to suggest there was any want of courtesy to the hon. Member for South Kerry in my not rising at once, he is mistaken. I agree that the hon. Member

1183
was perfectly justified in introducing this subject to the House, and he did so in terms of which I have no right to complain, but I am bound to say that, as all his statements had been so completely and categorically answered by my hon. friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells, I thought I would wait for some new view of the situation before I thought it my duty to present myself to the House. I desire, however, to have the opportunity of making a statement on this subject to the House, and I am really obliged to the hon. Member for South Kerry for giving me the opportunity. It is not that in itself and in regard to its intrinsic merits it is a question of very serious importance; but there are certain collateral issues and considerations connected with it which I think have been a good deal misunderstood, and in regard to which I am very glad to have the opportunity of putting a full statement before the House.
In the first place, let me dispose of some details in regard to which the hon. Member for South Kerry has been misinformed, and in regard to which there have been grotesque exaggerations on the part of gentlemen who are known as the elected members of the Council of Malta.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Who are they? (Cries of "Order!")
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope the hon. Gentleman is not going to continue his interruptions.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILLrose, and there were renewed cries of "Order!"
MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is in possession of the House.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Of course, if he will not give way.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The first of these points is in regard to the question of public meeting. The hon. Member in his Amendment says "the people of Malta have been restrained from exercising the right to hold public meetings." Now that is an absolute misstatement; nothing of the kind has happened. The people of Malta, who, as my hon. friend the Member for Tunbridge
1184
Wells has said, are rather fond of demonstrations, have had ample opportunity of making them. Within the last few-months a large meeting was held, and at other times the elected members have utterly failed to get an audience. On one occasion the principal meeting was held in a great open space within easy reach of the centre of the town, and there the elected members declared there were 30,000 people present. But I happen to have seen a photograph of the meeting, and, having a large experience of these assemblies, I am able to say the number would be about 5,000; still, a considerable number out of a population of 180,000. But I do not suppose the hon. Member is aware that, so far from the Executive interfering with these meetings—which are perfectly harmless in themselves, although occasionally some rather seditious language is used at them—so far are the Executive from interfering that they have given every assistance in their power. They ran on this occasion I have spoken of special trains from the country districts for the advantage of those who wished to attend the meeting; and, contrary to the ordinary practice and arrangement of the line, they stopped every train at the station which happened to be nearest to the place of meeting. What has taken place and what is the foundation for what the hon. Member for South Kerry has said, is the fact that a procession—it was not a public meeting but a procession—which was intended to pass through the narrow streets of Malta was prohibited on the ground that it would probably lead to serious accident and disturbance. And the prohibition took place, not by any new decision of the Executive Government, but in accordance with the ordinance or law—ordinance, I think—which was passed some years ago regulating such processions. That ordinance had been rendered necessary by some disturbance which had taken place; and if the hon. Member is acquainted with Malta, and has visited it as I have done, he will know that the streets are extremely narrow. They are crowded on days of fête like Sundays and similar days by the ordinary population, and the passing through such streets of political processions, accompanied by bands and flags and so on, would most

1185
probably be a cause of considerable difficulty to the police authorities. I think that, in these circumstances, the Government were perfectly right in prohibiting the procession, although they gave every assistance, and would do so again, to anything in the nature of a public meeting held in a place where no danger to order could result.
Then the hon. Gentleman went on to make much of the visit of my noble friend the Under Secretary for the Colonies, Lord Onslow, to Malta. I may inform him that Lord Onslow went in pursuance of an old engagement to an old friend. He went to pay a purely private visit to the Governor of Malta, with whom he had been on terms of intimacy and friendship for many years, and, not being there in any official capacity, when the elective members tried to take advantage of his presence in order to send a deputation or present a petition, he requested that they should put their views in writing and promised, in that case, to convey them immediately to myself. He was perfectly right in doing that, and no discourtesy whatever was shown to the elective members when he took such a course. I think the hon. Gentleman the member for Poplar said that affairs were worse now than they were, was it a year or two years ago?
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I do not know whether I said one year or two.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Well, at some previous time.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Since this ordinance was promulgated.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I really do not think so. I do not think they are as bad. The term "worse" is, of course, comparative. We have been accustomed for a very long time to occasional friction in Malta as in other colonies. There has been some friction of late; but it would be the greatest mistake in the world to exaggerate that friction, and when the hon. Gentleman talks, as I think he did, of riot, I can only say that the term is absolutely inappropriate. There has been nothing in the nature of riot in Malta. The worst of the incidents which have occurred
1186
in connection with this political agitation was the destruction of a British flag in front of the British Club in Malta. When I first heard of that insult to our national emblem, I made immediate inquiries, and I learned that a few schoolboys or youths from the University had bought the sort of flag which is sold in the streets of London for a penny, and which, I think, is a few inches in size, and had torn it up in one of the streets of Malta. It was, of course, a bit of play which I deprecate, but to which it would be perfectly ludicrous to attach the slightest political importance.
I say, then, do not let us exaggerate. We should make a great mistake if we exaggerated anything which has taken place in Malta. A certain difference of opinion has arisen between the elected members of the Council of Government and His Majesty's Government; but we should make a great mistake if we were led by a knowledge of that difference to impute to the general population of Malta anything in the nature of serious discontent. On the other hand, I do not want to depreciate any dissatisfaction which may have arisen in any section of the Maltese population. It is perfectly true, as the hon. Member for South Kerry said, that the Maltese have been a most loyal and law-abiding people. They boast of their loyalty. They are proud of the fact that they were incorporated in the British Empire at their own request and not by conquest. They are proud of having fought with us for the rescue of their country from French rule; and they have, ever since, shown, on every critical occasion, a great affection and regard for the connection. I would give as two illustrations of that the fact that a most admirable Militia regiment has been formed in Malta with the full approval of the Maltese population, and that it forms at the present time a most important unit in His Majesty's Malta military forces, and that, some time ago, when all the Empire was moved at the receipt of the news of the relief of Ladysmith, I believe that satisfactory event was nowhere received with greater enthusiasm or with greater expressions of relief than it was in our small but most interesting and most loyal colony of Malta. I am an Imperialist, and I desire, therefore, that those feelings of affection

1187
and loyalty wherever they exist should be cherished and not discouraged; and if there is any discontent, even although it is based entirely upon a misunderstanding, still such discontent is to be deprecated, and it ought to be removed if by any action on our part we can remove it; and the grievance, even though it be only an imaginary grievance, ought to be treated by us with respect and in a conciliatory spirit. That is the spirit in which I approach the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Kerry, and I am glad to say that his language makes it easy for me to do so.
But, before I deal with the question to which he has principally devoted his attention, I think it is desirable to put before the House a brief statement of the general situation and of the past history of our connection with this colony. Why do we hold Malta? That is the first and essential point in any discussion of our relations with it. We hold Malta solely and entirely as a fortress essential to our position in the Mediterranean. We do not hold it for any pecuniary advantage; quite the contrary. The trade of Malta is, of course, a mere infinitesimal atom in the great ocean of British Imperial trade. What there is of it is chiefly done with Mediterranean States, and the direct, or even indirect, pecuniary advantage which we could possibly derive by possession of this island is really not worth taking into account. On the other hand, ever since we have held the island, and especially of late years, we have been pouring millions into it from the pockets of the British taxpayers, not, of course, specially intended for the advantage of the Maltese population, although it has materially improved their position, but in the general interests and for the benefit of the Empire, In order to make the fortress which we hold absolutely impregnable. Now, it being understood that we hold Malta not as we told an ordinary colony, but as a fortress, the first condition which we have to bear in mind is the security of the Imperial interests which are connected with its possession. And, in addition to what I have said as to our strong sympathy with the Maltese, and our desire to secure their regard and affection, there is also this Imperial consideration—in a fortress anything like open agitation against the
1188
Government is a thing that cannot be tolerated on the face of it. If you are prepared to tolerate it, you must be prepared to give up your fortress. If you consider it essential to your security to hold your fortress, you must hold it under the usual conditions, and you cannot allow sedition to prevail within it.
MR. SWIFT MAGNEILLrose to speak, and, amid cries of "Order," persisted in standing, although Mr. Chamberlain refused to give way.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman does not give way.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILLresumed his seat, after several ineffective attempts to address the House.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I refuse to give way to the hon. Gentleman, and I object to interruptions which are not relevant, when I am making a serious statement. Sir, I am explaining to the House, the conditions, the necessary conditions, which every sensible man will admit, whatever his views may be, must be the conditions under which we hold a possession of this kind. It was a feeling of the importance of those conditions which led to a remark of the Duke of Wellington's, which may well be quoted at the present time. He was asked at one period whether he would be willing to agree to a Constitution for Malta, and he said—I am not quoting his exact language, which was the language of the period—he said, "To give a Constitution to Malta is absurd; you might as well give a Constitution to a man-of-war!" There is no doubt whatever that there is a great deal of common sense in that remark, as there was, in fact, in all the remarks of the great Duke. But it will be readily understood that politicians in Malta, just as one might say it would be probable of politicians elsewhere in similar circumstances, would not be likely to accept as final such a decision. They naturally strive to magnify their own office, and they are always endeavouring to increase the political rights and privileges which are granted to them. I do not blame them; it is perfectly natural.
But here let me say, by way of parenthesis, that it is an entire mistake to

1189
suppose, as I think the hon. Member for South Kerry supposed, that the present irritation, or friction, is a new thing, or that it is due in any way to the special and exceptional action of the present Colonial Secretary. That is not the case at all; and if Members of the House have looked at the Papers which have frequently been presented they will nave seen that in many of the documents which have been presented, whether by private individuals or by the elective Members or by any other representative authority in Malta, it is the invariable claim that they have been subjected to a century of oppression. Well, I cannot go back a century. I am not responsible, at all events, for the early part of it, and although one makes allowances for what the hon. Member for South Kerry called the Southern temperament of the population, I think you must feel that that Southern temperament has led them a little to exaggerate on the present occasion. At all events, if it be true, as they say, that there has been a century of oppression, and that the Maltese during the whole of that time have been subject to a tyrannical rule, that their life-blood has been drained—I am using the expression of these gentlemen—it is worth while for a moment to go back and see what the real circumstances are. The cession of Malta was confirmed in 1814. It became British in 1800, as the Maltese themselves rightly boast, with the goodwill and authority of the Maltese themselves. What were the terms, then, which the Maltese made with Great Britain when they voluntarily entered the British Empire? They were not terms of surrender, it is perfectly true; we did not conquer the Maltese, we were fighting side by side with them, but we were never fighting against them. It was not a conquest, it was a cession by the representative authorities of the Maltese. What terms did they make? The Constitution, if, indeed, it can be called a Constitution, which existed at the time of the cession, and for a great number of years afterwards, was a purely autocratic Constitution. The Governor was judge and jury in every case in which Imperial interests were concerned; he was the Grand Elector, he was the representative authority; all laws were made by him. And I have always understood
1190
that Sir Thomas Maitland, when he was Governor of Malta, from 1813 to, I think, 1824, and who is still remembered in Malta with the greatest kindness, was a very autocratic gentleman. He was, in fact, the best type of beneficent despot; he had no idea of Constitution or of elective members; and Sir Thomas Maitland, or King Tom, as he was generally called would have been very much astonished indeed if he had been permitted to live to read the representations of the modern elected members. Now, from 1800 to 1838, that is for thirty-eight years, the Constitution of Malta was absolutely autocratic; there was no representation of any kind. Then in 1838 a representative element was introduced for the first time, but the representative element was not an elected element. The Council of Government then consisted of the Governor and six persons, all of whom were nominated by the Governor. Three of them were official members, three of them were unofficial members. These were the gentlemen who, up to 1849. made the laws of Malta. I am giving the House this short account of the history of the constitutional question in Malta because it is the custom, as I have said, of the elected members to represent that tyranny has been imposed upon them. On the contrary, the Constitution, as settled between the representatives of those who conceded Malta, or allowed its incorporation in the British Empire, was absolutely autocratic, and the constitutional changes which have been made since then have been in the direction of giving greater political rights and larger political liberty.
I come to 1849. Then, for the first time, at the instigation of the British Government, elected members were introduced. The Council of Government then consisted of the Governor and nine nominated, with eight elected, members. But, it will be observed under this Constitution, as under the previous one, in the last resort the Governor, representing the Imperial authority, representing the security of the fortress and the interests of the Empire, was supreme. These elected gentlemen were called in to advise and assist him, but in the last resort the will of the Imperial Government prevailed. That went on till 1887. Now I call the attention of the hon. Member for South

1191
Kerry to this fact, that for eighty-seven years the majority power was in the hands of the Governor, not in the hands of what are called the representatives of the people of Malta. How far they are representative I will deal with directly. But for eighty-seven years the majority was in the hands of the representatives of the Imperial Government, and accordingly the interests of the fortress were absolutely secure. I come to 1887, to modern times, only fifteen years ago, under a Conservative Government. In deference to the wishes which were expressed by representatives, at all events, of a section of the Maltese population, for the first time in the history of Malta, a majority of the Council of Government was given to the elected members. The Council consisted, and consists still, of the Governor and six official members, and there are fourteen elected members, one of whom, I should say, has since disappeared owing to a change, which is a matter of detail. So that at the present moment the Council consists of the Governor, six official and thirteen unofficial members. The consequence is that the control of the finances, and therefore the absolute control of the government of Malta, subject to one safety valve which was fortunately provided, has been transferred from the Imperial Government, from the representatives of the Empire, to the elected members. What results from that? Suppose the elected members chose to abuse their power. In that case the whole administration of Malta is at their mercy. They could refuse every penny for every service in the island; and I need scarcely say that in those circumstances the position of the Imperial Government, as the sole trustees in that case of the interests of the Empire and of the maintenance of this great and most important fortress, would be one of the greatest embarrassment. But, as I have said, there was one safety valve. My noble predecessor, Lord Knutsford, who was officially responsible for this change, foresaw the possibility, although he did not anticipate the probability, of such an abuse of the new powers which were being for the first time in the history of the fortress confided to the elected members; and accordingly he laid great stress in his dispatches upon the maintenance of the power to legislate over their heads, in case of necessity, by Order
1192
in Council. If that power had not been reserved to us, long before now the affairs of Malta would undoubtedly have occupied the attention of this House, unless, indeed, we were prepared to abandon altogether our fortress there, and our authority in the island. Fortunately, however, as I say, legislation by Order in Council was expressly reserved. That is a safety valve; and, accordingly, if the powers of the elected members have been or are again abused in any way, the Imperial Government have it always in their power to legislate over their heads by means of this Order in Council. Now I think the House will feel with me that the Imperial Government were really extraordinarily sanguine and extraordinarily generous when they gave these great powers to the elected members in a colony under such conditions as those which exist in Malta. But did that satisfy the Malta representatives? It did not satisfy the politicians, who naturally, in every country and under all circumstances, desire to magnify their own privileges and rights. Since I myself have been in office I have had deputations and representations from the elected members claiming that they are still slaves—that is the actual word they use—and asking that a further extension of constitutional rights should be given to them, and that Malta should be made a self-governing colony. I would only say it is clear that it would be difficult to satisfy the full demands of the gentlemen who are dissatisfied with our recent proceedings. What has been the result, however, of the concession which was made in 1887? Since then there has been continual friction, not between the Imperial Government and the people of Malta, but between the Imperial Government and the elected members. Those who, like hon. gentlemen below the gangway, have probably not studied the details of this question, perhaps will not perceive that there is a distinction to be made to which I will direct their attention presently. For the moment, I say that the irritation, or friction, or whatever else you please to call it, has existed almost continuously between the elected members and the Imperial Government not in the time of this Government alone, but in the time of my predecesssor, and in fact ever since the concession was made. The most serious

1193
difficulty arose in regard to the marriage question, which, fortunately, is, for the time being, in abeyance, and I sincerely hope it may not again be raised in a way to create irritation.
As I have mentioned the marriage question, let me tell the House what that question was. In Malta so anxious have we been to make every possible concession to the sentiments, the prejudices, and above all to the religious beliefs of the people, that we have allowed institutions to remain which have not their parallel, I believe, in any other Catholic country in the world. As far as I know, there is no Catholic country in the world in which the institution of civil marriage has not been established; but in Malta there is no institution of civil marriage, and grievous difficulties, sometimes causing most serious friction, have arisen owing to the existence of a mixed population—Protestants and Catholics living side by side—and the mixed marriages which have taken place between them. Occasionally the result has been immorality. The difficulty of securing legitimate marriage has led to immorality. In other cases the difficulty has been got over by temporary expedients, by Governor's licences, or other methods of that kind. But I must say that, if these questions are to be raised, this is one in which the concession made to Maltese feeling has been so great that I can well conceive that the Government might be taken to task for not having dealt with the matter in a more satisfactory way—more in accordance with the precedents in other countries.
But I said that I would draw the attention of the House to the distinction between the elected members and the population. This has already been done by the hon. Member for Tunbridge; but, if the House will allow me, I will repeat the figures. The population of Malta is 180,000. The franchise is conceded to only 10,000—a ridiculous proportion as compared with the proportion in this country, for instance, or in Ireland.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: 10,000 electors?
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Out of a population of 180,000 there are 10,000 electors. In this country or Ireland the number
1194
would probably be 30,000 electors. But it is also true that of these 10,000 electors the number of those who take the trouble to go to the poll in any election is really insignificant. It is impossible to make a general statement on the subject, because in many cases the elections have not been disputed; but wherever there has been a contested election the number of persons voting has borne only a very small proportion—a ridiculous proportion—to the number of electors. Consequently, although the elected members may fairly claim to be the only representative authority in the island, it is also possible for those who differ from their proceedings to say that, at all events, the vast majority of the population in the island do not take sufficient interest in their policy or their proceedings to vote.
Another fact which has to be observed—although I do not want to attach too much importance to it—is that the more educated and intelligent part of the population in Malta, who have the largest stake in the country, do not take part in elections and cannot be induced to present themselves for election. I think that is a deplorable fact. When they are asked to do so, they object that the language of the local papers is so scurrilous and so personal that they are not prepared to face it. I do not think myself that that is any excuse. If members of this House were guided by similar considerations it would mean a clearance of these benches. I myself pointed out to distinguished and representative citizens of Malta that I thought it was their duty—a duty which they owed to the people of Malta—that they should, in spite of this severe and, I admit, scurrilous criticism, present themselves for election, and thereby secure a better representation of the whole population. But the facts are the facts—they do not present themselves; and accordingly a very large section, and a very important section, of the population is not represented by the so-called elected members. That is the state of the case so far as regards the Constitution.
The immediate question with which we have to deal is the language question but, believe me, if we had not the language question to deal with, we should have the marriage question, the taxation question,

1195
or some other question which would be raised, and upon which precisely the same issues would have to be decided. But what does the House imagine the language question of Malta to be? Listening to the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Kerry I should have supposed, if I had not known better, that Italian was the national language of Malta. In the explanation which he gave afterwards he said it was the language of culture in Malta; but in his original speech he spoke of it as the national language, and I should have supposed that the British Government at the present time were deliberately and against the wishes of the Maltese forcing upon them the English language in substitution for their own national language of Italian. There is not the slightest shadow of foundation for either of these statements. The language of Malta is not Italian; the language of Malta is an Arabic patois, which is not a literary language, and which cannot, therefore, be adopted for literary purposes. There is no literature in the Maltese language. But the Italian language, which the hon. Gentleman represents as, if not the national language of the Maltese, at any rate the language of the cultured, is not understood by one in seven of the population of Malta. I believe I am understating the case. There are more people in Malta that speak and read English than speak and read Italian; and if, indeed, we are to distinguish between the national language and the language of the more highly educated classes, then I say undoubtedly, on the figures in my possession, English more than Italian is the language to which we should give the preference. What are the figures? At the last census, including the garrison—and for the life of me I do not know why the garrison of Malta is to be excluded: when the garrison is there its members are subjected to Maltese laws, tried in Maltese courts, by Maltese judges, by Maltese juries; are they to be absolutely ignored in a British colony, and treated as though they did not form a part of the population? Including the garrison, the population that spoke English was 43,000 against a population which spoke Italian of 23,000. But if you choose to except from consideration all the troops, all the sailors, all the people in Govern-
1196
ment employ, then the numbers would be 19,000 speaking English, 21,000 speaking Italian. So that without taking into account a single person in Government employ you still have almost an equality between those who speak English and those who speak Italian, while if you include the troops in the island you have a majority of nearly two to one.
Then we are told of the official language that it is Italian. The hon. Member for South Kerry repeated that statement, and he declared that the official language of the island of Malta had been Italian for centuries. Yes; no doubt the hon. Member got that statement from the information supplied to him, but that statement also is absolutely untrue. Any such assertion is historically inaccurate. If the hon. Member would only read the history of Malta, the history of the Knights of Malta, and its possession by Spain, he would find that his statement is without foundation. What are the facts of that matter? The official language of Malta during the time of the Knights of Malta was Latin, and Latin was actually in use in the Courts—in the decisions of the Courts—and in many of the deeds and documents registered in the Courts, down to 1815, fifteen years after the British occupation. The use of Italian is absolutely modern. It was found that Latin was becoming a too archaic language, so to speak, and it then became necessary to adopt a modern language. At that time Italian was the best known language in Malta, no doubt. There were those who spoke English, but there were more who spoke Italian. Accordingly, Italian was by universal consent accepted as the official language of the island; but to say that there is any national sentiment connected with the use of Italian in Malta is to be false to the whole history of the island. Now, of late years, not only has the knowledge of English increased, but the number of English visitors and English troops has also greatly increased, and the inconvenience of having a language which these English people were unable to understand became more and more manifest. At last it came to a head in what is known as the Hewson case. My hon. friend the Member for Tunbridge has dealt with that matter, but to make my case complete I must repeat what he said. Colonel

1197
Hewson was an English officer of the garrison; he was called as a witness in the case before a Maltese tribunal. He gave his evidence in English. When he had finished giving his evidence he was presented by one of the officials of the Court with the deposition in Italian. His evidence had been translated by the interpreter. He was asked to sign the deposition. He did not understand Italian, but looking at the document, he thought from certain words he saw there that the evidence had been incorrectly translated. He therefore objected to sign this deposition written out in Italian. The Judge told him that it was necessary under the law that he should sign, and that if he did not he would render himself liable to imprisonment. He then offered to sign the deposition, attaching to his signature a declaration to the effect that he did so in the faith that the translation was correct, but that he himself was unable to understand Italian. That offer was refused. He then finally declined to sign a document that he did not understand. And this officer, in a British fortress, in a British colony, was actually committed to gaol for three days for contempt of Court by the Judge of the Court. The sentence thus passed was not carried into effect; mercy was extended to the offender. The Governor's pardon was brought down, and the colonel was released. Does any man imagine that anyone standing in my place as going to submit to the possibility of a continuance of such a state of things? We proposed various changes, but they were rejected by the elected members. We then carried those changes by Order in Council. In criminal cases, where the accused is a Briton, it was provided that the language is to be English. In civil cases, where a Briton is a party, the judge, the jurymen, the counsel, the witnesses, or the parties may, if they like, use English. That is to say, it is optional to use English or Italian. I do not think that that is a change in the law stronger than the circumstances required. Of course, circumstances of this kind require a review of the whole situation, and, in connection with that, I had to consider the question of education in Malta. I determined to carry out a decision which had been in contemplation some time before; and from that date, in 1899, every parent in
1198
Malta had the free option—there was no compulsion of any kind—to elect whether he would wish his child taught, in addition to Maltese which was his natural language, as a foreign language, English or Italian. He could make his choice; if he chose Italian he was perfectly free, and if he chose English he was free, too. Now, what was the result? The people of Malta were told, on the other side, that Italian was their natural language, and all sorts of things were said to them about the Englishmen who were desperately poor and who would flood this delightful island of Malta, and would take the bread out of the mouths of the Maltese. What was the result? When the choice of the Maltese was free, when they were not under the influence of the agitation, 98 per cent. elected for the English language. Of course they did. English is the great commercial language. It is a question of bread and butter. It was to the interest of the people to learn the language, which is in itself the passport to all the commerce of the world; and it was on that ground, no doubt, that the Maltese parents decided for the English language in the interest of their children. Since the agitation began—I do not wish to dwell upon controversial matters—but since the pressure began to be applied this 98 per cent. has fallen as low as 75 per cent.; it is now rising again; I believe it is 80 per cent.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us some information as to how this option is taken?
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Free option on the part of the parents. The parents have to declare their preference, and no pressure can be applied directly or in directly by the Government. If the hon. Gentleman means, is it done by a written paper—
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I ask for the actual way in which it is done. The right hon. Gentleman says the option is given, and it is material to know exactly how parents have an opportunity of expressing their view.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question, I will give him the necessary answer. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that

1199
I have not the slightest doubt that the most absolute freedom of choice has prevailed except so far as it has been interfered with by certain sections of the population to whom I have already referred. And I say this—it is the first statement I make with regard to the future—at all hazards and against all opposition we are determined to observe this freedom of choice. For we will not at the dictation of a small minority take away from 80 per cent. of the population of Malta their right to learn English and force upon them the necessity of learning a language which they do not wish to learn. So far with regard to education. But we have done more than that. The hon. Member for South Kerry said that we had made an ordinance providing that the English language should become the official language fifteen years hence.
MR. BOLAND: The language of the Courts.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: That is a mistake. The period is eighteen years hence; but that is not the main correction I have to make. No ordinance has been issued. No ordinance could be issued to pledge future Governments. All that has been done is to issue a proclamation declaring the intention of the Government at the time named to make English the official language of the Courts. Permit me to say that this was really done purely as an act of kindness, and that affects very much my feeling with regard to its preservation. It was done for this reason alone, and it has no operative effect whatever. A mere proclamation declaring the intention of the present Govern merit does not bind the successors of the present Government; it does not bind those who, long after I am dead and the present Government has disappeared, may be dealing with the situation; but I may say myself that if as that time—some twenty years hence—it be found that what I anticipate has not taken place, and the vast majority of the population do not understand English at that time, but do understand Italian, no doubt my successors will continue Italian as the official language of the Courts. They would only adopt English if they found that it was in the interest of the population. But my reason for issuing the proclamation was not to
1200
declare in any authoritative way what the future, hides in its lap, but to give warning to the people chiefly concerned, the officials connected with the Courts and all others, young men who may be studying or practising in the Courts, and so to enable them to prepare themselves for that eventuality. That is the whole object, and I attach no importance to it except as a warning given to the persons chiefly interested, and as of possible advantage to them.
I shall come back to the proclamation directly, but, meanwhile, I wish the House to understand that the most recent features of the agitation have arisen from the action of the elected members since it was known that we intended to allow parents to have an option with regard to the second language their children should learn. After the issue of this proclamation expressing the intention with regard to a period nearly twenty years hence, what did the elected members do? They were entitled to make a protest, to have a debate and a division such as would have happened in this House. They would have been entitled to petition the King and this House and to have asked for the reconsideration of this condition of things. But that was not what they did. What they did was to abuse the authority we have given them under the Constitution of 1887 to deal with the Estimates. They refused a vast mass of Estimates presented absolutely in the interests of the people of Malta. Let me state to the House what happened. The Estimates presented were for £623,000 capital expenditure. All that would have to be provided for out of taxation would have been interest and sinking fund. What was it for? In the first place for new schools. Is that for the benefit of the English? No; they are elementary schools entirely for the benefit of the Maltese population. There is no compulsory education in Malta; but so eager are the people for education that the provision that had been made has proved insufficient and a considerable extension of the number of schools was required. In the next place, the money was wanted for the drainage of Malta. That was not only an Imperial necessity for the health of the garrison and naval forces, but a local necessity for the health of the Maltese

1201
people. Everybody knows of the Maltese fever. It is a special form of fever which medical authorities believe to be entirely due to the state of the drainage, the condition of the harbour, and other sanitary defects. It is absolutely necessary to remedy these defects; and a sum of, I think, something over £300,000 was required for this purpose. A leper asylum was required for women. The elected members refused it. The general hospital has been reported again and again as being in a terribly inefficient condition, and it has become a matter of great importance for the people of Malta to have a new hospital. That was rejected. Certain repairs were wanted on the roads, partly for Imperial purposes, to render them fit for the movement of artillery, partly for the benefit of the country people bringing their produce to market. The electric lighting required extension. That was refused. A breakwater was required for the island of Gozo for the benefit of the fishermen, to enable them to earn their livelihood, an improvement such as is proposed sometimes by the Congested Districts Board in Ireland on the West Coast, and this was refused. Those services which I have named account for £600,000 out of the £623,000 that was asked for. Now the Government, having considered this state of things, decided that where purely local interests were concerned we must, so long as there were elected members, allow them to play ducks and drakes with these interests of their constituents. But wherever Imperial interests were concerned, or where there were interests that so considerably affected the welfare of the population that they became Imperial interests, we must interfere. Accordingly, we determined to impose taxation in order to provide for the expenditure of £380,000—about two-thirds of the original expenditure. We have availed ourselves of the power reserved to us by Order in Council, and we have imposed the necessary taxation in order to provide for these expenses. The people of Malta, as represented by the elected representatives, say that we are draining their life blood, that it is taken from them to enrich the English, and all sorts of southern exaggerations of that kind. Now, the taxation amounts to £38,000 per annum. It is estimated that £17,000 of that will come from wine and
1202
Spirits, £11,000 from tobacco, and £7,500 from stamps, and that only leaves a small sum to come from other sources; and the majority of that taxation, I should say, under those three heads falls upon the British and European population and not upon the Maltese.
Now, Sir, what have the Maltese gained in the general situation? Owing to our presence there, owing to the vast amount of money we have spent upon naval and military works, the rate of wages in Malta has gone up immensely beyond the corresponding rate of wages in other Mediterranean States, and the people of Malta are much more prosperous than most of their neighbours. The taxation of Malta is only £17s. 6d. per head, which is less than that of any States in the neighbourhood, while that of the United Kingdom is £4 13s. per head. I say the Maltese under these circumstances have not much to grumble at. But the condition of things caused by the action of the elected representatives still continues. We put the matter straight for the time by this Order in Council, which I have explained in detail. But since then they have recommenced. They are rejecting Vote after Vote, and, of course, the whole of the Administration is at their mercy. And, Sir, the avowed determination of these gentlemen is to bring the Government of Malta to a standstill. They think in rejecting all the Estimates for carrying on the Government that we shall give way upon the language question or some other questions. Sir, we have got an easy remedy. We have the old remedy. We have the power of legislating by Order in Council, which we shall use without the slightest hesitation whenever it is necessary. But then, I think if we are to go on in this way, if year after year administration is to be put in a position of chaos and anarchy in Malta, or if, as an alternative, we are to proceed by the arbitrary act of Order in Council, it may be said that that is an undignified proceeding, that it is making the Constitution which we have conceded a farce, and that we had better do without the Constitution at all. Now, Sir, I have dealt with this question for reasons which I have stated, and another reason which I have still to state at greater length than I should otherwise have thought the immediate necessity of

1203
the case requires. I will just remind the House of what I have endeavoured to show. I have endeavoured to show that, so far from not having kept the terms to the Maltese people since the cession by them of their island to us, we have, on the contrary, gone far beyond the terms of the cession; and there will be no objection on our part, if any such general desire were expressed, to go back to the terms of the cession. I have endeavoured to show, in the second place, that as regards questions of language, while we decline to force the Italian language on a majority of at least four-fifths who do not desire to learn it, we do intend to preserve an absolutely free choice, so that if opinion should change in Malta the system will change with it, and there will be at all times an automatic power on the part of the whole of the Maltese population to have either English or Italian as they prefer. [A Voice: Why not both?] Why not both? The hon. Gentleman asks a question to which there is a very easy answer. Because all the experts in education say that any attempt to teach very young children two languages besides their own results in their learning neither; and if you want a perfect acquaintance with a language it must be a single language in an early period of their career. There is, of course, nothing to prevent them when they go to the University from adding to their knowledge of Maltese as many other languages as they think fit. In the third place, if complaint is made of our taxation, I have endeavoured to prove that this taxation is absolutely necessary for the security and welfare of the fortress and the garrison as well as for the benefit of the people of Malta, that it is largely paid out of the pockets of the wealthy, or comparatively wealthy, European and British population, and that it is expended for the benefit of the majority, who have profited from it in other ways, and who have also benefitted in the most material way from the British occupation.
There is one consideration collateral to those I have dealt with which I regard as of very considerable importance. There is no doubt that the action which we have taken—which, I believe, has been altogether misunderstood—has caused some
1204
pain and, perhaps, some apprehension in Italy. If that be the case, I deeply regret it, and, on behalf of the Government. I will do everything in my power to remove any such feeling. A good feeling between Italy and this country is, I think, for both peoples a national asset. We, I am sure, sympathise with the Italian people in their great struggle for unity and in the splendid efforts which, through many vicissitudes, they have made to maintain that unity. Our relations with Italy have always been friendly. Our interests and theirs are in many cases, and especially in the Mediterranean, mutual interests. Our soldiers have fought side by side with theirs. It would be deplorable if any misapprehension were to alter or to diminish in any way the sympathies which have existed, and which, I hope, may long continue to exist, between the two nations. I believe that any feeling which prevails in Italy, and which exists, no doubt, especially among the cultivated and governing classes, is a feeling of sentiment. I do not think it is pretended on their behalf that they have any substantial grievance, least of all any right of interference. But these educated classes are proud, and justly proud, of one of the most beautiful and classic languages in the world; and it is to them a subject of pain that anything should be done which seems to place it in a subordinate position, or—as they have been led to believe, although entirely inaccurately—which would proscribe it; and, accordingly, this feeling in thier case does not, I believe, extend for one moment to what? have expressed as the objects or the policy of His Majesty's Government—namely, to secure to the population of Malta what is their clear, undoubted right, an option as to the education to be given to their children. What the Italians have objected to is the proclamation to which I have already referred, the object of which I have explained, and the effect of which I believe has been altogether exaggerated in Italy. But I do not want any kind of misunderstanding to remain in Italy; and, therefore, if I could believe that by the offer of a compromise in this matter I could remove any feeling which exists among our good allies, the Italians, and if I could, at the same time, remove any feeling of a similar character which may exist among persons in Malta

1205
to whom the Italian language is the current channel of expression, then I say without hesitation I would formally withdraw this proclamation. I would withdraw it at once without any condition, perfectly willing to trust to the future. If, as I have said, the future should show that the vast majority of the people of Malta should in twenty years understand English and not understand Italian, I imagine it would be absurd that proceedings in the Courts should be conducted in what to the people of Malta would be a foreign tongue. But I may be mistaken in my prediction or anticipation, and in that case neither I nor any one else would wish that the terms of the proclamation should be strictly observed. Therefore I say that am perfectly ready to withdraw the proclamation of which the hon. Member for South Kerry and others have complained.
I think that this is, at all events, a considerable concession. I hope it will be recognised as such by the elected members as well as by other persons to whom I have referred. I hope they will now look at this question of taxation as we should expect them to do in ordinary times. I do not for one moment deny their right to criticise the proposals of the Government, and to oppose them in the last resort; but to refuse absolutely necessary Votes of money for purposes from which their own constituents would derive the very greatest benefit in order to defeat the decision of the Government in regard to some other question is really not in accordance with a Parliamentary Constitution, and I earnestly trust that that course of action will be abandoned. It is not to be contemplated that the state of things which we all regret and which exists at the present time should continue. The elected members themselves will be ready to admit that. They cannot expect the Government responsible for this great Imperial fortress to allow this childish game to proceed, and it would be clearly the duty of any Government under these circumstances to preserve the great Imperial interest in their keeping either by going back to the Constitution before 1887 or be such a modification of that Constitution as may be necessary to give the Government a controlling voice in the administration. I make no threat—I have
1206
endeavoured to treat the question in a conciliatory way. I hope that no drastic measures may be necessary, and that the elected members and all concerned will meet me in the same spirit in which I have endeavoured to meet them, and that nothing may occur in the future to disturb the good relations which have existed, I am glad to say, during 100 years between the population of Malta and his Majesty's Government.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman has made what he rightly speaks of as a concession. I feel, like the rest of the House, very partially informed on the whole of this subject, and I have listened with great interest to the recital which the right hon. Gentleman has given us of the circumstances as they present themselves to him. I think, at all events, with regard to the most critical part of the proceedings, he has taken the line which is most likely to conduce to satisfaction both in this country and in Malta. The night hon. Gentleman very properly observed on the desire which possesses the hearts of the people of this country to keep on good terms with the Italian nation, although he dwelt a little too much by way of contrast on the desire which we ought to have to keep on good terms with the people of Malta with whom we are more closely concerned after all. I do not wish to say anything which will detract from the force or the grace of what the right hon. Gentleman proposes to do. This is not the only proclamation the right hon. Gentleman has withdrawn lately, but I do not know that there is any proclamation the withdrawal of which will have a better effect. There is one question I wish to ask on the great point of the languages. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say with regard to education that all parents would have their choice—that their children were to be instructed in the Maltese language, and that they should have the choice of having further instruction either in Italian or in English. So far so good in the matter of education. But in the matter of proceedings in the Courts, do I understand they are to be conducted either in Italian or in English; and not in any case in the Maltese

1207
language, which he said himself was the only language the people understand? I wish, not by way of controversy, but by way of information, to know if that is so, because it seems to me a somewhat awkward arrangement. In order to show how small a hold the Italian language has on the Maltese people the right hon. Gentleman said that the great majority did not know Italian.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Seven out of ten.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: And yet the proceedings in the Courts are to be conducted in either of two languages, both of which are unintelligible to the people.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman has stated the matter perfectly accurately. The Maltase language is really a patois or taal, and, I believe, is inadequate as a language to be used in the Courts. At all events, since the British occupation Italian has been used in the Courts, and now the only change we have made is that where a British subject is concerned, English shall be used in the Courts in a criminal case, and may be used, alternatively with Italian, in a civil case. But in no case is the Maltese language to be used in the Courts, and if it is it is to be interpreted by an Italian interpreter. The same position prevailed in the Transvaal.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Is that a good example to cite?
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am only quoting it for the particular purpose of answering the right hon. Gentleman. Dutch was used in the Courts of Transvaal as the official language, but the people who spoke the taal of the Transvaal did not necessarily understand Dutch, and the taal was not used in the Courts. In the same way the Maltese, or taal, is not used in the Courts, except to be translated into the literary language of Italy. There is one correction which I wish to make. By a slip I said that Lord Carnarvon was the Colonial Secretary in 1887; I meant to say Lord Knutsford.
MR. BOLAND: Do I understand that the proclamation has been withdrawn?
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes.
MR. BOLAND: Then under these circumstances, as this proclamation which has caused all the evil in Malta has been withdrawn, I shall certainly withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment by leave withdrawn.
Main Question again proposed.

REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS.
MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR(11.25.) MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR (Essex, Romford) moved as an Amendment to the Address, at the end, to add the words—
"But we humbly represent to Your Majesty the desirability of remedying the defects and anomalies which at present exist in the representation of the people in this House by introducing a measure for the redistribution of seats, and which will also provide for the permanent representation of the British Dominions beyond the seas in the Imperial Parliament."
he trusted he would be forgiven by the House if in the course of his remarks he was compelled to go into many statistics which might be wearisome, but both in the commercial and political interests of this country it was imperative that the many anomalies in the representation in this House should be debated. They all anticipated before the last election that there would be a Reform Bill during the present Parliament, but owing to the war and other considerations that Bill had hitherto been passed over. Following as he did a debate which had given the House a most magnificent speech, he felt very much in the shadow, and trusted that he would have the indulgence of the House. His observations would not be directed to the constituency he represented, notwithstanding the immense volume of work entailed on the representative of nearly 40,000 electors, who had to deal with many conflicting interests—School Boards, District Councils, which had competing interests with, neighbouring Councils, in which a Member was called to interfere. For his part he had nothing to say against his constituency, for the majority in his favour at the last election left him nothing to be desired.

1209
He would briefly refer to the history of this question. There was first the Union of Scotland with England in 1707, and then the Union of Ireland with Great Britain in 1801. According to the Act of Union in 1801, Ireland was to have 100 Members, which were increased in 1832 to 105, and in 1885 reduced to 103. As was said in reference to the Irish Church, during the disestablishment debates, the Treaty of Union declared that Article 5 relating to the Church of Ireland "shall be and shall remain in full force for ever." But those words were not employed in Article 4, which stated that the number to be returned by Ireland to the Imperial Parliament was 100; and therefore that arrangement was not regarded as eternal, and not meant to be a cross to be borne by the English for their sins for ever. In 1770 Lord Chatham said that either Parliament would reform itself from within, or be reformed with a vengeance from without; and in 1782 he said the same thing. In 1793, Earl Grey endeavoured to introduce a Reform Bill, but the measure was thrown out on account of the French Revolution, the political unrest at home, and the exhausting was abroad. In 1820, Lord Russell exposed the abuses in the representation of the people, but no legislation resulted. The first Reform Bill was passed in 1832, although the Duke of Wellington had said that the representations of the people in the House had previously been perfect. By the Act of 1832, it was provided that 56 nomination boroughs with 111 seats should be disfranchised, that 30 boroughs should lose one member each; the county members in England were increased from 94 to 159; the representation of Scotland was increased from 45 to 53, and of Ireland from 100 to 105. The result was that the landlords were able to coerce their employees into voting in a particular way. In 1852–4 the Bill of Lord John Russell was thrown out owing to the Russian War, and in 1859 the Bill of Lord Derby was also defeated. In 1860 the next Bill of Lord Join Russell was not proceeded with. In the Bill of 1867–8 four corrupt borough were disfranchised, thirty-eight borough were semi-disfranchised, and seven English boroughs were given to Scotland.
1210
There were also many other arrangements under that Bill with which however he would not weary the House. In 1885 a very important measure was introduced, under which a number of boroughs below 5,000 in population were absorbed in the country, and two corrupt boroughs were disfranchised. Sixteen seats went to the country, and 134 boroughs were decreased by thirty-nine. The representation of Scotland was increased by twelve, that of England by six, and the representation of Ireland was decreased by two.
He wished to mention a few of the anomalies of the existing system as they affected the House at present. The representative strength of Romford to Newry was in the proportion of eighteen to one. The average number of electors per Member in the United Kingdom was 10,183, that of Newry was only 1,800. Taking the number of electors in each country, it would be found that England had 10,897 for each Member, Scotland 9,678, and Ireland 7,144. With reference to Ireland there were in his own Division 7,000 Irish electors, some of whom voted for him and some against him; but if they had remained in their own country, the Irish members would have a larger and more equal electorate. Ireland on the basis of population was only entitled to forty-four Members and on the basis of contribution to sixteen Members. What was fair for England, Scotland, and Wales, should also be fair for Ireland. At present the six highest constituencies represented 150,000 electors each, whereas the forty-five lowest represented only about 10,000 each. The contribution of Scotland was four and a half times greater than that of Ireland, where both population and contribution were diminishing, while they were increasing in England and Scotland. He therefore concluded that Ireland would be represented well by seventy-two Members, the number given to Scotland. There was another great anomaly. Four hundred Members in the House had an electorate of 3,067,905, whereas the other 270 Members had an electorate of 3,754,680. Accordingly a majority of 130 in the House represented a minority of 700,000 electors in the country. Half of the House represented four and

1211
a half millions of electors, whereas the other half represented only two and a half millions. If the interesting figures which had been recently circulated were studied, it would be found that anomalies existed to as great an extent in England as in any other part of the United Kingdom. Statistics on the subject abounded. The elections were now just over, and most important work had to be performed by the Government. He thought also that the Opposition ought to have time to collect their thoughts, in order that they might be able to formulate another Newcastle programme for the next election. The Amendment which he proposed was not intended to have immediate effect, but was simply to draw the attention of the House, and especially of the Government, to the great anomalies and difficulties which existed in connection with representation in this House. With regard to the second part of his Amendment, which provided for the permanent representation of the British dominions beyond the seas in the Imperial Parliament, his object was not to ask Colonial Members to attend the House, but to create in the mother country an Imperial Defence Committee, composed of men like Lord Strathcona and other eminent colonials, who might consider what contribution might be made to the Imperial Exchequer, though not by way of taxation, and also to consider what might be done to render the defences of the Empire as efficient as possible. Those colonial representatives would not have to attend continually, but only at stated times. When he thought of the men whom it had been his pleasure to meet in the colonies, he considered that if obsolete vessels were sent as training ships to the colonies, there would be no difficulty in drawing from the colonies efficient men to man the Navy. It was for that purpose that he ventured to put down the second part of his Amendment, and if he had been able to draw the attention of the Government to the ever-growing necessity of attracting the colonies by fair means, and in a shoulder-to-shoulder spirit, he should have performed a part which he should not regret. He begged to move.
MR. COGHILLsaid he had much pleasure in seconding the Amendment, but in doing so would confine himself to the first part of it. The part of the United Kingdom especially referred to was of course Ireland, where redistribution was required more than in any other part of the United Kingdom. There was a great inequality, because Ireland at the present time, having regard to her population, had an excess of representation of something like thirty-one Members. He did not in any way wish to be unfair to Ireland or to any other part of the United Kingdom, but still Ireland undoubtedly had that excess. There was another distinct inequality with regard to the present system, and that was in regard to the small boroughs. It was very unfair that one Member, like the hon. Member for Romford, should represent 31,000 electors, whereas many other hon. Members only represented a few thousands. Then, with reference to double-Member constituencies, he could never understand why one Member should represent 20,000 or 30,000 electors whereas other Members like the hon. Members for Ipswich and Northampton, should represent only 8,000 or 9,000 and why these constituencies should have the privilege of returning two Members. That seemed very unfair as far as the large single Member constituencies were concerned. There was great reluctance on the part of both political parties to touch the question of redistribution. He did not know why right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench should fight shy of it. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed equally reluctant to take up the question, but as it was not possible to make the fortunes of their party worse than they were at present they might as well take up redistribution as any other matter.
He wished to make a proposal which he thought might be taken into consideration by the Government. The Government might say that they could not deal with the question until the last session of Parliament. But when was the last session of Parliament? It might be very soon. All he knew was that the Government at the beginning of the last Parliament gave the House to

1213
understand that before Parliament concluded they would deal with the question, but unfortunately, they dissolved before, if he might say so, they came to the last session, as Parliament in the ordinary course had another year or eighteen months to run. It was therefore very difficult to know which was the last session of a Parliament. He ventured however to propose a very short and simple scheme which might be adopted by the Government without dislocating the present system to any extent. As he had said, Ireland had thirty-one Members too many. The whole House had in his opinion about seventy Members too many, and could do with 600 members instead of 670. He therefore proposed to take away thirty-one Members from Ireland and also the nine University Members. He never could understand why University Members were in the House. They had no constituents and were placed in a different position from other Members who represented the mass of the people. That would make a reduction of 40 and he would further propose to take away forty of the Members representing boroughs with less than 4,000 electors. That would make a total reduction of seventy Members. He did not think that while the House remained in its present state, while they had unequal distribution of political power, that the best results would ever be obtained. He thought the Government ought to make some effort to deal with the question of re-distribution. They might at least appoint a Committee to inquire as to the basis on which redistribution should be proceeded with. That would show the necessity for taking some steps in the matter, and also the grave inequalities which existed at the present. It was not fair that Members representing an electorate of 2,000, 3.000, or 4,000, should have exactly the same power as hon. Members of Romford, Wandsworth. Walthamstow, and other large constituencies. If the present system of representation was to continue to produce good and sound results, the Government should take the question in hand, and something should be done to place representation on a fairer and more equal footing all over the country. He begged to second the Amendment.
Amendment proposed, at the end of the Question, to add the words—
"But we humbly represent to Your Majesty the desirability of remedying the defects and anomalies which at present exist in the representation of the people in this House by introducing a measure for the redistribution of seats, and which will also provide for the permanent representation of the British Dominions beyond the seas in the Imperial Parliament." (Mr. Louis Sinclair.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
MR. KIMBER: said he rose with very considerable difficulty, because for the last three days he had been confined to bed with a very sore throat and he therefore hoped he would have the indulgence of the House for a very few minutes. He did not intend to trouble the House with the past history of the question. It would be in the recollection of many hon. Members that for many years he had pressed on the attention of the House that the matter was an increasing evil which ought to be attended to, and which if not attended to, would produce the gravest results to the fortunes of the nation. In 1892 he brought the question before the House by special motion when the Liberal Government was in power, and the result was that the then Leader of the House the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth admitted that it was a matter which ought to be attended to sooner or later, and he added sooner rather than later. The evil was admitted and the figures could not be controverted. The disparity between the highest and lowest of the constituencies was then twelve to one, but it had increased until it was now eighteen to one. He would not go into details as to the admissions made by the two front Benches as to the necessity of dealing with the matter, admissions which were accompanied by promises that the matter would be attended to very soon. He would however, invite the attention of the House to the status quo. Mr. Gladstone stated on one memorable occasion that they governed themselves by the machinery by which the House was regulated, and that if that machinery went out of order, the will of the nation would be necessarily misinterpreted. From the figures which he had put before the

1215
public, and which had not been controverted or challenged, although they might have some small defects, it would be found that one-half of the Members of the House were sent by only a third of the electors of the country, and that the other two-thirds of the electorate had only half the voice of the House. That had been proved to demonstration. A very trifling number over a third of the electorate could rule the majority, and probably misrepresent the will of the nation. The exact figures were, that 335 Members were returned by 4,400,000 electors, and the other 335 Members by 2,400,000 electors. Taking it in another way, half of the electors of the country had a representation in the House of 235 Members, whereas the other half had a representation of 435 Members. Therefore unless the majority in the House were more than the difference between those two numbers, the House could not be said for certain to represent the will of the nation. Just before the South African war commenced, he received from the Leader of the House and other Members of the Government, promises that the matter should be made a Cabinet question without delay, and that, barring Cabinets especially summoned with reference to the war, it was to be taken into consideration at the very next Cabinet. The war had, however, absorbed every other question and naturally, he abstained from worrying the Government on the matter. He thought, however, that the time had now arrived when it ought to be considered whether redistribution was to be left until the last session of Parliament. Who could tell when would be the last Session. He said that the question was one which ought to be taken in hand immediately, and made the subject of an inquiry in order that the hurry and rush which were inevitable in a moribund Parliament, might be avoided. He had laid before hon. Members and the public within the last few days, a plan which he suggested. It was imperfect, no doubt, but it followed the lines of least resistance, and it would enable the Government to avoid a general Redistribution Bill of all the 670 seats, and to deal with 150 seats with very little trouble. He believed a scheme could be submitted to the House
1216
in one session, placed before the country during the recess, and passed into law in the succeeding session. If the debates in the Redistribution Bills of 1832, 1867 and 1884 were examined, it would be found that from first to last the constituencies were not consulted, and that member's seats were dealt with, without their knowing anything about it before hand. A hole and corner arrangement would not be likely to commend itself to the House. By the plan he had suggested the present disparity would be reduced from 18 to 1 to 3 to 1. That would at least remove the grosser anomalies.
It being midnight, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed to-morrow.

LICENCE DUTIES (BELFAST CITY).
Return ordered, "showing the amount of Licence Duty collected in Belfast City during the year ending October 1901, under the following headings: Publicans, Spirit Grocers, Distillers, Brewers, Wholesale Spirit Dealers, Wholesale Wine Dealers."—(Mr. Field.)

COMPANIES CERTIFICATES BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
MR. BANBURY MR. BANBURY (Camberwell, Peckham) moved the Second Reading of the Companies Certificates Bill.
MR. FLAVINobjected.
MR. BANBURYsaid he hoped the hon. Member would not persist with his objection, as the Bill was a very small and simple one.
MR. FLAVINsaid he had a strong objection to the Bill, and a stronger objection to the hon. Gentleman who moved the Second Reading.
MR. BANBURYsaid he did not know whether that remark was in order.
MR. SPEAKER: It is certainly not a courteous remark.
MR. FLAVINsaid he did not intend to be discourteous, but inasmuch as the hon. Gentleman acted as official blocker of Bills for the Government, he would block any Bills he might introduce.
Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
Adjourned at five minutes after Twelve o'clock