Commons Sitting of 3 July 1902

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
The CLERK at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS MOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—
  Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Railway (No. 1 and No. 3) Bill [Lords],
  Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Railway (No. 2) Bill [Lords].
  Dover Harbour Bill [Lords].
  Swansea Corporation Bill [Lords],
  Taff Vale Railway Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—
  Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time tomorrow.

  HALIFAX CORPORATION BILL.
  Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS BILL (KING'S CONSENT SIGNIFIED).
  Third Reading postponed under Order [1st May] till Wednesday next, at the Evening Sitting, by the Chairman of Ways and Means.
  ROTHESAY TRAMWAYS (EXTENSION) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Read a second time; to be considered upon Monday next.

  PAISLEY GAS PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [LORDS].
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time tomorrow.

  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 4) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to Le considered tomorrow.

  BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL [LORDS].
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to:—
  Ticehurst Water Bill, without Amendment.
  Leicestershire and Warwickshire Electric Power Bill, with Amendments.
  Amendments to:—
  Newcastle - upon - Tyne Corporation Tramways Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

PETITIONS.
  BURGH POLICE AND PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Arbroath, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against: From Maulden; Hull; Wolverhampton East; Ampthill; Hymouth; Luton (six); Radnor; and Bolton; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Old Monkland, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LONDON ELECTIONS BILL.
  Petition from Westminster, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  LONDON ELECTIONS BILL.
  Petition from Lambeth, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE (ENGLAND, SCOTLAND, AND IRELAND).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 24th April.—Mr. Lough]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 256.]
  ISLE OF MAN.
  Account presented, of revenue and expenditure for the year ended 31st March, 1902, with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed [No. 257.]
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS. CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  East India Railway—Contracts for Locomotives.
  MR. CHARLES H. WILSON: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether the East India Railway have placed an order for locomotives with a German firm.
  (Answer.) I am informed that an order for thirty-two locomotives was placed by the East Indian Railway Company with a German firm which tendered at a price nearly 20 per cent, lower, and for delivery nearly 25 per cent, sooner than the English firm whose tender stood next.—(India Office.)

  Burma Oil Fields.
  MR. BONAR LAW: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware of the anxiety prevailing among those who have invested capital in the oil fields of Burma arising out of rumours in that country that representatives of the

  681
  Standard Oil Company of America were seeking to obtain from the Government concessions of oil lands; and whether he can give an assurance that the Standard Oil Company will not be permitted to obtain a footing in these fields.
  (Answer.) I have ascertained that the Standard Oil Company have not obtained the prospecting licence which they sought from the Indian Government.—(India Office.)

  India—Savings Banks Deposits.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state the nature of the securities in which private deposits in the postal savings banks of India are invested, the rate of interest allowed on deposits, and the average balance to the credit of each depositor.
  (Answer.) The savings banks deposits arc not invested in the purchase of securities, but held as part of the balances available for the general purposes of the Government of India. The rate of interest is 3⅛ per cent. On the 31st of March, 1901, the average balance at the credit of each depositor was about 123 rupees.—(India Office.)

  H.M.S. "Condor"—Engins Room Staff.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will state in detail the total of the engine room department on board H.M.S. "Condor" when she was lost and also whether the vessel was in any way short of complement in the engine-room.
  (Answer.) The engine-room staff on board H.M.S "Condor," at the lime of the loss of that vessel, consisted of I artificer engineer,.3 engine room artificers, 3 chief stokers, 3 leading stokers, 16 stokers. Except for tin-fact that one of the three engine room artificers was borne in lieu of a chief engine-room artificer, the vessel was not in any way short of complement in the engine-room.—(Admiralty.)

  Telegraph Officials—Pay and Duties.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, it
  682
  he will say how many telegraphists in the cable-room, Central Telegraph Office, are now at the £160 maximum, and how many have been at that maximum for four years and upwards; I to what extent supervising and senior duties in that branch are, owing to the withholding of the proper appointments, continually delegated to officers of a lower grade; and whether, in view of the admission of the Postmaster General in August 1899, in reply to a memorial that the position of affairs was far from satisfactory, he will say what steps will be taken to provide the remedy asked for.
  (Answer.) There are sixty-four telegraphists now in the cable-room receiving £160 a year, the maximum of their scale, and of these forty-three have been at the maximum for four years and upwards. With regard to the question of temporary delegation of senior duties to junior officers, and the provision of additional superior appointments, the Postmaster General would refer the hon. Member to the answer given in reply to his question in the House on the 15th April last.† (Post Office.)

  Criminal Law—Case of Mrs. H. J. Cox.
  MR. NORMAN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will reconsider the case of Mrs. Hannah Johnson Cox, who was ordered at the Staffordshire Assizes on 24th Inly, 1901, to be detained during His Majesty's pleasure.
  (Answer.) I have, called for a report on this case, and will, after its receipt, inform the hon. Member of the decision arrived at.—(Home Office.)

  Berlin Treaty of 1878, Article 44.
  CAPTAIN JESSEL: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state what obligation attaches to this country and the other Powers, signatory to the Treaty of Berlin, 1878, in respect of the observance of Article 44, and what representations the Government
  †See (4) Debates C.V.L., 283

  683
  has made or proposes to make to the Roumanian Government and the cosignatories of the Treaty of Berlin on the subject.
  (Answer.) The obligation in respect of the observance of Article 44 of the Treaty of Berlin rests with the Roumanian Government, and for the observance of this obligation that Government is responsible to the Powers signatory of the treaty. The Roumanian Government have always maintained that none of their legislation is based on any difference of religious creeds, and that the conditions of Article 44 have consequently been observed. His Majesty's Government have, however, made representations to the Roumanian Government with a view of securing a full and practical interpretation of the Article in question,; and they will continue to take such steps as they may consider best calculated to attain this object. We have no reason to believe that the other Powers co-signatories of the Treaty of Berlin would view with favour joint action in regard to this matter.—(Foreign Office.)

  China—Likin and Import Duties.
  MR. SCHWANN: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any I official information to show that the likin Office at Canton seeks to impose a 5 per cent, duty in addition to the usual 5 per cent, customs duty on yarns, and that new import duties are being imposed at Swatow and elsewhere in China; and, if so, will he say whether the consent of Great Britain and the other Powers have been given, and what steps the Government intend to take to prevent such imposition within I likin free areas in China.
  (Answer.) No taxation of goods in addition to the import duty can be imposed within a likin free area, and if this has been done at Canton or s elsewhere, representations would at once be made in the proper quarter by His Majesty's representatives, and we have received no information of such representations. If any dispute
  684
  has arisen as to the limits of any likin free area, no doubt the circumstance will be reported to us.—(Foreign Office.)

  Gambling in Food Stuffs—tal and Canadian Legilation.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the character of the reports furnished by the Foreign Consuls regarding the working of legislation to check the gambling in futures, whether he will cause inquiries to be made and a report issued, up to date, respecting the progress and effect of the legislation governing options in food stuffs in Russia, Switzerland, Canada, and Germany.
  (Answer.) The Foreign Office has been asked to obtain Reports from His Majesty's representatives in European countries. Similar information shall be obtained with regard to Canada.—(Board of Trade.)

  Lichfield Rifle Range.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNER: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will; state what steps have been taken by the War Office for making a rifle range near the Lichfield barracks since the site was approved by the military authorities five years ago, and the approximate yearly cost of sending troops by train from Lichfield to rifle ranges elsewhere.
  (Answer.) About half of the land required for this range has been acquired, and it is hoped that the remainder will be shortly obtained, as there is only one owner to deal with. The delay has arisen to a great extent in connection with the minerals which are supposed to exist below the site. The expense of I sending the regular forces, when Lichfield is fully occupied, to ranges elsewhere would amount to between £400 I and £500, and for battalions of Militia when they train at Lichfield and go I elsewhere for musketry, to between £150 and £200 per battalion—(War Office.)

  Shipments of Explosives to South Africa.
  MR. NORMAN: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state approximately what amounts of explosives have been shipped to South Africa in British and German vessels respectively during the past three years; and what are the approximate sums that have been paid for the freight of these explosives.
  (Answer.) No explosives have been shipped by His Majesty's Government for South Africa in German vessels during the past three years. As regards explosives shipped in British vessels I regret that I am unable to furnish the information asked for, as it cannot be supplied without much time and labour being expended. The items are very numerous, and the shipments took place not only in the weekly packets but also in ships engaged specially at a lump sum to convey full cargoes of Government stores of various descriptions, arid in transport and freight ships carrying troops.—(Admiralty.)

  Volunteers—Annual Grant and Efficiency Allowances.
  SIR JAMES RANKIN: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether an officer or private of the Infantry Volunteers, who had been unable to attend the ton drills necessary to qualify him to attend camp and earn the camp allowance, is permitted to attend camp at the expense of the corps in order to put in the number of drills necessary for efficiency and the earning of the annual grant.
  (Answer.) Any infantry volunteer who has not completed his ten drills at the time his own corps goes into camp can qualify later in the year for camp and efficiency allowances by attending before 30th September—(a) a provisional camp; (b) with a regular unit; (c) the camp of another volunteer unit. Any cases not so met can be represented by the general officer commanding for the consideration of the Secretary of State for War.—(War Office.)

  Dominica—Roads—Cocoa Cultivation.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the numbers, extent, and objects of the experimental
  686
  plots of cocoa now being grown with Imperial money on the estates of private owners in the Island of Dominica; and whether he has any official reports showing that there is an area in this product at the Botanical Station of that island suitable for scientific experiment.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state how much of the £15,000 voted by Parliament for the construction of roads in the Island of Dominica has been expended on what is known as the Imperial Road of that island, and between what centres of population does this Imperial Road open communications; whether this road has been constructed under the advice of the colonial engineer; how many settlers have been induced by the facilities it created to buy land along this road, and what is the extent of the holding of each.
  (Answer.) About two-thirds of the Vote has been expended in prosecuting the scheme of a road from the capital, Roseau, into the interior, and from a point in the interior down the Layou Valley to the sea. It would be impossible to fully answer the lion. Member's Question except at great length, and after reference to Dominica; but with reference to this Question, and that as to cocoa cultivation, if he will appoint a time to call at the West Indian Department of the Colonial Office, he will gladly he given such information as there is to hand.—(Colonial Office.)

  Labuan.
  SIR THOMAS ENMONDE: To ask the Secretary of Stale for the Colonies if he is in a position to state the decision of the Colonial Office with regard to Labuan and the British North Borneo Company.
  (Answer.) I am now communicating ray decision to the directors of the British North Borneo Company, and the hon. Member, if he will call at the Colonial Office, will receive full particulars of the decision on the various points raised.—(Colonial Office.)

  South Africa—Sale of Farms by Boer Captives.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will

  687
  obtain information from South Africa as to alleged dispositions of landed property in the late Republics by Boer burghers while in captivity, with the view of cancelling on fair terms transactions entered into under such circumstances.
  (Answer.) If there are any cases in which a prisoner of war considers that his position has been taken advantage of to obtain a transfer of or a mortgage on his farm the matter will receive every consideration. But it is obvious that such cases can only be brought to light by the aggrieved party. It the hon. Member will furnish me with any specific instances of such transactions, or with any information which would lead to the disclosure of such cases, I will communicate with Lord Milner on the subject.—(Colonial Office.)

(12.5.) QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Coal Stores at Malta.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will state the increased space for coal storage at Malta that has been secured since January 1900, and at what cost; also the proportion by which the coal now in store at Malta has increased over the maximum amount that was in store in January 1900; and what the proportion of coal stored at Malta was to the i.h.p. of the Fleet in January 1900, and what the same proportion is at the present date.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY(Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): It is not considered to be to the public advantage to give the detailed particulars asked for by the noble Lord. I may say, however, that in pursuance of orders given by the First Lord of the Admiralty on February 5, 1900, the store of coal at Malta has been progressively and largely increased as additional storage space has become, available, and that it is now adequate to supply the ordinary needs and to furnish a reserve for the high-powered ships which form the majority of the Fleet upon the station.
  In reply to a question by Mr. MARKHAM, which was inaudible in the Press Gallery,
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid a certain proportion of patent fuel was stored at Malta in addition to coal.

  Naval Engineers.
  LORD CHARLES BEKESFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state the number of engineer officers short in the Fleet, both at home and abroad, specifying the number in the following ranks, viz.: chief engineer, engineer, and assistant engineers, also the number of engine-room ratings short in the following ranks, viz.: engine-room artificers (stating trades), boiler makers, engine fitters, also the number of stoker ratings short throughout the Fleet; also the number of engineers now doing duty in lieu of chief engineer, and the number of assistant engineers now doing duty in lieu of engineer; also the regulation number of engine-room ratings required at home ports for care and maintenance parties of battleships, first-class cruisers, second-class cruisers, third class cruisers, gun vessels, and torpedo-boat destroyers respectively; and also the average number of engine-room ratings employed at home ports, at the present date, for care and maintenance parties of the class of ships named in the preceding paragraph.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The matters to which the noble Lord's question refer are of importance. There is a shortage with respect to most of the ratings referred to in the first part of the question, and the Admiralty is carefully considering the best method of obtaining the full numbers required. A complete reply to the Question involves a long series of figures and details which cannot conveniently be given in a verbal answer. It would probably be more satisfactory and convenient to the noble Lord to receive the information in a printed form. If, therefore, he will put down the Question unstarred for an early day I shall be happy to give the particulars under all the five headings into which the question is divided.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Can the hon. Gentleman say by what date he expects these shortages to be got rid of?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No, Sir.
  MR. BARTLEY: Is it a fact that in the Engineering Department there have been practically no candidates at the last two or three competitions?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No, Sir; I anticipate that the hon. Member refers to the case of the temporary assistant engineers, who form but a very small portion of the engineering staff.

  The "Sutlej."
  SIR WILLIAM ALLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will say what was the nature of the breakdown of the machinery of His Majesty's first-class cruiser "Sutlej" on her trials on 30th June, necessitating her return to Portsmouth instead of joining the Channel Squadron.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The trials of the "Sutlej" were interrupted by heated bearings. The ship has gone round to Sheerness for the re-adjustment of the bearings in the dockyard. When full particulars of the work to be done have been received I shall be happy to communicate them to the hon. Member.
  SIR WILLIAM ALLAN: Having regard to the numerous cases of breakdown in the case of first-class cruisers, will the hon. Gentleman recommend the Admiralty to appoint a Departmental Committee to investigate the circumstances?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: These trials are instituted for the purpose of discovering defects, and there is no necessity for appointing a Departmental Committee to perform functions appertaining to the Engineer-in-Chief.
  SIR WILLIAM ALLAN: I beg to give notice that at an early date I shall move for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the causes of the breakdown of these first-class cruisers.

  Committee on Naval Reserve and Naval Volunteers.
  MR. W. F. LAWRENCE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Committee appointed to inquire into the Naval Reserve and Naval Volunteers has made
  690
  its Report; and, if so, whether the Report will be presented to this House; and whether the Government has decided on any, and, if so, what policy with regard to forming corps of Naval Volunteers.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The Committee has not yet presented its Report, and therefore it would be premature at the present stage to make any statement with regard to its presentation to the House, or with respect to any action which may be taken in pursuance of the recommendations which the Committee may submit.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: Has the taking of evidence been concluded?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I am not sure, but I will inquire.

  Indian Agricultural Banks.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the fact that the Committee which assembled in Simla last June, to consider the question of the establishment of mutual credit institutions in country districts for the benefits of the ryots and poorer classes of the community, have recommended the establishment of some such institution in the form of agricultural banks, he will state whether the various local governments of India who have been consulted on the subject have yet sent in their reports; and, if not, will he ascertain the cause of the delay.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): I am not aware if the reports alluded to have been completed, but as all the governments concerned are fully alive to the importance of the subject I am satisfied that they will expedite their proceedings as rapidly as the intricacy of the subject permits.

  Indian Incomes.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, in view of the fact that in the year 1882 the income of the Indian people was officially estimated to be 1½d. per head per day, will he state from what source the statistics on which this information was based were obtained.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The estimate in question was hypothetical, and based on a confidential enquiry made by Sir David Barbour some twenty to thirty years back.

  Indian Land Assessment.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether in view of the fact that the Government of India have recently announced that in order to relieve ryots in distressed districts it has been decided to remit all arrears of land assessment to the extent of £1,321,500, he will state the amount of land assessment which will still be in arrear after effect has been given to the proposed remission.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The arrears of land revenue outstanding in the five provinces after the remission of the sum mentioned amounted to about £350,000 or between 3 and 4 per cent. of the land tax of these districts. These arrears are of an ordinary character, all arrears due to famine having been extinguished by the remission above mentioned.

  Technical Education in India.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India will consider the expediency of establishing technical institutes similar to the Victoria Technical Institute, Bombay, in other important centres of India.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The Government of India have at present under their consideration the best methods of promoting technical education, and will, no doubt, pay attention in this connection to the results of the Victoria Jubilee Technical Institute at Bombay. This useful institution is, however, not a Government establishment.

  Irish Presbyterian Church—Precedence.
  MR. WOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state in what position the question of the precedence of the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland now stands, and whether a decision may shortly be expected.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE,): No decision has yet been arrived at, but I am not losing sight of the question.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: May I ask whether due consideration will be given to the unanimous resolution, passed by the Irish Unionist Party, in favour of placing the Moderator in the same position as the Primate of the Church of Ireland and the Roman Catholic Archbishop.
  MR. RITCHIE: Due consideration will be given to everything.

  Castlebaldwin Postal Arrangements.
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether a memorial has been received by the Postmaster General from the clergymen, magistrates, and people of the Castlebaldwin district of South Sligo, drawing attention to the postal arrangements existing in that portion of the county; and whether steps will be taken to give effect to the request contained in the memorial.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): The memorial in question has been received, and inquiry is now being made on the matters referred to therein. The result will be communicated to the memorialists in due course.

  Irish Revenue and Expenditure.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the annual returns showing the separate revenue and expenditure of Ireland can be issued before the day allocated to the discussion of Irish financial relations; and, if not, whether he would issue a provisional memorandum showing approximately the receipts of revenue in Ireland under the various heads for the year ending 31st March, 1902, in the same manner as he did last year.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I hope that the Return will be issued to Members in a week or ten days. It does

  693
  not appear probable that the discussion alluded to by the hon. Member can take place earlier.

  South African War—Government Payments to Reuter's and Central News Agencies.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether any payments for cables have been made by His Majesty's Government through the Chartered Company to Reuter's Agency, or the Central News Agency, during the war in South Africa, under the agreement made by the present Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs with the Chartered Company on the 11th January, 1900.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: This Question should be addressed to the Secretary for War.
  MR. MARKHAM: Then I will ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): The answer is no, Sir.
  MR. MARKHAM: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me to what Department I should apply for the information?
  MR. BRODRICK: I am afraid I cannot. The answer to the Question, whether any payment has been made, is in the negative.

  Irish Congested Districts Board—Fallen Estate.
  MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a resolution from the Poor Law Guardians of the Mount Bellew Union, expressing disappointment at the refusal of the Congested Districts Board to make any offer for the purchase of the Fallon Estate which has been offered for sale to the Rushton tenants, on the ground that the lands in question are not in a congested district; and, whether, in view of the fact that the Congested Districts Board were inclined last February to purchase land in this district, and sent down their inspector with that purpose,
  694
  and, having regard to the condition of these tenants, he will induce the Congested Districts Board to reconsider their decision.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The resolution has been received. The Board did not undertake to purchase the lands, but promised to consider the question of purchase. The Report submitted to the Board does not, in its opinion, justify purchase, as it would be impossible to meet the needs of tenants whose lands have been damaged by a bog slide and at the same time bring in migrants from a congested district.

  Royal Hibernian Academy.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that there is a great lack of facilities for the study of contemporary art in Dublin as compared with that offered by the Scottish Academy at Edinburgh; and whether he will recommend the claims of the Royal Hibernian Academy to greater consideration in this respect.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The question of what can be done in order to improve the position of the Royal Hibernian Academy is now engaging the attention of the Government.

  Irish Resident Magistrates—Mr. A. W. Harrel and Mr. R. L. Brown.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether ho will state the dates of the appointments of Mr. A. W. Harrel and Mr. R. L. Brown as resident magistrates; how many prisoners have they convicted during the last seven months under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, and on how many members of public boards have they imposed sentences with hard labour; and whether steps will be taken to remove the disqualifications arising from these sentences.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Mr. Brown was appointed Resident Magistrate in April, 1894; Mr. Harrel in August, 1900. Eighteen persons were convicted by them

  695
  jointly under the Act during the past seven months. In none of these cases was a member of a public board sentenced to a term of imprisonment with hard labour. The disqualification referred to at the end of the Question is a statutory disqualification which operates in England as well as in Ireland. It is not proposed to remove it.
  MR. MACVEAGH—What is the relationship between Mr. Harrel and Sir D. Harrel of Dublin Castle?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  Mr. Knox M'Intyre.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Alexander Knox M'Intyre, an official assignee of the Bankruptcy Court in Ireland, has appeared at recent prosecutions in Clare under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, and also at Sligo, where Mr. M'Hugh was to be tried on a charge of conspiracy; and seeing that this gentleman is examined in these cases as an expert in handwriting, can he explain how this public officer can so frequently absent himself from his duties, whether fees or allowances are allowed him for these appearances, and whether it is in accordance with his directions that a public officer should appear in these cases; and whether he will obtain a correct account of the description given of this gentleman by the Solicitor General for Ireland in a recent case in Dublin.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Mr. M'Intyre is an officer of the Court of Bankruptcy, appointed by the Judge of that Court, and removable by him. He is paid as such by fees, and is not an official of the Irish Government. He appeared in the cases referred to as an expert in handwriting with the permission of the Judge of the Bankruptcy Court, and his duties in that Court were in no respect neglected. When so employed on behalf of the Crown he was remunerated according to the scale applicable to such witnesses. I am not aware that the Solicitor General has given any description of this gentleman recently, or in Dublin. The hon. and learned Member has probably in mind a portion of Mr. Campbell's address to a
  696
  Belfast jury in March, 1901, before he accepted office. He was counsel for the defence and made the usual remarks on expert evidence offered by the prosecution.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what the remark was which was made by Mr. Campbell with reference to this gentleman?
  MR. WYNDHAM: He warned the jury that expert evidence should be listened to with caution.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Did he describe him as a "perfect imposter?" Was that the phrase used by the present Solicitor General for Ireland with reference to this official now employed as an expert witness in a Crown prosecution?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am not aware of it. I understand it is not unusual for counsel to animadvert on expert evidence.

  Ex-Sergeant Sheridan.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what opportunity was afforded to James McGoohan, of Aughoo, Ballinamore, to produce evidence at the private inquiry into the crime committed on his property on 7th November, 1899, by ex-Sergeant Sheridan and Reid; and whether he can explain why the decision was arrived at without hearing the testimony of McGoohan and his son.
  MR. WYNDHAM: One of the McGoohans made a statement to the officers who conducted the inquiry. The matter was carefully investigated but no evidence was forthcoming to show that the loss sustained by McGoohan was in any way traceable to the action of Sheridan.
  MR. TULLY: Will the right hon. Gentleman re-open the inquiry?
  MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir.

  Army Veterinary Department.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it has been brought to his notice that the Council of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons have

  697
  determined, unless certain concessions are made in the new warrant for the Army Veterinary Department, to advise their graduates not to enter the Army; and whether, in view of the fact that every veterinary medical society in the United Kingdom has passed a similar resolution, and that for some years the supply of candidates for the Army Veterinary Department has been insufficent, he will give consideration to the suggestions of these veterinary societies.
  MR. BRODRICK: Yes, Sir. I have received a letter to this effect from the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, and the president has been informed that the questions involved are under consideration, but I cannot promise that the concessions demanded can all be made.
  CAPTION NORTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman carefully consider the question of the Army rank—which is the main question?
  MR. BRODRICK: Yes, but consideration has been given to it before and it has now been found practicable to grant the concession.

  Military Chaplains—Rev. Robert Scott and the East Down Election.
  MR. WOOD,: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Rev. Robert Scott, of Clough, County Down, was removed from the Chaplaincy of the Military Camp, Ballykinlor, County Down, immediately after the East Down election in February last; and whether he will state the reasons for Mr. Scott's dismissal.
  MR. BRODRICK: The appointment and removal of clergymen in such cases rest entirely with the local military authorities, and in the interests of decentralisation, I must decline to interfere with their discretion. I have no knowledge of the circumstances, nor have I any reason to suppose they are connected with any election.
  MR. WOOD: In consequence of the unsatisfactory nature of the answer, I give notice that I will call attention to the scandalous treatment of this minister on the War Office Vote.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Has the right hon. Gentleman asked for any explanation of the rev. gentleman's dismissal?
  MR. BRODRICK: No, Sir. I consider it a matter to be dealt with by the local military authorities. If I am to overhaul their action whenever that gives rise to Questions in this House, it will be impossible to give effect to the principle of decentralisation.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in consequence of statements made—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member must take some other opportunity of raising the question.
  MR. MACVEAGH: But threats were used to this clergyman, and have been carried out.

  South African War—Irish-American Prisoners.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state how many Irish-Americans were made prisoners during the recent war in South Africa; and when it is proposed to set these men at liberty.
  MR. BRODRICK: I am not aware of the number of Irish-American prisoners of war: their release will proceed on the same lines as that of other prisoners of war.

  Chartered Company—Mr. Beit's Directorship.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government propose to take any, and, if so, what, action with reference to the appointment of Mr. Beit to a directorship of the South African Chartered Company, having regard to the fact that the acceptance by the Chartered Company of Mr. Beit's resignation of a directorship of that company was enforced by the Colonial Office in May, 1896, under threat of proceedings against the charter of that Company.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): His Majesty's Government do not propose to take any action in this matter.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: That is not the Question.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, it is.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I asked whether Mr. Beit was compelled to resign owing to the pressure—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is not the Question' of the hon. Member. It is whether the Government propose to take any action with respect to the appointment of Mr. Beit. That Question has been answered.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Am I correct in stating these circumstances?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No, I do not accept the statement of fact.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I propose to ask a Question arising out of the answer, but you will not allow me.
  MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman has given an express answer to the Question, and it cannot be debated.

  Governor Generalship of Australia.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the circumstances connected with the retirement of Lord Hopetoun from the Governor Generalship of Australia, the Government will make arrangements to increase from Imperial sources the salary paid by the Australian Government to the holder of the office of Governor General in the future.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: His Majesty's Government see no reason to alter the arrangements under which the Governor General and Governors of self-governing colonies are now appointed.

  South Africa—Censorship—Alleged special facilities for "Times" Correspondents.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, why special privileges are accorded to Mr.
  700
  Moneypenny, the Johannesburg correspondent of The Times, which enables this gentleman to cable freely to The Times; and whether ho will ask the authorities in South Africa for an explanation why they allowed The Times correspondent to cable certain statements relating to the views of General L. Botha on the suspension of the Capo Constitution which General Botha has since stated are untrue, while the authorities refused to allow the correspondents of certain London papers to cable a report of a letter of Lord Milner published in the Cape Argus paper advocating the suspension of the Constitution.
  MR. BRODRICK: I have no information on this matter, and I am not prepared to make any enquiries on the subject. So long as the censorship continues, it must be administered locally in South Africa.
  MR. MARKHAM: Is the reason why the correspondents of certain London newspapers have not been allowed to cable because they held, in the words of the right hon. Gentleman's Department, "anti-British views"?
  MR. BRODRICK: I have no information on the subject. If from the beginning I had to ask about every particular telegram that came through, I should take up the whole time of the authorities in South Africa.

  Business of the House—Navy and Army Estimates.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can assure the House that there will be further opportunity for discussing Vote 12, Navy Estimates, at an evening sitting before the end of July.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Is it not a fact that this Vote has been put down twice specially to suit the convenience of the noble Lord, and before making any new fixture will the right hon. Gentleman consider other questions relative to the Vote which cannot be discussed until the House has the official Papers before it?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (MR. A. J. Balfour,): It is the fact that the Vote has been discussed twice. I am afraid that I cannot give the assurance for which my noble friend asks.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: Might not time be found if three or four all-night sittings were taken for the Education Bill?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: When does the right lion. Gentleman propose to give an opportunity to discuss the progress; under the Naval Works Act?
  MR. A.J. BALFOUR: I cannot give any pledge or promise on the subject at the present moment.
  MR. CLAUDE LOWTHER: I hog to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether opportunity will be given for discussing the Vote for the salary of the Secretary of State for War; and, if so, whether he can name the day.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUK: I cannot give an absolute promise as to the day, but as at present advised it will probably be this day fortnight, at the afternoon sitting.

  Military Charges on India.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, in view of the fact that the Government of India estimate that the additional pay to the British Army will throw an extra burden of £226,000 on the people of India for the year 1902–3 for the maintenance of European troops in India, will he consider the expediency of defraying out of Imperial taxation half the extra amount.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The question whether any additional charge, and, if so, what charge, is involved by the new arrangement is one upon which I am not at present in a position to make any statement.

  Questions to Ministers.
  DR. FARQUHARSONhad a Question on the Paper addressed to the President of the Board of Agriculture with reference to the prevalence of glanders in the metropolis. As the Minister was not in his place to answer the Question when it was called, the hon. Member asked the Speaker whether he could put it down again as a starred Question.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid that, as the Minister was not present, the Question could be put down again.

  Education Vote.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNEKMAN: It is difficult to identify the Votes by their numbers, but I understand that the Education Vote has been put down for the morning and evening sittings today. Does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate going on with it? I think that many Members will probably be taken by surprise if it is taken.
  MR. A.J. BALFOUR: The Vote has already been discussed, and I blame myself for not having asked the House to come to a decision upon it when it was last under consideration. It will be a convenience if the Government can get the money to which the Vote applies. Vote I. is the item to which I refer, but if there is any objection to take Vote 7, I certainly shall not take it this evening. It is the fag-end of the Vote that I am particularly anxious about.

POST OFFICE SITES BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to printed. [No. 258.]
Bill, as amended, re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House for tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 262.]

SUPPLY.

  FIFTEENTH ALLOTTED DAY.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. JEFFREYSin the chair.

  FIFTEENTH ALLOTTED DAY.
    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1902–3.

      CLASS II.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £35,150, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs."
      SIR CHARLKS DILKEsaid that in a speech of the present year on foreign affairs, the Secretary of State for the Colonies (11th January, The Times 13th January) boasted that, although his colleagues had received an "evil legacy" from Lord Rosebery in 1895, the present Government had settled everything in a satisfactory manner. The treatment of questions relating to Siam, Venezuela, Samoa, and other places had been so many triumphs, and the Government had "grappled successfully with all these questions." He would not be tempted to go back: he had had his say upon them before; and, whatever might have been the weakness of the policy of thé Government in the matters mentioned by the Colonial Secretary, the loss of the Italian alliance and the distracted wobbling of our policy in China concerned matters even more important, and was likely to have results even more sadly lasting. The Colonial Secretary, when he "settled everything," did not name the most dangerous of ail our foreign affairs—Newfoundland. The only information with regard to it which had been given by the Government since last year's debate was misleading. The Secretary of State prefaced his answer by saying—
      "I have inquired at the Foreign Office, and find that—"
      A curious form of reply—and added—
      "His Majesty's Government has been in communication with the Government of France on this question."
      He challenged the Government as to what communication had been made to France in reference to the question. The French Government had declared that nothing had passed except that the Government of France had asked for compensation as to one real and one doubtful case of arson on the so-called French shore. What had passed in fact? He did not think that the Government had been frank on the question, but he wished to pass to another and more important matter.
      An extraordinary change had taken place since last year's discussion without attracting attention in this country. He blamed the policy of the Government for the loss of our longstanding mutual alliance with Italy. While the Treaty with Japan had been represented as a new departure, a maritime alliance
      704
      for the maintenance of the status quo, it had been forgotten that we had had and had lost a similar relation with Italy in the Mediterranean. Lord Palmerston's assistance to Italy in the Garibaldian expedition, when British agents in civil uniform accompanied Garibaldi on his entrance to the Italian capitals, and Mr. Gladstone's long friendship with that country, had brought about a virtual alliance which in February, 1887, became an actual alliance, though not by treaty. Notes were exchanged by us with Italy which meant a maritime alliance for the defence of the status quo in the Mediterranean and the adjacent seas, — the Adriatic and the Ionian, and a speech was made by Admiral Hewitt at an Italian banquet a little later, in which he used language which confirmed the Italian accounts of the notes exchanged. This arrangement, undisturbed by Mr. Gladstone and Lord Rosebery, was still in force in 1896 when Mr. Goschen, as First Lord of the Admiralty, referring to Italy in the House, declared that if we had to fight in the Mediterranean "we should not stand alone." The maritime importance of such a virtual alliance as that referred to by Mr. Goschen was illustrated by the most recent writing of the American Author, Mahan, who was regarded as the highest authority upon naval politics and strategy, and who agreed with our Admiralty in his opinion of the vital nature to our Empire of the command of the Mediterranean Sea. Lord Salisbury, who had already deeply wounded Italian feeling in the case of Tunis, was incautious enough to conclude an arrangement with France as to the eventual disposition of the hinterland of Tripoli, of which the French Foreign Minister made use to anger the Italians. Last winter, the able representative of France at Rome, M. Barrère, succeeded in concluding a special arrangement between Franco and Italy with regard to future disturbance of the status quo in the Mediterranean. We knew from the French and from the Italian explanations that it provided for the transfer by Italy to France of the eventual rights in the hinterland of Tripoli which we had gone out of our way to recognise to France, France having only asked for them in order to

      705
      give them again to Italy. We knew also from the Italian explanations that the future of Tripoli itself was provided for and that Albania was also considered in connection with any future disturbance in the Mediterranean and the adjacent seas—that was in the Adriatic—of that status quo which the Italians had previously undertaken with us to respect and to cause others to observe. There was some question whether Morocco was also included, and everyone knew the danger of that subject. Some Members of the House might think that the relations between Italy and France did not matter much, because Italy was in the Triple Alliance and France was not—they were in a different grouping in the political system. But theirs was a prehistoric view, for after all no fine now believed in the risk of a continental land war. Naval wars were much cheaper, and consequently much more likely to arise. The Mediterranean was a much more dangerous matter. Count Von Billow had spoken of the pleasure with which Germany contemplated special arrangements between Italy and France with regard to the Mediterranean, and he could not but think that those arrangements had entirely upset our situation in the Mediterranean. We might look for ward eventually to some danger in the direction of Morocco, It certainly could not be denied that the Anglo-Italian understanding for the maintenance of the status quo had been replaced by a Franco-Italian understanding which, if it had any meaning, concerned the disruption of the status quo, and that, in face of this latter arrangement, the maritime alliance between ourselves and Italy, to which the, late First Lord of the Admiralty alluded when he said that we should not fight alone, was at an end. In other words the new arrangement exactly negatived the previous arrangement between Italy and ourselves. Our new maritime alliance had been claimed as a triumph for our diplomacy. It was undoubtedly an alliance which we could have had at any time for the asking, and which probably, if we ought to have had it at all, we ought to have had sooner.
      For a system of such maritime alliances there was a great deal to be said. The greatest value of the Japanese alliance, according to the noble Lord the Member for Woolwich, consisted in the use in the event of war of the harbours of Japan as a
      706
      naval base. That was the great value of the Italian alliance in the event of Mediterranean war. If the Government were to be praised for the Japanese alliance, they must certainly be blamed for the loss of the virtual alliance with Italy which Lord Salisbury had put into Notes. The Japanese treaty was, of course, vague; and the question of his right hon. friend the Member for West Monmouth, "What is the status quo in Manchuria?" remained unanswered. The treaty could not include Chinese Turkestan and Mongolia, and seemed destined to eventual failure as regarded Manchuria, Japan being mainly interested in the Korean peninsula. He confessed he could not understand the position of his hon. friend the Member for Barnsley, who desired an understanding with Russia, but approved of the Japanese treaty; propositions which appeared to him to be contradictory. When an understanding with Russia was proposed ho wished to know something a little definite. What were we to yield? What were we to secure? At one time those who desired this understanding wished to offer Northern Afganistan. Now his hon. friend the Member for South Wolverhampton wished to offer a port on the Persian Gulf, while his hon. friend the Member for Barnsley did not. Personally, he was opposed to giving away things not ours. Our Japanese treaty appeared to imply a policy which was hostile to that of Russia, and divergent from that of Germany. When we considered the feeble inconsequence of our policy in China we must remember the sequence of events. First came the invitation to Russia to occupy an ice-free port, that is to come across Manchuria to Port Arthur. Next the declaration that the promise to respect Korea obtained by a former Government had been made, by Russia, not to us, but to China only. Then came the encouragement to Germany as to Shantung. Then the occupation of Wei-Hai-Wei on strategic grounds, now repudiated by the present First Lord of the Admiralty. Then the Anglo-Russian Agreement, apparently giving up Manchuria, as well as Mongolia and part of Chi-li, with the exclusive right of railway construction, seemingly in consideration of a similar right to us, i.e., a preference in the Yangtsze Valley. Then Anglo-German

      707
      understanding as to spheres of influence in railway construction, by which the German Government was apparently not to compete with us in the Yaugtsze Valley, which was represented as being a British sphere. Then came the Anglo-German agreement, celebrated by the Tory press in Oct. 1900, as giving us a German alliance, and building up a wall against Russia: but in fact accurately represented by Count von Bülow as an abandonment I of a Yangtsze sphere and recognition to Germany of preference in Shantung. Moreover, we had previously, in a despatch published in the Blue-book, contested that German preferential position in Shantung, which we had originally encouraged, and which we had now conceded. In his speech of the 4th March, on the Anglo-Japanese alliance, Count von Bülow again boasted of the Anglo-German agreement of Oct. 1900, which, in his opinion, did nothing except give up British and secure German interests. He condoled with the Government about Count von Bülow. He was a most trying partner with whom to negotiate agreements, but he confessed that he had always thought with Count von Bülow that he got the best of the agreement which he secured. Count von Bülow ended his speech with a special fling against England by saying that Germany intended to leave a garrison at Shanghai—"especially in Shanghai." Our Chinese policy had been a mass of contradictions. We had, indeed, committed so many errors that the treaty with Japan was the only means left of pretending to repair them.
      The practical matters which had been left outstanding at the time of the debate upon this Vote last year were still outstanding now. The latest reply as to negotiations as to Newchwang was unsatisfactory, and so was the account of the present position of the Tientsin land dispute between ourselves and Russia. The latter matter deserved examination. The Blue-book, China No. 7, 1901, with regard to it was issued immediately after the debate last year on the Foreign Office Vote. He could not but think that it was kept back on purpose, as the latest despatch upon the matter contained in it was dated the 1st May, and the latest important despatches early in April. It told an extraordinary story. They now
      708
      knew from his hon. friend the Member for South Wolverhampton (page 415) that Li Hung Chang was a paid Russian agent—
      "Russia has lost her friend at Court by the death of Li Hung Chang, who was a paid Russian agent, and who, in the negotiations for the settlement, was acting all the time in the interests of Russia. He served her well—as he had often done before"
      This paid Russian agent, without authority—the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State admitted last year 'Li had probably no legal right"—ceded to Russia at a most singular moment a concession of enormous size at Tientsin, between the British concession and the railway, and in eluding railway'land which was part of a legal British security. The news of the concession was telegraphed home by newspapers in October, and the first British action in the Blue-book was taken in November on newspaper information. Yet it was afterwards contended that this exact concession was not really made until some months after the date at which the newspapers had told us all about it. The same thing had happened again lately, when they learned the details of the action of Russia in forcing them into the onerous conditions for the evacuation of Tientsin and then repudiating them from newspaper information, the Government stating that they had no information of their own about the matter till a much later date.
      To return to the Tientsin land matter, the seizure and the concession both covered land belonging to the Northern Railway. The sole value of the land was given by the station of the railway whose property was seized, and, as the Consul General pointed out, the Russian Government took advantage of political complications "to acquire gratis a piece of land which British subjects have made valuable by forty years of effort." He had been all along convinced—and the Blue book (China No. 7, 1901) proved the case—that the action of the Russians was deliberate, and that it was not commercial; that the site chosen for the enormous concession to which they helped themselves was purposely chosen so as to make trouble with ourselves; that it was taken opposite to the British concession, there being no "room for two lines of wharves" (Consul General, page 116), and intended "to bar the way from the British

      709
      concession to the railway." He confessed that arbitration upon points of detail did not appear to him to meet the situation. The replies from time to time of the Foreign Office on this matter had not dealt with the question otherwise than truthfully, hut they had never met the point. The noble Lord bewildered the house with little foggy truths. With regard to the new Tientsin question, which was still pending, he invited the noble Lord, if the telegrams which had been published in The Times each week had not been accurate, to tell the main outline of the real story. So far as they knew, they had been accurate, and either Russia or Germany, or both, appeared in an unpleasing light. The conditions for the evacuation of Tientsin agreed upon by the allied commanders seemed to him to have been wholly outside the document which the Chinese must have regarded as concluding the discussion of all demands upon them—the final protocol which settled the indemnities. The conditions even as cut down by the representatives of the six Powers at Peking appeared to still go far beyond our rights. Then came the extraordinary incident of Russia withdrawing from an arrangement which had never had the sympathy of the United States and leaving the Japanese with England to force on China, with or without the help of Germany, the arrangement to which it was known that we and the Japanese were not favourable.
      On the main question he could not concur with his hon. friends who thought that we could avoid all our difficulties by an arrangement with Russia, arrangements meaning the giving away of things which we had no title to give, without getting anything definite in return. Although, however, the Russian Government was not a Government sympathetic to Radicals—a Government which persecuted Protestants as well as Jews, and destroyed the constitutional liberties of the Finns—s yet if not Russian Ministers who were here today and gone tomorrow, and had nothing behind them but the Emperor's support, not Ministers but the Emperor himself wished for a frank understanding in the nature of a clear explanation and definition of interests, he was all for it. Those
      710
      who desired something more, namely, a treaty with Russia, asserted that that existed a secret treaty with Germany concerning access to the Persian Gulf. The statement was distinctly made in "All the Russias" by his hon. friend the Member for South Wolverhampton. He did not believe the fact, and he invited the noble Lord to inform them to the contrary. Such a treaty would be at "variance with the doctrine laid down by the noble Lord this session, for it would constitute a disturbance of the status quo in the Gulf, and would justify Russia. It would, in fact, be an invitation to Russia, similar to the unfortunate invitation which called her to Port Arthur. But he agreed with his right hon. friend the right hon. Baronet the Member for Northumberland, that they might try—as he would put it—by the personal intervention of the Emperor, to remove between ourselves the cloud of suspicion and mistrust. The Government had made continual advances to Germany which had constantly been repelled, and Germany had over and over again got her way with us by rudeness. The close of the war placed us in a more favourable position to adopt a clearer policy and to state that policy with a perspicuity which in itself was favourable to peace. To sum up, then, we had not during the year distinguished ourselves by the brilliancy of our diplomacy in China; we had failed to attempt to remove the last great menace to peace; we had by opposing bungling stupidity to genius unnecessarily lost the Italian maritime alliance, essential, given the position of the Italian ports, to our complete success in any maritime war that may be forced upon us. He begged to move a reduction of the salary of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs by £100.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That item A (Salaries, &c.) be reduced by £100, in respect of the salary of the Secretary of State."—(Sir Charles Dilke.)
      MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he had seldom heard a more important speech than that which had just been delivered by the hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, or a more scathing indictment of the Foreign Office. With regard to the question of Newfoundland, it was and had been a

      711
      standing disgrace to this country, and it was within his own personal knowledge that nothing could be easier than to come to an "understanding with France in all matters relating to the French shore. Undoubtedly, the French had rights there, foolish as it was to grant them, and still more foolish to extend them, but those rights were capable of being compensated. They were only the rights of fishermen, and not territorial rights in the ordinary sense, which made it difficult to deal with another nation. Every right which had been conceded to France was perfectly capable of being extinguished by compensation, and he was stating what he knew to be the case when he said that no French Government during the last ten years had shown themselves unwilling to listen to proposals for compensation. This was a matter which was threatening the most serious complications for which the blame lay entirely with the Foreign Office alone. The right hon. Gentleman had drawn attention to the relationships existing between this country and Italy, and he used the word "alliance." He thought that was rather a strong term.
      *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I said "virtual alliance."
      MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that in his opinion it was not absolutely an alliance but an understanding, and that understanding had now come to an end because it was inconsistent with the other arrangement made by Italy. This other arrangement which has been made by Italy raised a very serious side indeed of this question, especially in regard to Morocco, if it were true that there was some understanding between France and Italy with regard to the eastern unappropriated shores of the Mediterranean, and that most splendid and important country, Morocco. What it amounted to was that it was an alliance between France and Italy made with the consent of Germany and Spain. That alliance might bring about the most serious complications that could possibly be conceived in the Mediterranean. He did not quite follow the right hon. Baronet in his view of the importance of the new departures with regard to our naval predominance in the Mediterranean. The right hon.
      712
      Baronet had said, and said truly, that the great importance of the alliance to us lay in the use of the Italian harbours. He did not mind saying that he valued the harbours much more than the Fleet. He would rather seek an alliance with Spain, in order to have the use of Port Mahon. He believed it would be worth while to make an offensive and defensive alliance with Spain, in order to secure the use of that port in the event of war in the Mediterranean. There was always this trouble with regard to any alliance or understanding. They never knew where they were. They were given what appeared to be the most precise assurances; in course of time those assurances were entirely violated, and the violations explained away by the other party. He instanced the case of Persia. The noble Lord had suggested by answers he had given that we had an agreement with Russia, whereby we engaged to respect the, integrity and in dependence of Persia. The noble Lord knew perfectly well" it was not true to say there was any such treaty. All that existed was certain correspondence stating that that was our view and our object; there was no engagement whatever, and he challenged the noble Lord to say there was.
      THE UNDEE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBCRNE,): Yes, there is.
      MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the understanding with regard to Persia was contained in a correspondence which began in 1834. In that year Lord Palmerston wrote to Mr. Bligh expressing—
      "The satisfaction of His Majesty's Government at the decision which has been taken by the Shah of Persia to nominate Mahommed Meerza as the successor to his throne; an event which it is to he hoped will avert the danger of civil war in Persia on the next demise of the Crown; and you will also say that His Majesty's Government are gratified to find that the Governments of Great Britain and Russia are acting, with regard to the affairs of Persia, in the same spirit, and are equally animated by a sincere desire to maintain, not only the internal tranquillity, but also the independence and integrity of Persia."
      That was only a desire. What was the answer of Count Nesselrode in 1838? It was that the policy with regard to

      713
      Persia remained unchanged—and that was a policy of desire. Then in a letter from St. Petersburg in 1839—
      "… As we consider that, on our part, we may rely upon the intention and upon the desire which the, British Cabinet has, on its part, expressed."
      Then in a letter from Lord Granville to Lord A. Loftus in 1873—
      "… Although no formal treaty or agreement existed by which the two countries mutually agreed to respect the integrity of Persia, yet … in the year 1834, an understanding was arrived at."
      What did Lord Granville mean by making the distinction which the Under Secretary of State now repudiated? The understanding was based on a "sincere desire," and nothing more; there was no treaty or agreement; there was only an understanding that each country had a "sincere desire," and if the noble Lord was prepared to call that a treaty stipulation to respect the independence and integrity of Persia, it was surprising how little lie had learnt since he had been at the Foreign Office. There was no such engagement on the part of Russia, but it was extremely desirable that some sort of understanding should be come to with regard to Persia. Russia had practically taken up a position of sovereignty in regard to a considerable portion of Northern Persia; she had built a road, in connection with which she levied toll; she had an exclusive right to make railways; while, on the other hand, Germany was about to cut in at the head of the Persian Gulf. The matter of Persia demanded the most serious consideration of the Government, and he was profoundly convinced that, no understanding with Russia short of an absolute treaty would be of any avail, and certainly one of the most unfortunate of the many unfortunate events which occurred while Lord Salisbury was at the Foreign Office was the absolute abandonment of Persia to the tender mercies of Russia.
      No doubt it was desirable that some understanding should be arrived at with Russia with regard especially to the Far East. Up to the present we had always been out-manœuvred by Russia, and in no instance more strikingly than in the recent Tientsin incident. The policy of the Government concerning China expressed in a solemn resolution of the
      714
      House, was to maintain its territorial integrity and independence. All that had occurred had recently been due to the action of Germany; in fact to his mind Germany appealed to be the one disturbing Power of Europe. She was continually going about the world, and, on the maxim quieta movera—if he might so adapt it—trying to trouble the waters. The whole of the recent Chinese War arose from German aggression. First, of all it started the Boxer movement. That movement was entirely created by the seizure of Kian-Chow and the conduct of German troops in the province of Tientsin. That led to the seizure of Port Arthur by Russia, and of Wei-Hei-Wei by England, and that concatenation of events brought about the war which had recently concluded. We, who were supposed to be the backbone of the maintenance of the independence of China, were the persons to make difficulties about giving Tientsin back to the Chinese, and it was not England but Russia who had retired from the unworthy position of trying to prevent the Chinese regaining their own territory. Where had Germany so much disturbed the peace as in South Africa The Boer War, and especially its continuance, was largely due to the telegram sent by the German Emperor in 1896, to the underhand assurances conveyed to the Boers then and since, and to the ammunition carried by German mail ships. Lord Salisbury had not the courage to stop them, and when one was found chockful of ammunition he not only sent peremptory orders for its release, and got no compensation from Germany, but actually paid compensation to Germany. He greatly regretted that the Foreign Office had traditionally shown so much subserviency to Germany as had been displayed both in China and in South Africa, The Department still lived in the tradition of the Seven Years War; it still believed in Frederick the Great; it learnt absolutely nothing from then up to the date of Holy Alliance, and was learning nothing now. Indeed, he believed that was the explanation of many of the blunders of the Foreign Office. It was, no doubt, a very respectable office and very well manned, but it had never risen to the conception of the now England which had been created and was growing. He believed

      715
      that diplomacy consisted in managing affairs with, through, and between the nations that occupied this little chess-hoard of Europe, whereas England had grown far beyond that. The policy of England must be a world policy. Europe had sunk in importance, and the great world beyond the seas had risen in importance to England, but the Foreign Office had not appreciated the fact. One of the most remarkable things in the history of the Foreign Office was the most recent. Some of the most important negotiations into which England ever entered, viz., those before and after the Boer War, had been carried out without any official of the Foreign Office taking part in them. In both cases the Foreign Office had been displaced by the Colonial Office, and the negotiations had been conducted by others than members of the Department whose sole reason for existence was the conduct of the art of negotiation. That appeared to indicate that the opinion of the Government for its own Foreign Office was not a very high one.
      But, if the importance of English interests in Europe had diminished, the importance of English interests in India remained as great as ever. India was still a great prize of the Empire and a great responsibility. No doubt India had a special case of its own. It had a long frontier, and a very, he would not say active enemy, but longing friend, looking at it over that frontier. The recent great development of the field of English foreign policy, however, lay in the Colonies, and these the Foreign Office had never understood. Our Colonies were not possessions that might be taken or left as other countries could take or leave their colonies; they were not mere jewels or ornaments of the British Crown which could be dropped out without any impairment of the soveignity. They were great and growing nations, a part of the Empire, which must be dealt with as though they were of ourselves. The consequence of that, if properly understood, was that English policy must not merely extend over Europe, or deal only with the small affairs of small German Courts; it must deal with the whole of the seas and the whole of the world—and if it dealt with the seas it would have dealt with enough, because it was the seas which held the
      716
      Empire together. The time had probably arrived when they might press for the infusion of a new spirit into the Foreign Office. He was glad to pay his tribute to the ability of the noble Lord the present head of that Department. His advent had been the signal for an introduction to a certain extent of that new spirit which was so much desired. It was notorious that Lord Salisbury never dared to take risks. But a great Empire like ours could not be conducted without risks, and sometimes very serious risks being taken. Almost the first achievement of Lord Lansdowne was the Japanese Treaty. That was a treaty involving great and unknown risks, risks dependent on the character of a people little known, but the risks were worth running, because they gave us a position, strong as well as definite, such as our position there ought to be. Ho was very glad, therefore, that the treaty had been made.
      There was one other aspect of our foreign affairs to which he desired to call attention. It was an aspect little thought; about, but really most important, viz., the enormous extent of the guarantees under which this country lies, with regard to the territories and sovereignties of other States. He did not know how large the liabilities in the different relations might he, but we had guaranteed the independence and neutrality of Belgium by the treaty of 1839, the perpetual neutrality of the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg (1867), the possession of Prussian Saxony to Prussia (1815), to Norway and Sweden all their possessions against Russia (1855), the independence and integrity of the Turkish Empire (1856), the independence of Greece (1832), the perpetual neutrality of the Ionian Isles (1863), the possessions of Turkey in Asia against Russia (1878), to respect the independence of the Sultan of Muscat (1862), to defend Portugal and all her colonies against all comers, and, although we had not guaranteed it, we had expressed our desire that the independence and integrity of Persia should be respected; and, finally, we had guaranteed to China the possession of Chusan. But these were not all the guarantees we were under. There were others in the Pacific, and, in addition, there were certain financial guarantees. The situaion was extremely important, and very risky. Not only were there these

      717
      guarantees, there were other matters. For instance, there was a secret agreement with Germany, now two years old. No human being outside the Foreign Office had seen that treaty. It was clear that at the outbreak of the Spanish and American war, we did give assurances to the United States, and in all probability England had a quid pro quo. Under these circumstances he wished to road to the Committee what Lord Salisbury thought of the value of the Fleet. In a speech made in 1871 Lord Salisbury said—
      "We are too apt to be misled by the great things the Fleet did during the great Revolutionary War. No doubt it was n powerful instrument in hampering and ultimately in subduing Napoleon, but why? We had then the power of declaring a genera blockade, and of searching neutral ships for enemies, goods. In your reckless Utopianism you have Hung these two weapons away, and your Fleet can only blockade the particular port to which it is sent, or bombard any fortress which may happen to be, on the coast. I believe that, since the Declaration of Paris, the Fleet, valuable as it, is for preventing an invasion of these shores, is almost valueless for any other purpose."
      And yet Lord Salisbury had gone on year after year with what he called a valueless Navy, He was dealing with these Treaty obligations, and lie said—
      "My fear is that when the extremity comes we shall look at the obligation, turn it round and round, talk very big, lecture one side or the other, and then when Europe cries shame on us, we shall congratulate ourselves upon the moral pinnacle on which we stand."
      That was the prospect held out to us with regard to these very serious obligations under which the country lay. There were a great number of these obligations from which we ought to be freed. Ho hoped there might yet be time to bring the Foreign Office, to a sense of its responsibilities, and to bring about a revision of these obligations, many of which had outlived their purpose; but a belated Foreign Office, with antiquated traditions about the balance of power, had shown no disposition towards revision. The Foreign Office was a most respectable institution; the world was full of its works, and half the world of its failures.
      One other matter, and he had done, and that was by way of suggestion. The Foreign Office had devoted its attention in recent years to other purposes and they found it undertaking, the conquest
      718
      of territories in Fast Africa. The Foreign Office was ceasing to be a negotiating Department, and was turning itself into a railway company. In each of the territories administered by the Foreign Office it had failed, as was to be expected if a Department was put to do work for which it was not organised, and it had failed in regard to the railways. The great defence of the, policy of the Foreign Office was that it had to carry on its work in secret, but it never allowed the light to be let in upon what it did until it was too late to remedy the blunder. The doctrine was that they should not be interfered with while negotiations were going on, and when they were completed it was too late to do anything. Our cousins across the Atlantic had a much more practical system of dealing with their foreign affairs. It was very remarkable that the only absolute control which was provided in the English system was that exercised by the Public Accounts Committee, of which he had the honour to be a humble member. Exactly such a system obtained in the United States, where they had a Committee on Foreign Relations. Perhaps it would surprise the Committee when he told lion. Members what that Committee were able to do.
      "The Committee may take the initiative and consider and report, to the Senate its conclusions there on any subject bearing on our relations with foreign nations.
      "The Committee, as a Committee, may request information of the Secretary of State. The usual way, however, when the Committee desires any information is to report to the Senate a resolution, either directed to the Secretary of State or other Departmental officer or to the President. When the resolution is addressed to a Departmental officer the form is that ho is 'directed' to furnish the information; and when to the President he is 'requested,' if not incompatible with the interests of the public service, to furnish it. When such resolution is reported to the Senate, that body usually adopts it although not always. In addition to this, the State Department will, in most cases, allow individual members of the Committee to inspect the correspondence of the Department, even although the President may think it 'incompatible with the interests of the public service' to transmit such correspondence to the Senate.
      "The Committee has no power in itself over pending and uncompleted negotiations, except as the President and Secretary of State may, through courtesy and a desire to conform to the wishes of the members of the Committee, give consideration to such views as it may express. It may, however, through the action of the Senate, in adopting any affirmative

      719
      action the Committee may recommend, prevent any action on the part of the President and Secretary of State which it may deem undesirable."
      It seemed to him that that was a most valuable body, and it was instituted in 1813. It seemed to him that a Committee exercising control of that kind was urgently needed in this country. Year after year, when the work of the Foreign Office came to be reviewed, there was increasing disappointment in regard to the result of its policy. He felt, therefore, that some control over the Foreign Office should be exercised by the House, and, if they did not obtain it evil days would yet be in store for this country.
      MR. NORMANsaid he felt sure the Committee would await with interest the Under Secretary's reply to the question put by the right hon. Baronet about the lapse of the understanding of this country with Italy. The right hon. Baronet had dealt with the matter in a manner befitting the extreme delicacy of this question, and he would say nothing about it except to repeat the hope that the noble Lord would have something satisfactory to say upon it. There were many questions in regard to foreign affairs, and they had only this very brief afternoon to deal with the whole affairs of the Empire, therefore, the speeches must necessarily be of a hotch-potch character. The first point he desired to mention had regard to their old friend the open door in China, and he wished to know whether His Majesty's Government was doing anything with regard to the increasing claims for exclusive rights on the part of Germany in the province of Shantung? While Germany had a certain absolute monopoly in that province, it was now claiming more monopolies. Germany had already three definite monopolies there, and was now engaged in claiming a fourth.
      A question to which no attention had been directed was that of Mongolia. He did not think anybody had even mentioned Mongolia in that House. That province had mines which were enormously valuable, and he understood that they were now being exploited by Russia with very great profit. He had asked
      720
      several questions with regard to the mission of the Thibetan envoys who were sent to St. Petersburg, and he was informed that it had no diplomatic significance He could not help expressing surprise that the Foreign Office should accept a vague answer that the mission had no diplomatic significance whatever. The question of Mongolia was really a very serious one, and he should like to know whether the Foreign Office knew anything about it, whether it was aware that the Thibetan envoys had a certain relation to affairs in Mongolia, or whether its attention had been called to it in any shape or form. He felt sure that all the business classes of the community would greatly welcome any assurance from His Majesty's Government as to the steps taken to assist British railway enterprise. We insisted, in 1898, upon a concession for a railway from Nanking to Shanghai, and he wished to know what was the position in regard to that. Both the Belgians and the Russians were seeking new concessions and these concessions of Chinese railways were quite as much political as commercial, and it was simply absurd to say to British merchants in China, "You must look after your own interests. If you do not you are very much better out of it." Every Foreign Office except our own recognised the fact that these railways for opening up the country were as much political as commercial, and supported its merchants from that point of view. Were we demanding that in whatever was granted by the Chinese to foreign nations in the way of railway concessions we, at least, should receive the "favoured nation" treatment? The matter was particularly urgent at this moment because foreigners were coming into contact by two railways, one made by French and the other by Belgians, across our own Yang tsze sphere. It would soon be too late to take action in that matter.
      Perhaps the most important question pending in China was that of the indemnity. According to statements in the Press, China had refused to pay the July instalment. The Committee would be glad to know if that was so, and also if the United States Government had expressed sympathy with the Chinese attitude. What did the British Government intend to do? Had it any view

      721
      of its own with reference to the matter? Had it taken any different line? Had it, after what the United States Government had done, come in with a paltry suggestion of its own? Every statesman in Europe knew perfectly well that enormous sales of silver on the part of China would be necessary in order to enable her to pay off the instalments of the great indemnity, and that this would necessarily result in a fall in the gold-price of silver. That was overlooked by the Chinese, and now it was found that £9,500,000 sterling had been added to the indemnity China had been called upon to pay. The effect of this upon the relations of European nations to China would be a very serious one indeed, because the people of China would be squeezed and sweated to get the sum. The hatred of the Chinese towards foreigners would be intensified by the grasping policy of squeezing out of them not only the original sum, but the increase which had resulted from inevitable financial causes. This policy would rebound and strike us again both in our trade and in our relations with the Chinese people.
      The question of the military occupation of the province of Pe-chili and the city of Tientsin had been briefly touched upon by his right hon. friend. It seemed to him to merit further consideration. So far as he could understand, the British Government was at the present moment in the position simply of breaking its word to the Chinese. We promised through our Minister that we would undertake to evacuate that province and city by a certain date—he thought it was May 1st—on condition that the other nations would do the same thing. Before the date for the fulfilment of that promise was reached, we agreed with all the other commanders to impose a totally new set of conditions upon the Chinese. We agreed to impose the conditions, while protesting against them. The situation at the present moment was that the British Minister was actually supporting the German Minister against the Japanese Minister in continuing to enforce this unjust occupation of the province. Of course, the inevitable had happened. The Russian diplomatists and Foreign Office had seized the opportunity to withdraw, and to exhibit themselves once more in
      722
      the light of the true friends of China. If we did not mind what we were about, the next thing that would happen would be that the Germans would withdraw. We had in this merely followed the Germans. He did not know why the British Foreign Office seemed to be paralysed by what the Germans did. Why, in heaven's name, should not this country take a definite line of action of its own and keep its promise? He thought the Committee should take this opportunity of protesting against this useless and fatuous policy, which was injuring our prestige and doing great damage to our commercial interests in China. He asked the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs to state what stage had been reached by the Tariff Commission which had been sitting at Shanghai. Was it the policy of His Majesty's Government to allow the Chinese largely to increase their tariff on foreign goods in exchange for a remission of the whole or part of the likin, or internal taxation If that was so, he thought anybody who knew China would protest most strongly against any such policy, because we were entitled to what the Chinese were offering us by the Treaty of Tientsin, and to what was granted under the Japanese Treaty of 1896, and because under no circumstances in the immediate future was it likely that the likin would be abolished. Likin was an essential part of the finance of the provincial authorities, and the Imperial authorities were far too weak to enforce its abolition. Some years ago Lord Curzon, when Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, assured the House that in future traffic was to be permitted on the sea coast and on the rivers of China, and everybody who did not know China cheered the statement. Nothing whatever had happened in consequence of that statement. If we accepted the abolition of likin for greater taxation of British goods, we should find ourselves, after a little time had elapsed, in exactly the same ridiculous position. With regard to China, our Government had not had a consistent policy from the beginning. We had sent to China men who knew nothing about the country until they got there. He was not aware that there was anybody at the Foreign Office

      723
      who had been to China, or who could claim to express any view about that country with authority. He gladly admitted the better spirit in which our negotiations had been conducted during the past year, but the want of any definite policy seemed to be the fatal cause at the root of all we were suffering from. If he and his hon. friends seemed to be unduly exigent in regard to China, it was because they saw that the relations between this country and China had been conducted in a piecemeal fashion, and not in that broad spirit which they should be when it was remembered that the bread and butter of tens of thousands of British homes depended upon them.
      His right hon. friend the Member for the Forest of Dean had challenged him on one or two points in regard to Persia. He had recently had an opportunity of setting forth his views on this question at considerable length, which were open to any hon. Member who would do him the honour to glance at them, therefore he would not recapitulate them here. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean had said that he had advocated that a port should be given to Russia on the Persian Gulf. True; but what he said was that it should be given on very stringent conditions. While he was speaking of Persia, he hoped the noble Lord would turn his attention to the concession which was said to have been granted to Russia for the construction of a railway to Teheran. This had been confidently asserted in the press. This whole question was of enormous importance. Was the attitude of His Majesty's Government to be to say to Russia: "Hands off; you cannot come down to the Persian Gulf," while Germany was coming along with a railway down to the Gulf. If so, he feared we would not only suffer commercial injury, but would court Imperial disaster.
      He wished to draw attention to the obligations which this country had undertaken under the Treaty of Berlin. The 44th Article of that Treaty dealt with Roumania, and said that no one should suffer in any civil rights or political liberty on account of his religious opinions. It was common knowledge that Roumania owed its liberty and
      724
      its present position to the consensus of Europe as embodied in the. Treaty of Berlin, but the Government of that country had evaded, in the most shameless and cynical manner, these responsibilities, and was imposing the gravest and cruellest disabilities on a large section of its population. He thought they were entitled to know whether the British Government had taken any steps to communicate with the Roumanian Government, or to elicite their opinions from the other great Powers who were parties to the Treaty of Berlin, in regard to this important point. It was impossible to speak of the Foreign Office without expressing the desire that something should be done for re-organising the consular service of this country. He had addressed a Question on this point to the noble Lord on a former occasion, and was informed that some inquiry was on foot; but in answer to a second Question he had put to the noble Lord, he had been told that the inquiry would result in a series of conversations between the Foreign Office and the Treasury.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: And the Board of Trade.
      MR. NORMAN: Well, between the three Departments of State. But the noble Lord did not seem to be under the impression that the result of that inquiry would be communicated to the House. In the consular service at present there were no definite entrance conditions, no definite work, and no definite system of promotion. Consular duties had of late greatly increased, and that increase had not been justly recognised by the authorities. In many ways the consuls had been treated with marked and deliberate unfairness by the Foreign Office authorities. If the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs wished to have information on this point, he could give him instances of absolute breach of pledges given by the Foreign Office to our consuls abroad. There were in the consular service many brilliant officers, rendering invaluable service to the State, both openly and confidentially; but in the lump the members of the service were not what they ought to be, because

      725
      there, was no certainty of their making a career in it. He thought the time had come when consular officers should be placed upon a different and a definite footing, and that above all things they should be relieved from the fear of being passed over for promotion, because a Minister at home wished to reward some follower for political services rendered. There had been an inquiry in regard to the War Office, but the time would come when the country would realise that in no Department of the State was there greater necessity for reform than in the Foreign Office. There was at present no hope of obtaining any promise for such a comprehensive inquiry, but he trusted that the noble Lord would have some definite information to give on the points he and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean had raised, and particularly upon the change for the worse in our relations with Italy.
      LORD CHARLES BERESFORDsaid he would like to say a few words on the very important subject which the right hon. Baronet had brought before the Committee in regard to the understanding with Italy as to the Mediterranean. We were entirely dependent on the command of the sea, but in the Mediterranean we were short of naval bases, owing to the mistakes of the Foreign Office in former times. That shortness of naval bases had been to some extent made up for by the understanding or alliance with Italy, which would have given us access to docks, stores, and all the essentials without which we could not fight. He hoped that the noble Lord would give the Committee a clear account of what had happened, and would say whether there was an understanding between France and Italy which was detrimental to British interests in the event of war. The want of policy as to Wei-Hai-Wei was a glaring example of the necessity of a thinking Department at the Admiralty and War Office for making out our requirements. If there had been a thinking Department, we should not have had the change of policy with regard to Wei-Hai-Wei. He further pointed out that at Chi-fu our merchants
      726
      had a property near the foreshore. The Russians built a great factory between the British property and the foreshore. We fined the Chinese most heavily because the Russians built that factory; and this incident bore out the statement which had been made, that we were either fining the Chinese for damage done to us by another nation, or making presents of things that did not belong to us. Most of the news from China came through the correspondent of The Times, and some of the facts which had been published had been known to hon. Members long before the Foreign Office heard of them. Instead of referring any question of British interests to the whole body of foreign Ministers, which had happened over and over again to our detriment, why should we not look after our own interests ourselves? They all wanted a better understanding with Russia, but how was it to be brought about? Russian policy was based on the giving of assurances, and there was no case in the history of Russia with regard to assurances where they had not been broken when Russia was in a position to do so. He did not blame Russia; her Ministers were very clever. But he blamed our Foreign Office for listening to their assurances, always knowing that they would be broken. He did not agree with the hon. Member for King's Lynn in his preference for an alliance—perhaps alliance was not a good word, he would prefer the word understanding—with Spain rather than Italy. He thought that what his hon. friend had in his vision was the idea that the Rock might be bombarded some day by Spain from the Western side. Of course, the Spaniards might, under certain conditions, place guns on the Western side and bombard the Rock, but they could do very nearly, though not quite, the same on the eastern side.
      MR. GIBSON BOWLES: No.
      LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: The hon. Member said "No." He had never agreed with him, because if his ideas were carried out in their entirety, the country would never build a battleship, because it might be sunk. Well, he knew the Rock as well as he knew his

      727
      own home. But if we kept the command of the sea, we could mount ten guns against every one placed on the other side, and, if matters became critical, we must land a party and occupy that shore. The idea of his hon. friend was so chimerical that he never entertained it at all. In no case could the ports which Spain was able to place at our disposal be so useful as those of Italy, and so long as we had this understanding with her, we need not consider what Spain might do. The alleged mastery of Russia in Persia was a very grave affair in relation to our trade and commerce. If the information was correct that Russia had absolute control of the Persian Customs House, they might say that she had absolute control of Persia and everything in the country. Reverting to China, he asked whether, as the indemnity was fixed in April, 1901, and there had been a fall in silver since of about 20 per cent., the Chinese had warned the British that they would not be able to pay the increased sum which might be charged upon them owing to the fall in the rate of exchange. He had the most hearty sympathy with the Chinese. In their financial obligations and trading transactions they were as honest people as any in the world, and if they had to pay more than was originally asked, they would regard it as a fraud. If, however, this matter was not cleared up as to what the Chinese would have to pay eventually, it would be a bad thing for British trade and commerce; because it would tend to stir up rebellion, and this would have a great effect upon prices. He also wanted to know when the bonds would be ready for distribution, and what progress was being made with the settlement of certain individual claims on account of the action of Russia. Amid some causes of censure, however, he congratulated the Government on the alliance with Japan. Nothing of late years, in our foreign policy, had been so materially good for England. The interests of the two Powers were nearly identical. Both wanted the open door, and an outlet for their trade. The utility of the alliance to us in regard to the command of the sea was immense, because Japan had a very strong and efficient fleet; there were no better guns
      728
      or rifles in Europe, the equipment of the Japanese troops was excellent, and their reserves of guns and ammunition were quite perfect. Owing to their chivalrous action all the rancour of the China-Japanese War was past, and the Chinese were going to the Japanese before any European nation for advice. He hoped we should keep ourselves very friendly with China and Japan, because, if ever China got organised as Japan was, it would be a tremendous menace to Europe.
      MR. BRYCEasked what steps had been taken to carry out the hope which had been expressed recently by the Foreign Office that more would be done to extend the scope of our Consular service in Eastern Asia Minor and Armenia. Those regions were at present comparatively quiet, but no one knew how long that state of things might continue, and it was most desirable that there should be a British Consular officer where disturbances were likely to arise. As to our general Consular service, he could speak of its efficiency from personal experience in many parts of the world in the highest terms of praise. He deprecated the policy of making our Consular officers trade agents. It was quite right that they should watch trade, and that their reports on trade should be brought up to the highest point of efficiency, but on the whole they would be less effective for the purposes they now served if they were trade agents. The one thing he regretted was that appointments to the service were often made in the spirit of what might be called pure patronage, men being appointed for political and personal reasons, to the disappointment of the legitimate hopes of better men in the service. With regard to our relations with Italy, he hoped that matters had been brought to a successful conclusion, and that nothing had occurred to substantially affect the good relations between Italy and this country. It was a subject which one must approach with caution; and he thought the Committee would feel that the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs ought not to be pressed, in giving an answer to the question, to go further than the noble Lord thought

      729
      the interests of the public; service permitted. In the absence of the information which most of the Committee could not possess, they might fairly feel that a great deal depended on the permanent nature and entire sense of security of the bond. As had been well said by the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the subject, our sentimental and traditional relations with Italy had always been of the best character. There was no country in the world from which this nation obtained more sympathy and support. Since the days of Palmerston and the rise of United Italy, England and Italy were constant in affording each other sympathy and support; and he did not believe that these mutual feelings had been impaired by anything that had recently occurred. They had been threatened by some unfortunate proceedings in Malta, but that cause of trouble had been removed, and he did not think that the memory of it would linger in the Italian mind He was of opinion that there could be no divergence between Italy and England on substantial or material grounds. As it was the interest of Italy that she should not be overpowered by foreign fleets in the Mediterranean, it was necessary that she should be on friendly terms with England. There had been an arrangement between France and Italy with regard to Tripoli and Albania. Considering the frontier relations and the commercial relations between Italy and France, it was the most natural thing in the world that Italy should be on good terms with France, and every one would also agree that it was to the best interests of European peace. Nor did he see anything for alarm and disquiet in the arrangement between the two countries as to Tripoli and Albania, as no British interests were affected in those quarters. If Morocco had come into the agreement it would have been different, for in no part of the world did danger signals stand so thickly as in Morocco. Therefore, he thought the noble Lord would be able to assure the Committee that the relations between Italy and England remained perfectly friendly, and on the same substantial basis that they had hitherto occupied. He thought it was of the greatest possible importance that questions still outstanding between France and us should
      730
      be cleared up; and now that peace had been restored in South Africa, and that a friendly and capable Minister was at the head of foreign affairs in France, the time was opportune for the settlement of these questions.
      LORD CRANABORNE: This debate has ranged over such a great variety of topics, extending to almost all parts of the habitable globe, that I despair of being able to satisfy hon. Members with regard to all the points which they have brought under the notice of the Committee. I do not think the criticism of the hon. Member for South Wolverhampton with regard to the Departmental inquiry into the condition of the Consular service is quite deserved. The inquiry is of a highly technical character; it concerns three Departments of the State; the gentlemen who have been appointed by those Departments to serve on the Committee are highly qualified for the work they have to perform; and I can only ask the hon. Member to possess his soul in patience as to the result of the inquiry, until matters are more advanced. Complaint has been made that gentlemen who have placed the country under obligations in other Departments of the public service have been rewarded with appointments in the Consular service. That is true to some extent, especially in regard to the African Protectorates. There are a large number of devoted public servants who are governing with admirable success those great territories. The work is extremely arduous and dreary, and after men have served a large number of years in that service it is no abuse of patronage that they should be removed to consular appointments in other parts of the world. Being men of ability, they can undoubtedly perform the duties admirably, and without such a system I think it would be impossible to maintain the service at its present level.
      A word or two has been said about the consular service in Asia Minor. A consul has been appointed at Bitlis; that is an important appointment. He resides at that place, and occasionally goes to Diarbekr. Another has been appointed at Van. As to Roumania, to which the hon. Member opposite referred, the obligations under Article 44 of the Berlin Treaty rest upon Roumania, and that

      731
      country is responsible for their performance to the Powers who are signatories to the Treaty. His Majesty's Government have on several occasions represented to the Roumanian Government that they ought to carry out, in the spirit and in the letter, the terms of that Article, and the Roumanian Government assure us that they have done so. However, I am bound to say that persons entitled to respect have made representations that that is not the case.
      LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE: Is there a report from our Minister?
      LORD CRANBORNE: It is the habit of our representative to send us continual reports.
      LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE: You said there were representations from persons; were those from the Minister?
      LORD CRANBORNE: I meant that persons outside the service had made representations which greatly impressed us, and we shall undoubtedly take care that this question does receive careful attention, and if we are satisfied that the Treaty has not been maintained, we shall make further representations.
      With regard to the larger questions which have been brought before us, the Committee will have realised that the Foreign Office has come in for a good deal of abuse in the course of the afternoon. That Department is supposed by some to be partly inefficient and by others to be wholly inefficient. The hon. Member for King's Lynn, whose condemnation of the conduct of all Departments of the Government is well known, belongs to the latter class. He tells us, perfectly truly, that the Foreign Office ought to have regard to the world-wide interests of this country. Indeed, as far as I could make out, he thought it ought to adopt all the work of the Colonial Office as well as its own. I agree with the hon. Member in saying that the interests of Great Britain are world wide, but I cannot agree that we have no important interests in Europe. In fact, the hon. Member on that point answered himself. He referred to the importance of the various guarantees we have entered into, and most of those guarantees refer to Europe.
      MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I did not say our interests in Europe were wholly unimportant; I said they were relatively unimportant.
      LORD CRANBORNE: The hon. Member conveyed the impression to the Committee that in his view they were wholly unimportant. However that may be, the interests of Great Britain are undoubtedly world-wide in their character.
      Here I would like to say a word on the subject of Newfoundland. The right hon. Baronet, in a most able speech, founded a criticism on the fact that my right hon. friend the Colonial Secretary, in answer to a Question, said he had consulted the Foreign Office. I hope my hon. friend behind me will note that the Colonial Office does sometimes consult the Foreign Office.
      SIR CHARLES DILKE: I said it was extraordinary he should have had to ask.
      LORD CRANBORNE: The right hon. Baronet referred to two very trivial matters about which I need not trouble the Committee. As a matter of fact, however, perpetual communications have passed between France and this country almost ever since the Treaty of Utrecht was signed. The idea that these great questions are allowed to sleep for years is not founded on fact. As a matter of fact, they are perpetually before the Foreign Offices of both countries, and I need not say that we should be very glad if the Newfoundland question could be settled. It is a difficult question, because there are conflicting interests over which we have not complete control—the interests of France and the interests of our colonies. I need not say that, in the opinion of any English Government, where the interests of our colonies and foreign countries come into conflict, we must consider in the first place the interests of our own colonies. I can assure the Committee that the subject is always before us, and that we are not neglecting it.
      Then the right hon. Baronet proceeded to deal with the question of various agreements and alliances and groupings of Powers in different parts of the world as they affect the interests of this country, and he made a passing reference

      733
      to a Russian understanding, of which I rather gather the right hon. Gentleman did not approve.
      *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I said that I did not approve of giving up things for doubtful consideration, but I was entirely in favour of the idea of an understanding with Russia in the way of a definition or interests.
      *LORD CRANBORNE: The view of the Government is that they would like an understanding with almost every Power, and I can assure the Committee that it is not our fault that there is not that understanding.
      In addition to that, the right hon. Baronet raised the very important question of our relations with Italy. I would like to emphasise the fact, in the first place, in reference to what, I think, fell from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that our international friendships are never aggressive, and are never intended to be aggressive; and our friendship with Italy belongs to that class. I do not assent to the historical account which the right hon. Baronet gave of all that has passed between this country and Italy. Indeed, I am occasionally amazed at the boldness with which hon. Members deal with what they admit to be secret matters. There never was a Treaty or Agreement with Italy. The real fact is that, important as are treaties and agreements, there is something much more important, and that is the interests and sympathies of the countries concerned, upon that nothing can be said, by way of criticism, as regards our relations with Italy. No doubt, as the right hon. Baronet reminded the Committee, there have been from time to time matters which have given rise to some disappointment in Italy, but I hope they are all swept away now. There was the Maltese language question; but, owing to the action of my right hon. friend the Colonial Secretary earlier in the session, all the feeling in respect of any question affecting Malta has entirely disappeared.
      MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Thanks to the Irish Members.
      LORD CRANBORNE: Then there was the question, to which the right hon. Baronet referred, of the feeling of coldness that arose in consequence of
      734
      the understanding with France affecting the Hinterland of Tripoli. I think the Committee are aware that we have lately had an opportunity of giving an assurance to the Italian Government which has healed any soreness which might have existed in respect of that matter. I need not say that we have no design on Tripoli ourselves, and we were able to assure the Italian Government that nothing which passed between England and France at the time of the Agreement of 1899 affected in any way the present or the future position of Tripoli. We are anxious, if I may use a phrase which is very often indulged in in this House, to maintain the status quo. We have certain treaty obligations which govern our action towards Tripoli. To these treaty obligations we intend to adhere; but I need not say that in this, as in every other matter subject to those Treaty obligations, we have every disposition to study Italian interests.
      What is most important in these international relations and international friendships are the traditional sympathies and mutual interests of the Powers concerned. In this connection, what is to my mind of great value in the Japanese Agreement is that it is an Agreement founded on the mutual interests of the two contracting Powers, and therefore has a strong foundation. Some people think a treaty can be made with this Power or that as if we were playing a game of chess. That is not how international relations can be managed. You have first to. ascertain what are the interests of your country in regard to a proposed treaty, next to find out what view the people of your country will take of that Treaty. On these foundations, and on no other, can we found an international; Agreement that will last; and no others are sound. The only criticism the right hon. Baronet has made as to the Japanese Agreement is that we did not make it sooner. He said it could have been had for the asking. It is not for us to ask; for treaties: we grant them. We are only too delighted to have the opportunity of granting this Treaty to a Power whose interests are so much in conformity with our own as are those of Japan.

      735
      The right hon. Baronet turned to China, and declared that in nearly all our dealings with China we had shown great inefficiency. I think the Japanese Agreement alone should be an answer to the observation of the right hon. Baronet regarding our dealings with China. None have rejoiced so much in the Japanese Agreement as the statesmen of China, and we may depend upon this—that when she comes to consider what this Power has done or what that Power has done in her favour, China knows her friends perfectly well. She is not likely to be misled. She can arrive at a perfectly accurate judgment, and she knows by this time that it is not only the avowed but the true policy of this country to maintain to the best of her ability the integrity of China and to increase her material resources by means of trade. It may be thought that what is got by other countries is got as against this country; but the policy of this country in regard to China has often been stated by me and by others abler thin myself on numerous occasions. I am almost ashamed to use the old phrase. We are for the open door. That policy has governed our agreements. It is true that in the Russian railway understanding and our position with regard to Germany, railway enterprise has, to some extent, been relegated to spheres. But, on the whole, our agreements and our financial arrangements have been in the direction of the open door, and are intended to maintain it.
      I do not know what ground the right hon. Baronet has for saying that we have failed altogether to maintain the open door in Shantung; because, turning to the last speech which Count von Bulow delivered on Chinese questions, I find that he assured the Reichstag and Europe generally that there was no question of exclusive rights for German trade in Shantung, and he spoke later of the open door, using the German equivalent for that very phrase, and showing that Germany has not closed the open door in that part of the world. Under these circumstances I do not admit that we have failed in our policy in respect to Shantung. An hon. Member opposite has asked what about the concessions? The hon. Member for South Wolverhampton asks what about these mining
      736
      concessions which Germany is obtaining in Shantung. The question as to whether such concessions mean the closing of the open door is a question of degree. Every concession in a sense closes to some extent the open door in respect of what is conceded. It expressly and avowedly does. And we have obtained concessions in parts of China just as Germany and other Powers have done. If such concessions are to apply to a very large area, they may properly be described as amounting to a definite closing of an open door; but I do not think that can be said of these German concessions in Shantung. Quite the contrary.
      The right hon. Baronet turned to somewhat later history and pointed out that upon the last occasion when he had the opportunity of discussing this question the Committee was not in possession of the requisite information because the Blue-book had not been presented. I admit that, and I apologise to the right hon. Baronet and to the Committee as I have apologised before for this delay. I regret the delay in the publication of the Blue-book, and I am sorry hon. Members were not in possession of the Papers before the last debate on China. It is not my fault, except that pressure of other work may have rendered me less urgent than I otherwise might have been, and I do not admit that it is the fault of the office which I represent. Blue-books take a long time to prepare and delays are unavoidable owing to the necessity of communication with other Powers as to the publication of documents in which they are committed.
      It has been suggested that the Government have a right to object to the Russian concession at Tientsin. We have got a concession there, and we are not in a position to say that the Russians are not entitled to have a concession; but if it is a question where the concession shall he, and of the area it shall embrace, the position is different; and upon these points we have had a great deal to say to the Russian Government, and I think we said it with considerable effect. In the first place, we protested against British property being included in the Russian concession, and the Russians have assured the Government that they never did intend, and do not now intend, that British property should be included in the Russian concession; and, for their part, where it can be shown that any property

      737
      is British owned, they do not claim it. On the railway question there was great controversy, which at one time was very acute indeed, until the armed forces of either Power were drawn up so close to one another that there was no greater space between them than divides me at this moment from right hon. Gentlemen opposite. But that passed away, and we were able to bring the controversy to a successful conclusion. From the Russians we said that we claimed nothing but what was our due and we proposed a proper and impartial inquiry. The Russians, moving rather slowly, as is the fashion of Russian diplomacy, finally agreed to this proposal, and Consular officers on the spot, very familiar with the question, have been appointed, so that the matter may be brought to an issue. I do not think that an unsuccessful piece of diplomacy, and on the whole, I believe the right hon. Baronet will agree with me. Then the right hon. Baronet spoke of another Tientsin question—the terms on which the provisional Government is proposed to be abandoned. A certain amount of misapprehension appears to exist on this question. I cannot give a full account of the matter to the Committee, because negotiations are still proceeding; but I can say something that boars upon what has been said in the debate.
      It has been said that the Press get information much more rapidly than the Foreign Office, and that the information is invariably accurate. I can assure hon. Members that this is not the case. I am not saying anything derogatory to the Press. The newspaper telegrams are admirable. It is a wonder they get the information they do; but it is not always, and cannot be always, accurate; for the terms, of which my right hon. friend the First Lord of the Treasury spoke in answer to a question a week or two ago, were not definite terms. They were the conditions which the military commanders thought ought to be imposed before the provisional Government was given up. It is not an unreasonable proceeding to consult the military commanders, because we have a treaty right to occupy Tientsin. One of the terms of the protocol which was concluded last year was that we have the right of military occupation of certain points
      738
      which lie between Peking and the sea, and one of these points is Tientsin, as any one will see who reads the protocol. We have a right to occupy Teintsin, and it is not unreasonable to say that certain precautions must be taken to maintain the safety of the military garrison there. It is not an unreasonable thing that the military commanders should be consulted as to what in their opinion the conditions should be; but it does not follow that the diplomatic body or ourselves will accept or are in favour of every particular recommendation of the military commanders. All we ask them to do is to give the representatives of the Powers the benefit of their advice, and it is this advice which was published in the Press as if it was the definite terms which the Powers were imposing upon the Chinese Government. These recommendations were nothing of the kind; they were simply the record of military opinion submitted to the diplomatic body, who, of course, are the immediate representatives of the Powers in China. The actual terms are now the subject of negotiation, and I am not at liberty to state the exact position of those negotiations, but this I will say, that the idea that the British Government are holding out for the uttermost farthing of those terms, or have ranged themselves with Powers who desire to impose the, hardest terms upon China is not the fact.
      SIR CHARLES DILKE: I do not wish to be understood as suggesting that position. I said we were pressing terms against our own opinions. The terms, as I understand, were, as the noble Lord informed us in answer to a question in this House, modified and accepted by the representatives, and after that an attempt was made to alter them.
      LORD CRANBORNE: The terms have not been definitely agreed upon between the Powers, and, as a matter of fact, the British Government would be very glad, and have said so, to see modifications in those terms. I must apologise to the right hon. Gentleman if I have misrepresented him, but in such matters one's memory sometimes plays one false. We are anxious that there should be modifications in those terms, and I have very little doubt that there will be.

      739
      There are one or two other points in reference to China I have to deal with. I have been asked whether we are doing our best to support, English railway enterprise in China, and the reply is undoubtedly that we are. But there is an old proverb. "You may take a horse to the water, but you cannot make him drink." The Government, of course, support, as they ought to support, British conccssionnaires who are sound in all respects and in earnest in their efforts to develop China industrially; but I am bound to say that there has been a certain—I will not say remissness—perhaps a certain amount of indolence on the part of concessionnaires in the development of their concessions and in pushing their opportunities. Perhaps it may be said it is no business of mine to cricitise them, but I think lion. Gentlemen on either side should not assume that, because there has not been immediate development of British concessions, the fault lay always with the British Government. So far as I remember, there is not at present a single case of the kind. On the contrary, we are anxious to press things forward so far as the British Government legitimately may, in accordance with the practice which has always prevailed in our diplomacy.
      The noble Lord behind me, and others, have asked me about the indemnity. This indemnity was a sum of money which the Chinese Government engaged to pay the Powers, and this is a gold debt. Of course, it is represented in taels, because the tael is the currency in China; but it is none the less a gold debt, and we cannot accept in payment anything but the equivalent of gold. I do not think we can recede from that position. Let me say at once that we have some sympathy with China in, this matter. The value of the tael has fallen, and whereas it stood at 3s. when the Agreement was entered into, it is now only 2s. 4d.
      *MR. JOSEPH WALTON: Two shillings and sevenpence.
      *LORD CRANBORNE: Then it has gone up again. At any rate, there has been a considerable fall—much greater than anyone anticipated at the time the
      740
      Protocol was signed. But, of course, that makes no difference in the obligation, and we must still hold to the gold basis of our debt; but there are certain ameliorations we may grant to the Chinese in respect of it. I think, when the history of the negotiations comes to be written, it will be found that the British Government were anxious to treat the Chinese Government with all the consideration it was possible to give them. The noble Lord asked about private claims, and in answer to this question I have to say that where claims have occurred in consequence of the death of the breadwinner of a family, or where the claims are in amount under £100, they will be paid out of the first instalment, and in cash at their full nominal value in English currency. Other private claims not death claims and not of small amount we cannot treat quite so favourably. They will be paid as early as possible, as the money comes in from China; but claimants must submit to the loss which undoubtedly such a delay involves.
      Then I have been questioned as to the likin negotiations. I can assure the lion. Member that the Government went into the negotiations with the greatest possible desire to carry them through, and I agree that it is almost hopeless to expect a total abolition of likin stations in China. At one time this was very much urged upon the Government by the hon. Member for Barnsley, who has taken so much part in Chinese debates, and I myself expressed a hope that such abolition might be possible. But the difficulties in the way seem to be almost insurmountable, because the larger part of the likin is raised, not on foreign, but on native trade, and therefore the sum of money involved in the abolition of the likin stations is very large—far larger than any reasonable increase in foreign trade would make good. If, as a matter of fact, we did obtain the abolition of the likin stations, and this was loyally carried out by the Chinese, it would undoubtedly involve a large loss of income. It would be hopeless, therefore, to expect it would be adhered to. On full consideration, the Government have, on the advice of those interested in Chinese trade, abandoned any hope of the total abolition of likin stations in

      741
      China. But we still confidently hope that we shall be able, by fiscal arrangement, at any rate to relievo foreign trade of this enormous burden — an unfair, unknown, and incalculable burden of illegal likia—which at present weighs upon it.
      Having answered most of the questions addressed to me, in conclusion I must decline to admit the charges of inefficiency made against the Foreign Office. The excellence of the Department is not entirely duo to its Parliamentary representatives, and not at all to the Under Secretary sitting in the House of Commons; but I must say my experience since I have been at the Foreign Office has shown me that in that Department the country is served by a devoted body of public servants, who in. all parts of the world have given proof of ability and resource; and if Members of the House really knew as much as I do on that matter, they would share in my commendation of them.
      MR. JOSEPH WALTONsaid the Committee could be congratulated upon the stronger and more satisfactory position of this country today for maintaining our interests in all parts of the world from that of twelve months ago. The conclusion of peace in South Africa had effected this change, and coupled with that, there was the statesmanlike Anglo-Japanese Treaty concluded in the interval—a treaty having no aggressive design, but based on just and equitable principles for the preservation of China for the Chinese and equal opportunities for all nations trading there. That Treaty carried with it responsibilities more than justified by its advantages, and especially by the fact that it was a. most powerful instrument for the preservation of peace in the Far East, and for securing that "open door" policy in China which was the basis of' the Government policy, and advocated on both sides of the House. In answering the many questions put to him, the noble Lord had omitted mention of Persia. Earlier in the session there was an interesting, and, on the whole, a satisfactory debate on the question of British interests in Persia, and on the relation of events there to the preservation of the safety of our Indian Empire. He should like to
      742
      ask the noble Lord for information on three or four important points, in order to ascertain how far the, on the whole, satisfactory re-declaration of the policy of this country in regard to Persia was in process of having practical effect given to it, not by words only, but by deeds on the part of His Majesty's Government. Now, since that debate they knew that Persia had concluded a loan with Russia for £1,000,000 sterling. Everybody admitted that this country" had made a gigantic blunder in refusing to guarantee a loan of £2,500,000 to Persia some years age.
      MR. LABOUCHERE: No, no!
      MR. JOSEPH WALTONsaid his hon. friend be-low the gangway said "No, no"; but he thought it would have paid even the Government of India to guarantee a loan not only of £2,500,000, but of many times that amount, having regard to our expenditure on the military and naval defence of India, It would be interesting to know the terms and conditions on which the new Persian loan had been guaranteed by Russia. It might seriously endanger our influence land rightful predominance in the Gulf of Persia, if the custom receipts in the Gulf were allocated to Russia or to any other Power. Then, it was important to know whether the conditions of that loan included any railway concessions to Russia through Northern Persia to Teheran. One of the most influential Russian newspapers said in regard to this subject—
      "It it is to be hoped that the friendly relations existing between the Persian and the Russian Governments will have prevented Persia from granting to Great Britain, without the knowledge of Russia, the right, to build-railways in any part of Southern Persia if Russia build lines in Northern Persia, as such a concession would be equivalent to a defeat of Russia, and would render it necessary for her to abandon her persistent desire to make an outlet for herself on the Indian Ocean. But it is none the less probable that British diplomacy has, for all that, succeeded in obtaining some important limitations of the Russo-Persian Agreement relating to railways, and, consequently, that if Russia continues to maintain her present altitude of expectancy her political opponents will redouble their efforts to obtain still further limitations of her rights, and during this time foreign civilising agents will gain an entry into Persia, even without railways."

      743
      "Such a state of affairs (concludes the journal) forces us, nolens rolens, to modify our policy with regard to Persia, by proceeding to construct railways in that kingdom, and by taking every other means to strengthen and to further our influence, instead of confining ourselves, as hitherto, to trying to preserve Persia from foreign influences."
      Reference had been made to the under standing between England and Russia in regard to maintaining the status quo in regard to Persia. It was of the highest importance, having regard to the position of Persia, that the integrity and independence of that country should be maintained. They had been told that that was the determined and settled policy of His Majesty's Government, and he asked the noble Lord to see that the Government took care that, when Persia was to be supplied with a system of railways, Great Britain should enjoy an equal right with Russia in supplying those railways. We should have the same right to build railways in Southern Persia, where, our interests were predominant, as Russia had to build railways in Northern Persia. He trusted that this matter would have the vigilant attention of His Majesty's Government, and that British rights to equal treatment would be resolutely maintained. It was also a matter of great importance to secure facilities for trade in Southern Persia by the improvement of existing roads, the building of new roads, and the removing of obstructions to river navigation. Without in the slightest degree wishing to be aggressive, he maintained that it was our duty to claim that in Southern Persia we should actively set on foot the improvement of communication so as to facilitate trade. By concerted action with the Government of India, the Karun river trade route should be improved, and a road made from Bunder Abbas, Kerman, and Yezd to Isfahan. That road would traverse for a great distance the telegraph line to Beluchistan, and it would be of the very greatest importance, as it would facilitate the entrance of British goods into Persia as well as forming an outlet for Persian trade. When this subject was previously discussed, they had to complain of an interference by Russia with our trade by the Quetta Nushki trade route. The Russian Government had sent down
      744
      doctors, with Cossack guards, to harass our caravans from Beluchistan. He would like to know whether the representations which lie understood the Government had made to Russia in regard to this matter had been effectual or not. Our fellow-citizens in India had a right, to trade freely with Persia. We could take credit for this, that while we bore the whole cost of policing the Persian Gulf, we allowed foreign nations to trade there freely and on the same terms as our own; whereas Russia excluded every flag but her own from the Caspian Sea. He would further press the urgent necessity for proper facilities being given for the trade of India with Persia by the Quetta-Nushki trade route. Russia had already built three roads in Northern Persia with great advantage to her trade. He hoped the Committee would be assured that British interests, commercial and otherwise, in Persia, were receiving the careful and serious consideration of His Majesty's Government.
      In regard to China, the noble Lord the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs had not made it quite clear to the Committee what the policy of the Government was in regard to the situation in Newchwang. He thought that the handing back of Tientsin should take place simultaneously with the handing back of Newchwang to Chinese administration. England, Japan, and the United States, who had the same objects and shared the same views, ought to act together more closely, and not be dragged at the chariot wheels of Germany. Germany had done nothing whatever for the relief of the Legations at Peking. All that she had done was to send out, later, needless and marauding expeditions in Chi-li, which had sown a legacy of bitter hatred on the part of the Chinese to Europeans. It was high time that the British Government should dissociate itself from Germany in North China. Germany had invariably played into the hands of Russia, and treated the British unfairly.
      Though the noble Lord was quite correct when he said that Tientsin was a place which we were at liberty to occupy, it was clearly contemplated by the protocol that the occupation of the city should be only temporary. He

      745
      therefore submitted they ought to give the easiest terms possible for returning that important city to Chinese jurisdiction. The Viceroy of Chi-li, Yuan-Shik-Kai. had proved himself to be an enlightened, statesman, and he was the most powerful force for the protection of life and property of foreigners in North China; yet he was prevented from coming into Ins capital. Although the population of over one million was turbulent, and piracy was rife in the neighbourhood, he was forbidden to have more than 300 soldiers within eighteen miles of Tientsin. A more absurd and unjust proposal was never made. Russia today posed as the only friend of China, and that fact, having regard to the manner in which she had placed herself in the military occupation, of Manchuria, showed there must be some bungling in our diplomacy somewhere. He hoped the noble Lord would give, the Committee some clear intimation of their intention to disassociate themselves from Governments like that of Germany, and to treat the Chinese equitably and fairly, and with some humane consideration. They had heard nothing about the handing over of the Shan-Hai-Kwan Neweh-wang Railway to the Chinese. Then there was the transfer of the line from Tientsin to Shan-Hai-Kwan, which was prevented owing to the objection of the Russian Government, and the conditions were, in consequence, to be varied. When was that sort of tiling to end? We were supposed to have the strongest Government the country had ever had, and yet, on the objection of Russia, we were to back down and alter the forms and conditions of an equitable agreement. The Government should look after British interests, and act in concert with Japan and the United States. For the first lime in her history, the great and wealthy Empire of China was to be supplied with railways; we were a great manufacturing nation, and should have our share in supplying the materials for those railways along with other nations. The Committee was told that British concession naires had obtained concessons to lay 2,800 miles of lines of railway, but the curious fact was that, while they found other countries laying down railways under the condition that all the material must be drawn from the
      746
      country of the concessionnaire not one yard of the British concessionnaires' railways had been laid. He did not think that was entirely the fault of the Government, but was due rather to the fact that, British concessionnaires had not the energy of their competitors. The 2,800 miles of railway for which we had obtained concessions were among the cream of the railway concessions of China, The railway enterprises in the Yang-tsze regions were among the most premising in the world, yet the money had not been found to build them. It might be that the British concessionnaires would say they were not backed up by their Government in the same way as those of Belgium, France, Germany, and Russia, He believed that was true. He believed that the concessionnaires of these countries obtained these concessions on the best terms they could, and then when they had obtained them, snapped their fingers at the terms, and carried out the concessions in the form most favourable to themselves. He thought all rights granted to other concessionnaires should be granted to British concessionnaires also.
      With regard to the new commercial treaty, he was bound to confess, after further information, and after having studied that most complicated question of likin. that though it was most desirable that, likin should be abolished, yet as the whole question was involved and complex, such a change could not be expected in the near future. The effect of the swollen indemnity, which was in the aggregate twice as large as the European nations could justly claim, if it were demanded in full, would be rendered doubly oppressive to the Chinese owing to the fall in the price of silver, and would make the abolition of likin impossible. The Government had expressed sympathy in this matter, but he would have them sympathetic in a practical manner. This indemnity had to be paid in the main by the rich districts like the Yang-tsze region, and a significant fact was that Manchuria would not contribute anything. What would be the effect on this fertile region of the Yang-teze, which had been kept in a condition of law and order during the recent crisis, when the people were called upon to pay this sum to the

      747
      foreigners for their operations in northern; China? In all probability three, times as much as was needed to pay the indemnity would be extracted from them. There was a great danger of a strong anti-foreign feeling growing upon the minds of the Chinese of Central China, which might culminate in greater trouble in the future than they had experienced in the past, if this was persisted in. The policy of dealing leniently, and not demanding our pound of flesh from these people, would be the wisest that the Government could pursue. He hoped some assurance would be given by the noble Lord that these I matters should receive his consideration. We desired facilities for trade in China, and if, through some modification of the policy of the Government we could; get greater facilities for trade, the opening up to trade of the rivers of China, and the free right to trade with every riverside town. If there could be International Conservancy Boards for the removal of obstructions to navigation on the great rivers, there would be a greater opening for trade with China. It was in that way we should seek for compensation from the Chinese people, rather than by an indemnity. There was no question whatever but that the Government had an opportunity now, seeing that we had Japan as our close ally in the far East, and knowing as they did that the United States held these just and liberal-minded views, of rendering a most important service not only to the Chinese people but to the people of this country by increasing British trade with that great Empire.
      MR. LOUIS SINCLAIRsaid the criticisms of the hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean might have been of weight, and would no doubt be duly considered. Although it was easy to be wise after the event, he could not help thinking when the right hon. Baronet described the policy of the Foreign Office as weak and vacillating, he went beyond the mark. The policy adopted by the Foreign Office had been to get all they could and to tell others to keep their hands off. He rose however to draw attention to the commercial side of the question. The consular attaches were ignored in
      748
      this country. If they compared what England did in Germany with what was done by the United States, they would find that the consular reports handed to the business men of this country were absolutely useless to them, and would not compare with those furnished to American traders. The persons we appointed as Consuls were usually men retired from business.
      THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANreminded the hon. Member that there was a separate Vote for the Consular Service, arid that the hon. Member would not be in order to go into that matter.
      MR. LOUIS SINCLAIRsubmitted to the ruling of the Chair, and called attention to the money wasted by the Foreign Office in having diplomatic Ministers us Saxony and other places, and complained of the policy of the Foreign Office in not resuming the commercial relations with Bolivia which were severed in 1840 by our consular agent there becoming an agent for the revolutionary party. We did more trade with Bolivia than with any other South American country, and he hoped the noble Lord would find it convenient to appoint another Consul, and not keep alive the sentiment which animated us; when, in 1840, Mr. Lloyd our agent there was asked to quit the country. He also hoped the time was near when the noble Lord would attend only to the political side, and a Minister of Commerce would be created to deal with commercial matters.
      MR. LABOUCHEREsaid this country had been able to bear with equanimity the disadvantage of not having a Minister at Bolivia ever since 1840, and, in his opinion, the hon. Gentleman had given excellent reasons for not having one there now. From bad things there was always something good to be got, and he was very glad that Lord Salisbury was Prime Minister and not his hon. friend the Member for Barnsley, who, if he were Foreign Secretary, would in a short time involve us in a war with China, Germany, Russia, and France on the subject, of concessions, and while waiting for that war

      749
      would spend our money in building railways and improving the roads arid rivers in Persia. Did not his hon. friend know that at the present moment we were dependent upon American energy for moving about in this country? He was one of those who desired to see money spent at home, and not in other countries for the benefit of other people. As for the concessionaires, they might be the innocent people which the hon. Gentleman assumed they were, but as a rule the concessionnaire was sent out by some vague syndicate in England to urge that a concession should be given to him, and no sooner did he get it than he communicated with his syndicate, which possibly paid £600 or £700 for it, which brought out a company for £500,000 or perhaps £1,000,000, and then went to America for their materials. The syndicate made their money, and the people who lost were those who joined the company to open up by railway communication the towns with the almost unintelligible names which his hon. friend had referred to.
      He looked on the Japanese Treaty as a mistake. We could always have made a treaty with Japan when we required to, and we should have kept our hands free. But we had tied our hands by making a general treaty; we had entered into almost an offensive treaty, because Russia and Japan had their eye on Korea as we had ours on the Transvaal, and if they went to war we were bound to go to the assistance of Japan, while Japan would not assist us in defending our possessions at home. He agreed that the open door was most desirable in China, but that ought to be obtained in concert with the other Powers, and by making treaties first with one nation and then with another. We made a treaty with Germany, and then when Count Von Billow explained that it meant nothing, we went to Japan.
      He rose, however, to controvert one or two observations of his right hon. friend; the Member for the Forest of Dean. His right hon. friend had said that the understanding with Italy was a beneficial one. The origin of that understanding was this: When Crispi, who had been at the head of the Radicals, still retaining his views, went over to the Conservative Party, much as the Colonial Secretary
      750
      had done in this House, he went to Berlin and saw Count Bismarck. Count Bismarck proposed a treaty to him between Italy, Austria and Germany. Crispi said he foresaw that one day they might be in conflict with France: that Germany could not defend the coast; that it was England who must do that. The Minister in power in this country at the time then arrived at an arrangement with Italy, which enabled her to join the Triple Alliance. In 1891 Mr. Gladstone, always the strong friend of Italy, called attention to the arrangement in an article in a magazine, and protested against this species of engagement into which we had entered, and protested still more against the practice of Ministers entering into them without discussing the matter in the House. It was arranged that with the support of Mr. Gladstone he (Mr. Labouchere) should raise that question in the House. Mr. Gladstone pointing out that if Ministers denied any treaty or understanding he was to accept the denial at once, because if it was denied the Liberal Party were not bound in any way, as it would then only be a private arrangement between Lord Salisbury and the Italian Minister. The question was raised, and there was a general admission made that something had been done, but the Government based their position on the status quo. But they had gone a good deal beyond preserving the status quo; a variety of engagements had been made by the Government, not only to defend the Italian coast, but with regard to other matters. He thought the Committee had a right to ask the Under Secretary of State whether the Government had pledged themselves at the present moment.
      *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid notes had been exchanged with regard to the maintenance of the status quo in the Mediterranean and adjacent seas.
      MR. LABOITIIUHEsaid that at any rate these arrangements went on, and the records were at the Foreign Office. The Committee had a perfect right now to ask what those arrangements were, and how far they were valid. Were the

      751
      facts with regard to Italy as, stated by greatest mistake to suppose that the the right hon. Baronet? It was the Liberal Party in Italy desired any arrangement either with this country or with the Triple Alliance. It was practically admitted that those arrangements were made to induce Italy to enter into the Triple Alliance. But the Alliance obliged Italy to maintain a large army, and must involve her in war if hostilities broke opt between Germany and France, so that the people there did riot thank us for having aided and abetted in securing their country to join the Triple Alliance. The action of France in enormously raising the duties on wine and silk almost ruined commerce in Italy, rand it was purely the financial difficulty which had induced the country to make a treaty and enter into friendly relations with France. Our business ought to be to remain perfectly neutral if there happened to be a great war. The Committee had been told that the status quo in the Mediterranean must be maintained. To desire that status quo to exist was one thing, but to enter into a treaty which must involve the country in war in order to maintain it, was a totally different thing. His right hon. friend had at any rate hinted that it would not be a bad thing to enter into a treaty with Italy with regard to Morocco. Did the Committee suppose we could enter into such a treaty without giving something to Italy? The Italians were uncommonly good diplomatists, and always wanted to get whatever they could, and they would certainly want something in return. He protested against all treaties which compromised the country, and against the habit, which was growing more and more common with the Foreign Office, of making engagements and giving pledges, winch, they were told, were not treaties, but which compromised the country. He was of the school who hold that no treaty ought to be made or any war engaged in without the House of Commons having been consulted, and its assent obtained. Such an arrangement would be a great safeguard. He asked the noble Lord whether he would frankly tell the Committee under what obligation to Italy we were at the present moment.
      MR. BECKETTsaid that, having recently returned from China, the Committee would perhaps permit him to speak on this question, fie did not rise to curse the Foreign Office, nor did he intend to bless them altogether. The noble Lord would himself probably admit that during the last few years there had been many opportunities which had been either thrown away or of which full advantage had not been taken. It was not fully realised how much our foreign agents depended upon the 1 Foreign Office. In fact, the Department and its agents all over the world were like one great body. If the brain, which was the Foreign Office at home, were at all sluggish or inert, its agents also were sluggish or inert; if, on the other hand, the former were active and enterprising, so also were the latter. The agents were very responsive to the influences they received from home. The machinery of the Foreign Office was entirely under the control and management of the head of the Department. If a man like Lord Salisbury were at the head, the Department would be worked in one way, while under a man like Lord Palmerston it would be worked quite differently. That being so, he did not think it at all necessary to set on foot an inquiry as to the working I operations of the Foreign Office as suggested by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, inasmuch as its effectiveness or I otherwise so largely depended upon the man who was the head of it.
      The hon. Member for King's Lynn had said he would like to investigate the secret correspondence of the Foreign Office. No doubt he would, and the result of his investigation would be a series of amusing and instructive speeches in the House, but it was rather doubtful whether the public service would be benefited thereby. Complaint had been made that the Foreign Office did not pay sufficient attention to the interests of the British Empire outside Europe. The Anglo-Japanese Treaty was a conclusive answer to that complaint. Anybody who waded through the correspondence in the Blue-book would be compelled to admit that such a charge was unfounded. When that treaty was first proclaimed, he had doubts and misgivings in regard to it.

      753
      But it bad been received with acclamation in this country and in Japan, and be. fully admitted that it bad done much to strengthen and establish our position in the Far East. At the same time it should be borne in mind that many newspapers were rather inclined to overrate, at all events, the military power of Japan. The noble Lord the Member for Woolwich had spoken highly of the Japanese Navy, and of that he was a good judge; but as to the Japanese Army, it should be remembered that it bad fought a successful campaign only against very inferior forces, and how it would fare against trained European troops was a matter of conjecture. He deprecated the power given under the treaty to Japan to involve us in enterprises in the Far East of which we might not quite approve; it would be an unfortunate thing if the Japanese were allowed to dictate to England the lines of the policy to be there adopted. The Government, however, in making this treaty had probably wrought better than they knew, because recently there bad been a strong tendency on the part of the Chinese to throw themselves into the arms of the Japanese. They were sending their young men to be instructed and taught in Japan in modern knowledge and science, and they were adopting Japanese methods in the training of their army and navy. They could not go to Europe, because by so doing, jealousies would be created among the various European Powers, but by going to Japan they could acquire an immense amount of modern information, and adopt European methods in so far as they could he adapted to Chinese ideas. The Chinese and the Japanese were now closely linked in friendship, and the fact that we had this agreement with Japan would undoubtedly tend to extend our influence over China. He would remind the Committee, however, of almost the last words of Li Hung Chang, viz.—
      "We wish to be friendly with England; we have every disposition to fall in with your views; but we must know what you want. We know what Russia wants. She always fulfils her threats, and sometimes her promises; whereas England changes her policy from day to day."
      The policy of the open door was all very well, but the policy of the open mind was dangerous in the extreme, and had been
      754
      the cause of most of our difficulties and the loss of our prestige in China. The Chinese felt that if they took steps to help England one day, they would probably find what they had done being used against them by other Powers shortly afterwards. If we wanted to establish our friendship with China on a firm footing, we must settle upon our policy and pursue it steadily.
      He congratulated the noble Lord on the fact that the more recent policy of England, in many matters outside the Japanese Treaty, had gained the confidence of the English generally in the Far East, and that it was generally approved of by the Chinese themselves. There was one thing which he should like to say with regard to a remark in the speech of his noble friend. He said in a rather peremptory tone that it was not for us to ask for treaties, but to grant them. He would like to see that statement toned down a little. These words might be taken to mean that other Powers should come to us, hat in hand, begging for treaties; that we were graciously pleased to extend our favour to them or not, as we felt inclined. The noble Lord, he was sure, did not mean that, and he would not wish either to offend the susceptibilities of Japan in any way, with whom we had made our treaty on terms of equality. It was a mistake, in dealing with foreign nations, and especially Germany, to give away concessions unasked, as we had done in 1898 to Germany with regard to Shantung. In that case, undoubtedly, we gave away our rights unnecessarily when we bound ourselves not to ask for mining rights nor to make railways there, nor, in fact, to extend our enterprises beyond ten miles round Wei-Hai-Wei. Germany did not ask us to make that concession. He did not think his hon. friend the Member for Barnsley need disturb himself very much about German influence in the Shantung Peninsula, because the Germans were not making very great way there. The merchants carrying on trade there did not like the military régime, which was too straight-laced for them. With regard to railways, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton had blamed the Government for not assisting British enterprise in China, He would like to know what that meant. Did he mean that the British Govern

      755
      ment should guarantee a loan for the purpose of constructing railways under a concession? If the British Government used its influence to obtain concessions it was for capitalists to come forward and work them. Ho did not think the Government should be expected to do more than they had done. The Government had done all that could be reasonably expected with regard to concessions in securing a fair field and no favour. If capitalists would not take advantage of them, what; more could the Government do? A very enlightened Chinaman had said that he was in favour of China giving concessions to everybody to make railways, because if the railways were a success the Chinese would buy them, while if they were a failure the foreigners would lose their money. The idea in asking for Government aid was that they would thereby be enabled to occupy the country politically. That was an impossible dream. China could never be occupied or partitioned by foreign Powers. Sir European Powers failed to govern one province; how would they govern eighteen? They would be helpless. Their laws would not be obeyed, and they could not collect their taxes. China must be left to herself, and she would soon be able to protect herself against any aggression. There; was no reason to fear a military; invasion by China. It was not a military nation, and it was not an aggressive nation by any means, but undoubtedly if we opened up China and made it rich and prosperous we would raise up a most forcible commercial rival to ourselves, and we would be exposed to competition which did not at present exist. He must say that everybody who had studied the Question of the indemnity regarded it as nothing more nor less than an extortion. In the raising of money to meet the demand, the punishment would fall upon the innocent and not the guilty, and it was on account of that condition of things that the outbreaks had recently occurred in the southern provinces. Therefore, in dealing with the matter of the indemnity, they ought to be very careful indeed. It was an extremely difficult question, and he was not at all surprised that the Government should hesitate to make up their minds upon
      756
      it. With regard to the withdrawal of the troops from Tientsin, he said the authorities there were apprehensive that if this were done there might be a recrudescence of the disturbance. It would be a great misfortune if that result were to follow the withdrawal of the troops. But the present Governor of the province was a young man with pro-foreign sympathies, and he had been so far backed up to a very large extent by the Government at Pekin. He had every disposition to be friendly to us, and our best policy was to trust him, as if we distrusted him he might be turned into an enemy. The Germans had not the slightest intention of withdrawing their troops until they were compelled to do so. If we wanted the country to settle down, we must get the Germans out of it. The Committee knew the charges that had been made against our soldiers in South Africa by people in Germany, but if those who preferred those charges had a full, true, and particular account of the outrages practised by the Germans in Pechili, they might be astonished, but they would feel that they had no right to attack us for what they supposed our soldiers had done. Some complaint bad been made that our Consuls in China were underpaid and overworked. That was true. But it was untrue that commercial affairs were neglected by our Consuls, who were always ready to give all reasonable help to our traders and merchants. They exercised certain judicial duties, and they enjoyed the confidence of the Chinese in a measure which was not extended to the Consuls of any other nation. He invited the attention of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs to the fact I that they were seriously overworked. He hoped he had not attacked the Foreign Office unfairly in regard to anything they had done in China; and; he trusted that the noble Lord would continue the line he had lately adopted, I and administer Chinese affairs with impartiality, and in sympathy with the; Chinese, and with a clear and settled idea as to what we wanted, and a firm determination not to be baulked or turned aside in the pursuit of the objects we sought to obtain.
      MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he intended to move the reduction of the salary of the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. No information had been given them that afternoon in reference to the position of the Japanese people in Australia, under the treaty between this country and Japan. He was afraid that a certain amount of uneasiness existed in Australia in regard to that treaty. On the 8th of May last the hon. Member for the Scotland Division had asked a question whether the Anglo-Japanese Treaty contained terms by which Japanese subjects might go to Australia; and the answer of the Secretary of the Colonies was "No;" that the subject of emigration from Japan to Australia had not been contemplated. Before this Vote went, through, the noble Lord the undersecretary for Foreign Affairs ought to make some statement in reference to what had taken place between this Government and that of Japan. It could not be expected that if Great Britain entered into an alliance with Japan, the people of Japan were not to be, allowed access to portions of the territory of the nation with which they had entered into alliance. At the same time, it was of enormous importance to the people of Australia that their country should not be flooded by Asiatic immigrants. As to the noble Lord the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, he had long resolved to say frankly across the floor of the House what, within his own knowledge, a large number of Members had said; both inside and outside the House, although, so far as he knew, they had not had the courage directly to say it across the floor of the House, He did not desire to be personally offensive to the noble Lord. He was not anxious to deal with this as a personal matter at all, but he did say that, from a public point of view, it was regarded, not alone by many Members of the House, but by a largo section of the public outside, that it was a most improper thing that the noble Lord should occupy the position he did in this House. The representative of the Foreign Office; in this House occupied one of the greatest I positions which any Member of the House ' could occupy, and the foreign1 relations of
      758
      this country constituted perhaps the most fluxions and important point of the Government of the country. And yet when this Vote came up for discussion for the first time that afternoon there was not a single member of the Government present except the noble Lord. More than that, there were not absolutely throughout the afternoon more than a dozen supporters of the Government on the Benches opposite. He had himself several times counted the number of Members present in the House, and he saw that there was not a quorum. Why was this, when such serious questions were being dealt with as our relations with China, the position of Russia and Germany, and many other important matters connected with foreign affairs? He maintained that it was because, since the noble Lord had had charge of foreign affairs in this House, foreign affairs had ceased to have the interest for hon. Members which they had when the Foreign Office was represented in this House by some responsible statesmen. No one who had hoard the noble Lord's arrogant statement that this nation would make a treaty with no other nation that did not come as a supplicant and beg for it, would not have been convinced that the man who made that statement was absolutely incapable of occupying a position of a Minister for Foreign Affairs. Why was he Minister for Foreign Affairs in this House? They talked sometimes of the methods by which America was governed, but if the President of the United States attempted to make his own son one of his most prominent Ministers—the Minister for Foreign Affairs, for instance—[Cries of "Oh, oh" from the Ministerial Benches]—the people of America would not stand it. He did not mean to be personally offensive; he would say the same thing of any other Gentleman. But the fact that the noble Lord was at the head of the Foreign Office was not due to his ability, or to his service and record in this House, but was absolutely due to his being the son of the Prime Minister.
      The hon. Member was still speaking at half-past seven o'clock when the sitting was suspended.
      And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

      759
      The Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.

OPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  BRISTOL WATER BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER).
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

  SOUTH EASTERN AND LONDON, CHATHAM AND DOVER RAILWAYS (RE-COMMITTED) BILL [LORDS.]
  SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE, in moving that it be an Instruction to the Committee on the re-committed Bill to consider their decision upon the preamble of the Bill as reported by them to the House, except in so far as the same relates to Railway No. 1, said that so far as the action of the Committee was concerned he had no criticism whatever to make. He had no doubt that action was taken after full consideration of the facts, and hearing of evidence, and therefore it was not his intention for one moment to question that decision. He was now asking the House to reconsider the unopposed portion of the Bill and to except the opposed portion, which he admitted was an exceptional course for the House to adopt. He did not wish to weary the House with a long history of this matter, which, related to a bridge that connected Kent with the Isle of Sheppey. It was considered that the time had arrived when the bridge should be substituted by another. The Company lost their Bill, but, so far as the bridge was concerned, time was of great moment, and the Company, immediately on losing their Bill, placed the matter in the hands of Sir Benjamin Baker, the eminent engineer, who had advised that, with the aid of an engineering invention which had come from America, the old bridge could be removed and a new one put in its place with the minimum disturbance of traffic. He would, therefore, like the whole matter referred back to the Committee this session, with the one reservation that they should be allowed at once to renew this old bridge, and not have to wait for the sanction of Parliament. With regard to the opposed part being recommitted, he was quite prepared to
  760
  leave that to the House. He asked for the recommittal of the unopposed part, which was a matter of vital importance to the Company and the traffic of the Company, which was a matter in which the House was interested, inasmuch as when they sanctioned the amalgamation of the two Companies they insisted on the expenditure of a large amount for widening the lines and the improvement of the traffic. Since then the Company had spent £2,000,000 in making improvements to carry out these obligations.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the recommitted Bill to reconsider their decision upon the Preamble of the Bill as reported by them to the House, except in so far as the same relates to Railway No. 1."—(Sir William Hart Dyke.)
  *MR. DE TATTON EGERTON, as chairman of the Committee which considered this question, said he did not, unfortunately, read the Report, which was an omission upon his part; but the decision arrived at by the Committee was that the preamble as a whole was proved, subject to the inclusion of a clause to carry out the compromise already offered to the railway company. That gave rise to the question as to whether the chairman of the Commiteee had a right to take the preamble of an omnibus Bill as a whole. The whole matter was submitted to the officers of the House, who placed it before the Committee, with the result that the Committee adhered to its decision. Counsel on behalf of the railway company then refused to accept the proviso on behalf of the company, and laid a trap for him (Mr. de Tatton Egerton) by saying, "Then the preamble is not proved." He, unfortunately, agreed, but he should have read and revised the Report had he done his duty. The Bill was divided into two parts, one opposed and one unopposed. With regard to Railway No. 1, which was the subject of this Instruction, that had reference to the renewal of a bridge across the Swale. That bridge, when originally sanctioned in 1856, was a swing bridge open to all craft, but in 1861 further powers were given, which restricted the traffic to those vessels which had masts which could not be taken down. Since that time the traffic

  761
  had increased enormously. According to the evidence brought before the Committee, no loss than 12,000 journeys a year were made by barges carrying 800,000 tons of commodities to and from the manufacturers in Milton Creek; and evidence came before the Committee of the damage accruing to these craft in getting under the closed bridge. The railway company, having the power of restricting the opening of the bridge to barges not lowering their masts, carried it to a very fine point indeed. It was practically impossible for barges with deck loads to lower their masts, but because they could, on occasion, lower them, the bridge would not be opened to them. In 1898 the bridge was absolutely closed to all traffic; and since then the railway company were perfectly satisfied to buy out all those who had a right to use the bridge. The railway company knew that the bridge would have to be renewed, but they took no steps to come to Parliament at all until the Milton Creek Conservancy took the matter up. Even then the railway company did not bring in a Bill to replace the bridge as it existed under the Bill of 1856 as amended by the Bill of 1861; but tried to obtain a fixed bridge in 1900 and having an injunction served on them, they came to Parliament this year with an omnibus Bill, and quietly asked the House to sanction the new bridge on the terms they obtained without challenge in the Bill of 1861. The Committee unanimously passed the preamble of the Bill, with a proviso that the railway company should have absolute priority of the right to keep the bridge closed; that the bridge should never be opened for more than twenty minutes at any one time; and that half the cost of keeping a man night and day to open the bridge, and half the cost of the electricity for opening and shutting it, was to be paid by the local conservancy. The Committee thought that the compromise was one which the railway company might accept. The company never attempted to show to the Committee that it was impossible for them to carry it out; and the Committee were perfectly satisfied that they had a right to retain that proviso as a portion of the Bill which the company had to accept. The company did not choose to accept it, and the Committee accordingly felt that they were not justified in passing the preamble of the Bill.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,)said he considered the matter at issue a very simple one. The Committee had to consider an omnibus Bill, which contained, among other things, a clause with reference to the rebuilding of a certain bridge. He did not intend to pronounce any opinion as to whether the Committee were right or wrong in the course they adopted with regard to that particular bridge. He did not feel bound, nor would he be justified in forming an opinion, and he would assume that the Committee were perfectly right. But, in addition to the Swale bridge, which, no doubt, occupied the greater part of the attention of the Committee, there were other matters in the Bill, the preamble relating to which was proved in due form. What eventually happened, according to the hon. Member, was that he intended to pass the preamble of the Bill, and that it was really the fault of counsel for the promoters that he threw it out. He did not think that the hon. Member was justified in suggesting that counsel laid a trap for him. He would quote a few sentences from the shorthand notes of the proceedings—
  "The CHAIRMAN: The preamble of the Bill will stand or fall as a whole."
  Therefore, the Chairman himself was the first person who used the words "as a whole." Then Mr. Littler said that as the Bill was to stand or fall as a whole, they would be prepared to strike out of the Bill the clause or clauses relating to Swale bridge. Then the Chairman replied—
  "The preamble of the Bill will be taken as a whole, and you had better consult your principals, and see us on another day."
  On the final occasion the Chairman said—
  "The Committee have had the benefit of the advice of the officers of the House, and they stand by their decision."
  MR. DE TATTON EGERTONsaid that that was revised.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHERsaid that that looked as if the Committee had consulted the officers of the House, who had confirmed their opinion. What was said, however, was, as was suggested by the hon. Member, that the Committee had consulted the officers of

  763
  the House, "but" they stand by their decision. Mr. Littler on that occasion said—
  "I understand the decision of the Committee to be that, not with standing that the unopposed portion of the Bill has been proved, you will find the preamble has not been proved.
  "THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, we take the preamble as a whole.
  "MR. LITTLER: Then the whole preamble is not proved.
  "THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, the whole preamble."
  He ventured to say that the Committee in that matter had fallen into an error. The proper course would have been to have said that the preamble, as far as it related to the Swale Bridge, was not proved. It seemed to him that it was impossible to say that the preamble relating to other matters was not proved, because it was proved, and clearly proved, and the Chairman of the Committee stopped counsel from proceeding with it because he said he was satisfied. He was concerned on behalf of omnibus Bills generally. It was perfectly obvious that if railway companies and corporations had to introduce every one of their proposals as a separate Bill the cost would be gigantic, the mass of documents which the House would have to struggle through would be piled mountains high, and the whole system, which had worked effectively and well, would be destroyed. He was sure the House would not desire to do that. As far as he had been able to search the records of the, House, there was no precedent for the action of the Committee. For these reasons he thought it was desirable that the House should accept the Instruction, and he thought the Committee, on consideration, would see that the proper course to take would be to report to the House as proved the portions of the Bill that really were proved, and to reject that portion of the Bill which in their opinion should not be passed. He wished to repeat that he expressed no opinion on the decision of the Committee with reference to the Swale bridge.
  MR. T.F.C.E. SHAWsaid he thought there were one or two points which the House should bear in mind in dealing with the question. Promoters
  764
  had many advantages with reference to omnibus Bills; but it was never intended that highly contentious matter should be included in them. In 1861 a Bill was brought in, called the Sittingbourne and Sheerness Increase of Capital Bill, and the promoters slipped into it a clause whereby the freedom of the public was very materially abrogated, and the railway company obtained a practical monopoly of the waterway. That continued until 1889, when the bridge was regarded as unsafe. Then the railway company, in defiance of its statutory obligations, closed the river traffic in its entirety. The traders of the district protested, but the railway company disregarded all the protests laid before them, until the Milton Creek Conservancy took action. When proceedings were threatened, the railway company came, to Parliament for powers to build a new bridge, and the question was decided by the House of Lords without hearing the traders of the district or the Milton Creek Conservators. When the Bill came before the House of Commons Committee, the railway company endeavoured to rule the Milton Creek Conservancy out of order, as they had succeeded in doing in the other House. But the Court of Referees decided that the Committee to which the Bill was referred should hear the Conservancy and the traders of the district. The Committee spent many anxious days in considering the matter. The Chairman and the Committee proposed a clause which was in the nature of a compromise as between the rights of the public and the desires of the railway company, and counsel for the company refused to accept it, and gave no reasons whatever for that course. The statement that the Committee had exceeded their rights was not in accordance with the facts; as counsel to Mr. Speaker was of opinion that the Committee were entirely within their rights in the action they had taken, although it was without precedent. He wished to know whether Committees of this House were always to be governed by precedent, or whether in times of commercial stress, when it was desirable that their waterways should be absolutely free, Committees were not to exercise some amount of judgment and common sense. The railway company did not in any way endeavour to meet the difficulty.

  765
  Counsel for the company practically said that they did not care for the public or for the Committee, that they would fall back in their rights and build a new bridge over the old bridge. He maintained that as the company had broken their statutory obligations, the Committee were right in penalising them—he used the word deliberately—to the extent of refusing their omnibus Bill. After that decision was given, it was suggested that a compromise might be effected by the Committee passing the rest of the Bill, the company on their part undertaking not to build a new bridge over the old bridge without coming to Parliament. He thought that would meet with a favourable reception from the Committee, but the company, believing that they were strong enough in this House, refused it. He trusted that the House would endorse the decision of the Committee.
  SIR SAMUEL HOAREsaid the debate was of an unprecedented character. He had searched the records of the House, arid he could not find any precedent for the action of the Committee in refusing to pass the preamble of a omnibus Bill. There had been cases where the preamble had not been proved, but they were totally different from the case now before the House. One case occurred in 1836, when the members of the Committee were themselves divided; but he understood that, in the present case, the decision of the Committee was unanimous, and he had no doubt that the House would give the greatest attention to it. The hon. Member opposite stated that it was never intended that contentious matter should be introduced into omnibus Bills, but in his experience he found that omnibus Bills very frequently dealt with most contentious matter. While the House should pay great attention to the decision of the Committee, they should be very careful. They should not in any way interfere with the conduct of private Bill business or with the freedom and independence of the Committees to whom were entrusted the responsibility of considering private Bills. His hon. friend the Chairman of the Committee showed that he and the Committee believed that there were certain matters in connection with the Bill which the House ought to know; and they believed that the best way of carrying that out was to adopt the course
  766
  they did. Therefore, the House ought to give the Committee every credit for taking an exceptional course, when they thought that course was the best means of bringing certain matters before the House. He was very anxious, whatever decision might he arrived at, that it should not be supposed that they did not fully realise the responsibility of the Chairman and of the Committee; for it would be a serious thing indeed if it were to be concluded that all the Clauses in an omnibus Bill which were not opposed should be passed without consideration by the Committee. The Committee was responsible for every Clause in the Bill, even though there was no petition against it. Even where no petition was presented there might be reports from Government offices, and also the financial arrangements for carrying out the scheme, to be considered. while he felt that the Committee were justified in the course they had taken, he was sorry that they had not taken the course suggested by the Chairman of Committees, and omitted the Clause about which there was a dispute, or, better still, put in the Clause they wanted counsel to accept and let the House decide. The system of omnibus Bills was of very great importance to the House, and it would be a serious thing if any decision of the House rendered it more difficult than it now was for public bodies to promote such Bills. Of course, circumstances might occur which would render it absolutely necessary for a Committee to refuse to pass the preamble of a Bill, and circumstances might also occur which would justify the action which had been taken in the present case. But it seemed to him that the Committee should have no objection to the Instruction, as it appeared to carry out the very views expressed by his hon. friend. The House by passing the Instruction would confirm the decision of the Committee that there was something unsatisfactory with reference to particular Clauses which required further consideration. The House would in effect say that they agreed with the decision of the Committee with reference to such Clauses, but that they asked them to reconsider the unopposed portions of the Bill. There was no necessity to have a division of opinion in such a matter, and if his hon. friend and the other members of the Committee were

  767
  satisfied with that view, he thought the instruction might be unanimously agreed to.
  MR. EDMUND ROBEETSONsaid he agreed that there was no need for a division of opinion on the matter. The first question was whether there was any need at all to fetter the discretion of the Committee, and, on general principles, it appeared to him that there was not. The second question was whether there was any utility in the Instruction at all, as it was the duty of the Committee when a Bill was recommitted to reconsider the whole of the preamble, and, therefore, it appeared to him that the Instruction would be of no value, although it would be a slight on the Committee to pass it. The right hon. Gentleman who moved the Instruction set a most excellent example by announcing his intention of not taking part in any division, a course which he trusted would be followed by other Members who were railway directors.
  MR. RENSHAWsaid that after the interesting speech of the hon. Member for Norwich he was in great hope that the Instruction would be accepted without a division. During the ten years he had been in the House he had invariably supported the decisions of Committees, and it was a matter of the greatest regret that hon. Members should be asked to divide on a question which was of the greatest importance as regarded their system of private Bill legislation. The details with reference to the Swale bridge had nothing to do with the question at issue, which was a question of procedure with regard to private Bill legislation. Omnibus Bills were of great importance, not only to hon. Members, b, t to railway companies and corporations; but if promoters were to be penalised, as the hon. Member opposite stated, because a Committee took an adverse view with regard to one particular part of the Bill, it would practically be the end of the system. He did not believe that an hon. Gentleman with the long and ripe experience of his hon. friend the Member for the Knutsford Division would desire such a change. He deprecated the discussion of the merits of the Swale bridge. What the House was asked to decide was whether they would or would not estab-
  768
  lish a new treatment for omnibus Bills. That was the issue, and he hoped that even at the last moment his hon. friend the Member for Knutsford would accept the Instruction.
  MR. MANSFIELDsaid there were certain facts admitted, and certain facts disputed in the case. The facts admitted were that in 1856 a certain bridge was erected across the Swale river on condition that it was to be open to all traffic. In 1861, in a Bill not ostensibly for the purpose, powers were obtained to shut the bridge against all vessels the masts of which could be lowe ed. The facts not admitted were that that new condition constituted a great hardship and that the lowering of the masts was a great danger to life and property. The railway company did not agree with this statement and witnessed the damage which was being inflicted without any compunction at all. The point that now had to be considered was whether the Committee were within their right in refusing to pass the preamble unless they passed it as a whole. The Committee, of which he was a member, were told by the law officers that they were within their right in doing so, although there was absolutely no precedent for the course they had adopted. But a precedent had to be made some time or another, and they considered that this was a case in which it ought to be made. After all, the Committee did only what the House did a year or two ago. A Bill was promoted by the London and North Western Railway Company, nine-tenths of which was undisputed matter; but it was refused by the House because they did not agree with the company with reference to the re-housing of the dishoused people. On that occasion they heard very little about the sacred rights of omnibus Bills; and, therefore, all the arguments they had heard tonight fell to the ground. It might be asked why the Committee had refused that part of the Bill which was unopposed. It was because they saw on the part of the company a disposition to wriggle. The Committee suggested a compromise, but it was rejected scornfully and even menacingly; and it was

  769
  suggested that they would get over the difficulty by building a bridge on the present site. When, therefore, the Committee saw a disposition on the part of the company to circumvent their wishes, they decided to let the preamble stand or fall as a whole. The hon. Member for Norwich suggested that the members of the Committee should have really no fault to find with the Instruction; but he, as a member of the Committee, had great fault to find with it. If the House put aside the decision arrived at by a Committee, Committees would be much less in favour with hon. Members than they were at present. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dartford said that he had carefully abstained from speaking to Members on the subject, and he regretted that the railway company for whom the right hon. Gentleman spoke had not adopted the same course. There had been very systematic and thorough lobbying on the question. He himself had been asked to vote for the Motion. [An HON. MEMBER: By whom?] He did not take the trouble to inquire, but simply replied, as a member of the Committee he was the wrong man to approach. He hoped the House would stand by the Committee and not pass a Motion which would be practically a vote of censure on it.
  sir JOHN KENNAWAYsaid he desired to entirely repudiate the suggestion just made by the hon. Member that there was any idea of censuring the Committee. He fully believed that the Committee went into the matter with an earnest desire to do what was right both to the railway company and to the traders in the locality; and he was very glad that there had been no attempt to discuss the details of the question. The House entrusted large powers to its Committees, it reposed great confidence in them, and it was very unwilling to disturb their decisions. At the same time it was right that there should be an appeal to the House when new precedents were created, and there was a possibility of injustice being done. The present was a case in which not only would extreme injustice be done to a railway serving important interests, but great in-
  770
  convenience inflicted on the public. The Committee were apparently of opinion that some twenty years ago the company secured advantages which it was not to the public interest they should retain, and that the present was an opportunity of obliging them to disgorge their plunder. But the question was whether the company had broken their statutory obligations, and, as far as he could gather, they had not. He thought it was a matter for a fair compromise, and he hoped the Chairman of the Committee would see his way to accept the Instruction. The Committee would then be able to reconsider the question, to pass the preamble so far as the uncontentious matters were concerned, and, if they thought fit, insert a clause dealing with the Swale Bridge. The House would then be able to reject that Clause if they considered it not in the public interest.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHreminded the right hon. Baronet that the Committee were willing to pass the preamble of the Bill if a Clause such as he had suggested were inserted, but the company refused to accept the compromise. This matter realised a very important principle. In his view, when a railway company came to the House for extended facilities and privileges, it was not only the right but the duty of the Committee to inquire into all the circumstances of the case. As far back as 1856 and 1861 this company was bound to provide free navigation along this arm of the sea. It existed until 1899 when the bridge was closed. In 1900, proceedings were taken against the company, and the company promised to apply to Parliament for power to build a better bridge. In 1901, when they pretended to fulfil that promise, they asked for a fixed bridge, which was of no use whatever. Proceedings were at present pending against the company, and it was a somewhat high handed proceeding on their part to ask the House of Commons practically to defeat the Conservators in their action. The Committee was simply asking the company to carry out a statutory obligation fifty years old, and he hoped they would be supported by the House.
  MAJOR RASCHsaid he should vote against the Bill with much regret but great alacrity. In his opinion, the South-Eastern and

  771
  Chatham Railway Company was the worst managed line running out of London. The company had not carried out the promise made for them by their sponsors four years ago, when the amalgamation was permitted. The line also was the worst offender in the kingdom in the matter of differential and preferential rates for agricultural produce. Parliament did not give these great corporations a monopoly of the carrying trade in order that they might penalise the home producer and bolster up the foreigner. For these reasons he should vote against the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, and, as the agricultural interest was very seldom able to show its hand in the House, he hoped every agricultural Member would do his duty by going into the same Lobby.
  MR. PARKER SMITHsaid his only interest in this matter was that of having been chairman of the Referees who decided against the company on a preliminary point. They decided that the barge-owners and the Conservators were entitled to be heard with regard to the construction of the bridge, and he was quite prepared to believe that the Committee were right in acceding to the views which were urged. But that was not the point now before the House. The issue was as to whether or not the system of omnibus Bills was to be continued. It had been argued that if the Committee differed from the promoters, and sought to impose a condition which the promoters were unwilling to accept, the Committee were entitled to use the threat that unless the condition were accepted they would throw out, not merely the part of the scheme to which the condition related, but the whole of the Bill. That he contended was not the function of the Committee. The Committee was a judicial body, and was bound to go into the various points and give a judicial decision upon them. The House was in an entirely different position, and was fully entitled to look into all the circumstances of the case, and if it thought the company were not fit to be entrusted with further privileges, to reject the scheme. But the only excuse which would justify a Committee in taking that course would be some gross breach of faith on the
  772
  part of the promoters, and there was no such suggestion in the present case. If the decision of the Committee were upheld, a railway company would be bound to break up its omnibus Bills into a dozen pieces, and submit each one separately. The present system was most convenient not only to the promoters, but also to the House, and should be maintained. He believed the additional power claimed by the Committee, and for which no precedent whatever could be found, would lead to mischievous and far-reaching consequences, and therefore he hoped the Instruction would be accepted.
  MR. BRYNROBERTSchallenged the distinction drawn by the hon. Member between the powers and duties of the House and of the Committee in this matter. The duties and powers of both, whether they were called judicial or not, were identical. The question refereed to the Committee was the expediency of granting further powers to a company, and to that every consideration was germane, and the discretion of the Committee was as unfettered as that of the House. The issue before the House was not that of whether the system of omnibus Bills should be continued. That question would have been affected if no alternative had been offered by the Committee to the promoters. But the Committee offered to pass the whole scheme subject to one alternative, and the company preferred the rejection. It was generally admitted that the proposal of the Committee was a desirable one, and the only question before the House was as to the method by which it could be made a part of the law. Although the Committee had power to enforce this they had not done so because nobody had done the same thing before. The illustration given of the London and North Western Railway Company was identically on all fours with this. It involved outlays in Wales and in different parts of England, but the Committee were dissatisfied with the proposal for the housing of the working classes in the London scheme alone, and the company were willing to withdraw the whole London scheme just as this company was prepared to withdraw the scheme to which he had

  773
  alluded. The precedent had been created by this House, and although he voted against that precedent before he should adopt it now. He accepted then the decision that this House and its Committees had a right to take the scheme as a whole and enforce legitimate and
  proper reforms upon a recalcitrant railway company.
  (10.45.) Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 169; Noes, 93. (Division List No. 263.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E)

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  O'Malley, William

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex.F.

  Gore, Hon. S.F Ormsby-(Line.

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Palmer, George Wm.(Reading

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'ry

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Arrol, Sir William

  Gretton, John

  Peel, Hn. Wm Robert Wellesley

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Hain, Edward

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Penn, John

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Hamilton, Rt Hn. Lond G (Mid'x

  Perks, Robert William

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Hamilton, Marqof (L'nd'nderry

  Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Beach, Rt Hn. Sir MichaelHicks

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Bignold, Arthur

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Purvis, Robert

  Bigwood, James

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. CharlesSeale-

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Bill, Charles

  Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Bond, Edward

  Helder, Augustus

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Ridley, Hn.M.W.(Stalybridge)

  Brassey, Albert

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Carlile, William Walter

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Cavendish. V. C. W.(Derbysh.

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Horner, Frederick William

  Runciman, Walter

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hoult, Joseph

  Rutherford, John

  Chamberlain, J. Aust.(Worc'r)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Cochrane, Hn. Thos, H. A. E.

  Johnston, William. (Belfast)

  Simean, Sir Barrington

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Johnstone, Hevwood (Sussex)

  Smith, JamesParker(Lanarks)

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Keswick, William

  Spear, John Ward

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Stock, James Henry

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Valentia, Viscount

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Lowther, RtHn J W (Cum. Penr.

  Walrond, Rt. Hn Sir William H.

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro(Leith)

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowesteft

  Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. SirJ.(Man.

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Whiteley, H.(Ashtonund. Lyuo

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Macartney, Rt Hn W.G. Ellison

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Finch, George H.

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edmburgh W

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Fison, Frederick William

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingsh.

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E.R.(Bath)

  Fitzroy, Hon Edward Algernon

  More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C.B. Stuart-

  Flannery, Sir Forteseue

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Fletcher, Kt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Flower, Ernest

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Forster, Henry William

  Morton, ArthurH.A.(Deptf'rd)

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Mount, William Arthur

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Gardner, Ernest

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute

  Dr. Farquharson and Mr.

  Gladstone, Rt Hn Herbert John

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Renshaw.

  Gordon, Hn.J.E(Elgin & Nairn

  Nicol. Donald Ninian

  NOES.

  Allan, Sir William(Gateshead)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Mara, James

  Allan, Chas. P.(Glouc., Stroud

  Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Chas, H.

  O'Shee, James John

  Allhasen, Augustus Hry. Eden

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Howard, John(KentFaversham

  Percy, Earl

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Jones, William(Carnarv'nshire

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Black, Alexander William

  Joyce, Michael

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Boland, John

  Kearley, Hudson K.

  Reddy, M.

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Labouchere, Henry

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Langley, Batty

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Burns, John

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Caldwell, James

  Leamy, Edmund

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Lloyd-George, David

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Lough, Thomas

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Lundon, W.

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Spencer, RtHnC.R.(Northants

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Cremer, William Randal

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Sullivan, Donal

  Davies, M. Vanghan-(Cardigan

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

  Delany, William

  M'Govern, T.

  Thomas, J A (Glamorg'n, Gower

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  M'Kean, John

  Thomson, F. W. (York, W.R.)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Wallace, Robert

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Mooney, John J.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Doogan, P. C.

  Morley, Rt. Hn. John(Montrose

  Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Weir, James Galloway

  Dunn, Sir William

  Murphy, John

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

  Edwards, Frank

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Wilson, J.W. (Worcestersh. N.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Wood, James

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipp'rary Mid

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Mr. Charles Shaw and

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  O'Connor. James(Wicklow, W.

  Mr. Mansfield.

  *MR. SPEAKER: Now that this; Instruction has been passed, the other Motions standing in the name of the hon. Member for Woodbridge will not be in order.
  Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the re committed Bill to reconsider their decision upon the Preamble of the Bill as reported by them to the House, except in so far as the same relates to Railway No. 1.

SUPPLY.

  15TH ALLOTTED DAY
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee).
  Mr. JEFFREYS(Hampshire, Basingstoke) in the Chair.

  15TH ALLOTTED DAY
    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT ESTIMATES, 1902–3.

      CLASS II
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £127,465
      776
      be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903, for the salaries day expenses of the Office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade and Subordinate Departments, including a Grant in Aid."
      MR. HAINcalled attention to the necessity for further harbour accommodation on the coast of North Cornwall and Devonshire, and more especially to the necessity for the construction of a harbour of refuge on that coast for the protection of the mercantile marine. The subject he had ventured to raise was not, by any means, new to the House. Royal Commissions had been appointed, and had token evidence and examined witnesses as to the necessity for the construction of this national harbour. Although a deplorable loss of life had

      777
      taken place in years past, it was deplorable that after nearly a century of agitation, they were compelled once more to urge upon the Government the necessity for taking action upon this most important question. He had lived during the whole of his life on the north coast of Cornwall, and ho had always taken the deepest interest in this matter. He had also been able to assist the efforts of the local authorities, who had been compelled to make various improvements in the fishery harbours on the north coast of Cornwall. It was impossible to discuss the larger question of a national harbour, without having reference to the attempts which the local authorities had made with t their limited resources and scant encouragement from the Government, for the improvement of their coasting harbours. The history of this question went back for a. great many years, but the mere recital of the facts formed the strongest possible indictment which could be brought against successive Governments for their negligence in this matter. The earliest record which they possessed was the Report of the great engineer, Smeaton, upon St. Ives Bay, in 1776, in which he said the completing of this harbour was necessary for the safety of the ships. The most valuable document upon this question which they possessed was, undoubtedly the Report of Captain James Vetch, of the Royal Navy, which was presented to the Admiralty in 1847, in which he said there was a great want and necessity for a harbour of refuge for the Mercantile Navy on the north shore of the western extremity of Cornwall, and he gave the fullest details as to the cost of constructing such a harbour, together with information as to the number of vessels wrecked off that coast during the years between 1823 and 1846. The
      778
      number of shipwrecks during that period, exclusive of fishing boats, was 131, many of them with valuable cargoes on board, and the estimated loss of life from those wrecks alone was placed at 200 men. It might be said that the conditions had entirely changed, and that small sailing vessels had given place to large steamships, and that, therefore, the necessity for such a harbour was not so great. His contention was that the necessity for such a harbour had increased tenfold. The mercantile marine of this country had increased and developed in a manner which was never contemplated in 1847. The shipping of Cornwall and Devonshire, which had greatly increased in recent years, was scarcely second to any part of the United Kingdom, owing to the great development of the Bristol Channel ports, notably Cardiff, with its enormous exports and imports and the ever increasing number of steamships which had no existence fifty years ago. This development of the Bristol Channel parts still continued. From the figures recently published he found that no less than £6,000,000 sterling was being spent or proposed to be spent upon dock construction at the Bristol Channel ports. The proposed expenditure of the five Bristol Channel ports was as follows:—Bristol (proposed extensions), £1.800,000; Cardiff (under construction), £1,500,000; Swansea (proposed extensions), £1,750.000; Newport (proposed extensions), £750,000, and Llanelly (under construction), £200,000. This vast expenditure was being made by the people of those districts because they believed in a greatly increased shipping trade in the future. Nearly the whole of that vast shipping trade must of necessity pass along the coasts of Cornwall and Devonshire, where

      779
      there was not a single harbour to which in a storm vessels could run for safety in distress. The loss of a small sailing vessel might in 1847 have meant the loss of four or six men, whereas the loss of a large modern steamer might mean the loss of from twenty to fifty lives. In support of this contention he would instance what occurred during the great north-east gale of November, 1893, when four steamers were wrecked in St. Ives Bay, with the loss of nine men. During the next few days evidence accumulated, from bodies washed ashore and from wreckage which came to land, that two other large steamers had foundered at a short distance from the shore, with a loss of fifty lives, the whole of whom might have been saved had there been a harbour on the Cornwall coast to which the vessels could have run for shelter. In 1856–57 a Select Committee of this House took evidence, and in its Report it repeated the recommendations which were made ten years before. The concluding words of the Report of this Select Committee were worth repeating at the present time. They were—
      "Your Committee feels that it may be laid down as an indisputable axiom, sustained by experience, especially of late years, that, while the extent of our coasts and the natural facilities they afford for navigation are limited, the trade of the country, and consequently its shipping, are capable of, and destined to, an indefinite expansion, and that the only way, therefore, by which the former can be rendered commensurate for the requirements of the latter is by supplementing the natural facilities which we possess by the construction of great national works upon our coast such as your Committee has ventured to recommend. The sum required for them, though considerable of itself, is, your Committee would submit, trifling when compared with the great objects which are to be attained by it; and if the recommendations of your Committee are adopted, even that amount may be prevented, at least in part,
      780
      from being any permanent charge upon the finances of the State. But even were it otherwise, your Committee will venture to express an opinion that, considering what constitutes the chief source of the commercial greatness and the political security of this country, and considering the enormous loss, both of life and property, to which the nation is at present exposed from the dangerous and unprotected state of our coasts, and the consequent defective character of our navigation, there is no object for which public money could be more usefully or more profitably employed, having regard to the present and future welfare of the nation."
      These forcible words were as true today as they were in 1857. But again nothing was done on that Report. In 1859 a Royal Commission held an inquiry, with the result that previous recommendations were confirmed, and strong hopes were raised when the Commission advised the expenditure of £400,000 on a harbour at St. Ives Bay, and a smaller expenditure at Padstow. But these hopes were disappointed. Local efforts were made at St. Ives in 1862, but the works were destroyed by gales, and the deplorable state of affairs was shown in a Report from Sir G. Nares in 1881. In 1883 the present Lord Tweedmouth again moved for a Committee on harbour accommodation, and the necessity for a harbour of refuge on the North Cornwall coast was admitted. But again nothing was done. All these Committees and Commissions seemed to him to be no more than continued methods of shelving the whole business. While the Government refused to take any action, the present Secretary for the Colonies, then President of the Board of Trade, offered loans at moderate interest to localities, and the St. Ives authorities were encouraged to apply. But they were met by a demand for payment, with interest, of the long-standing

      781
      debt caused by the collapse of works in previous years. By the generosity of Mr. Bolitho, the money was forthcoming and every penny of the old debt was paid to the Public Works Loans Board, together with the interest thereon. He wondered whether the Secretary for the Colonies was aware of the way in which the promise lie made on behalf of the Government in 1883 had been kept, and whether he knew that the public spirit and the generosity of private individuals had accomplished what the Government ought to have done. He did not advocate the construction of this national harbour of refuge at any particular spot. There was a long stretch of rock-bound coast from the end of Cornwall to Hartland Point. Hundreds of sailors and fishermen were being drowned for want of harbour accommodation that Parliament ought to provide. He asked for something more than a sympathetic reply. He hoped the President of the Board of Trade would give some assurance that this most important national question would shortly receive the earnest attention of the Government.
      MR. SOARESsupported the demand of the hon. Member for St. Ives. There was no necessity for further inquiry as to the desirability of such a harbour; that had been definitely settled by the Report of the Committee of 1884. That Report contained the following—
      "Your Committee will not attempt to determine between the relative advantages of these several sites (i.e., the sites between Land's End and the Welsh coast, including the whole of the Bristol Channel), but the general tenour of the evidence is of a character to show that at one of these places a harbour should be constructed without further delay."
      782
      The paint for consideration now was, where the harbour ought to be constructed. Anybody who knew anything at all of the West Country knew the enormous amount of interest that was taken in this question, both in Devonshire and Cornwall. He had personally presented four petitions this session asking that a harbour of refuge should be constructed. These petitions were from—Appledore, Bideford, Braunton, Clovelly, and Bucks, and were signed by the ship-owners and mariners of those districts. He could assure the President of the Board of Trade that any number more petitions could have been presented had it been desirable to do so. His personal acquaintance with the coast of North Devon enabled him to state that, though wildly beautiful, it was one of the most cruel and deadly to mariners in England. The prevailing winds in the Bristol Channel were south - westerly, veering to northerly, and they blew vessels dead on those dangerous rocks. Consequently, if there was a harbour of refuge, they could always make it, with the benefit of fair wind. He had a list here of vessels which had foundered in the neighbourhood of Bideford Bay during the last ten years, but he would not weary the House by reading it. He would say that almost every year there were disasters involving loss of life and loss of property. In the last three years no less than four wrecks between Down End and Hart-land had occurred, two involving loss of life under most distressing circumstances. He maintained that these lives need not have been lost, and the property need not have been destroyed, if a harbour of refuge had been available. This was not a question of Party politics. Liberal Governments and Tory

      783
      Governments were equally to blame for not having dealt with the question—a question which Effected everybody, not only those who followed the sea-faring profession, but everyone who used the productions of nature which were carried by sea was interested in it. He asked the Committee to remember that the proposed harbour of refuge would be not only available for seamen resident in the West Country, but for mariners from all parts of the United Kingdom; in fact, it would be open to the commerce of the world. It was, therefore, a national question of first-class importance. In the first place, he would appeal to the President of the Board of Trade on humanitarian lines—on the broad fact of the importance of human life. When it could be saved by the expenditure of money, it ought to be spent. He knew he was not speaking to unsympathetic ears. Last year he called attention to the fact that the coastguard service was insufficient, and the right hon. Gentleman met him generously. But the object then was to save life after a wreck, while now it was to prevent wrecks. Prevention was better than cure, and if there was a harbour of refuge, an enormous number of disasters would be prevented. Furthermore, it was the duty of the President of the Board of Trade to encourage trade and enable it to be carried on economically and expeditiously. There was no doubt that the present position of insecurity in the Bristol Channel paralyse trade to a certain extent. If a harbour of refuge were constructed, great benefit to the coal and iron trade would result, fishing and coasting industries would increase, because vessels would not be compelled to put back to port whenever
      784
      dirty weather was probable. On the grounds of national economy this work should be undertaken. Every year ships were wrecked and sailors were drowned. Mr. Leyland, giving evidence before the Steamship Subsidies Committee, said that a sailor in the prime of life and in full possession of his faculties was worth £1,000 to the State. But for the purposes of argument, put the figure at £600, and suppose that a storm like that of October, 1886, took place, and that fifty seagoing vessels and 300 lives were lost. If 200 of these men were able-bodied seamen that would mean a loss of £200,000, and for vessels, £300,000, making together, £500,000, lost in one storm. If they got a harbour of refuge none of this destructive waste of the country's wealth would occur, and from the point of view of national economy, the case was a strong one. Many of the sailors who lost their lives, belonged to the Naval Reserve, and that body was not as strong as it ought to be at the present time. It was absurd to say localities should bear the cost. A locality suitable might have little or no connection with seafaring interests. They were often agricultural. However altruistically disposed, the asking of them to bear the cost would be to place the burden on the wrong shoulders. He thought Clovelly Roads the most suitable place for the harbour. It had deep water, and blue clay for anchorage. He was willing to leave to the experts of the Board of Trade the selection of the best site. But he did ask for something to be done to prevent the appalling loss of life of which he had spoken, and the wasting of the national resources.
      MR. SPEARsaid that, having lived the greater part of Ins life on that part of the coast, he would urge on the President of the Board of Trade to provide a harbour of refuge there. Very frequently there were serious wrecks on that coast, which resulted in great loss of life and property, all which might have been saved had there been a harbour of refuge. That opinion had been expressed many times by experts: and he hoped the matter would soon receive consideration at the hands of the Government.
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,)said he had endeavoured to obtain some clear idea of what it exactly was that his hon. friend wanted. His hon. friend had quoted the Report of the Committee of 1847, and of the still later Committee of 1884, as having been in favour of what ho called a national harbour, somewhere between Land's End and Wales. No doubt, the Committee did report in favour of the establishment of a national harbour somewhere between St. Ives and Swansea. But anyone relying on that Report ought to bear in mind the distinction drawn between a harbour of refuge and a national harbour. The Committee said that it was not expedient to make grants of public money for harbour construction generally, but they made two exceptions. First, they said that great national harbours ought to be constructed and maintained at the public expense; and they also said that harbours of refuge ought to receive limited assistance from public funds. The north coast of Cornwall was mentioned by them as a place where a harbour of refuse might be constructed,
      786
      of what kind should it be? Was it to be a large harbour like that at Holyhead, which could receive ships of the largest tonnage, or was it to be only a harbour to which fishing smacks could run for shelter? His expert advisers did not think it would be expedient to establish upon this coast a large harbour of refuge, because it would become a source of danger, inasmuch as it would encourage vessels to approach a lee-shore when they ought to keep in the offing. He was informed that ships running for shelter found it sufficiently in that neighbourhood.
      MR. SPEAR: Only in certain winds.
      MR. GERALD BALFOVRsaid that, putting aside for a moment the question of a large harbour of refuge, for which, as far as he was able to judge, a case had not been made out, was it desirable to establish small harbours of refuge for trawlers on this stormy coast? He was informed that at least two such harbours would be required if any were constructed. Since 1889 a definite policy with respect to these small harbours was laid down by the Treasury. They formulated certain. conditions under which they were prepared to advance a portion of the funds for the construction of such harbour. The first was that the local authorities should be in a position to undertake the I permanent maintenance of the harbour for which the grant in aid was asked; secondly, at least two-thirds of the cost of construction of the works should be provided from local or outside sources; and thirdly, the grant should be limited to the ease of harbours serving, or likely to serve, a large fishing district. That being the case, he had proposed to the

      787
      hon. Member for Camborne that he should move the local people to make application for assistance in the construction of one or two such harbours, but no such application had been made. He would ask his hon. friend to arrange with the people of the locality to make up their minds what were the spots most suitable for the construction of harbours of refuge, am also how much they would be prepared to contribute to the expense. Let them then make an application to the Board o Trade, and he would undertake on behalf of the Government that such an application would be considered.
      MR. WEIRsaid that a Committee was appointed to consider the question of harbours of refuge in the north-west of Scotland, and the people had been led to believe that works of this kind would be constructed, but nothing had been done, although many applications had been made to the Board of Trade for assistance. He was glad to hear that if renewed applications were made by the local authorities they would be considered by the Department. The Walpole Commission of 1891 reported in favour of the construction of a harbour of refuge at Portnaguran, in the Island of Lewis, but no assistance had been obtainable. What was the good of Royal or other Commissions if the Government did not act upon their Reports? He would urge the right hon. Gentleman to take some action. One stormy night in February, 1899, one half of the fishing fleet in Avoch harbour, Rosa shire, was destroyed owing to the harbour being out of repair. The poor fishermen had no funds for the building or maintenance of harbours. In many
      788
      of the fishing villages the population was diminishing because of the want of harbours, and if that was allowed to go on, where would the Admiralty get their Naval Reserves in the future? In the Ness district Butt of Lewis there were more widows and orphans in proportion to the population than in any other part of the United Kingdom, and this was mainly attributable to the want of suitable harbour accommodation.
      It being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
      The Committee report progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

BRITISH MUSEUM BILL [LORDS].
Considered in Committee, and reported without Amendment; read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.

FORESHORES (SALES, &c).
Copy ordered, "of statement of the particulars 'of all cases in which the rights and interests of the Crown, in the shores and bed of the sea and tidal rivers have been sold, leased, or otherwise dealt with by the Board of Trade under the Crown Lands Act, 1866, from the 1st day of January, 1897, to the 31st day of December, 1901 (in continuation of parliamentary Paper, No. 285, of Session 1897)."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour).
Adjourned at five minutes after Twelve o'clock.