Commons Sitting of 29 July 1902

UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  CAVEHILL AND WHITEWELL TRAM WAYS BILL,
  LONDON, TILBURY, AND SOUTHEND RAILWAY BILL,
  WHITECHAPEL AND BOW RAILWAY BILL.
  Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

  BARROW HAEMATITE STEEL COM PANY, LIMITED, BILL [LORDS],
  DOVER HARBOUR BILL [LORDS],
  GREAT NORTHERN AND STRAND RAILWAY BILL [LORDS].
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

  HASTINGS HARBOUR DISTRICT RAIL WAY (EXTENSION OF TIME) BILL [LORDS].
  [Not amended], considered; to be read the third time.

  MARGATE CORPORATION WATER BILL [LORDS],
  NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL [LORDS],
  SWANSEA CORPORATION BILL [LORDS].
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

  PRIVATE BILLS
  Ordered, That Standing Orders 220 and 246, relating to Private Bills, be suspended for the remainder of the session.
  That as regards Private Bills already returned by the House of Lords with Amendments such Amendments (if unopposed) be now considered.
  That as regards Private Bills to be returned by the House of Lords with Amendments such Amendments (if unopposed) be considered forthwith.
  That as regards Private Bills returned, or to be returned, by the House of Lords with Amendments such Amendments (if opposed) shall be considered at such times as the Chairman of Ways and Means may determine.
  That when it is intended to propose any Amendments thereto, a copy of such Amendments shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office, and notice given on the day on which the Bill shall have been returned from the Lords.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

  CLAY CROSS RAILWAY BILL.
  Lords Amendments, pursuant to Order of the House [this day], considered, and agreed to.
  EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL [LORDS].
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time tomorrow.

  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL [LORDS].
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed].
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered tomorrow.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to, Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill, Garston and District Tramways and Electric Supply (Transfer) Bill, Hull, Barnsley, and West Riding Junction Railway and Dock (South Yorkshire) (Extension Lines) Bill, London County Council (Subways and Tramways) Bill, London County Council (Tramways and Improvements); Bill, with Amendments.
  Amendments to, Felixstowe and Walton Improvement Bill [Lords], Weardale and Shildon District Water Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against: From Leicester: Loughborough; Dundee; Clapham; and Hastings; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions for alteration: From Edgmond and Elton; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petition from Eccles, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ARMY (RULES OF PROCEDURE).
  Copy presented of Amendments to the Rules of Procedure (Army) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY (MILITIA).
  Copy presented of Further Regulations relating to the Militia [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented of Further Regulations relating to the Army Reserve [by Act];. to lie upon the Table.
  LAND REGISTRY.
  Return presented relative thereto [ordered 22nd April; Mr. H. D. Greene]; to lie upon the Table and to be printed. [No. 304.]
  LAND REGISTRY.
  Account presented of Receipts and Payments in respect of the Land Registry for the year ended 31st March, 1902 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 305.]

  HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE AND COURT OF APPEAL, ETC.
  Copy presented of Account showing the Receipts and Expenditure in respect of the High Court of Justice and the

  9
  Court of Appeal during the year ended 31st March, 1902 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 306.]

  CRIMINAL AND JUDICIAL STATISTICS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented of Criminal and Judicial Statistics of Ireland for the year 1901. Part I. Criminal Statistics [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRAMWAYS (STREET AND ROAD).
  Return presented relative thereto [ordered 4th July; Mr. Gerald Balfour]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 307.]
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy presented of Minute of the Board of Education, dated 21st July, 1902, modifying Articles 130 (9) and (10) of the Day Schools Code 1902 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2863 to 2867 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House.

  CHAMBER OF LONDON.
  Annual Accounts of the Chamberlain of London for the year 1901 [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 308.]
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Glasgow Tramways—Safety Appliances.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, seeing that the Glasgow Electric Tramway cars have not yet been fitted with governors or speed indicators, will he take steps under The Glasgow Tramways Act, 1899, to require their provision.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The requirements as to the provision of governors and speed indicators on the Glasgow Corporation Tramways are those contained in the statutory regulations made from time to time by the Board of Trade. Under the regulations at present
  10
  applicable, speed indicators must be fitted on all cars after the 3rd October next, unless the Board should see fit to prolong the time, governors must be fitted if the Board so require, but as at present advised the Board are not convinced that it is in the interest of public safety to make such requirement.

  General Lighthouse Fund Accounts.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the accounts of the General Lighthouse Fund for the year ending 31st March, 1902, will be presented before the House rises on 8th August; and, if not, can he explain the cause of the delay.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The account of the General Lighthouse Fund for the year ending 31st March, 1902, will not be ready for presentation before the House rises on 8th August. This account must before presentation be examined and audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General, and it is presented at the first convenient opportunity after the receipt of his certificate, which he gives at about the same date as he certifies to the appropriation accounts.

  Cape Guardafui Lights.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the question of the establishment of a lighthouse on Cape Guardafui is still under consideration; and, if so, will he state when he expects to arrive at a decision on the subject.
  (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) There is a considerable difference of opinion amongst those interested as to the value of the proposed lighthouse, and as to the proposed light due. It has not yet been found possible to arrive at a decision.

  Madras Ryotwari System.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India, seeing that 22,500,000 acres of land in the Madras Presidency are held by ryotwari, peasant proprietors from whom the Government make an annual demand of about £3,000,000 for land revenue, will he state the number of these proprietors, how many were dispossessed of their land during the year ending the 30th June, 1901 for non-payment of land revenue, the

  11
  amount of the arrears of the persons thus evicted, the acreage of the land acquired by the Government as the result of these evictions, how much of this land was sold, the amount realised by the sales, and the acreage of the land left in the hands of the Government, and, in view of the effect of the present system of land revenue in Madras on the ryotwari, will the Government of India consider the expediency of devising some system of land revenue for the Madras Presidency better adapted to the small agriculturist.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.)(1) Total number of ryotwari holders, 3,209,000; (2) Number of defaulters whose lands were sold for non-payment of land revenue, 14,760; (3) Amount of arrears of land revenues, 2,19,547 Rs; (4) Acreage of land bought in by Government, 26,275 acres; (5) Acreage of land resold, (6) Amount realised by re-sales, (7) Acreage left with Government, information not available. There is no intention of changing the land revenue system of the Madras Presidency, which is believed to be well adapted to the small agriculturists.

  Scottish County and Burgh Council Assessors.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, in view of the fact that county and burgh councils in Scotland are empowered to appoint and employ a surveyor of Inland Revenue as assessor for no longer term than five years, will he consider the expediency of introducing legislation to admit of the establishment of a staff of assessors, under the direction of the Board of Inland Revenue, to secure a continuity in the system of assessment in Scotland.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I do not think that it would be desirable to introduce such legislation as is here suggested. I should add that the law fixes no limit to the period for which a surveyor of taxes may hold the appointment of assessor. Under the regulations of the Board of Inland revenue, five years is the minimum, not the maximum, period for which a surveyor appointed to a Scottish valuation district is expected to remain there.

  Coronation Day—Postal Arrangements.
  MR. SCHWANN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he will make Coronation Day (9th August) as Sunday in postal sub-offices.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The answer to the hon. Member's Question is in the negative.

  Sub-Postmasters' Salaries.
  MR. SGHWANN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he will state what proportion of sub-postmasters are in receipt of a, fixed salary; in receipt of £20 or loss; in receipt of £50 or leas (but more than £20); and why, at the triennial revision of sub postmasters salaries, when a general advance is due, the advances are in some cases held over for a further period.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The salaries of all sub-postmasters are fixed under an authorised scale in accordance with the amount of business transacted at their offices, and an increase of salary when due is not held over except in the case of unsatisfactory conduct. The further particulars asked for by the hon. Member could not be furnished without much labour, which the Post-master General thinks it hardly necessary to undertake, there being more than 20,000 sub-offices in the United Kingdom.

  London Central Telegraph Office Staff.
  MR. SCHWANN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been directed to a circular issued by the authorities at the Central Telegraph Office, London, to the London post offices, stating that the telegraph clerks dealing with the public telegraph works for London, and stationed in the chief office, are inexperienced and inefficient, and, seeing that some years must elapse before the local telegraph work of London will be in competent hands, whether, in view of the assurances of postal officials that telegraphy could be learned in three months, he will state the reasons for the publication of the recent circular and the inefficiency complained of.

  13
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The circular to which the hon. Member is believed to refer was issued under instructions from, the Controller of the London Postal Service on representations made to him by the Deputy Controller of the Central Telegraph Office in regard to difficulties which had occurred in the working of some of the Metropolitan circuits. In a large office like the Central Telegraph Office there must necessarily be a considerable number of recruits, and the object of the circular was to ensure that in any case in which the telegraphist at the out office was a more expert and experienced officer he should adapt his rate of working to the capacity of the receiving telegraphist at the Central Office.

  Publication of Agricultural Prices.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will state what progress has been made with the scheme which he recently had under consideration relative to the publication of prices of all leading agricultural products in Great Britain.
  (Answered by Mr. Hanbury.)I hope shortly to make proposals on the subject.

  H.M.S. "Russell."
  MR. FENWICK: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can state when H.M.S. "Russell" will be ready for her trials again; and whether he has any official report showing that her crankshaft bearings have too little surface for the power required to give the designed speed.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.)The steam trials of H.M.S. "Russell" have been completed, and the vessel will be ready to carry out her gun trials in September. No official report showing that her crankshaft bearings have too little surface for the power required to give the designed speed has been received.

  H.M.S. "Caledonia"—Desertions.
  MR. URE: To ask the Lord Advocate if he can state the number 01 lads who have, during the past year, deserted from His Majesty's training ship "Caledonia," stationed at
  14
  South Queensferry; and what sum of money has been paid to the police for bringing back deserters.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.)The number of boys who deserted from H.M.S. "Caledonia," during the financial year ended 31st March last was forty-two. The total amount paid in connection with the recovery of deserters was £61 18s. 1d.

  Mydrim (Carmarthenshire) Elementary Schools.
  MR. LLOYD MORGAN: To ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that the elementary school at Mydrim, in the County of Carmarthen, has been closed since the 30th of May last; and whether he will state what steps are being taken by the Board of Education to provide for the educational requirements of the children in the parish, and when and under what conditions the school will be reopened.
  (Answered by Sir John Gorst.)The school at Mydrim is still open, and will, it is understood, be kept open. Some of the Mydrim children attend the Banky-felin Board School under the School Board of Llanfihangel Abercowin, to which Mydrim has been made a contributory district. Under these circumstances the Board of Education do not consider it necessary to set up a School Board in Mydrim while the Education Bill is pending in Parliament.

  Factory and Workshops Orders—Wrought Nail Trade.
  MR. BROOKE ROBINSON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider the propriety of extending to the wrought nail trade the Order he has made extending Section 116 of The Factory and Workshop Act, 1901 to the small chain trade, seeing that the two industries are carried on in the same district in similar shops and conditions, and are kindred industries.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Ritchie.)I have already considered this question. Before issuing the Order with regard to

  15
  the chain trade I called for a Report on the question of extending it to the wrought iron nail trade. Very careful inquiry was made by the local inspector, I and on his Report, made after consulting | representative masters and workpeople, it appeared that there was no demand for the order in the wrought iron nail trade, and that no abuses now existed in that trade which an order could remedy.

  Financial Relations (England and Ireland) —Local and Imperial Expenditure Returns-
  MR. FIELD: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will advise the appointment of a Committee or Commission to investigate the methods under which the Treasury Returns of Local and Imperial Expenditure are classified, in order to enable the correct proportion of British and Irish taxation to be arrived at more easily than under the present system.
  (Answered ly Sir M. Hicks Beach.) This is not a matter which, in my opinion, could properly be referred to a Committee. It would have formed part of the inquiry by a Royal Commission to which the political party to which the hon. Member belongs declined to assent some years ago, but I am not prepared to advise the appointment of a Commission on the matter named in the Question.

  County Waterford Police.
  MR. O'SHEE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state how many members of the Royal Irish Constabulary have been drafted from the County Waterford to the north of Ireland during the month of July up to date; how long were they absent from duty in the County Waterford; how many of them were extra police; and what fund or body is to defray the cost of their service while absent from County Waterford.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) One district inspector, one head constable, and thirty men. They were absent from the 10th to the 14th instant, both dates inclusive. The contingent was
  16
  extra to the establishment of the locality to which drafted, from which a portion of the cost of the force will be recovered. The remainder of the cost will be defrayed from the Constabulary Vote.

  Returning Troops—Postal Payment Facilities.
  SIR CHARLES DALRYMPLE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, to avoid waste of their money, he could arrange to furnish soldiers returning from active service with a pass home and a savings bank book showing amount due to them, with power to draw not more than 15s. in any one week, the leaves of the book being of a different colour to those in general use, and easily identified by post-office clerks.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The present arrangement by which a soldier is paid in instalments on return from active service, one instalment of £3 being paid the day after demobilisation, and the other a month later, has been found to work satisfactorily, and there would appear to be no reason for any modification of these regulations. The money being already earned is due, and it would be difficult to retain it for any considerable period.

  Hong Kong Post Office.
  Mr. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state what sum has been paid for the site for a new post office at Hong Kong; what sum it is proposed to expend on the building; and whether the work has yet been commenced.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.)The cost of the site for the new post-office was $508,000. I have not yet received from the colony the plans nor the estimates of cost of the new building.

  Education—Conscience Clause—Statisti cal Return.
  MR. H. C. RICHARDS: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will grant a Return showing, for the voluntary and board schools, the number of children withdrawn wholly or partially from religious education, under the conscience clause, in England and Wales.

  17
  (Answered by Mr. Balfour.)No information exists at the Board of Education as to the withdrawal of children from religious instruction at public elementary schools under the conscience clause, nor, having regard to the interests of the children and the expediency of preserving their unfettered freedom of withdrawal, would it seem desirable to make specific inquiries into the case of each child withdrawn at each of the 20,000 schools in the country. I may, however, observe that it appears from such information as is available from unofficial sources that the number of children withdrawn is a very small percentage of the five million children attending the schools.

(2. 15) QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  South. Africa—Court Martial Sentences on Civilians.
  MR. C. P. SCOTT: On behalf of the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in the view of the Government, sentences passed in South Africa upon civilians by Courts Martial are in law effective after the termination of the war.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W.): His Majesty's Government are advised that the sentences referred to by the hon. and learned Member are effective until the termination of martial law.

  Remounts —Studdert Case.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state whether Colonel St. Quentin is the member of the Imperial Yeomanry Committee, whose duty it was to inspect the remounts for the South African War, who made the arrangement with Major Studdert for the purchase by him of horses in Ireland for the South African War; and will he say why Colonel St. Quentin was not called as a witness at the trial in Dublin of the Secretary of State for War a Studdert and others.
  I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he was aware of the terms under which the action
  18
  of the Secretary of State for War v. Studdert, for fraudulent breach of contract as agent and trustee, was compromised by the Solicitor General for Ireland as counsel for the War Office, and did he personally assent thereto; and, if so, will he state the grounds on which his assent was based.
  THE FINANCIAL SECEETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (LORD STANLEY, Lancashire, Westhoughton): The questions involved in this case are numerous and complicated. The law officers are carefully investigating them with a view to any action which may be possible. But my right hon. friend cannot at this moment make a statement.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will one be made before the adjournment for the holidays?
  LORD STANLEY: I hope so.

  France and Spain in Africa.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government is aware that a Treaty between France and Spain was signed on 27th June 1900, and promulgated on 30th March 1901, whereby the African possessions of Spain in the territories of Adrar Temar were diminished, while those of France were correspondingly augmented; and whether he can say what consideration Spain has received for consenting to this alteration of frontiers.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIES (LORD CRANBORNE, Rochester): The treaty in question is not confined to the Western Sahara, but defines also the boundaries between the Spanish and French possessions in the Gulf of Guinea. As regards the latter part of the Question, I beg to refer my hon. friend to the text of the Treaty.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is the noble Lord aware that the Treaty does not answer that part of the Question?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Chinese Import Duties on Postal Packets.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, do His Majesty's Government propose to claim for British postal packages sent to China exemption from the legal charge of import duty thereon; and, if so, do they propose to make the claim in the case of China alone, or to extend it to all other countries; and can he state by what means postal packages sent to China from France and Germany have escaped payment of import duties; and whether His Majesty's Government propose that similar methods of escape should be adopted for British packages.
  *LORD CRANBORNE: In reply to my hon, friend's Question, I have nothing to add to the statement which I made on the 24th instant, † except that His Majesty's Government have instructed His Majesty's Ambassadors at Paris and Berlin to make enquiry as to the intentions of the French and German Postal Authorities in the matter.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Can the noble Lord say whether the Government propose to adopt the means of escape adopted by other countries?
  *LORD CRANBORNE: We had better wait until we get replies to our inquiries.

  Argentine Meat Trade.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I beg to ask the President, of the Board of Agriculture whether, having regard to the position of the meat trade owing to scarcity and dearness of meat, lie is now in a position to say when the restrictions on the importation of South American cattle will be removed.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. HANBURY, Preston): The removal of the restrictions must mainly depend upon the action taken by the Argentine Government to prevent the introduction of disease into that country, and so secure a steady trade between them and us in live cattle for slaughter at the ports.
  †See page 1147.
  20
  Communications are passing between the two Governments on this point. I may remind my hon, friend that the imports of dead meat have very largely increased.

  Granard Workmen's Dwellings.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state on what grounds the Local Government Board refused to entertain an application for a loan made by the Granard Urban District Council under the Workmen's Dwellings Acquisition Act; and whether he will propose any change in the law to render the clauses which refer to advances more workable.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (MR. WYNDHAM, Dover): The application was not made under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, 1899, but under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts. The Board refused to sanction the loan on the ground of the unsatisfactory financial position of the Urban District Council.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: Is that the only reason?
  MR. WYNDHAM: As far as I know, it is.

  Ballymahon Labourers' Allotments.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that twenty-two labourers in the Ballymahon Union recently petitioned the Local Government Board to give them the additional half acre allowed under the Labourers Acts; and whether lie can take any steps for holding an independent inquiry in this instance.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The petition was referred to the District Council, who informed the Board that it did not consider that any additional half-acre allotments were required at present. No application for a local inquiry has been made to the Board, and in any case the requirements of section 4 of the Labourers Act of 1891. under which such an inquiry could be held, have not been satisfied.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: If independent application is made, will the right hon. Gentleman consider it?
  MR. WYNDHAM: It most be made in conformity with the provisions of the Act.

  Land Purchase in Galway.
  MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the tenants on the estate of Mr. J. C. Buckhill, trustee, in the parish of Woodlawn, County Galway, have made application to the Land Commission and Congested Districts Board to purchase the demesne and farm of 100 acres attached for sub-division amongst the tenants; whether he is aware that when the agent refused to assent to the proposal the lands were let to two Scotchmen and four policemen placed in the mansion as a guard to protect the cattle; will he state how much cost on the district these policemen will entail; and, having regard to the condition of the district, will he consider the advisability of withdrawing these policemen.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No application has been made to the Land Commission in this case, and there is no information in the office of the Congested Districts Board on the subject. I understand, however, that the tenants approached the trustee, who said he had no power to sell the lands in question. They have not been let to two Scotchmen. Three policemen have been quartered in the mansion for the protection of the herd and cattle grazing on the lands. Their employment will entail no charge on the district. They cannot be withdrawn at present.

  Corfu as a Naval Station.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether His Majesty's Government have issued any new instructions to the Commander-in-Chief in the Mediterranean with reference to the increased use of Corfu as a naval station; and, if so, whether the issue of such instructions indicates any change of policy with reference to Albania or other territories in the vicinity of Corfu.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): No instructions have been issued by the Admiralty.

  School Buildings.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the proposals in the Education Bill for handing over the control of secular instruction in the denominational schools of England and Wales to the local education authorities, he will grant a Return showing with regard to the school buildings of these schools, who are the present owners of the buildings, what is their approximate value, and what are the conditions under which they are let to existing school managers.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The information such a Return would embrace is not in possession of the Board of Education, and I do not think any public advantage would be derived from the return in any way commensurate with the length of time and great expense it would involve in making the necessary inquiries from the managers of some 14,000 schools.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: Can the First Lord make his promised statement with reference to Friday's business?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I had hoped that we should have made such progress with the Education Bill yesterday as would have enabled us to conclude Clause 7 tomorrow; but after what happened last night those hopes seem to be fading away. I propose, therefore, to devote Friday, as well as tomorrow, to the Education Bill. I shall on Thursday put down Supply, but not as a counting day. The Supplementary and Excess Votes will be taken at the Morning Sitting.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: And have any definite arrangements been made for the evening sitting?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, two Irish Bills will be put down—the Local Government Bill being the first.
  MR. DALZIEL: Will any Bill be taken after Supply?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, I think so, but not the Food and Drugs Bill.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—

  Post Office Sites Bill,

  Education Act, 1901 (Renewal) Bill,

  London County Council (Money) Bill,

  without Amendment.

  SUPPLY.
  [21ST ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [MR. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1902–3.

    CLASS II.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding,£26,100, 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 the Colonies, including a Grant-in-Aid of certain Expenses connected with Emigration."
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNER-MAN: I am sure I shall be doing no more than justice to the universal feeling of the House if I convey to the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary our congratulations on his recovery from his serious accident, and the great pleasure it affords us to see him again in his place. We will, I hope, bear in mind the strain upon anyone convalescent, as he is, which must be involved in the occupation of debate; and I trust that, although we may call upon him to give us information, and to assist us in forming a judgment on matters before us, no undue strain will be placed upon him, or upon us who are suffering
    24
    from the effects of a long night sitting. Anything I have to say will partake rather of the form of catechism. There are, of course, so many subjects connected with South Africa and other portions of the world, on which it is absolutely essential that the House of Commons should be more fully informed, that I shall for my part confine myself almost entirely to the interrogatory form of discourse.
    Now, Sir, this is really the first occasion during the session, this momentoussession so far as South Africa is concerned, that we have had an opportunity of speaking on those great questions and problems which arise out of the conclusion of peace. The first point which occurs to me as one on which we require enlightenment is that of the position of the combatant Boers. It is most satisfactory, I think, and most creditable and honourable to the people of this country, that they have, at the conclusion of this long struggle, evinced so favourable a disposition as they have towards those but recently their antagonists in the field, and we have all been delighted to see, day after day, proof of the growth of the friendly feeling subsisting among those with whom we have been engaged in warfare; but we are still at a loss to know what is the precise position of those who have been but recently in arms against us. Take, for instance, the proclamation of August last. I am not at all sure that we have reason to know what is the present effect of that proclamation—how far it is operative. We were told at the time it was issued that it could not be operative without legislation, and. of course, there has been no legislation; but does it still remain? Is it still hanging over the heads of those to whom the warnings of penalties were addressed, or has it really been departed from as no longer being required? Then as to the return of the prisoners who have been deported to other parts of the world. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us when and in what way this great operation will be undertaken, and particularly, I think, it will be desirable to know whether it is the case than any of these men are being punished, or are

    25
    likely to be punished, by prolonged detention on account of their refusal to take the oath of allegiance. It would appear to me to be very doubtful whether we have legal power to inflict any penalty now that the war has ceased; but, apart from that, there is such an obvious advantage in lenient treatment of these men, and in making them, when they return to their country, envoys and symbols of the King's clemency, that I am sure it would be gratifying, at all events to a great number of us, if we knew that everything is being stretched in order to secure so excellent a result. It is, of course, most essential, when a peace has been concluded in the manner in which this one has been brought about, that we should not only keep faith—which, of course, those who represent this country would do—to the letter, but in the fullest measure of the spirit; and one testimony to this fact is to be obtained from the little scraps of information, of accidental conversations, of interviews, of expressions of opinion, in which some of the leading Boer generals have been concerned; and I have noticed that in more than one instance, while they speak in a spirit which we all recognise as most admirable, while they speak of this country and of the Empire without any lurking feeling of hostility, still they are careful to say that everything will depend on how far the British Government carries out to the fullest extent of its spirit the promises that were made, and fulfils the expectations that were raised at the time of the peace. In fact, it seems to me to be most essential to secure the help of these very men in setting things right in South Africa, and I should be glad to know what steps are being taken for that purpose. If we want them to co-operate with us, we must co-operate with them. we cannot expect them otherwise to show zeal for us. Is anything accomplished, or in prospect, by way of councils to advise in the administration of the two territories, and what will be the position of the leading Boers upon them? I gather that there is not at present in existence, and that there is no intention of calling into existence, the more rigid form of what is known as Crown colony government. There has been a good deal of misunderstanding in the course of our controversies during the war upon this point. The objection which I have always taken, with many
    26
    of my friends, to the establishment of a Drown colony has been that when you lave a rigid and denned form of government of that sort it looked as if you intended it to be, and of itself naturally developed into, a much more permanent arrangement than I am sure most of us desire to see in that country. I trust; that everything that is being done is of that undefined and, therefore, transitory character which may lead to the earliest possible opportunity of developing self-government among our new fellow-subjects.
    In connection with this, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can inform us as to certain appointments that I see have been made— I only derive my information from the newspapers—of Englishmen for the purpose of assisting in the government of these countries. I should like to know what class of men are being chosen for chat purpose. What are their qualifications? What is the mode of selection? On what principle are they selected? I have seen it reported that there are a number of young graduates from the English Universities who have been appointed to different posts; and, with all possible respect and admiration for that particular class of the community, I do not know that they would naturally be the best fitted for the class of work going on there now; and I would express a hope that a large use may be made of the former officials, and. of the countrymen of the Boers, who have been themselves accustomed to the official life in the two colonies. Take, for instance, the Orange Free State. That was, by common agreement, an exceedingly well-managed community. I think, therefore, there ought to be no attempt to oust, as it were, or debar from positions under Government in that colony, men who would be capable of doing excellent service, to the advantage of raw and newly-imported talent, with very little knowledge of the ways and habits and sentiments of the people. The great thing ought surely to be, while preserving as firmly as you like the attachment to this country and the predominance of British authority, to make the life in future of the denizens of the two colonies as like as possible to their old familiar everyday life, and, therefore, to accustom them to the same

    27
    sort of Government and treatment, as far as that treatment was good, to which they were habituated before.
    I would merely ask a question, without dwelling on the subject at all, as to the progress that may have been made with regard to the taxation of gold revenues in the Transvaal. There is something about it in this Blue-book. Let me parenthetically make another protest against Blue-books being, shall I say, thrown to us on the very eve of a debate. It is quite impossible for anyone to take part in this debate as having mastered all the contents of this Blue-book. I do not profess to have done it myself. I have only had time for a cursory glance. This is not the only case. It has become a habit of the Government, it may be of all Governments—it may be the natural tendency of the official mind— to keep back Papers of this sort to the very last moment; but I do think it is the duty of Ministers rather to strive against that tendency, in order that the bestowal on the House of Commons of the necessary information should be accomplished in such a manner as to make it of some use for these debates when they occur. Another point which I dismiss with the same simple query is as to the very large and important question of native labour. Everyone knows the tremendous difficulty, also the equally tremendous importance, of this question, and we have seen lately stories of wages being greatly reduced, and other circumstances which may make it more difficult to obtain than it has been in the past.
    Now, Sir, I pass to another question which I consider to be of very great importance, and that is the question of the land settlement. There is a good deal about that in this Blue-book also. Now that we have got the control of these great territories, it may be—I believe it is—a most desirable thing that suitable men and women should be encouraged to go out and settle themselves there in suitable places, and follow suitable occupations. But there are two ways of colonising a country. There is the natural way, and there is the non-natural way; and I confess I prefer the former. To finding future employment and a wholesome life there for emigrants from
    28
    this country, and, above all, for well-conducted men who have served in the war and have therefore rendered service to their country, no one would find any objection. We have before this used colonisation as a means of rewarding and providing for the men who have fought for us. But when we come to another aspect of the question, I confess that I look askance at the projects which I see sketched out. It is when colonisation becomes political, when it is designed to pack the country—just as Members of this House often talk, on subjects leading them across the Channel, of the packing of a jury—with the view of outnumbering the Dutch inhabitants. I think there are some quotations which could be made from this Blue-book which indicate that this is not a mere imagination. There is this passage in a despatch of Lord Milner's:—"To satisfy these demands," he says, "it is clear that no small and makeshift scheme will suffice. Land settlement must be undertaken on a large scale; otherwise, however useful, it will be politically unimportant." And I noticed that Lord Onslow the other day used words almost the same:—" I quite agree that if you are going to carry out a scheme of settlement you must do so on a large scale, or politically it will be of no use whatever to you. "Now, what is the meaning of this? The political object would seem to be to outnumber the Afrikanders in their own country, and, if that is so, what a farce is all the talk about equal rights for all, what a delusion is the promise of self-government ! Self-government by other people is not self-government. When we artificially import people to take part in it, that is not self-government. When we look back at the beginning of these things—I do not wish to rake up old controversies -but when we, looking back, remember the case of the Uitlanders and the difficulties in regard to the franchise, when we remember the Boer feeling, the prospect of the population being outnumbered and outrated in an artificial manner by the use of the capital of this country employed for the purpose is one-not pleasing to contemplate. The better plan, surely, is in the first place to restore the inhabitants to their homes and industries. The revival of the two States

    29
    must, after all, mainly depend upon them, but this which is sketched out is a plan costly and primarily political. If the country must be heavily garrisoned, why cover it up under a policy financially dubious at the best, and on the political side likely to be most disastrous 7 Any unnatural course of this sort always recoils upon those who have recourse to it. Economically, sentimentally, and politically alike, Ireland is at hand to show us what the result of a "plantation" policy may be. The old solvents, which are the true solvents of the difficulty, are neighbourhood, commercial and industrial relations, marriage and family relationships, community of interests. It is to these we must look to end racial difficulties and racial jealousies. Soldier settlers and imported wives will perpetuate feuds; racial differences are surely best cured by ignoring, not accentuating, distinctions. I know that the right hon. Gentleman, his colleagues, and those responsible in these matters, have no intention to accomplish any sinister result of the kind I have referred to, but language has been used which seems to point that way, and means that if it means anything, and I think we are bound to protest against it, because, as I have said, an unnatural state of society created by the use of British credit and British money can never bring peace and harmony into the country, whereas equal government, the fair development of the resources of the country, fair and equal treatment for all, will surely bring about the state of things we desire. In connection with the settlement of the land, there is the danger of foreclosures being used in order to obtain possession, and I should like to know what steps are being taken to guard against that. It is well known that mortgages may be used as instruments to acquire land, but to see systems of expatriation and repatriation proceeding simultaneously will be a curious picture of a mode of bringing about peace and prosperity. According to the third article of the terms of peace, I think there is great need of caution, for the third article reads:—
    "Burghers so surrendering or so returning will not be deprived of personal liberty or of their property."
    30
    I trust that not only will nothing be done openly, and intentionally contrary to that provision, but that even an appearance of trenching upon it will be avoided. These are, I think, the main heads upon which we require some information from the right hon. Gentleman.
    And now I go to the question of Cape Colony itself, and the great question of the suspension. of the Constitution. At once let me say that it was with great relief we read the despatch of the right hon. Gentleman. I trust most sincerely that this despatch, and the patriotic and courageous attitude of the Prime Minister at the Cape, with other influences, may have the effect of stopping the rash movement which was in progress. But I am obliged here to interpose a somewhat unpleasant topic, because it affects the conduct of one man. How are we to account for that extraordinary letter of Lord Milner written some time ago? How do we account for the report now come to us, and which I believe to be authentic—it is, I think, admitted to be authentic—of a conversation he had with General Brabant and Mr. Lawrence with a view to getting up and exciting in Cape Colony a feeling for the suspenpension of the Constitution? He is represented to be in close confabulation with the South African League, suggesting to them ways of bringing pressure of opinion to bear on the Imperial Government at home. It is the strangest attitude which I have ever known a public man, a public servant of the Crown, to have adopted. The right hon. Gentleman said with regard to the letter that we must remember that it was written before the conclusion of peace. That conversation with members of the South African League was also before the conclusion of peace, but I do not know that that helps the matter much, because, as I understand, to begin with, we have a universal and acknowledged rule that a public servant of his class ought not to take part in any political controversy in the country in which he represents in any capacity, high or low, the impartial authority of the British Crown. That, I believe, is the universal and acknowledged rule, and I do not know that there is anything in the functions of the

    31
    High Commissioner that differentiates that position from others: as High Commissioner he has no right whatever to interfere with the domestic politics of Cape Colony. I believe that is the Constitutional doctrine, and the sound Constitutional doctrine is carried further; and I say that even the Governor himself, merely as Governor, has no such right, that it is neither his policy, his duty, nor his right, to interfere, or take sides with one party or the other. It is not from them, but from the Minister, the elected representative of the people, the Imperial Government should derive information as to the state of feeling in the country. He in fact is, as the representative of the Crown, in the position in which the Crown is in this country towards the Ministers, and by them the opinion of the Imperial Government ought to be guided in matters affecting that particular colony. But this, it seems to me, should not be allowed to pass notice, as a novel, and, as I think, a most fatal departure from the ordinary Constitutional practice. As to the administration of martial law, I can only repeat what I said last night. I, for one, welcome the appointment of the Commission which is to be sent out, and I have every confidence in it. By the way, I do not know to whom that Commission is to report; will it be to the War Office, or what is the actual position?
    THE SECRETARY OR STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W.): The Report will be made to His Majesty direct.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: There is one point in this connection I desire to bring forward, and I think it is deserving of consideration. There are some cases, besides the many that arise out of the administration of martial law in its theory and practice, that will be outside the terms of reference for that Commission. There are a great many cases in which our fellow-subjects have been sentenced to punishments by the ordinary Courts for offences similar to those of which persons have been tried before the Courts-martial. I trust no distinction will be made between these cases. I believe there are many cases that have come under the proceedings of
    32
    the ordinary Courts and have been severely dealt with. I hope it will not be that these persons will suffer their punishment without hope of revision of their sentences, while their more adventurous, more active, neighbours, their more lawless and less house abiding neighbours, who actually took arms against the British power, have their sentences reviewed by a special tribunal. I do not think I have more to ask the right hon. Gentleman. I must apologise for the disjointed character of my remarks, due to the interrogatory form in which I have been obliged to frame them.
    But now I pass to another part of the world altogether—or rather to the whole world. We do wish to hear something from the right hon. Gentleman as to the conferences that have been taking place between him and the Colonial Premiers. I think it is about time that the House of Commons knew something about them. The Colonial Premiers, whom we have all had the opportunity of meeting and admiring—and they entirely deserve our admiration — have many qualities, but one quality which they do not possess is that of reticence. They have been, from the necessities of their position, somewhat talkative — and if anybody was asked to breakfast, to lunch, and to dinner, and expected to make a speech at each, he would, naturally, be somewhat talkative. We have heard from these distinguished men a good deal of what has been going on, of what has been done, and, above all, of what has not been done. But I think that that is not altogether satisfactory. We want to hear the views of His Majesty's Government and of the right hon. Gentleman himself, so far as he can state them—for I am aware that the conferences have not ended—upon the great questions which have been brought before him and his advisers from different parts of the Empire. Great changes have been shadowed in many respects. If these changes are imminent, or if there is much probability of their being adopted, we have a right to know what they are. I would only say this of them, as expressing my own feeling and that, I think, of a good many of the people of this country— that if we are to go on in the old steady way of unsensational development,

    33
    fostering and assisting the best and most intimate relationships between ourselves and those great communities, but forcing nothing and rushing nothing, preserving a complete independence of action and of policy on both sides, and refusing to risk the assured advantage of free friendship for any ideal, however fascinating, the attainment of which might involve a strain which common sentiment could not support—if that is the course that is to be followed there will be satisfaction, and there will be relief in the minds of many. What I ask the right hon. Gentleman now is to tell us whether any such hopes or expectations of the conferences he has had already are well grounded. I apologise again for putting him through this examination—which is not a competitive, but a pass examination —and I trust that the answering of such questions as these and others which will no doubt be suggested from other parts of the House, will not be too great a strain upon the strength of the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I must, in the first place, express my grateful recognition of the kind words with which the right hon. Gentleman opened his speech. No doubt in recent years the differences between us have been of such great importance, so vital in their character, that they have necessarily, occasionally, found somewhat forcible expression. But we who recognise in the right hon. Gentleman, and honour him for it, a strenuous advocate of his own opinion, are also glad to note that, in accordance with the best traditions of the House of Commons, he never allows his political controversy to degenerate into personal animosity. I beg him to believe that I most heartily reciprocate his kind words, and that I value the sympathy which he has been good enough to express.
    I think that, before dealing with what the right hon. Gentleman has called his list of interrogatories on the subject of South Africa, I had better at once say what can be said with regard to the Colonial conferences which are now being held. I do not doubt for a moment that the curiosity with regard to these conferences is general and widespread, but,
    34
    at the same time, I think it would be a little unreasonable to expect that while they are still going on, while the discussions are still incomplete, anything in the nature of a detailed statement should be made upon the subject. The right hon. Gentleman seems to suggest that my friends the Prime Ministers are less reticent than the Government have been. He says, and says truly, that the kindness of this country has placed upon them a great burden, that they have had to speak on many and frequent occasions, under all possible circumstances, and that, under these circumstances, they have said a great deal. That is true—but they have told very little. I also could say a good deal on the subject, but it would not be in accordance with my duty to tell very much. In fact, these conferences are in the nature of those international conferences which precede a treaty, and the details of which are never communicated to the public, but only the conclusions. We arranged on this occasion, as we did on the last occasion, from the outset that our discussions should be treated as absolutely confidential until a result was arrived at. Then, no doubt, it will be our duty to communicate that result to our respective Parliaments. The right hon. Gentleman need not be afraid—I know he is not afraid—that anything will be done without the authority of Parliament. Nothing can be done without the authority of the House of Commons, and they will have full opportunity of discussing any new proposals, if there be any new proposals to submit to them. In the meantime, all I think it right to say is this—that one spirit animates all the members of the conference, and that is the desire to draw closer together the different members of the Empire. The right hon. Gentleman says that the feelings which have been manifested in recent times by the Colonies are so valuable in themselves that there should be no forcing or rushing of public sentiment either here or there. I entirely agree with him. There is no intention on the part of the Government to go one step further, or to urge that one step further should be taken, than would be justified by public sentiment in the United Kingdom and in the various Colonies. At the same time, perhaps,

    35
    if I may be allowed to make a prediction, I do not believe that our conferences will be without result. On the contrary. I believe they will be found, when they are concluded, at all events to have made a step towards that entire union which I look forward to as an aspiration which may not indeed be fulfilled in my time, but which, I hope, my descendants may live to see.
    The right hon. Gentleman complained that the Blue-book dealing with South African questions, has only just been presented to the House of Commons. I very much regret that fact. I am sure he will not attribute it to any desire on my part to withhold any information, or to take the House of Commons by surprise.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I said it was a general habit.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not admit it is a general habit. On the contrary, I am bound to say that in the present instance it is no doubt due, in some degree, to the fact that I have been unable to give that attention to the details of the duties of my office which I had hitherto been accustomed to give. I had hoped Lo get it out much earlier, but I was unable to deal with it myself until very recently, and even then I was under the impression that this Vote would not come on until Thursday, so that in arranging for its publication on Monday I had hoped I was giving full time to the House of Commons to master its contents. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will accept my apology in that respect, and I hope that, short as the time has been, the main features and the most interesting parts of the Report will nevertheless be in the minds of those whom I am addressing.
    I do not in the slightest degree complain of the list of interrogatories which the right hon. Gentleman has addressed to me, but he will understand that, while it is easy to ask questions, and the questions in themselves may be very short, it is very difficult to reply to them when they deal with such important matters without making a considerable demand on the time and attention of the House. The fact is the right hon. Gentleman has raised almost
    36
    every possible question of principle in connection with the futureadministration of South Africa. And let me say that it is with great satisfaction, that I observed that he dealt wholly with the future and not at all with the past. Of course it is my opinion, and it is the opinion of His Majesty's Government, that all that has happened in the course of the war, and in the conclusion of the war, has amply and fully justified the policy of the Government. But that is a matter which, unless it is forced upon us, we no longer desire to consider a subject of controversy. We see no good in going back to the past. On the other hand, we see every good in the fullest and amplest discussion of the future, in which we shall be glad to receive the suggestions and desirous of taking advantage of all honest criticism which may be made. There is no doubt that the House will sympathise with us, at all events, in this, that a more tremendous task was never placed on a Government than that connected with the present condition of things in South Africa—to evolve order out of what has hitherto been chaos, to bury the animosities of the past, which we regret as much as any on the other side can do: to restore the country to a condition of prosperity which we are confident enough to believe, will be greater than any that has been known in its past history: to carry out all that is required to establish a new Administration; to build up courts of justice; to secure sympathy between those who hitherto had been bitterly opposed; to repatriate the greater part of the Boer population; to restore to their homes those settlers who were refugees during the war; and to rearrange a system of taxation, on the one hand which should be just to all, and which, on the other hand, shall do nothing to restrict the progress of that industry on which, for many years the security and welfare of the country must depend. To do all these things, and to do them all, as it were, at once, is a task so great that we may well solicit all the assistance that hon. Members opposite can give us, while, at the same time, we ourselves ask for every consideration and regard in our work.
    The first question the right hon. Gentleman asked me was with regard to the proclamation of August 15. That

    37
    proclamation carries us back to a rather strenuous controversy, many hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House believing, on the one hand, that that proclamation was unnecessary and impolitic, and we, on the other hand, contending that it was necessary under the circumstances, and that it would be most undesirable to withdraw it while warlike operations were still going on. I think I may claim that we have some confirmation, at any rate, of the view we took in the resolutions that were passed at the great conference at Vereeniging which authorised the signature of the terms of surrender. For what did those gentlemen there collected give as one of the primary reasons which led them to surrender their independence? It was that by the proclamation which we made and were beginning to carry into effect they were threatened with a loss of property and of states which rendered it necessary for them to consider their position, and which made it more possible for them to accept the terms which were offered. But of course the moment the war came to an end the situation was entirely changed. We regard the matter now from an entirely different point of view. The policy which, as I say, I think has been justified by results, was a policy which was suggested to us by the Government of Natal, which was recommended to ns by Lord Milner and by Lord Kitchener—strongly by Lord Kitchener, who certainly, as hon. and right hon. Gentleman will recognise, has shown no bitterness of feeling towards those to whom he was opposed, and who may therefore be considered to have given this advice believing, at all events, that it was politic and would lead to a peaceful conclusion. This policy, which was suggested to us by those most competent to advise us on the spot, is a policy which dropped with the war, and I may inform the right hon. Gentleman that I have received a telegram, a spontaneous telegram, from Lord Milner saying that in view of the present situation it does not appear to him necessary to proceed further with legislation to validate or to make effective the proclamation And so far as the persons who are directly touched by that proclamation are concerned. I do not think that in any case we shall. find it necessary to proceed against them But, in order that I may not be misunderstood, we reserve to ourselves in the new
    38
    colonies a most important power, the power of refusing to allow the return, or of deporting from the country if they arrive there, any persons who may by their actions show themselves to be undesirable citizens. We are not going to allow the results of the war to be undermined by any kind of intrigue within the colonies, carried on by a nominally constitutional system, and we shall certainly keep in our hands that power with regard to persons, if such there be, who endeavour to abuse our magnanimity and to create a feeling of resistance to our rule which the leaders of the Boers themselves have in the freest and frankest manner absolutely disclaimed.
    Then the right hon. Gentleman asked us as to the return of the prisoners. I think he will perceive from the reports in the newspapers, and from what appears in the Blue-book, that long before the conclusion of hostilities Lord Milner had this subject under his most careful attention, and is making every effort to carry out the repatriation of the Boer prisoners as quickly as that could possibly be done. We took care in the terms of surrender to make it perfectly clear that we reserved to ourselves the most absolute liberty with regard to the period which this operation is to take; not that it is not our desire, as I think it would be our interest, that it shall be completed in the shortest possible period, but that we would not lay ourselves open to any charges of breach of faith, and would keep our hands absolutely free to deal with this as circumstances might permit. It is easy to see that anything like a wholesale and immediate repatriation is not only impossible, but would lead to the worst results. To bring back all these people at once, to throw them on the country, which has, of course, been desolated by the war, without proper means of subsistence would be to create from the very outset a discontented class, who would undo much of the good which has been done by the readiness with which the Boer leaders, and those who were still in the field, have accepted our terms. The period of repatriation will be determined undoubtedly by these practical j considerations. We have to consider, in the first place, the question of transport, although we regard that as of less importance than the other. We have, in

    39
    the second place, to consider the question of how soon we can replace these people upon their lands with every chance that they may be restored to that position in which they can not only earn their subsistence, but may recover their former prosperity. But perhaps it may interest the House if I repeat, for I think it has already appeared in some of the papers, what is the intention of the Government with regard to this matter. We intend, in every district in the Transvaal and in the Orange River Colonies, to create a local Committee, consisting of the resident magistrate as Chairman, and of two or three other local persons, who, in most cases, of course, from the nature of the case, will be themselves Boers, and to authorise these persons to inquire into the circumstances of their district, and of the persons who belong to that district, and who have to be repatriated. They will find out what their necessities are, how far it may be necessary out of the funds which we have placed at disposal for this object for us to find seeds, stock,; and materials for house building, and all the other necessaries for an agricultural life, and only as quickly as these Committees succeed in divining what is necessary to do shall we be able to return the prisoners. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that some distinction might be made between different classes of prisoners, and he specially wished to know whether those who refused to take the oath of allegiance would be penalised. I am happy to say that a very large proportion of the prisoners have made no difficulty whatever about taking the oath of allegiance, and I think when the circumstances are understood the minority will readily agree to do so. There was, however, some difficulty, in the first instance, in some of the concentration camps, arid General Botha. I think it was, made a representation on the subject to Lord Kitchener or Lord Milner, and it was at once agreed that if there were any persons who had any conscientious objection to take an oath in this matter, we might substitute in their case a declaration, which would, of course, imply their loyalty to the existing order of things, and would, in fact, place them in exactly the same position as
    40
    those who remained to the end in the field, and who have declared that they accept King Edward VII. as their lawful Sovereign. Beyond that, however we do not propose to go. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman most fully, that, having proposed these terms, and having had them frankly accepted by 3ur late opponents, it is our duty—we are bound in honour and in interest— to keep them in spirit as well as in letter, and if any assurance of mine is worth anything in such a matter, I give t most freely. As far as the Government are concerned, they will endeavour, in the fullest meaning of the word, to keep faith with those who have surrendered.
    The right hon. Gentleman then went on to speak of the new Administration, and he made some reference to the old subject of Crown Colony Government. Well, I cannot help thinking that a great deal that has been said about Crown Colony Government in Opposition has been entirely under a misapprehension of the work which is carried on under that name. The terms of surrender are precise; there has been absolutely no giving way on that point. The Government is absolutely free; we are entitled under the terms of surrender to establish, and we have established at the present moment a Crown Colony Government of the strictest form and character. It is a Government which is carried on by the Governor in the first instance, as the Chairman and President of the Executive Council, and of the Legislative Council, in which he has the assistance of certain officials who constitute with him the Executive Government. That is the first step. But we have always, from the very first, declared that that was only the first step, that we should go on gradually, and that the next advance would be to add to the official element a non-official element which would be, in the first instance, a nominated non-official element. Then we should go on from that probably to substitute for the nominative element an elective element: and after that nothing would separate us. but the circumstances of the time, from that full self-government which is, and always has been, our ultimate goal. I cannot understand how any person in hit-senses can believe that it will be the interest or the object of the Government,

    41
    or of any one in their place, to delay that consummation one day longer than it can safely be granted. Does anybody imagine that we are such gluttons for work, that we have so much desire to complicate the ordinary processes of our official life, that we should take upon ourselves the responsibility to this House—ah, and to much more than to this House, to the whole of the Empire—for every detail of the work of the Government and administration and control of two great Colonies? Certainly not; our one object is to relieve ourselves of this tremendous burden, this excessive responsibility, and as soon as possible to set up one of those free Governments in which we, as well as all Britons, have so great a confidence.
    But again I say, and I will not be misunderstood, we are not going to be hustled; in this case, quite as much as in the case of those colonial conferences to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, there must be no forcing and no rushing. I am sanguine enough, and optimist enough, to believe that the result we all desire may be reached much sooner than many persons have anticipated. That must depend upon the facts of the case, upon how matters develop in South Africa, and while no more favourable commencement could possibly have been made, still not on that account am I to be led away, or is the policy of the Government to be changed. We must be certain that in what we are doing we are not risking any recurrence of those evils from which we hope we have permanently escaped. We desire, of course, in the administration of the Colonies to secure the co-operation of natives of the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies. The matter, however, is not quite as easy as perhaps it appears to those who have not to deal with it, as I have, from a practical point of view. I have had conversation, with a great number of Dutchmen in the course of the last few years, and I have been struck with one thing. I should say that I began with the strong idea, and pressed this upon Lord Milner, and upon the other persons who are responsible for the Government of the Colonies, that we should as far as possible confine the Administration to those members of the previous Administration upon whom we could properly depend, and who had not shown themselves hostile to the new order of things. So far as we
    42
    could rely upon them, I was anxious to bring them into the Government, and to the aid of the Administration. But what have these representative Boers, many of them men of considerable eminence, who have fought against us, said on that subject? One gentleman in particular said to me: "Give us Englishmen, provided they are sympathetic; we would rather have them than men of our own blood and race whom we shall distrust if they take office in the new Administration." Now, I do not press that too far, but it is a consideration which we have to take into account, if we wish to introduce into the Administration men native to the Transvaal—men, I mean, of Dutch race, Boers by birth. We have to consider that they themselves are divided into different glasses. There are, for instance, the Afrikanders of Cape Colony. It is not certain that the pure Boers would like any very large infusion into the Administrative organisation of Afrikanders from the Cape or from Natal, for reasons which I do not think I need enter upon now, but which will be, I think, easily appreciated. Then we have the Boers who, either from the first or in the course of the struggle, have thrown in their lot with us. They cannot be ignored. It cannot be suggested to us that we are to take our Administration from those who have fought against us, and that we are to find no place whatever in it for those who have fought with us. But the right hon. Gentleman will see, and the House will see, what difficulties are at once created, and how it may be advisable that, in the first instance at any rate, and until some of these bitter recollections, which we must anticipate will remain for some time, have been dispersed—how it may be advisable to give a larger share of representation to English officials who are entirely impartial, if we can find them, as my Boer friend said of a sympathetic disposition, than we might think it wise to give them at a later period.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Hear, hear ! Send them Sergeant Sheridan.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the next point is in regard to the question of future taxation. Upon that it is not within my province to say a great deal at the present time. We have not made

    43
    great progress. There are an immense number of complicated questions to consider. We have before us the duty of making a whole new tariff for the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony. I need not say that that would involve an immense number of different considerations. We shall have to consult ail the experts on the subject, and it would be altogether premature to lay down any absolute conclusions at the present time. But there is one point in which I know great interest is felt, and to which, therefore, I will direct the attention of the Committee—that is, the question of the taxation of mines. Now let us understand upon what principle we are proceeding. I think I notice in some quarters a desire to punish the mines, and punish that class of people who are described as capitalists, a vindictive feeling of which the object is not the good of the country, not the amount of revenue to be obtained, but the punishment of certain individuals. I would point out to those who may entertain it that that is a perfectly futile policy which cannot by any possibility be successful. When hon. Members or gentlemen outside the House talk of the capitalists, we know perfectly well what they mean. They moan one or two, or it may be a score or more, of very wealthy gentlemen, most of whom live in this country, and most of whom have made their money, not perhaps by taking a personal and direct part in what I may call the industry of the country, but in connection with the development of financial operations. Am I right in supposing that those are the people whom, rightly or wrongly, you wish to punish? Well, you will not do it by putting taxation on the mines. It is perfectly ridiculous to suppose that they will suffer in the slightest degree by any silly operation of that sort. The people who will suffer, if any one does individually, are, no doubt, the shareholders in the mines. But who are they? They are hundreds of thousands, and thousands of thousands, of people who have no great wealth themselves, and who most of them have bought their shares in the mines at an immense increase upon the original cost; and if you put on a tax which seems to be reasonable enough, having regard to the actual profit which the mine has made, it would be monstrous as applied to any profit which these individual shareholders
    44
    can expect to mane, me tact is, that shareholders and investors in this country and other countries are willing to speculate in mines if they can get 10 per cent., and they will not speculate for less. But they are satisfied if they get 10 percent. Now if by your policy you cut down this 10 per cent., there will, of course, be no investment in mines, and if there is no investment in mines there will be no development of the country and no revenue. You will not have the vast sums that wo expect to acquire in order-to carry out the schemes of irrigation, improvement of agriculture, public works, and development of railways, all of which will make South Africa, I firmly believe, one of the very richest countries on the face of the earth. But those things would be impossible if we were induced to carry out the ridiculous policy—for I can call it nothing else—which is suggested to us by those who, in their desire to punish certain individuals whom they cannot roach, would seriously interfere with the general prosperity and development of the country. That establishes one principle. We will do nothing—and we will take that as an issue if any one likes to raise it—we will do nothing which will in any way interfere with the quick and complete development of the mines. But, subject to that, there is no man in this House more anxious to recover a considerable proportion of the expenses of the war from South Africa than I am myself.
    What is the condition of things? Suppose that it had been within the scope of our policy to allow to these countries the restoration of their independence. It is. perfectly certain, according to all modern experience and precedent, that we should have laid upon them a heavy indemnity. I see no reason whatever why, because they have become colonies, and will ultimately be self governing nations in British Africa—I see no reason whatever why they should escape from some fair imdemnity, and not bear some fair proportion of the expenses of the war, from the results of which I firmly believe— and I hat, in fact, is the justification of the war, or one of the justifications of the war—from the results of which they will benefit in a high and marked degree; for I do not believe there is any one who doubts that the material prosperity of these countries, to say nothing else, will he enormously increased by the

    45
    change in the Government which has taken place. I say, then, in my opinion it is perfectly fair to lay upon the industry of the Transvaal—the main and principal industry of tin: Transvaal—a fair proportion of the cost of the war. What is a fair proportion? If we say too much, we are killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. That would be a foolish and ridiculous policy. If we say at the present moment too little, or if we fix a sum at all, how do we know but that in a year or two we may altogether revise our judgment?. How is it possible for anyone to predict exactly what will be the extent of the prosperity to which these new countries may look forward? We know pretty well what can be expected from the existing mines. We know a great deal of the state of the Rand, but we know very little about the rest of the country. We know it is highly mineral-iferous; we believe there are large deposits of gold: we believe there is copper and iron; we believe there are also other goldfields which, up to the present time, have not been prospected. From all these future sources we may derive, and, in my opinion, ought to derive, a large contribution towards the cost of the war which has set them free for industrial development; and I think it would be imprudent to make any too early a statement of what amount we should expect as a maximum under these conditions. But what I do think is this, that we may lay down, and shall lay down, certain sources of revenue which may be fairly applied for this purpose. Those sources of revenue will not be found in the existing mines to any considerable extent, We have placed upon them, as the House knows, a profit tax of 10 per cent., which we are advised is as far as we can safely go without serious interference with the industry. The matter may have to be revised in connection with dealing with freights on railways and the tariff on goods. Of course, if we are able to reduce these tariffs and freights, it may be desirable to meet that further by some increase in the profit tax, but, speaking generally, we have established what I think will be found to be substantially the normal condition of things with regard to existing mines. But then there are new mines, which,
    46
    under the old system, became the property of private speculators in circumstances which would be impossible under a well-ordered Administration. What is the reason for these gigantic profits? It is that, by one means or another, the original owner of the mine became possessed of it for a contribution to the State which was altogether inadequate. I hope that, at all events, we may put an end to that, and that we may demand for the benefit of the State a fair return from all future development of the country. I think we may also look to receive a certain proportion of any surplus which the ordinary income of the Transvaal may show over the expenditure, and from these two sources I believe we shall find sufficient annual amount to justify a loan which can be applied, as it ought to be applied, in the reduction of the expenditure which the taxpayers of this country have undertaken. Now, I hope that I have made clear, at all events, the general principles on which we shall proceed in this matter, and that the House will not press me for further details, which I believe it would be imprudent to give, even if it were in my power to do so.
    Now, Sir, as to the question of native labour. I think all the information in my possession is in the hands of the House. It does not amount to a great deal. At the present moment there is a dearth of native labour. That is due to several causes. It is due, in the first place, to the disturbance caused by the war, and in some cases to the fact that the natives have acquired considerable sums of money, having been paid by both sides during the course of the war, and therefore are now engaged in spending it rather than in earning more. In the third place, it may be due, and I am inclined to think it is due, to the regulations which we have imposed with regard to liquor. There is no doubt that the possibility of obtaining liquor has always been a great temptation to the natives, and has induced them to work when perhaps no other inducement would have been sufficient. From that temptation we have cut them oft'. As I have said on previous occasions, it was not the law which was so much in default as the administration of the law.

    47
    We intend that the law shall be administered stringently, and we believe that in that—I think we have reason to believe it—we shall have the full support i of the managers of the mines. Although, on the one hand, they will lose perhaps in the temptation afforded to labour to take part in the work; on the other hand, the labour when it is given will be infinitely more effective. I see that a movement is going on, to which I heartily wish success, for introducing a much larger quantity of white labour into the conduct of mining operations. The difficulty then, bear in mind, has never been in the goodwill of the managers of the mines; it has been in the sentiment which invariably springs up where a white race is brought into close contact with a coloured race, that it is a degradation for the white man to do the labour which the black man is performing. If that sentiment can be overcome, it will be an immense advantage to South Africa, and certainly any assistance or encouragement which the Government can give to proposals to secure that result will be readily accorded. I should like, however, to say a little more than this on the subject of native labour. Here, again, I find that an impression exists—in some minds, not in many perhaps — that it is altogether wrong and improper, not merely to force or compel the black man to labour, but even to induce him to labour by indirect methods. I differ entirely from that. In my opinion, the future of the coloured race in Africa depends entirely upon our success and the success of other white nations in inducing them to labour. What has been the history of Africa hitherto? We know that labour has been impossible because of the local conditions. Labour has been impossible because the fruits of labour were not secured to the labourer, because the different tribes were engaged in internecine strife and struggles, and there was no possibility of anything in the nature of peaceful industry. But now that that is all being stopped, as it is stopped by the progress of the white race in Africa, now that peace is secured, the future of the black is an impossible future unless he will work for his living, unless like every other man he is content to do something which affords a sufficient subsistence. Therefore, I say as a principle, that I am prepared to favour in
    48
    every possible way the inducements which may be held out to the black man to labour in all the new Colonies which are under the British flag. Of course, as I said, that is not to be taken as supporting in any way whatever the idea of compulsory or forced labour. That is a totally different thing. All men are forced to labour in one sense by the necessity of providing for their subsistence, or by the competition which exists. I do desire that the negro may be forced to labour in that sense, but not in the sense of actual physical compulsion brought to bear upon him. The House may rest assured that no policy of that kind will receive from us the slightest support.
    I now turn to another point. Hitherto, I doubt very much whether any serious difference would appear between us. I trust that the explanations I have given will be satisfactory to the right hon. Gentleman, and I do not doubt that he himself, if he were in my place, would carry out substantially the policy which I have indicated. But, as regards the question of land settlement, I must say that it appears to me that there probably is a difference of policy between us which I do not wish to pass over. On the contrary, I should be glad to emphasise it and make it clear. The right hon. Gentleman has feared lest we should engage in a policy which, as he says, would pack the country with a view of out numbering the Dutch. He objects to what he calls a political land settlement. "
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid the right hon. Gentleman should look at the language employed by Lord Milner.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I must say at once that Lord Milner never used any such language. Where will the right hon. Gentleman find Lord Milner saying it is our business to pack the country so that the English may outnumber the Dutch? No, that is not so. That is not Lord Milner's policy, and it is not ours. It would be an absurd policy. Under any conceivable circumstances the Dutch, at all events so far as the agricultural industry is concerned, are likely to outnumber the British. I speak of the Orange River Colony and the agricultural parts of the Transvaal. As probably the

    49
    right hon. Gentleman knows, if we merely count heads, we find that in the whole of the Transvaal before the war the British very considerably outnumbered the Dutch, but the larger proportion of the British were then employed in connection with the gold industry at Johannesburg. But I may say at once that I repudiate any idea of the kind which has been referred to. I do not believe it would be practicable. I am quite sure it would not be wise. There is no intention whatever of packing the country in the sense which has been spoken of. But does the House recognise what the peculiar condition of the Orange River Colony and the Transvaal is? Here are countries with enormous potential agricultural wealth. No doubt, that wealth can only be tapped by a large expenditure in the way of irrigation and of improved communication: but there is no doubt whatever that you have a country there where there is latent wealth to an enormous amount, and at the present time in the Transvaal there are, I believe, only 5,000 farmers. I should not like to trust my memory to be absolutely exact, but I think I am right in saying that in some of the Papers we have distributed to the House it is stated that there are about 5,000 farmers in the Transvaal at the present time. All the land is practically lying waste. What are these farms? They are generally dry farms — enormous ranches, used only for the raising of cattle and a certain number of horses and animals of that kind. Tillage in the true sense of the word has hardly been known over a vast extent of country, but it is capable of being put into operation. There is no earthly reason why the country should not be a great grain-producing country, and why a great number of other most valuable products should not be produced. In order to bring about that result we must increase very largely the number of people upon the land, and we must improve the methods of cultivation. How is that to be done? We cannot increase the number of Boers. We cannot make more Boers than exist. There will be ample room for every Boer, and if we want to fill up the vacancies the Boer necessarily leaves, we can only do it by bringing in settlers, who must
    50
    be British settlers either from the colonies across the seas or from this country. That is the policy which Lord Milner favours, and which we, the Home Government, entirely support. We believe it will be possible gradually—the thing cannot be done in a moment—to place upon the land a considerable number of effective settlers, who will themselves be examples and models which the Boers may ultimately follow. Their mere, presence will tend to improve the practice of agriculture in the country, to secure a very much greater production than has hitherto been obtained. The emigration of settlers into these colonies will be mainly an economic factor. I do not deny that it has a political importance. I differ from the right hon. Gentleman when he says that these things have failed, because, foresooth, he considers that the plantation in Ireland failed some centuries ago. I think there is no comparison or analogy between the two things. But I think that if yon want an analogy yon may find it in the eastern part of Cape Colony. In the eastern part of Cape Colony there was such a plantation of British settlers, and what was the result? The result has been from an economic point of view most satisfactory to us; it has been most satisfactory to us from an Imperial point of view, inasmuch as the population of the eastern part of Cape Colony have stood by us and with us. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the first thing we have to do is to restore the ancient inhabitants to their country, and I beg him not to lie alarmed by any reports, which may have reached him, as to the possibility of anything in the nature of unjust foreclosure or expropriation. Wherever yon adopt a policy of improvement of the land, powers of expropriation are absolutely necessary. We propose to adopt the powers which have proved so successful in New Zealand. We cannot take a I letter example than from that free and self-governing colony. Those powers will only be used where they are absolutely necessary for the purposes which I have indicated; and as regards foreclosure, it is not the Government who hold mortgages. I believe we have, indeed, some mortgages which we have obtained from the late Government, but there is not likely to be any severity on the part of the Government. AS to what may take place, in the ordinary

    51
    course, on the part of the men or the institutions that have lent money on the land, we cannot deny to them the ordinary powers which they have in such cases. But what we expect is not that any one who still desires to cultivate the land, being a Boer, will have the least difficulty in still cultivating his land; but Boers may in many cases be willing to give up a portion of these vast estates, which can hardly be called farms, which are almost a wilderness at the present time, to more effective cultivation. It will be to the advantage of the country that these large estates should be to some extent reduced, and that there should be a very much larger number of smaller proprietors.
    I think, sir, that I have dealt with all the questions which were raised by the right hon. Gentleman, in reference to our future policy in the Transvaal and in the Orange River Colony, but towards the end of his remarks he referred to the question which has arisen in Cape Colony, and to a proposal which has been made there for the suspension of the Constitution. I have felt in regard to that matter, from the very first, that to take away the Constitution of a self governing Colony was a step of such very grave importance that it could only be considered at a time of most urgent necessity. It was not necessary that that should be done during the progress of the war, and His Majesty's Government have not found, in recent events, anything which would justify them in supposing that such a state of things will arise as would make that policy necessary. We do not say, we have not said that such a policy might not be the higher wisdom. All we say is that at the present time, at any rate, we see no reason to adopt it. We have expressed, and we feel, so much confidence in the good sense of the population of Cape Colony and the general desire which we think exists for a better feeling and for racial reconciliation, that we do not doubt that all that is necessary will be done by the Cape Parliament, and that it will not be our duty to consider any such step as has been suggested to us That opinion we formed decidedly, am have expressed decidedly.
    52
    The right hon. Gentleman has offered some criticism on the action of Lord Milner in regard to this matter. I cannot but wish that the right hon. Gentleman had been as generous to Lord Milner as he was to me. I wish he would take into consideration the debt that we owe to Lord Milner, the enormous work he has been performing, the unstinted labour that he has given, the great ability he has brought to bear, even, as I fear, to the detriment of his own health, and that, under these circumstances, he had thought it unnecessary to bring up for public, criticism any details in connection with this great public servant. As he has done so, I will meet his observations. I think that injustice has been done to Lord Milner with regard to his real action. Comment has been made upon it, accounts have been given of it which are not borne out by the facts as we have them. The letter of Lord Milner is admitted to be authentic. We do not know whether the account of the interview is equally authentic—I have no official knowledge that it has been submitted to Lord Milner, nor did I hear of the matter until I saw the report of General Brabant in the newspaper. But what does it all amount to? Lord Milner, in the course of his official duties as Governor of Cape Colony and subsequently as High Commissioner, has, in an extraordinary way, gained the confidence of a large proportion of the population in South Africa. Whether Dutch or English, he has many friends who rely upon him in a way in which they have never relied before on any representative of the British Government. I need hardly point out to the Committee what an enormous qualification this is in regard to Lord Milner's future career. A man who can induce such confidence, can do more to carry out loyally the policy with which he is entrusted than any one else in His Majesty's dominions. But, holding this position, what is more natural, what is more likely, than that those who were concerned in the welfare of Cape Colony should bring to Lord Milner, for his advice and opinion, the views which they were engaged in propagating? Lord Milner, in the first instance, made it absolutely clear

    53
    to them, and to every impartial observer, that, in saying what he did, he was expressing his own personal opinion only. He was not committing His Majesty's Government in any shape or form. In the second place, what did Lord Milner say? He told those who came to him for advice, that, in his opinion, His Majesty's Government would be very slow to yield to the suggestion which they were about to press upon them; that nothing short of an overwhelming case would induce His Majesty's Government to propose to Parliament to suspend the Cape Constitution, and therefore, if they desired to influence His Majesty's Government, they must make out a very strong case. Very good advice, and I cannot say that I think that, under the circumstances, any evil has resulted from that advice, or that we have any need to take any official or public notice of what Lord Milner has done in this matter. We have differed from him, it is true, upon an important point, but that does not in the slightest degree lessen our confidence in him, that he will carry out loyally the policy which we have instructed him to pursue, and we believe, as I have said, that there is no one who can give that policy so much effect and emphasis as he can. I say, and it is a fact that cannot be concealed, that we have differed from Lord Milner upon this point, but does anyone expect or believe that, whoever might have been in Lord Milner's position, it would have been possible for us, when everything was in the melting pot, when we had to deal with new conditions and to make entirely a new organisation, does anyone believe it would be possible, that there should not arise, from time to time, differences of opinion between the home Government and those who represented them in South Africa? As I have said, we do not look to the past, we look to the future, and for the future we regard Lord Milner as the most effective instrument in our possession, and we hope that the House of Commons will extend to him the consideration and confidence, which we are so glad to show him.
    I do not know that I have anything more to say. The Committee knows that in regard to this matter, even in the darkest days, I have always been
    54
    somewhat of an optimist. I think that the result has proved that, at all events, I was more nearly right than those who took an extremely pessimistic view. What can be more satisfactory under the circumstances, after this bitter struggle, than the spirit in which the inevitable has been met by our late opponents, and the way in which they have been welcomed by our people? I do not lay too much stress upon the excitement or the emotion of a moment. I urn well aware that, in the difficult path we have yet to traverse, we may find serious obstacles, and we must expect that there will remain dissatisfaction and discontent, and possibly misapprehension, all of which we shall do our best to remove. At least we may say that we start with a favouring gale; at least we may say that those brave and able men, those gallant soldiers who laid down their arms and loyally accepted King Edward VII. as their Sovereign, have been showing, by everything that they have said since, how true they intend to be to their pledges and promises; and as they have retained, I am glad to say, their old influence with their followers, we may hope that they also recognise that, under their new flag, they may find prosperity and a condition of things which will, in the end, be satisfactory to them. We have no intention, we have no desire, that these Boers, our former foes, should break with all their old traditions. We desire that they should preserve all the best characteristics of their race. We hope they will shake hands with us, that they will bury the animosity that has existed, and that they will co-operate with us in securing the prosperity of South Africa under a flag which, whatever may be said of us, has, at all events, protected differences of race, differences of religion, differences of language, and which will secure for all those who are under it, the peaceful enjoyment of their industry and the blessings of even handed justice.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I will not detain the Committee by going into the matters to which my right hon. friend principally referred. There is one topic, and one topic only, I which I feel obliged to notice, and that is the question of Lord Milner. There

    55
    are particular reasons why it is extremely distasteful to me to criticise the conduct of Lord Milner; but the danger, and I am speaking not so much of the past as of the future, of the course which Lord Milner in this particular instance has, most unfortunately as I think, taken, is that he should be regarded as having identified himself with the interests of one race rather than the other. The serious part of the matter is that, at the beginning of the war, he gave a solemn assurance to the Boers and the Dutch of the colony, that in no circumstances would Her Majesty's Government suspend the Constitution of the Cape. In the proclamation of November he said—
    "By means of misleading manifestoes sent into the Colonies from outside its borders, and in other ways, the British Government has been represented as desiring to oppress the Dutch races in South Africa and the idea has been spread abroad that, as a result of the war, the Dutch inhabitants of the Colony would be deprived of the constitutional rights which they at present enjoy."
    That was the solemn assurance given by Lord Milner, and his assertion that the suggestion of the possibility of such a thing was a matter which ought to be repudiated and condemned. That the statesman who gave that assurance should, in any way, have been a party to promoting the suspension of the constitution, is liable to the most painful misinterpretation on the part of the Dutch population. That is the danger of the situation, and it is one I entertain the expectation that Lord Milner will do the best in his power to remove.
    What I desire for a short time to do is to advert to a subject which has not been much adverted to by my right hon. friend, and of which the Colonial Secretary has spoken as a matter of great importance—that is, the financial prospects of the Transvaal in their bearing on British finance. We have had expectations held out to us that the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony would contribute to the expenses of the war. That has been held out to the country as some consolation for the enormous expenditure on the war. A year ago, when I ventured to examine the financial prospect with reference to this very matter, the Colonial Secretary said I was a pessimist. The Blue-book now presented shows that I certainly was
    56
    not a pessimist, and that the prospect of any recoupment from the colonies in respect of the expenses of the war has totally vanished. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of the gold-mining industry, and has said the charge put upon it is ten per cent, on the profits of the mines. That has been estimated by Lord Milner at half a million, and he says that is all that can be looked for for some time. That, in reference to the expenditure contemplated in this Blue-book, is really a drop in the ocean. It goes no way at all. The right hon. Gentleman has said that he is looking forward to an indemnity to be paid by the Colony. That is a very strong expression, suggesting a sort of ransom. But where is that to come from? Not from the existing mines, but from the new mines. What encouragement is that to the goose that lays the golden eggs? If you are to put ten per cent, on existing mines, but a heavier tax on mines to be opened in the future, who is going to open those mines, if they are to work at their disadvantage? As I understand it, the Government are to be the proprietors of the mines, and it may be that as heavy a tax will be put on them as the Chartered Company put on the mines in Rhodesia, and they will then be no better off than the mines in Rhodesia are today. Therefore, the prospect of our indemnity from the future mines seems to me to be the most shadowy hope of any advantage to be gained that I have ever heard put forward as a financial proposition.
    Then the question of labour is all-important. The whole profit to be obtained from the mines depends on the labour question, and that alone. The cost of getting the gold depends on the cost of the labour, and it is perfectly well-known that it is only the high grade ores that are worth the working, for they alone can bear the high cost of the labour. Many mines have gone, out of working because they could not afford to meet the cost of labour. That is the case with a great part of the mines in the Transvaal, and even in the Rand itself. In speaking of forced labour, the Colonial Secretary has used language which we all approve, and he has taken a course in reference to it which nobody could criticise; but what is the labour

    57
    available? It is not labour which belongs to the Transvaal. A very small part of the labour in the Transvaal is employed in the mines at all. It comes from outside, from Portuguese territory, from Mozambique, and that is the labour which alone makes the mines profitable. But if you are going to put indirect charges upon their labour, these men will go back to their own country, or will not come to the mines at all. That is the difficulty now with reference to labour. See how the situation stands at present. There are only about one-third of the mines at work, and there is a dearth of labour. What is to happen if the other two-thirds are opened? There will be a greater dearth, and if yon cannot at present man one-third of the mines, how are you going to man the whole? This labour question absolutely limits the resources of this district. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, there is a difficulty in employing white men, and that if we could only overcome their prejudice against working with black men all would lie right. But how are you going to overcome that prejudice? It exists wherever black labour is employed. I believe it is true that hardly a single native was employed in the construction of the 800 miles of the Uganda railway.
    The expectation of large resources out of the Transvaal seems to me to be extremely problematical. I recently read an article in the Engineering Magazine by Mr. Hammond Hays, the greatest authority on South African mining, in which lie put the life of the gold mines of the Rand at something less than twenty-five years. If you are to borrow money on such a security, the amount of credit will not be very large. So much for the resources, but you have to look at the expenditure to be incurred. The expenditure suggested in this Blue-book is appalling. I ventured on a former occasion to predict that the cost of these colonies in peace would be, at least, as great as the acquisition of them in war. This Blue-book confirms me very largely in that view. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the necessity of irrigation. Mr. Will-cock's report on this subject is the most alarming thing I have read in my life. He puts the cost of the irrigation proposal's at £30,000,000, and we all know that a general estimate of that sort is one which is likely to be greatly exceeded. This is irrigation of the most difficult
    58
    character. It is not like the irrigation of the Nile. In the case of the Nile the irrigation works meant the construction of a single dam. But irrigation in South Africa means hundreds of dams all over the country, a most difficult country, and one which suffers as much from drought, according to Mr. Willcocks, as Australia. What does the Committee think it would cost to irrigate Australia—and Australia requires it as much as the Transvaal. If British money is to be spent at the rate of £30,000,000 for irrigation in South Africa, why not in Australia?
    The language used here in regard to land settlement is that "The question is whether British colonisation is to be undertaken on a large and effective scale under Government control and with Government assistance." Does that mean the British Government? How far is the Government going to undertake a gigantic land speculation which depends for its success on universal irrigation? That is what this Blue-book proposes. You have never yet undertaken anything of the kind, and if you are going, in order to create a land settlement under British control, to use British money, is it in that part of the Empire alone that you are going to do it? Will other colonies not say, "Why do you not provide us with a land settlement, with a population, with irrigation? and why should not the United Kingdom itself have a right to share in a policy of this kind?" That, to my mind, is a formidable feature in this Blue-book. You have resources of a doubtful character. Your 10 per cent, on the mines will yield you some half - a-million of money, not nearly enough for the ordinary civil expenditure of the Transvaal. That expenditure, excluding many contingent charges, is estimated at £1,393,000, and this is your main resource for some time to come for the repair of the desolation caused by the war. It does not go a third of the way to meet the present common expenditure.
    What then are the prospects now held forth in return for this extensive undertaking? They are, to my mind, absolutely illusory. Before I leave the point of irrigation I should just like to quote a few words from the report. Mr. Willcocks says—
    "Agriculture without irrigation is generally I impossible in the new colonies.… The

    59
    first step must be to proclaim the countries themselves as and or semi-arid regions and legislate accordingly".
    That is the character of the country you are going to settle in this manner. The right hon. Gentleman rather objected to the language used by my right hon. friend in regard to the object of settlement, but it is quite impossible to read the despatch referring to the matter without coming to his conclusion as to the main object of settlement. I; agree with my right hon. friend that it would be- politically dangerous to attempt to carry out a settlement, unless the Boer owners fare returned to their farms. Whoever heard of a settlement on such a scale as is proposed in this scheme; whoever heard of such a land speculation succeeding? Who are the people who are going to be settled? The right hon. Gentleman himself wrote in words of warning to Lord Milner, that if he was going to get settlers from England they must be settled in close proximity to each other, as they would not like to be distributed in this wild country at vast distances from one another. But Lord Milner does not want people from England. He discourages the notion of this settlement being made by enterprising people from England with a certain amount of capital. His despatch contains a rather remarkable statement, and people will be surprised to find they are not particularly wanted there. The right hon. Gentleman says—
    "Referring to your despatch, May 9th, and previous correspondence on land settlement, I have great doubt whether any settlement of farmers' from this country will be successful unless they are planted pretty close together. English farmers are not accustomed to great isolation, which would also in present circumstances entail other special difficulties. Farms, therefore, would need to be small."
    Lord Milner's answer to this is—
    "Generally speaking, I do not think it desirable to encourage agricultural settlers from home."
    That is very different from the language we have heard as to the character of the settlement to be made. The country has been represented to us as an enticing one in which English agriculturists should be encouraged to settle, but that apparently is not the view of the right hon. Gentleman or of Lord Milner, because he points out that men of that character should not be encouraged to
    60
    go out unless under conditions that would not populate the country to any great extent. Lord Milner says, No, these are not the men we want; he says it would be better to plant there the irregulars we have on the spot. But these men have no experience of agriculture, they know nothing of the country, they cannot live the life the Boers live, who know the climate, the nature of the stock that will thrive, and how to carry on successful settlement. I cannot conceive a more unfortunate, a more risky, speculation, than this developed in Lord Milner's despatch. I do not wish to say more in criticism or condemnation of a scheme of this kind than the Colonial Secretary has himself said upon it. On 7th July, this year, he wrote—
    "Conditions of both purchase and lease appear confused and difficult to follow. Presumably this will be remedied in putting conditions into legal form so as to show clearly, and as far as possible, separately, what Government undertakes, what settler undertakes, and what reservations Government makes. Conditions generally appear stringent as compared with terms offered in Australasia."
    Now, these remarks on the settlement proposed by Lord Milner are not very encouraging. It seems to me we ought to be extremely careful how we embark on gigantic, and, as I think, ruinous, schemes of irrigation and settlement with which the right hon. Gentleman himself seems to be so imperfectly satisfied. We ought to know how far British taxpayers will be involved in these transactions. We have nothing here to throw any light on that matter. We hear of loans, but loans depend on credit. Is the credit of British taxpayers to be pledged? That is a serious question to ask. We have been involved in £150,000,000 of debt for the war. What chance is there of our being involved in schemes of this magnitude? The main resource of the country is from the gold mines, and the right hon. Gentleman himself was struck with the smallness of the 10 per cent, contribution, and in a telegram to Lord Milner he asked-—"Do you not think it ought to be more?" Lord Milner said no. But then Lord Milner is surrounded by the owners of the mines, and his information comes from that source —therefore his judgment in the matter must be largely influenced by the people, influential people, no doubt

    61
    among whom he lives and moves. Therefore, I think the astonishment of the right hon. Gentleman at the smallness of this contribution was fully justified.
    Well, there is one question I would rather like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, for, I think, there has been a good deal of misunderstanding on the subject lately. I observe that in the terms of peace the sum of £3,000,000 was to be devoted to the repatriation of the Boers. That sum is specifically mentioned, but in telegrams published as coming from South Africa the losses suffered by British people in South Africa are mentioned as coining under this sum.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know whence the right hon. Gentleman derives his information. The £3,000,000 go to the Boers.
    * SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: That is the assurance I wished to have, for certainly statements I have seen in the papers were to the opposite effect. But I should very much like to know when these £3,000,000 are going to be raised? I see authorisations to Lord Milner of £500,000 at one time, and £500,000 at another, for the purposes of carrying out some scheme, but where do the half millions come from? Not from the resources of the Transvaal, for they are barely enough to carry on the ordinary expenditure, and, as no loan has been authorised, I should be glad to know the source from which the money is derived. If there is anything to be undertaken in regard to irrigation or settlement on a large scale, it is perfectly plain that an enormous sum—millions upon millions— will have to be raised, and we ought to have some assurance as to the security on which this is to be raised, and who is to give the money. That is the question to which I desire to call attention. I look to this Report for information, and for a hope of recoupment for this country, and all I find is promise of unlimited expenditure, for which no resources appear forthcoming. At present we are paying £3,000,000 or£4,000,000 of interest on the loan we have levied for this war; and so far from seeing here any prospect of relief from the burdens
    62
    of the British taxpayer, I see schemes propounded with regard to South Africa involving the expenditure of scores of millions more. This is the only opportunity we have of obtaining information upon this subject, and we ought to have something which will reassure the British taxpayer that now that the war is over he is going to be better and not worse off than he was before.
    (4.45.) SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid that several questions of interest had been referred to and not the least of them was the expected financial returns from taxation in South Africa. There was also the question of the settlement of the land, which was a very difficult and delicate problem indeed, the question of irrigation, which was so overwhelmingly dealt with in the Blue-book, and the settlement of the country by immigration. He quite agreed with the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman who preceded him, that this Report upon irrigation by Mr. Willcocks was a very important document indeed, and he should think that if it represented the policy of the Government it would be a matter which should be dealt with in this House with very great care and very great anxiety. He had no assurance, however, that that was the policy of the Government.
    *SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: It is the policy of Lord Milner.
    SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid it might be the policy of Lord Milner and the Government to receive Reports from one of the greatest experts on irrigation in the world, but it did not necessarily follow that what that gentleman reported would be incorporated in the policy of the Government. Mr. Willcocks had been trained in a peculiar way. He had done splendid service for the Empire in India, where £30,000,000 had been spent upon irrigation; but the conditions of government in India, with its vast population, was quite a different thing from an attempt to carry out the same policy in South Africa. It was quite possible in Egypt, where they had an administration with no responsible government, and which was responsible only to the ruler himself, to carry out a

    63
    scheme for irrigation in the only way in which it could be carried out, at a great cost, and for the benefit of the people at large, who themselves were primitive agriculturists in the most elementary sense. For his own part he could not think that the policy set forth by Mr. Willcocks in this Report was one which could be easily adopted by any Government.
    It was, he believed, the feeling of most colonists that paternal government was not a very good thing, although it had been necessary in a good many colonies. It had been necessary, for instance, in Canada, where, at first, money was not plentiful and private enterprise was limited because it was an agricultural country, and primarily it had been found necessary to build railways and canals. Those things were done, and were supposed to be proper forms for Government enterprise, but when they went beyond that, and went in for a scheme to develop agriculture, which seemed to him to properly belong to private enterprise, they raised very great difficulties indeed, which the increasing population of the Transvaal, the Orange River Colony, and Cape Colony, would consider with very great timidity indeed, and possibly with very great opposition. He was not throwing cold water upon this Report, or suggesting that the scheme being carried out might not be of very great value indeed to South Africa. The question was, whether this was a matter which the Government and the House ought to very carefully consider before it was incorporated in the policy adopted in South Africa. This was a matter upon which he had had some little experience, and upon which he had observed a good deal in Australia, India, and Egpyt, and consequently he felt it his duty to say a word or two, if not of warning, at least of care and caution, that in dealing with this subject they should not have preconceived ideas opposing it nor preconceived ideas as to the value of it. This Report seemed to him to be a document which would take weeks to discuss, because it might involve the whole future of agriculture, indeed the whole future of South Africa itself.
    As for the land settlement, that was just as difficult a question, and he
    64
    thought everybody in the House must have felt a feeling of satisfaction that the Colonial Secretary spoke with So much temperateness and care and caution concerning this question. No one knew better than the Colonial Secretary how difficult it was to have any kind of settlement of the land question by emigration in colonies where they had already got a native population which knew exactly how to work the soil, and which knew all the advantages that came from an acquaintance with the immediate conditions under which they had been brought up. He took exception to the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition that it was a very doubtful thing to try and settle the land question by soldiers and immigrated wives. That might be so, but it was at any rate open to argument. To his mind the chief thing was that, in the first place, before all the Colonists themselves were the best judges of what was good for their country. In the second place, they should not try to impose any settlement of the land question or any other question upon the people which was antithetic to their own views. He did not mean to suggest that what had been proposed in South Africa by Lord Milner would not be satisfactory to the native portion of the population. That was a matter which would have to be discussed. If they took the example of the North West of Canada or Australia, the English farmers who went out there at first, no matter how capable they were, did not always find themselves successful at first in those countries.
    There was another argument against their settlement. It was purely a question of whether they were brought out in great numbers and set down upon the soil to work out their own salvation. Success could not come from that kind of settlement at once, but it had been proved that it could come, and had come, in the history of other colonies, and it was purely a matter of arrangement, adjustment, and common sense as to how that settlement should be accomplished. That it was wrong to send out English farmers he did not admit, although it might be wrong to send them out in large batches to settle upon the land at once. His one plea was that regarding the settlement of the land question in

    65
    South Africa they should not at once form their opinions against the scheme proposed by Lord Milner nor should they approve of it until it was properly considered. This native spirit was sometimes impetuous, variable, and irascible, but it believed in itself thoroughly, and what it wanted was a sympathetic English official, not to rule over them, bat to share in the responsibilities and the development of the country.
    MR. LABOUCHEREcongratulated the Colonial Secretary upon the very conciliatory tone of his speech. The right hon. Gentleman stated that they were not now discussing the causes of the war, or anything connected with the war. He entirely agreed with that. The Colonial Secretary naturally approved of the war, but he must allow other hon. Members to retain their opinion that a more unjust and a more inexpedient war never was waged by this country, He did not wish to pursue the subject now, but he had not altered his opinion one atom or iota in regard to this war. On the contrary, it had been proved to his mind by what had taken place, that the war, as he anticipated, had been injurious and harmful to the Empire. The right hon. Gentleman said he was an optimist, and he was glad that his optimistic views had proved to be correct. There again he did not agree with him, because if he remembered rightly the right hon. Gentleman made war under the impression that it would only last a few months and cost only a few million pounds. He did not approve of the statement that the right hon. Gentleman was correct in his estimate, because instead of lasting two or three months and costing between £4,000,000 and £10,000,000, the war lasted pretty nearly three years and cost between £200,000,000 and £300,000,000.
    The Colonial Secretary was in a sort of difficult position in regard to the defence of Lord Milner. It appeared to him that the right hon. Gentleman had to skate on very thin ice. He regarded the conduct of Lord Milner as absolutely unjustified judged by the rule that regulated the relations of civil officials, and especially governors, to this country and the Colonial Office. The Colonial Secretary said that Lord Milner was asked for his opinion by certain persons who had the greatest confidence in him.
    66
    But Lord Milner went beyond giving his opinion. He did not state personally that the Constitution of Cape Colony ought to be suspended, but he encouraged people there in their action in favour of its suspension, and he agreed with them that there ought to be a petition. In regard to that petition it was stated by one of the correspondents of The Times in South Africa that information had been sworn to that this petition was got up much in the same way as petitions were got up in this country by paid canvassers. It contained a large number of signatures of black women and small children. He had no confidence in petitions in this country, and he had certainly as little confidence in petitions in South Africa. He thought they might take the interview Lord Milner had with General Brabant and Mr. Lawrence, as a fair and reasonable statement of what took place. Lord Milner went out of his way to suggest an insidious way of approaching His Majesty's Government at home. He suggested that a petition should be sent asking how they were going to carry on the Government of Cape Colony until the Constitution had been restored. That was an insidious proposal, and it showed that Lord Milner was acting with those men and giving them suggestions as to the mode in which they might best use pressure on the Government, and in doing that the High Commissioner was acting contrary to the rules and precedents regulating the action of governors and civil officials of the country. The Colonial Secretary was in a difficult position, but he never complained of the right hon. Gentleman defending a subordinate. The right hon. Gentleman said Lord Milner was the right man in the right place. He confessed that he did not agree with him. Lord Milner had shown himself throughout to be a bitter partisan, and had thrown himself entirely into the hands of what were called the Loyalists. If the right hon. Gentleman had been able to state that Lord Milner had gained the confidence of the conquered, he (the hon. Member) could have under-stood his being commended as the best man for the position in which he was placed. We wanted a man who had the confidence of the Boers who had been conquered.

    67
    The Colonial Secretary went on to refer to the subject of white labour. He said that one of the great difficulties in the way of white labour was that where there was a black population there was a prejudice against white labour. That was perfectly true. When the Cornish miners went out there they were willing to work underground, and what they complained of was that because of the facility with which black labour could be got, they were not allowed to combine as trade unionists in order to see that they got what they regarded as a fair wage as the reward of their toil. He believed it would be of the greatest benefit to the Transvaal and the people of this country if we could get white labour established there. He did not believe in black labour. But the right hon. Gentleman said that it was almost beyond our means to enforce white labour with blacks in South Africa. What were the indirect methods we pursued? The right hon. Gentleman said that we had prevented the sale of liquor to the blacks, and that this was one of the reasons which accounted for the dearth of native labour. We knew what had taken place in Kimberley. Were these men to be shut up in compounds? Speaking generally, the blacks of the Transvaal would not work underground. We sent into Portuguese territory, and we made contracts with the chiefs to send us a large number of men. What did these unfortunate people do? If a young man on being told by the chief to go to the Transvaal refused, everybody knew that it would go very hard with the young man. These blacks were brought to the Transvaal, and they were obliged to work for a very small wage. It should be remembered that it was stated at the Chamber of Mines in Johannesburg that the aim and object of the war was to get a greater amount of forced black labour for which they would be able to pay less. It was urged by one gentleman as a reason why the blacks should receive a small wage that they were satisfied with a little accumulation with which they went back into their own country. What appeared to make a black gentleman happy was the ability to buy two wives and half a dozen cows. By paying small wages they had to work more in order to be able to buy a couple of wives. He
    68
    supposed the gentleman who put forward that argument would also urge that a black, instead of having two wives, ought to have a dozen, in order that the mine owners might have the benefit of his labour at a small wage, while he was working for the money to buy them. He should like to know why there was a difference in the law for white and black men in regard to flogging. That degrading form of punishment when not inflicted on white men ought not to be inflicted on black men. It was most important to reduce the number of natives brought in from Portuguese territory, and to encourage white labour in the mines. Certainly, it was the duty of the Government to see that every one was free to sell his labour on his own terms, and that no compulsion was used to induce natives to work in the mines.
    With regard to Lord Milner's proposals for the acquisition of land upon which English farmers could settle in South Africa, we should not be acting fairly and honestly if we forced the Boers to sell their property in order that we might attempt to carry on the Government of the country with a majority obtained by importing Englishmen. The right hon. Gentleman claimed that we had a right to expropriate the landowners in the Orange River Colony and in the Transvaal in order to obtain land for close settlement. He remembered the right hon. Gentleman having spoken of the landlords in this country as men who toiled not, neither did they spin. If the right hon. Gentleman took that view, he was not sure that he would not agree with him; but if we were to apply the principle of expropriation in the Transvaal, why not here, where there were large numbers of people "who toiled not, neither did they spin," and crofters whose land was given over to a few wretched stags. Then there were large farms in parts of England, and he asked why, on the same principle, these should not be cut up into allotments for cottiers and farm labourers. The right hon. Gentleman said that he wanted the Boers to live in accordance with their traditions and their habits, but were we acting honestly by them if we forced them to sell their property, in order that we might attempt to carry on the government of the country by a majority obtained

    69
    by importing Englishmen? If that proposal were made, how could it be supposed that the Boers would have any confidence in us? He thought the right hon. Gentleman would himself consider, when he looked into Lord Milner's plan, that it was as unjust and unfair as the proposed suspension of the Constitution in Cape Colony. The right hon. Gentleman said that we should not act vindictively to-wards the men who lived in Park Lane. He remembered that when the war was going on he stated that he was ready to take command of a commando of these gentlemen from Park Lane and lead them to the front, but they did not respond. It was said that these men had already sold their shares, and that we could not touch them. That was to a great extent true. But the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that we should not tax the men who had bought the shares beyond leaving what was sufficient to enable them to get a fair return on the price they had paid for the shares. He did not admit that for a moment. We had nothing to do with what price they had paid for the shares; what we had got to do with was the value of the mines themselves, and what would be a fair return on the capital expended on them. We had got a right to levy taxation on all that was in excess on that amount. The question was what that fair return would be. We knew that in Rhodesia 50 percent. was considered to be legitimate taxation, and, therefore, a little more than 10 per cent. to be levied on the Transvaal mines.
    The right hon. Gentleman went on to defend the principle of Crown Colonies, but he objected to the Crown Colony system because it had a tendency to become permanent. He thought it would be better to carry on the government of the Colonies frankly and fairly under what might be called martial law for the time being, until the period arrived when they could be given free institutions, He maintained that the people in the Colonies had a perfect right to agitate constitutionally—not by force of arms— for a change in the government.
    Then there was the question of the censorship new existing in South Africa. He quite understood that there should be a censorship during the war, although he had thought it had been pushed too far. But at the present moment the war was over, and what sense was there in still
    70
    continuing the censorship? What he wanted to know was the data on which the censorship was still maintained. Certainly no foreign enemy could benefit by it. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that the information we got from the Colonial Office was somewhat scanty. There were correspondents out in South Africa, some representing one set of views, and some representing other views; and he could not understand what danger there would be to anyone in this country in allowing these correspondents to telegraph frankly and fairly what, in their opinion, was transpiring in the country, and what were the views and opinions of the Boers. We wore told that the Boers were now in a state of wild ecstasy for the Empire. Of course that was nonsense. These were practical men, who said that they must accept accomplished facts, and that, under the circumstances, they preferred to join the Empire. It was unjust and unfair that correspondents should be allowed to send over expressions of opinions on one side and not on the other. He should also like to know about the newspapers circulating in the Transvaal. He happened to be connected with a newspaper, although some people might believe that that was foolish. But the Government would not allow it to be sold in South Africa. Why should they not allow it to be sold? He was giving the Boers excellent advice, and was explaining to them what the views of the Opposition were in regard to the war; and really it would not have shaken the foundations of the Empire if the Government had allowed that newspaper to be circulated in South Africa. But other newspapers were also stopped, and he should like the Colonial Secretary to be good enough to tell him what the law was at the present moment in regard to the circulation of newspapers in South Africa, and whether we were to be debarred from receiving newspapers from the country which would tell us what was transpiring there. He did not wish to push the point too far against the Colonial Secretary, the accident to whom we all regretted, and regarded it as a very plucky thing for him to come down to the House that afternoon.
    MR. NEWDIGATEsaid his only excuse for intervening in the debate was that he had recently returned from South Africa, and he would like to remind the hon. Member who had just spoken that if there was one man in South Africa whom everybody swore by, that man was Lord Milner. If one spoke to the working men, they said that Lord Milner was the best man for the Governorship of South Africa, and the capitalists said the same. It was a curious fact that the opinions of such opposite classes coincided. The feeling in South Africa was that if by chance a Liberal Government were to come into power, and Lord Milner were taken away, it would mean ruination, and that the war would have to be fought all over again. That was the feeling with the exception of two sections of the population—the disloyal Dutch and those who would like to be disloyal. Among those Lord Milner was not, of course, a persona grata, because he was the one man who knew thoroughly the South African situation. [Opposition laughter.] He begged the Committee to believe he was only stating what he had heard on all sides in South Africa recently. With regard to the question of the suspension of the Constitution in Cape Colony, it was devoutly to be hoped that those in high positions who had the confidence of the Dutch would do their best to mitigate the bitterness of race feeling in the colony, because everybody who had lived in the country districts knew that what was going on now was anything but satisfactory. The Bond Party had been intriguing for a long time past, their aim being to obtain by Constitutional means that which they could not otherwise get, and so become masters in South Africa. The Dutch farmer was peaceable and industrious, and all he desired to do was to live his life and farm his farm; but there were many whose object it had been to stir up race hatred in Cape Colony, and, he regretted to say, the ministers in the Dutch Reformed Church were among the worst offenders in the past in this respect. Stellingbosch University, where most of them were educated, was notoriously a hotbed of disloyalty to the British. He hoped that all this would now change, and that
    72
    the terms of peace given to this country would be appreciated by the Dutch in South Africa. Those who spoke against the suspension of the Constitution in Cape Colony must remember that many of our own kith and kin who had settled there had seen the intrigues of the Bond—had seen their own interests neglected; had seen that in places where railways should be, railways were not—and it was not to be wondered at if they thought that, for a time at least, the Constitution should be suspended, political partisanship done away with, and that for a short period the country should be administered as a Crown Colony. Personally, he considered his right hon. friend the Colonial Secretary was quite right in the action he had taken in that matter. The Conservative Party were not in favour of the suspension of the Constitution, but if disloyalty was as rampant in the future as it had been in the past, he failed to see what other course could be taken.
    With regard to education, English was taught to a limited extent in the schools in South Africa, but two of the books used in the curriculum wore excessively disloyal. A great deal had been said in criticism of Lord Milner's scheme to settle farmers in the new colonies, but, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire had said, as the gold in the Transvaal would all be dug out in twenty-five years, the only thing that a good Government could do was to develop farming in Cape Colony and the Transvaal. That was what Lord Milner was doing; but if any of the Dutch had been dispossessed of their farms, he hoped they would receive very adequate compensation for the land taken from them. He was glad to see from the Blue-book that the British refugees were to be considered. Many of our countrymen had been compelled to leave Johannesberg and other places, and had had to exist far away from their homes in great hardship, and he thought their losses ought to be met with great generosity. He hoped a Council would soon be appointed to advise Lord Milner in the Transvaal, and he hoped it was not true that Botha would refuse a seat upon that Council when it was offered to him. Generals Botha and Delarey should be

    73
    placed upon the Council as soon as possible, in conjunction with men like Mr. Fitzpatrick and Mr. Loveday, who were already doing such excellent work. As so many English labouring men desired to go out to South Africa, he ventured to suggest to his right hon. friend the Colonial Secretary that it would be a perfectly simple thing, black labour being so difficult to obtain, to work some of the mines by white labour; and he further suggested that the Colonial Office should form offices in our great towns where working men could find out under what conditions they might go to South Africa; what wages they would receive when they got there; and how they would be taken care of. Dealing with the food supply, the hon. Member pointed out that, owing first to the rhinderpest and then to the amount of stock which had been consumed by the troops, there was a very small amount remaining in the country. The stock which remained was at present in the neighbourhood of the concentration camps and the towns, and he urged the Government that great care should be taken, when the time for their distribution came, that a proper proportion should be sent to each area. To many it would seem a simple matter to re-stock South Africa from this country, but it was not so easy a matter as one would suppose, because few imported animals survived the various ailments to which they were liable, and until they became acclimatised they were not secure against those ailments.
    He also drew attention to the cost of living of our soldiers and civil servants in South Africa. Houses could not be obtained at a less rental than £300 a year, and the cost of living was very high. He expressed the opinion that it would be advisable for a number of houses to be built for the occupation of our officers in the Transvaal, and thought it should be possible that a co-operative system, such as that established at Johannesberg for our troops, should be started for our officers. He would like to know whether in the £3,000,000 to be allocated for the repatriation of the burghers in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony those burghers would be included who took the oath of neutrality under the
    74
    proclamations of Lord Roberts of March 15 and May 28, 1900, which said that to such as surrendered their stock would be paid for if requisitioned. He certainly knew of one case where no such payment had been made. He also hoped that when the payments were made for stock requisitioned for military purposes, they would be of a liberal character, and made direct to the right people. At the time of the manumission of the slaves, £4,000,000 was paid for the freedom of slaves, but that money never got into the right hands, and he knew the case of a Dutch family who were now owed between £3,000 and £4,000 on account of slaves, which they failed to receive owing to the money being paid in one amount. He hoped that this money would be paid direct to the farmers, so that they might get the money they were entitled to. The Government were to be congratulated on having appointed the Commission which formed the subject of debate last night, and on their decision not to allow Dr. Leyds and the intriguers to go back to South Africa. He trusted that the leaders of Dutch opinion in South Africa who had the welfare of the country at heart would do their best to work hand in hand with us, so that the land might enjoy a period of peace and prosperity.
    MR. BRYCEsaid he desired to address himself mainly to the question of the land settlement, to which the Colonial Secretary had directed a considerable part of his speech; but he first of all wanted to ask the right hon. Gentleman a few questions on several points. As to the repatriation of the Boer prisoners, he heard through American friends that in Bermuda no steps had yet been taken to bring any back; that they were still suffering the imprisonment which they suffered while the countries were at war. He thought the time had fairly come when, if they could not be brought back at once, they might ask that the conditions of their imprisonment might be improved. He hoped that the so-called National Scouts would not be employed as policemen, as between these men and their fellow subjects there must necessarily exist some bitterness, and having regard to what had to be

    75
    done in the next few years, it was desirable that anything that might lead to friction should be avoided. There had been some uneasiness felt lest there should be any design for altering the present position of Basutoland. The Basutos had made unparalleled progress under wise care and guardianship, and he hoped that the rumours that their country might be thrown open to exploitation for the sake of mineral resources, whose existence was extremely doubtful, were unfounded.
    On the question of land settlement, Lord Milner's despatch foreshadowed a very large and costly scheme, and he noticed with pleasure that the Colonial Secretary spoke in a reassuring way with reference to this matter. One recommendation, he thought, was excellent—namely, that for the creation of a bureau of agriculture and of model farms. As to the other methods proposed, he urged that no step should be taken to bring about the forcible expropriation of land, and he did not believe that, if the experiment to be tried was on a moderate and reasonable scale, this would be necessary. There were also elements of danger in the taking up of land which would come into the market owing to the foreclosure of mortgages. Nothing created a greater sense of grievance than foreclosures of mortgages which arose from exceptional circumstances, and, of course, the circumstances in South Africa had been most exceptional. He thought there was a very good case for extending indulgence to persons whose land was in this position, and hoped the greatest possible caution would be exercised in this respect. As to the suggestion that the Government should become a landlord on a large scale, that was open both to political and financial objections, and was a policy which surely ought not to be entered upon, although it might be an advantage in some cases if the Government became a landlord on a small scale. It was extremely dangerous to buy up land, except here and there, on a very small scale, where it was felt that the Government had better buy up the land rather than the speculator should come in and run up the prices. Then, as to the terms of repayment. In considering that question they must take
    76
    into account the duration of the life of, the mines, as that was a factor of great importance. One of the most startling facts in the recent economic history of South Africa, was that the period assigned to the life of the mines had been very greatly shortened. In 1895 it was generally expected that the mines would last in full working order for from fifty to sixty-five years, and that they would be worked less profitably for about twenty-five years after that. The opinion of the highest authorities was now entirely different. [An HON. MEMBER: No.] He was giving the Committee what experience he could gather, and he believed it was the opinion of Mr. Hays Hammond. The life of the mines was now computed by the best authorities at in all probability from twenty-five to thirty years for the bringing out of the great bulk of the ore which was now to be found on the Rand; after that period production was expected to decline, although it might continue on a lesser scale for twenty years afterwards. It was, of course, possible that fresh mines might be discovered. The existence of new mines, however, was entirely problematical, and he did not think it likely that anything comparable to the Rand would be discovered. That had a very considerable bearing on the question of the terms of repayment, and showed that terms of repayment extending over thirty-five or forty years might be improvident in view of the possible exhaustion of the mines.
    As to the general conditions of the problem, he wished he could take as sanguine a view as the Colonial Secretary took of the industrial and commercial future of South Africa. He thought most exaggerated notions prevailed in this country in regard to the future prosperity of South Africa. The Transvaal, for instance, consisted of two areas, one of which, the bush veldt, was fertile indeed, and comparatively well watered, but so unhealthy that at present, at any rate, it was unfit for Europeans to live and work in; while the other districts, or the high veldt, consisted for the most part of a barren and arid waste, windswept, and in large parts covered with grass which was not good even for pasture. These districts were not capable of being turned to any agricultural profit, except by means of irrigation on

    77
    an enormous scale. The same thing was true of the Orange River Colony. There were considerable areas of very fertile land on the Caledon River, but the rest of the territory could only be made valuable by the establishment of enormous irrigation works. His right hon. friend admitted that they could not turn the Transvaal and Orange River Colony to much account except by resorting to irrigation on a very large scale.
    What did irrigation in this case mean? It meant an enormous initial expenditure, and they had to consider whether there was any prospect that that expenditure would be recouped. From that point of view they had to look at the past, ard at the fact that South Africa did not at present contain any very large market for absorbing food products, and that the competition of food products from other parts of the world was such as to bring them to the shores of South Africa at a very cheap rate. He was anxious that there should be no illusions on the subject of irrigation works in South Africa. When they were considering the question of markets, moreover, which was of vital importance for this purpose, they must bear in mind that the bulk of the labour would be native labour, and that the native was not a consumer in the same sense as the European. Therefore he felt very great anxiety when he thought of the prospects which would be opened up if a vast financial scheme were undertaken on the lines proposed by Lord Milner. The prospect of any recoupment for our war charges seemed to vanish away in the remote and probably impossible distance. They did not know yet what would be the cost of administration in the Transvaal or of maintaining the British garrison, and until they were informed on those points they ought to be most cautious in entering on any vague speculation of this kind.
    There was another danger. South Africa had had many troubles during the last 200 years, including troubles of almost every kind, but she had never yet had a land question. The land question had been a fertile source of trouble and difficulty in many countries, and let the Government take care that they did not create a land question in South Africa. Let them take care that they did not create
    78
    this new possible source of difficulty and embarrassment, which would aggravate the racial troubles in South Africa. He was glad to hear from the very thoughtful speech which had just been delivered by the hon. Member for Gravesend, that he appreciated the difficulty which lay in this direction. He thought they could not be too careful in considering this question before they did anything on a large scale in regard to the various features which this land question and this agricultural problem presented. Before any executive steps were taken, and not merely before the House was asked to vote any money, he hoped it would have an opportunity of discussing more fully than to day the various bearings of the whole question.
    MR. JOHN WILSONsaid he cordially welcomed the presence of the Colonial Secretary once more in the House of Commons. He had listened with the greatest interest to his speech. Now that peace had been restored and the Boers had accepted with such loyalty the liberal terms which had been offered them, he was not one of those hon. Members who doubted that it now became the duty of the House to consider what sources of revenue were available in the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony. He did not intend to enter into the land question, but as a mining expert, he hoped to be able to throw a little light upon the question which had been raised, more particularly by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen. He was sure that no one wished to tax the Transvaal to any greater extent than the mines were able to pay. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen said that the crux of the whole question was to be found in the probable duration of the Rand mines. That was an important consideration which bore upon the terms of repayment. He entirely differed from the right hon. Gentleman's estimate of the probable duration of those mines. From personal knowledge and from the Reports of experts he was ready to declare, with the utmost certainty, that a duration was assured to them of at least a hundred years, with the present or even a greater output. The present mines had not been

    79
    proved to more than 300 or 400 yards deep, but borings had been put down to fully 800 yards, and in some cases to nearly 1,200 yards with very satisfactory results. From these experiments it had been calculated that the annual output would be more than £20,000,000 sterling for more than a hundred years. The formation of the Rand was a peculiar one and it was one which was found nowhere else in the world except in a small portion of West Africa. The Rand was unique in regard to its gold bearing strata. He could assure the Committee, notwithstanding what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen, that the duration of those mines would most certainly be over a hundred years, even if no new discoveries were made. A sufficient revenue could be obtained from the Rand itself to pay the whole cost of the war. That was a very large assertion, and hon. Members might well be inclined to doubt it, but he made that statement from personal knowledge. The mine owners had secured a benefit, by the substitution of British rule for the corrupt rule of Kruger, of upwards of £5,000,000 and the,£500,000 which it was calculated would be the yield of a tax of 10 per cent, was only a tenth of that amount. The Colonial Secretary had stated that, in his opinion, the mines would not be a further source of revenue for some time to come.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No, no!
    *MR. JOHN WILSONsaid he noted the right hon. Gentleman's words very carefully.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I never said that. On the contrary, we have put a 10 per cent, tax upon them which we believe as soon as the mines get to work will produce £500,000 a year.
    *MR. JOHN WILSONsaid the right hon. Gentleman was quite correct as to the amount of 10 per cent., but that did not affect his argument. The 10 per cent, tax on the profits of the present mines would yield £500,000, but
    80
    what was that compared with the enormous benefit, amounting to upwards of £5,000,000, which the mine owners would secure under the new system of government? The yield of the tax was only a tenth of that sum, and they could imagine his disappointment when he heard of the proposals. The Colonial Secretary had been badly advised in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman said we did not wish to strangle the mining industry, and that to put undue taxation on it would do so. The greatest mining experts in the world had declared that there would be a saving of 6s. per ton. Mr. Henry Plays Hammond had before the war broke out explicitly stated that the saving would amount to over five millions sterling on the gold mines of the Rand. Why could not we secure that? He trusted it might not be too late for the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the question.
    MR. C. P. SCOTTsaid that all on the Opposition side of the House warmly appreciated the tone and spirit in which the Colonial Secretary had addressed the House tonight. The right hon. Gentleman would not on that account expect them to minimise in any degree the differences that had led many of them to dissent from his policy in relation to South Africa. It was a policy which they believed had brought great misfortune on his country and done incalculable mischief in South Africa itself. It would take years, perhaps generations, to restore what had been destroyed. At the same time they recognised the power which the Colon al Secretary possessed to undo part of the mischief that had been wrought. The Colonial Secretary had great qualities of strength and courage that should enable him to grapple with problems which the right hon. Gentleman himself recognised as among the most difficult that ever confronted a statesman. But they had heard conciliatory speeches from the Colonial Secretary before, and they had not always been followed by corresponding action. In this instance they trusted he would hold fast to the policy he had laid down—the wise and sound policy of the reconciliation of the two races in South Africa and the policy of self-government, which was the foundation stone of the success of our colonial

    81
    system. There were one or two material points in which the proposals that had been made seemed scarcely calculated to carried out that policy. The Colonial Secretary referred again to the necessity of imposing a war indemnity on the Transvaal. It was difficult to imagine how a proposal to levy a war indemnity on one of our own colonies could be justified on any precedent or principle of wise government. After war with a State you either recognised its independence and imposed an indemnity or you annexed the country, in which latter case you should forego the right of imposing an indemnity. You could not have it both ways. The Colonial Secretary maintained that the benefits to the States of incorporation with the British Empire were greater than those of independence. That might be his opinion. It was not the opinion of the incorporated States, which did not ask to be annexed, but consented because they could not help themselves. It was to be hoped this would be for the ultimate good of South Africa as a whole, but the fact did not at once give us a right to make them tributary States, which was what the proposal amounted to. This was not wise statesmanship, and he did not think it would be practicable. For example, he found in the new Blue-book that Mr. Willcocks proposed that £30,000,000 should be expended on irrigation. Where was the money to come from for that purpose and for the development of the country generally? Was a country ever known—particularly a country like South Africa, devastated by war—which did not require the whole of its available means for the development of its resources? It was really time this absurd proposal was dropped.
    Although the policy now outlined by the Colonial Secretary was a good policy—although his aims were good aims—they had to ask themselves what were the instruments by which he proposed to carry out his policy. They rejoiced to hear that he proposed at an early date to obtain the assistance of representative Boers to carry on the administration of the country, and he spoke also of obtaining the services of capable, energetic, and sympathetic Englishmen. On the term "sympathetic" the right hon. Gentleman laid emphasis. But who was the chief Englishman who
    82
    was to carry out his policy? He did not propose to make any personal attack on Lord Milner, but perhaps the last word that could be applied to Lord Milner in this connection was the word "sympathetic." We had not seen many signs of sympathy in him with the Boer population he was called upon to rule. Lord Milner's capacity was admitted; but had he the other necessary qualities? They must hope that Lord Milner would be the instrument of a policy, and not the author of an independent policy such as that he recently indicated in regard to the suspension of the Cape Constitution. The Colonial Secretary had made light of his differences with Lord Milner on this question, but the suspension of the Cape Constitution would have been the very parting of the ways. It was the fundamental question governing the whole future of South Africa. For whereas the policy of the Colonial Secretary, as they were delighted to hear, was a policy of reconciliation, the policy indicated by Lord Milner was one of domination. [Ministerial cries of "No" and Opposition cheers.] He trusted that this might not be so, but they must judge by the past, and he maintained that unless Lord Milner subordinated himself to the wishes and policy of the home Government he was an unfit and useless instrument for the purposes that Government had in view. It was satisfactory to learn that the proclamation banishing the Boer leaders and confiscating their property had practically been withdrawn, but the Colonial Secretary had not stated whether the proposal to charge for the maintenance of the Boer women and children in the concentration camps had also been withdrawn. Another point on which he desired information was as to the composition of the police. He could not imagine anything more certain to breed strife and divisions. The Colonial Secretary spoke of haying made a good start in this policy of reconstruction. He rejoiced at the good spirit displayed by the Boers, which was better than might have been expected. The Boers recognised that they were beaten, and were determined to make the best of things. Now that there was relief from the pressure of the war, care should be taken not to throw away the

    83
    opportunity for a perfect reconciliation. There was a belief amongst them in the justice and good faith of England, and the Colonial Secretary should see to it that that belief was maintained, and that the happy situation should not be spoiled by petty tyranny, unsympathetic administration, and a want of consideration for the feelings, and even the prejudices, of the Boers.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENTsaid that few people who had been in South Africa would agree with the opinion of Lord Milner expressed by the hon. Member who had just sat down. The patience and the care with which Lord Milner examined every question laid before him in regard to administration of the new colonies was the theme of admiration of everybody who had been brought in contact with him. His Majesty's Government, and particularly the Secretary of State for the Colonies, were to be congratulated on the wonderful way in which the peace had been received in South Africa. He thought the greatest credit was due to the tact and spirit shown, not only by the officers in command, but by all the non-commissioned officers and men. He earnestly hoped that the conciliatory spirit and expressions of goodwill by the Boers would not be too readily accepted until it had been evidenced by something more than mere lip service. [Cries from the Opposition Benches of "Oh, oh !"] The large number of prisoners of war who would be repatriated within a short period of time would find in many parts of the colony a very different state of things from that they had been accustomed to, and it was necessary that sufficient precautions should be taken against outbreaks of disorder and outrage. The two great problems of the situation were migration and immigration, and it was satisfactory to find that Lord Milner and the Colonial Secretary were giving attention to these. Reservists should be given the opportunity of remaining in South Africa with the offer of a free or assisted passage home if they were not satisfied with their position after a year's trial. Something ought to be done, also, to let women know the numerous openings there were for then in South Africa. If anything was done
    84
    in that direction the greatest care should be taken in sending out the female emigrants under special superintendence and guardianship. Grateful thanks were due to such Boer leaders as General Botha and Schalk Burgher for the speeches they had made in the concentration camps in South Africa, and he hoped that when these men came to this country nothing would be done by those who had taken their side in the war to inflame bitter feelings, or do harm in South Africa. [Opposition cries of; "Oh, oh !"] There was one other point he would like to direct attention to. After the expenditure of £228,000,000 on the war the British were entitled to some trade advantages in South Africa. There was no doubt that British traders were not so enterprising as Germans and Americans in opening up new sources of trade in South Africa, and, as he had said, the British people had a right to some trade advantages after all their profuse expenditure of British treasure and life.
    SIR ROBERT REIDsaid he would follow the example which had been set by all the previous speakers in the debate of avoiding any sort of recrimination with respect to events that had passed. There were, however, two points to which he wished to call attention. The first was that the Colonial Secretary had authorised a Commission of two of His Majesty's Judges to go out to the Cape. He was convinced that the two learned judges were going out on an errand of mercy, that they would act with perfect integrity, and that their mission would result in a large exercise of the prerogative of mercy. With regard to the sentences passed by courts-martial, he would point out that martial law expired when war ended, and if martial law expired, then the sentences administered under it also expired, unless confirmed by the civil authorities. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to consider that difficulties might arise from the sending of His Majesty's Judges into a self-governing colony, unless the full assent of the Government of the colony was obtained. He complained of the late period at which the Blue-book had been issued, and said it was absolutely

    85
    impossible to master the matter in the few hours that were left at the disposal of the House. Lord Milner was proposing the Government with an extremely large undertaking, and he asked that the House of Commons should not be committed to the large and costly scheme of land settlement set forth in the Blue-book without fuller knowledge and consideration.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN:I should by sorry to trouble the House with anything in the nature of a second speech; but it would seem discourteous if I did not reply to a number of Questions which have been put to me by Members of the House. I fully agree with what has been said, that the discussion has been conducted from first to last without a trace of controversial bitterness, and I reciprocate the desire that that may continue to be the case. I am obliged to notice one exception, and although I have not the slightest intention to continue any controversy with the hon. Member to whom I refer—I mean, of course, the hon. Member for the Leigh Division of Lancashire—I am bound, in order that there may be no misunderstanding, to express my entire dissent from almost everything he has said. While I am glad that my earlier speech should have been considered by the House generally as a conciliatory speech, I do not admit that it differed either in manner or in matter from scores of other speeches which I have made on South African affairs. I have always desired conciliation; I have always desired the absence of those racial feelings or animosities which at other times have existed in South Africa; but I have always thought that the opportunity for such reconciliation could not come until certain questions had been once for all settled. The fight has been fought out. Now is the time to shake hands; now is the time for reconciliation.
    Passing to the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries, of course it is understood that the scope of the reference to the Commission is confined entirely to the sentences passed by the military authorities under martial law, and not to sentences passed in the Colonies by the Civil Courts. With that
    86
    limitation, the appointment of the Commission has the warm support of the Government of Cape Colony, and also the approval of the Prime Minister of Natal. I consulted the Prime Minister before finally deciding upon its appointment. I do not anticipate, therefore, any difficulties arising from the fact that part of the work of the Commission will be done in a self-governing colony. A legal question has been put to me upon which I had taken advice. I would venture, with respect, to say that the matter is not quite as clear or as universally admitted as the hon. and learned Member seems to think, and that it does not follow really—although I am quite aware that there are legal opinions to that effect—that martial law necessarily comes to an end with the termination of hostilities. The Prime Minister of Cape Colony has, however, undertaken to bring forward legislation in the Cape Parliament to validate those sentences. What is proposed, of course, is that all the sentences passed should be validated. Then they will be examined by the Commission with a view to seeing in what case and to what extent His Majesty can be recommended to exhibit the clemency of the Crown. I share the hope of the hon. and learned Gentleman that it may be found practicable to do so in a considerable number of cases. The House will understand that sentences which it may be absolutely necessary and proper to pass in time of war, when you want to prevent the commission of a particular offence, may nevertheless be sentences for a kind of offence for which clemency may properly tie extended after the war is over, and the necessity of the sentences has passed away. On the other hand, let me remind the House that in some cases, at any rate, these sentences have been passed for outrages of a serious kind. I believe in some instances it is a question of outrages and conduct altogether contrary to the usages of war. It would be nothing less than a scandal that in those cases men who would have undoubtedly been sentenced by the civil Courts—and the sentence would have been valid for the whole term—should escape scot free on a technical point because they were tried by a military tribunal. That we hope to avoid by the validation of those sentences under legislation by the Cape Parliament.
    The hon. Member for Northampton asked me a Question in regard to

    87
    the flogging of natives. I cannot give an answer in detail; but I think he is aware that we have materially lessened the number of offences for which flogging can be administered. And even where under the old law there are still some cases in which flogging may be administered, even in those cases the punishment is so much restricted and controlled by the necessity of appeal to a higher authority, that I do not think any abuse of the power is likely to take place. In the meantime there is most undoubtedly an enormous improvement, and I doubt very much whether great complaint is to be made on that head. The hon. Member is also interested in the censorship, and he asks me how long it is to apply to certain English newspapers. It depends, of course, partly on local circumstances, and partly on what may appear in the newspapers themselves. If the articles in these newspapers are calculated in any way to produce discontent or disturbance, I assume that the authorities will continue to exercise their privilege of exclusion; but I have no doubt that the well-known good taste of all editors will lead them to exclude from their papers anything which is of an exciting nature.
    The hon. Member for Nuneaton asks me about British refugees. I spoke earlier in the evening about the sum which was to be applied to the relief of the destitute Boers who are being repatriated—the £3,000,000 promised under the terms of surrender. But I need hardly say, to those who recollect the policy I have initiated, that we have not forgotten our own fellow-subjects, the British or Dutch, who have been with us during the struggle, and who, I think, are entitled even to better terms than those who have been against us. It is said that they are not generous and liberal terms which are given to our late enemies. On the contrary, we have always said that the question of money did not come into the consideration of this matter at all. It is the method by which the money might be applied that has been in question; but we desire that equal or even greater generosity should be shown to those who are our fellow-subjects who stand in need of it and who have great claims upon us. A considerable sum will be put aside for that purpose. It is true that the cost of living in the Transvaal is excessive, especially when we are dealing with persons in the position of officials,
    88
    both military and civil. My hon. friend may be glad to know that the Government have the matter under serious consideration, and are anxious, if possible, both to obtain land for the purpose of building houses for the accommodation of officials, and which can be let on better terms than is possible under existing conditions. We have also had under consideration a scheme for furnishing them with the necessary supplies at some cost less extortionate than that to which they are now subject. My hon. friend is alse anxious that the military should pay promptly for the stock they have requisitioned. We share that desire with him, but the matter is of such magnitude that it is not always possible to deal immediately with claims and requisitions of this kind. Nor do I see how it is possible to refuse payment upon receipts given by the military authorities because they may be in different hands. We cannot be expected to tell how they have come into the possession of persons who present them, and we are bound in justice to have regard to the signatures of our military authorities. An opportunity will be given to persons in this country to learn what are the conditions of emigration to South Africa. Up to the present; time nothing special has been done in this respect, because of the short period since the termination of hostilities. No large amount of emigration is either possible or desirable at present, but when the country is really open to emigrants, no doubt every opportunity will be given for making themselves acquainted with the conditions of living there. The hon. Member for Central Sheffield does not appear to be aware that there is already an association of the kind he suggested. It deals with the emigration of women, a question to which I attach the greatest importance. I think it is not good for any country to be too largely inhabited by what I may call a bachelor community. It is, however, a matter of great difficulty, of great complexity, because it is absolutely necessary that the women who leave this country should do so under proper protection and care for the life of settlement in the new country to which they go.

    89
    The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen made some inquiries with regard to the Bermuda prisoners. It is true that up to the present time none of them have been removed. They have been removed from St. Helena and Ceylon, but no doubt their turn will come in due course. The right hon. Gentleman also spoke, of a little relaxation of severity. I am not aware of any severity other than that which is necessary to preserve order and discipline in the camps. They have been treated with signal kindness, as all our prisoners of war have been treated, wherever located; and I do not think that any relaxation is necessary; nor have I heard of any complaint coming from the Boers themselves. There is no foundation for another rumour to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, that a change was intended in regard to the system now prevailing in Basutoland. Nothing of the kind has come to my knowledge, no rumour or official communication to that effect; nor do I think that there is any reason whatever for altering the system of; Government which has prevailed and given such general satisfaction. The right hon. Gentleman asks for a pledge that we would not employ the National Scouts in the South African Constabulary. I cannot give any pledge of that description. If the Scouts are willing to serve, no doubt they are admirably fitted for the police work they will be required to undertake.
    The hon. Member for Falkirk is concerned because he thinks that we shall not get enough money out of the mines. What would the hon. Member think if, in addition to the income tax which at present exists in this country, we were to impose on coal mines a further tax of 10 per cent., or 2s. in the pound, amounting together to 3s. 3d. in the pound? I think my hon. friend would complain loudly and justly. It must not be supposed that the tax of 10 per cent, on the mines at all represents what we should expect to get from the general cost of taxation on industry. A large portion probably of importations into the country are either required directly for the industry or for the advantage of those who are connected with the industry, and in both these
    90
    ways we shall get considerable sums of money.
    I should like to have a little more time to deal with the question of land settlement. Certainly there is no idea in my mind that there will be foreclosure of mortgages in any arbitrary or improper sense. I do not know that any necessity has been shown for such a proceeding as he suggests. It would be rather an arbitrary interference with the ordinary law if we were to say to every creditor that they should wait an indefinite time before they received the money which was legally due to them. I have not seen any signs that their powers will be used in an unjust or oppressive manner. If they are so used, then there will be further consideration of the matter; but in the meantime it is not to the advantage of South Africa to have a lot of bankrupt proprietors on the land unable to cultivate it themselves and standing in the way of others who would do so. It is much better to have smaller estates and to cultivate them well than to leave them undeveloped. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen complains of the great system of settlement by which the Government might become the owner of a large portion of the land. I confess it seems to me that this is slightly inconsistent. Was the right hon. Gentleman not one of the most eloquent advocates of the Land Bill, which would have made the Government the owner of the whole of the land of Ireland? The object of that legislation, at any rate, and the object of a great part of legislation, is the same as the object of legislation in South Africa will be, which is to make the tenant the owner of the land. The Government comes in as an intermediate in the first instance and takes security in the land; but there is no intention of becoming the permanent landlord. In my opinion, the scheme of land settlement is one well worthy of the consideration of the House. It must come before us in the Autumn session when we come to the House with reference to the loan which will be required for the expenses of the Transvaal, and then no doubt hon. Members will go into the subject fully. For the present we have authorised the expenditure of the sum voted by the House last year—£500,000—for the land settlement and similar purposes, and an additional sum which is required for the

    91
    purchase of land of a suitable character now in the market. I trust that the House will allow me to take the Vote now.
    MR. DILLONsaid that it was quite impossible for him and those who sat with him to allow this Vote to go without notice. He did not think the time which had been given to it was anything like ample, particularly when they had regard to all the subjects which had to be considered in the Vote, which were so enormous and so far-reaching.
    It being half-past seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.

  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS.
  The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence from this evening's sitting of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
EVENIG SITTING.

  SUPPLY.
  [20TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the, Chair.]

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DE PARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1902–3.

    CLASS II.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £36,650, 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 office of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Works and Public Buildings."
    MR. ASHTONcalled attention to the stands which had been erected for the Coronation outside the National Gallery. He
    92
    said that we had there a collection of pictures unrivalled in the world, and it could not, therefore, be a matter of indifference when structures were piled up round the Gallery and put it in risk of fire. The trustees of the National Gallery were in fault in not protesting against the erection of these stands. At the very moment when the Office of Works was piling up this Coronation bonfire in Trafalgar Square, it was spending thousands of pounds in buying up brick buildings in the neighbourhood of the Gallery to protect the Gallery from fire. For whosoever these seats were intended, it was not worth while to put the great national collection of pictures in danger. Sir Henry Thompson, in a letter to The Times, had called the act one of folly. But for the urbanity of the right hon. Gentleman, he should be inclined to call it an act of criminal folly and if the right hon. Gentleman got off with a reduction of £100 on his salary he would escape very cheaply indeed. He would move a reduction of salary to that extent, and he hoped the Committee would agree to it in order to show its appreciation of the gravity of the offence which had been committed against the nation. He would also ask for an undertaking from the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of the Office of Works, that the offence should not be repeated. He begged to move.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A (Salaries and Wages) be reduced by £100, in respect of the Salary of the First Commissioner."— (Mr. Ashton.)
    MR. COGHILLasked the First Commissioner of Works what was being done with regard to the Queen Victoria Memorial. St. James's Park was a most unsuitable site for the memorial. There were too many buildings there already. The state of the parks this summer was most disgraceful, and the injury which had been done to them would endure for another eighteen months. It was not right to turn the beautiful Kensington Gardens into a camping ground for the troops. More consideration ought to be shown for the parks. Another

    93
    point he wished to draw attention to was the fact that many trees had the suffered, owing to widening of Piccadilly, and he hoped steps would be taken to plant fresh ones.
    MR. D. A. THOMASsaid there was a good deal of feeling among Civil servants in reference to the charge for Coronation stands. The grievance, he understood, was that Civil servants and their friends were charged 10s. for each seat for June 26th and 27th. Owing to the change that had taken place, they would now only have a seat on August 9th for the £1 they had paid, and the impression prevailed that £1 was a great deal more than was required to cover the cost of these seats. In Jubilee year the charge made to Civil servants for similar seats was 12s. 6d., and there was a balance of £4,000 or £5,000, which was given to charities. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider the matter, and. if he found the cost of erecting the stands did not come up to £1, would refund a part or the whole of the 10s. charged for the second day.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDcomplained that thousands of visitors from America, the Continent, Australia, and New Zealand had been unable to visit Westminster Abbey, which, he believed, had been closed continuously since last May. Visitors to this country naturally wanted to see the Abbey, and it was a great hardship and misfortune that they were sent away unsatisfied. Surely, under certain restrictions, the interior might be thrown open to them. Another point he wished to raise affected Civil servants. He did not know whether uniform treatment had been extended to all the matter of facilities for witnessing the Coronation procession, but he did think that every official of the House should be given a free seat to witness the procession. He wished, to know whether there was any intention to carry out the recommendations of the Committee appointed to consider suggestions for the improvement of the House of Commons, and asked that a telegraphic tape machine should be placed in the library. There was one already in the
    94
    cloak-room; why could they not also have one upstairs? London clubs were much better served in this respect, and yet the House of Commons was supposed to be the best club in London.
    MR. WEIRsaid that he sympathised with the mover of the Amendment, although he believed the right hon. Gentleman did not desire to endanger our art treasures. The consequence would be disastrous if the stands erected within a few feet of the National Gallery caught fire. Whoever advised the erection of those stands was unfit for his post. He objected to the payment of an additional £400 to one of the architects of the Department for services in connection with the erection of the new public offices in Westminster. That was not a satisfactory way of conducting a public Department. The salary should be a fixed amount. He was sorry to say that this practice was growing to an alarming extent in Scotland, and he feared it would increase in the Office of Works unless the right hon. Gentleman promptly interfered. He further complained as to certain officers under the Board of Works being stationed in China and Japan. It was impossible to check their work; there was no means of seeing that their duties were satisfactorily carried out; and, in addition, they were granted colonial allowances, although the cost of living there was much less than in England. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give the Committee some information on the points he had raised, and assist Members in their endeavour to respond to the appeal so often made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to cut down unnecessary expenditure.
    MR. CALDWELLexpressed his surprise that, although this Vote had been put down on the plea that many Members desired to discuss it, it was impossible now to discover any signs of that alleged desire. However, as the Vote was before the Committee, he would call attention to certain clerks who commenced at a salary of £150, and rose by annual increments of £15 to £500. It was the most extraordinary item in the whole of the Estimates. Another case could

    95
    not be found in which men, by the mere efflux of time, rose to such a salary without any reference whatever to their ability. He did not object to a man getting £500 a year if he was worth it, but in this case the rise was automatic. Staff-clerks began at £300, but their maximum was only £400, and it was monstrous that a £150 man should be able to rise to £100 more than a £300 man. In addition to that, one of these men received another £200 a year for acting as private secretary to the First Commissioner. Another case in which an outrageous discrepancy existed between the minimum and maximum salary was that of second division clerks, who commenced at £70 and rose automatically to £250. Why should men rise to such salaries whether they were worth them or not? It was a bad principle that such a disparity should exist. He agreed with the remarks of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty with regard to the officials in China. He could not understand what buildings there were to necessitate a staff in connection with the Board of Works. There were plenty of people on the spot if such services were required. It was an extravagant policy to keep such a staff, as buildings which were not really required would be erected in order that the officials might justify their existence. He hoped the First Commissioner would attend to these matters, and also explain why this Vote had been put down at such a period of the Session when others of far greater importance had not been discussed.
    LORD BALGARRESagreed with the remarks which. had been made as to the danger of fire involved to the National Gallery by the Coronation stands, and hoped the First Commissioner would give an assurance that he would veto the re-erection of such stands if the Trustees of the Gallery were not sufficiently public-spirited to take that course on their own account. The matter to which he desired to call attention concerned the new public buildings now in course of erection. Under Acts of two or three years ago the Government were responsible for three new public buildings of enormous
    96
    size and great importance, viz. the extension of South Kensington Museum, and the new War Office and Local Government Board Offices in Whitehall. By a curious fatality the two architects appointed by the Government of these buildings recently died. The plans for the buildings were very incomplete. That, however, was not the official view, as the First Commissioner had declared that the drawings were practically complete, and that they could be easily carried out. Those statements were entirely inaccurate. The drawings were essentially incomplete. There were a number of drawings on the scale of 10 to 1. There were no full size drawings whatever, except for two small portions of the joiners' work, which were done in order to allow the surveyor's quantities to be made out. Mr. Leonard Stokes, himself an architect of distinction, who was the executor of Mr. Brydon, the architect for the Local Government Board Offices, in a letter to The Times repudiated the idea that the Office of Works, acting on the small drawings, could make a satisfactory building. He contended that the First Commissioner ought to have appointed a thoroughly competent architect to succeed Mr. Brydon. He asked his right hon. friend some questions in July last, upon this point, as to what was going to happen, and the reply was that he hoped that by the change a considerable saving would be effected. Of course he did not attribute to the right hon. Gentleman a desire simply to make money by this transaction. There was a very amusing semiofficial communiqué to The Times in answer to a protest which had been made by those interested in the beautification of this city. It stated that the main motive of the transfer of this work to the Office of Works was the comfort of the occupants. If they prided themselves much on that, they must remember that the Post Office was notoriously a public building, in which the comfort of the officers, according to the officers themselves, was most gravely at fault.
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's)said it was new to him that any complaint had been made about the Post Office building.
    LORD BALCARRESsaid complaints were frequently made about ill-ventilated rooms. He had no wish to make an attack on the Post Office, but it was not such an elysium as that paragraph in the paper would lead one to suppose. In their defence they said the Public Record Office was one of the most beautiful buildings in London. It was really one of the most, ugly buildings in London that he was acquainted with. The real defence of his right hon. friend was that there was no architect available to take over this work. It was well known that architects were not anxious to undertake work for the office of Works. They were apt to be harassed a good deal. The letter in The Times referred to confidential inquiry after an architect. There ought not to be confidential inquiry when an architect was wanted to carry out probably one of the most important public buildings in London. The great architectural institutions should be consulted. He knew that several architects of high standing would have been very glad to carry out the work. A gentleman was appointed who was on the staff of the Office of Works, and they also appointed one of the late Mr. Brydon's draughtsmen, with the result that the President of the Royal Institution of British Architects made a very warm protest against the action of his right hon. friend, and in this protest he was seconded by the presidents of seventeen other great architectural institutions. In consequence of the action of the right hon. Gentleman there were great public protests, and very hostile articles appeared in the newspapers, and more particularly in The Time. He considered that the right hon. Gentleman ought to have appointed a gentleman of high standing, well known for his successful public works, but instead of doing this, the First Commissioner of Works had done a very serious thing. He appointed Mr. Young, the son of the Mr. Young who designed the War Office, to carry out his father's work. Then the right hon. Gentleman appointed another architect to work in conjunction with him. It was a fallacy to appoint one architect to work with another. The Office of Works first chose Mr. Young, and because they could not trust him sufficiently, they chose another architect to
    98
    work with him. A priori they could not trust this other architect to carry out the work, and consequently the responsibility was divided between two men whose views on architectural development might differ toto cælo. This practice had been in the past the cause which had produced so much misfortune in regard to their public buildings, and he was sorry to hear that the Secretary to the Treasury was proposing to carry out this fallacy in regard to the buildings to be erected in Dublin. Those two great buildings in London, which had been undertaken by the Office of Works, would cost £1,000,000 sterling, and they would be paid for out of the money taken from the Consolidated Fund. There appeared to be no increase in the staff to account for the increase for work which had fallen upon this Department. The actual staff was only larger by two than it was last year. In regard to this question, Sir William Emerson had stated that to carry out these great works would require a considerable extension both of staff and premises. This increase was not shown on the Estimates with the exception of an additional salary given to one officer. He considered that a very substantial increase of the staff ought to have been made. There had been an immense amount of work thrown upon this Department considering that they had had to look after the renewal and re—decoration of all the Royal palaces. His right hon. friend had also been occupied with the memorial to Queen Victoria, and with an immense amount of work connected with the Coronation. As there had been practically no increase in the staff, one was inclined to think that the Office of Works was over staffed in its higher department, and under staffed in its lower department.
    He desired to congratulate his right hon. friend on the remarkable forgery he had produced at the west end of Westminster Abbey, a most skilful forgery. It was a pity it should have been made by an Italian† He asked for some assurance that Mr. Brydon's designs should not be interfered with by the Office of Works. Would the
    † See letters to The Times, July 31, p. 8; August 1.p. 10; August 4, p. 8.

    99
    archway connecting the new buildings with the old be maintained? Would he maintain the towers? What steps would be taken as to the extension of the buildings? He wished to know if the finished drawings would be made from Mr. Brydon's sketches, and, if so, he hoped the Office of Works would employ a skilled and efficient architect, not simply an experienced surveyor who had distinguished himself by erecting police stations and post offices all over the kingdom. If a skilled and appreciative architect were not employed, the inherent beauty of Mr. Brydon's design would be vulgarised and destroyed. Within the next few years there would be much work to be done upon our public buildings in London, and it was to be regretted that his right lion, friend had not appointed some man of architectural experience to supply the technical knowledge which could not be expected in the Departmental Minister.
    MR. J. P. FARRELLthought they were entitled to have some explanation as to why the charges were still going up in this Department. He noticed that there was an increase of £3,200 over the amount required last year. The noble Lord who had just sat down had spoken at length upon the beauty of the buildings which were to be erected at Whitehall. During the passage of the Act which provided for the erection of those buildings, Irish Members protested against what they looked upon, as far as the taxpayers of Ireland were concerned, as an utterly useless expenditure of public money. They were chided for protesting against that expenditure, but, according to the noble Lord's Statement, what was going on now? He had told them that the expenditure of this public money was proceeding entirely upon a wrong basis; that they were not carrying out the designs of the original architect; and that they would find that the doors and windows would not fit; and that a large portion of the money being expended—so far as aesthetic appearance went—would be absolutely wasted. He thought the Office of Works was a fraud upon the taxpayers, and they got no value of any description for the work which it was alleged to perform. Before they passed this Vote he should like some definite
    100
    explanation from the First Commissioner of Works as to the duties which were discharged by the large number of clerks whose salaries were down upon the Paper. They had a Board of Works in Ireland, but it supervised the expenditure of public money, and arranged for the lending of money for public buildings; but no such duty was fulfilled by the Office of Works in London. Before this estimate was adopted, he should like a detailed account from the right hon. Gentleman as to the duties which were discharged by these officials whose salaries they were asked to vote. He was not so much concerned with the appearance of public buildings in London, or the amount of money spent in Chancery Lane or anywhere else. What he was more concerned about was that taxation was going up, and the very bread of the poor people was being taxed. He believed they had just received intelligence as to the feeling of the people in regard to this tax by the result of the election at Leeds. The erection of National Galleries and new buildings in connection with Museums to provide for the requirements of a certain class of people were, after all, of very little value to the country as a whole. They should oppose this Vote until they heard from the First Commissioner of Works something in regard to the work that was being done with the money. For salaries alone there was an increase of,£2,450 on the £53,050 they were asked to vote last year. He should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether that increase was based upon the Civil Service scale, or mainly due to perquisites. He found that in the Finance Division the Comptroller of Accounts had a salary commencing at £600 and rising by annual increments of £25 to £800. But according to a footnote he—
    "Receives an allowance of £100 per annum in addition to salary on scale."
    What did he get that for? There were no particulars showing what he got it for, and, so far as appeared from the Estimate, there was not a single reason why this gentleman should get this £100. He had not the least personal ill-feeling towards this gentleman; but it seemed to him they were increasing his salary without reason at a time when the taxation of the country was going up. If expenditure was to be reduced they must

    101
    begin at these small things. If they did not begin at some point or another they would never have any retrenchment in the public Service. There were two senior clerks with salaries commencing each at £120 and rising by annual increments of £20 to £550. A footnote said—
    "One of those officers receives. £600. per annum, the maximum of the former scale, and an allowance of £50 per annum for acting as Deputy-Comptroller of Accounts."
    Why did this gentleman get a salary in excess of the maximum? Really, the whole Vote was full of small instances like that which called for explanation. In the case of "architects and surveyors," of whom there were six, exclusive of two "principal architects and surveyors," the salary commenced at £500 and rose by annual increments of £25 to £750. In this instance a footnote said—
    "One of these officers receives £100 per annum from Class IV, Vote 2, and another an allowance of £100 per annum for services as Consulting Engineer. Another, stationed in China and Japan, occupies an official residence and receives a colonial allowance of £100 per annum, the maximum of salary and allowance being not more than £800."
    In the name of goodness, what value did the taxpayers get from these gentlemen? There was no explanation to enable the Committee to see what duties they performed. He offered his strongest protest against this system of presenting the Votes without sufficient information. Those "allowances," in addition to the salaries, appeared to him like official bribes or "jobs," rather than just rewards for services rendered.
    MR. AKERS DOUGLASsaid several questions had been asked, and perhaps it would be more convenient to the Committee if he dealt with them at once. The hon. Member for Mid Lanark wanted to know why this Vote had been taken tonight when there were so many other Votes of more importance which might have been taken. If the hon. Member had waited a few minutes longer he would have heard the speech of the noble Lord the Member for the Chorley division of Lancashire, who had asked the Leader of the House to take this Vote tonight in order that he might make a strong protest and an attack upon the policy of the
    102
    Department over which he himself had the honour to preside. He would deal first with the question brought forward by the noble Lord in regard to new buildings; that being the most important which had been raised. Ho would like to tell the Committee what was the policy of the Government with regard to that matter. His noble friend had reminded the Committee of the circumstances connected with the passing of the Public Buildings Expenses Act, and the Public Buildings Sites Acts. When it was decided to erect these buildings the Government thought it better, having regard to the unfortunate results of public competition themselves, to select an architect. At the request of the Government, the council of the Royal Institute of British Architects named a panel of architects qualified for the work, and, from that panel, Mr. Young and Mr. Brydon were chosen to prepare plans for the new War Office and the new Local Government Board Office respectively. As to the buildings at South Kensington, plans were prepared some years ago by Mr. Webb, and, as that gentleman was still prepared to carry them out, the Government thought it best to leave the work to one who had on so many occasions shown great talent. But, with regard to the other new buildings, it was thought desirable to associate with the architects selected, Sir John Taylor, whose long service to the State afforded him such an intimate knowledge of the requirements of public offices. Too often in the past the architect of public buildings had thought only of his elevation and not sufficiently of his interior. The rooms on the top floor of the Foreign Office were a case in point. To suit the elevation the windows were close to the floor, with the worst results on the lighting and the ventilation of the rooms.
    LORD BALCARRES: That is because the Office of Works interfered so much with the architect.
    MR. AKERS DOUGLASsaid that his noble friend disliked so intensely the Office of Works that nothing would convince him on the point. The plans for the new buildings were submitted by he Government for criticism to the

    103
    House of Commons. They were approved by the House: of Commons, and orders were given to proceed with the work. But Mr. Young the architect of the War Office died when the plans only had been completed; and Mr. Young's son was then appointed to carry out his father's plans, in association with Sir John Taylor. In 1901 Mr. Brydon also died, leaving no one to succeed him. The plans, which had been approved, and on which large sums had been expended, could not be abandoned, and the Government were anxious to have them carried out in their integrity. He had tried to get an architect of note to undertake the work, but it was only possible on condition that the architect was given a free hand. They had the assistance of Sir John Taylor, who had worked constantly both with Mr. Young and Mr. Brydon in the preparation of these plans, and was intimately acquainted with Mr. Brydon's desires, and in sympathy with his views. They also engaged Mr. Brydon's chief assistant, who had, under that gentle man's personal direction, prepared the greater portion of the drawings, to help to carry out the smaller drawings and the necessary details. He could assure the noble Lord that the saving of expense was not his main object at all, and that he was perfectly ready to spend all the money if he thought good work could be done with it. In order to secure to the House that the plans which they had approved of should be carried out in their integrity, and without any change, directly he received them from Mr. Brydon's executors he had them stamped and countersigned by the President of the Institute of British Architects; and, if the House desired it, the plans would be deposited at the House and would be entirely at its disposal. The noble Lord had asked him for an assurance that no variation whatever should be made in these plans. He had already given a public assurance, and he now repeated it, that no variations at all would be permitted in the external elevations, and that they should only take place when approved by the President of the Institute of British Architects and the Consultative Committee. The noble Lord seemed rather to complain of the appointment of the Clerk of Works. That was not an appointment in his hands, but it was
    104
    a good appointment and the gentleman had shown already very considerable aptitude for the work he had to perform, and he would do it in the most satisfactory manner. The noble Lord had rather suggested that he had not brought quite so much attention to the affairs of his Office, or especially to the matters of these buildings, as he might have done, owing to the fact that he last year presided over the Committee on the education of officers in the Army. He would point out that this was the first time that he had heard in that House the acceptance of a very unpleasant and onerous duty of that sort thrown into a Minister's teeth. With regard to the Queen Victoria Memorial, a question about which had been put by the hon. Member for Stoke, he pointed out that it was not a work which had been undertaken by the Government. The Committee would recollect that the King appointed a committee to consider the question of this memorial, and the committee, after having decided on the general form of the memorial, appointed an executive committee, to whom they referred the question of site and design. This committee, which consisted of Lord Windsor, Lord Redesdale, Sir E. J. Poynter, President of the Royal Academy, Sir L. Alma-Tadema, Sir Arthur Ellis, Sir W. Emerson, and Mr. Sydney Colvin, with Lord Esher as Secretary, reported in favour of the designs of Mr. Brock and Mr. Aston Webb, with whom the general committee authorised arrangements to be made. Mr. Brock's model had already been completed, and he understood that Mr. Webb's would also shortly be finished. Ho understood that when Mr. Brock's and Mr. Webb's models in plaster were completed, it was His Majesty's desire that these models should be submitted to the public as well as to the committee. The monument would only take up a small portion of the space in the front of Buckingham Palace, and would be a very great improvement to the front of the palace, and lead to only a very slight curtailment of the park. This, however, was not a matter for which he was personally responsible, and he only gave the hon. Gentleman this information as a matter of courtesy. With regard to Coronation seats and civil servants, he said that the seats were erected on the co-operative principle, and for the lowest price possible on sites the use of which was afforded by the Government. No Government money

    105
    was involved. When the seats and the restoration of the ground had been paid for there would be nothing left to hand back. He was afraid he could give the hem. Gentleman no further comfort than this—that they would do their best to find room on 9th August for the whole of those who had taken seats for 26th. June, and for those who had taken seats for 27th June on the day of the Royal progress. With regard to the camping ground in Kensington Gardens, he felt he could not very well refuse the application made by the military authorities, seeing that there was no other camping ground in London which could be utilised. He ventured to think, however, that his hon. friend the Member for Stoke had drawn too alarming a picture of the results of this use of the gardens, and that in a very short time there would be very little trace of the camp which had occupied so prominent a position there. Everything that could be done to help the recovery of the verdure would be done by his Department. The hon. Member for Luton had asked for an assurance that stands would not be erected again in front of the National Gallery. He fully realised the responsibility which attached to him for giving his consent on the present occasion, but it was unavoidable, and there was precedent for it. He took every possible precaution, however, to see that there was no undue danger from five, but all the same ho shared the fears and the anxieties of the hon. Member during the whole time that the structure remained in the immediate neighbourhood of the Gallery. He certainly would not readily incur the risk again.
    SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid he did not presume to interfere in the question of taste which had been raised by the noble Lord opposite. He could not aspire to be an authority on matters of taste or architecture or art, but, as a practical man, he thought the First Commissioner of Works had taken the wisest and best course he could have taken in the circumstances of the case. Any other course would have involved the appointing of a new architect and the preparation of new plans. He desired to draw
    106
    the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to, he could not call it the progress, but the standstill of the Victoria and Albert Museum in Cromwell-road, of which the late Queen laid the foundation stone. He did not know who was to blame, but be would ask the right hon. Gentleman to see that a new leaf was turned over. In selecting contractors to carry out the works, he hoped the First Commissioner would ' have regard to the capacity of the contractors, and their capital and ability to carry out so great a work as the; Victoria and Albert Museum. He further called attention to the defective lighting of the parks and Palace Yard, which, in his opinion, was not creditable to London.
    *SIR J. STIRLING-MAXWELLsaid he could not help feeling, after hearing the speech of the First Commissioner, and also that of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that his noble friend had good reason for the strong line he had taken. He hoped it was not too late for his right hon. friend to reconsider the situation. He had seen a letter in The Times recommending that a certain architect should be selected as a fitting man to complete Mr. Bryden's building owing to his great knowledge of classical architecture. That architect told him that he would have been happy to complete the work, but that he was not consulted. He could not help thinking that a first class architect could be found who would be more than glad to add the finishing touches to the work. The right hon. Gentleman said that as that was impossible, the work had been entrusted to gentlemen who were closely associated with the late Mr. Brydon; but everyone who knew anything about the designs of the late Mr. Brydon was aware that their value depended on detail to a greater extent than did the work of most architects, and it was very unlikely that even such a competent architect as Sir. John Taylor, who thoroughly understood his own work, had discussed the details with Mr. Brydon. He certainly hoped it was not yet too late for the right hon. Gentleman to

    107
    reconsider the situation. If he could not do that, they at least were right in pointing out in advance that the credit or discredit for these buildings would rest entirely with the right hon. Gentleman's Department, and the House of Commons would have the satisfaction of feeling that a protest had been made against an arrangement which seemed so little likely to lead to good results. There was one other matter which he wished to put before the right hon. Gentleman. That was that some steps should be taken to fill up the innumerable vacant shields which now disfigure the Houses of Parliament. An empty shield was a horrible disfigurement; and he thought the right hon. Gentleman would do well to appoint a small Committee to consider how these shields could best be filled up. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider that modest suggestion.
    *MR. KE1R HARDIEsaid he desired to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee to the wages paid to women typists in the Department. The minimum wage was 16s. a week, and the maximum 25s. a week. It was a well known fact that large numbers of women were being employed in lieu of men, not because they did the work better, but because they could be employed at cheaper rates. As far as he was concerned, he had no objection to women being employed in occupations to which they were suited, of which typewriting was essentially one, but there was a strong objection, both on the part of the women themselves and on the part of the men they displaced, that they should be employed at a lower rate of wages for the same work. Sixteen shillings a week was not a living wage for a woman who had to maintain herself in London. In the best firms in the city, the wages of typists went as high as 30s. a week; and a Government Department ought to set an example to other employers. Typewriting, with the corresponding knowledge of shorthand, was a skilled occupation which ought to command a reasonable wage. Yet typists were only paid from 16s. to 26s. a week, whereas messengers were paid in
    108
    one case from £110 to £130 a year, and in another case from £95 to £100. The coal porter was paid from 25s. to 30s., and the caretaker began at 35s. and reached 45s. He did not allege that these rates were too high, but if an ordinary unskilled coal porter received 30s. a week, a typist was surely entitled to an equal sum. He trusted that the First Commissioner of Works would take this into his consideration. The House of Commons had placed every Department of the Government under an obligation to pay good wages, and become a model to private employers; and he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to make the minimum paid to these typists 20s, a week, with a maximum of 30s. a week.
    MR. REGINALD LUCASsaid he wished to ask his right hon. friend whether it would be possible to preserve the annexe at Westminster Abbey, which had been described as a "forgery," after the Coronation ceremony. It was so clever, so ingenious, and so interesting, that he hoped it would be preserved as a relic of the Coronation, and as a specimen of the ingenuity of which the Office of Works was capable. He wished to protest against what had been said by the hon. Member for Mid Lanark as to the salaries of private secretaries. The hon. Gentleman, as he understood him, objected to the private secretary to the First Commissioner of Works receiving an adequate salary. It seemed to him that few public servants earned their salaries more legitimately than private secretaries. It had been laid down by a former Prime Minister that the man who was capable of holding the position of private secretary to a Cabinet Minister was capable of holding any position in the Civil Service. A Minister should be able to choose the best man he could get; and he did not think that any reasonable man would object to an efficient private secretary being paid the salary he deserved. He did not know whether the hon. Gentleman opposite had a private secretary himself. [Mr. CALDWELL: No.] In that case, he was all the more amazed at the output of the hon. Gentleman. It was a marvel to him how the hon. Gentleman achieved all he did without the assistance of a

    109
    private secretary; and he would respectfully suggest to him that if he had a private secretary he would find life easier and more agreeable, always assuming that his private secretary was a good one. Every labourer was worthy of his hire, but no labourer was more worthy of his hire than a private secretary; and no one would grudge the salary he got, or the ultimate position in the Civil Service to which he would be entitled.
    MR. CALDWELLsaid he did not complain of a private secretary being paid for his work. His complaint was that the salary of a private secretary, who began at £150 a year, increased by the effluxion of time to £500 a year, and, in addition, he got 200 for doing work which was really part of his work as privatesecretary. He had practically £700 a year, whereas an official clerk, who began at £300, could not rise above £400 a year. Private secretaries were no doubt very useful to those who required them, but if a man did his work himself he would find it much better done. Possibly that was the reason why his own work was so well done.
    MR. LOUGHsaid he had paid some attention to the arrangements of the First Commissioner of Works to meet the convenience of the House in connection with the Coronation celebration, and he did not think that any more could be done than had been done by the right hon. Gentleman, He said that, because on a previous occasion he had been one of those who had criticised the action of the Office of Works in regard to the accommodation given and prices charged. He really thought there was no cause for complaint on the present occasion. He understood that his hon. friend moved the reduction of the Vote in order to call attention to the stands erected in front of the National Gallery. He did not know whether his hon. friend was satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's reply, but he thought, on the whole, that the right hon. Gentleman had gone as far as he could in the matter. The stands had now been removed, and although the
    110
    matter was one of great importance, he thought that the criticism of hon. Members was a little too severe. On the whole, there was not much risk to the priceless treasures stored in the National Gallery, and he would appeal to his hon. friend not to press his Motion in view of the efforts of the First Commissioner of Works to meet the convenience of the House and the public. With regard to the "forgery" at Westminster Abbey, he could not join in the appeal of the hon. Gentleman opposite that it should be preserved. He did not think it was worth it. He understood that Messrs. Barnum and Bailey had offered a small sum for it and he would advise the First Commissioner of Works when he got a good offer for it to take it. It was certainly a monument to the ingenuity and ability of the Office of Works. It was one of the best imitations he had ever seen, but it was not worth handing down to future ages. As a London Member, he wished to call the attention of the Office of Works to an important matter with reference to the public works now being carried on in London. Several hon. Members had appealed to the right hon. Gentleman that these works should be carried on without fluctuation. Whenever a public building was started in London, it attracted workmen from the country. Then, for some reason or the other, the plans were changed, the work was stopped, and a number of workmen were thrown on the market. Such fluctuations ought to be avoided in all Government work. He would not dwell on the case of the South Kensington Museum, although that was a glaring instance; but he would like to ask why the new Admiralty was not completed. Why was the hoarding still being kept up? Then, again, when was the road from The Mall to Charing Cross to be put in hand? If the right hon. Gentleman had not the money he ought to get it; but it was a great evil to pause in the midst of work of that kind. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give the Committee an assurance that Government work would be carried on steadily in future and without fluctuation.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENTsaid he wished heartily to thank the First Commissioner of Works for the facilities which had been given to cyclists in Hyde Park, which were greatly appreciated. Ho also wished to call his attention to the manner in which the traffic was stopped at Birdcage Walk and turned down Princes Street, to find its way through devious and narrow streets near St. James's Park Station to Victoria Station. The loss of time was tremendous, and he could not see any reason why the traffic could not proceed through Birdcage Walk. Time was money in a business city, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to prevent the waste of time which now occurred owing to the traffic being diverted.
    MR. AKERS DOUGLASsaid, with reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for East Clare, he had the privilege of sitting with the hon. Member, who took a great interest in improvements in the House, on a Committee on the Sanitation and Ventilation of the House. Most of the smaller improvements recommended by that Committee had been carried out. He had been unable to obtain the money necessary to carry out the larger recommendations, and, further, he did not think it right to propose a large expenditure in view of the alterations in the rules of the House. The hon. Gentleman would remember that the Committee found great fault with the accommodation for the minor officials of the House, especially in the Postmaster's Department. During the recess he had been able to make an arrangement with the House of Lords by which the recommendations of the
    112
    Committee had been carried out in that respect. He was glad to be able to assure the Committee that all the experiments in connection with the ventilation of the House itself had been extremely satisfactory. Hon. Members need not be alarmed regarding the condition of the atmosphere of the chamber itself, which, according to all the tests, applied was extremely good. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil raised the question of the wages paid to women typists in the Office of Works. He did not know if the hon. Member had heard the speech of the hon. Member for Ross, in which he complained of the large amount of salaries paid in the Office of Works.
    MR. WEIRsaid he complained of allowances, not salaries.
    MR. AKERS DOUGLASsaid he was quite prepared to look into the matter raised by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil, as ho had no wish to employ girls at inadequate wages in the Office of Works. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would be satisfied with that assurance. The hon. Member for West Islington asked a few questions with regard to public works now going on in London, and he asked especially about the Admiralty buildings. There was a hoarding in front of the new Admiralty buildings, but building was just about to commence there. The north and west blocks of the new buildings had been finished, and with regard to the south block, the work of the foundation was new proceeding rapidly. There had been great difficulties with regard to the foundation. The old Admiralty building was

    113
    built on a morass, and rested on piles, and it was very difficult to find a solid foundation for such a large building as was now being erected. They had been extremely fortunate with regard to the foundations for the War Office. The site was a solid bed of gravel, apparently an island between two creeks; and they were also more fortunate in the matter of the foundations in Parliament Street than they had expected to be. Then, as to the opening of the now road, they had been waiting to get possession of certain buildings which they had acquired, and they were now perfectly ready to proceed as soon as the money for the purpose could be found. He had hoped to introduce, before the House adjourned, a Bill to enable him to transfer to that purpose certain moneys which had been ear-marked for public improvements in London. He had no doubt that in the Autumn he should be able to put that Bill on the Table, and, considering the feeling on both sides of the House, he hoped he would have no difficulty in passing it. With reference to the remarks of his hon. friend the Member for the College Division of Glasgow, he had perfect confidence in the architects who were now carrying out the work to which his hon. friend had referred. His hon. friend also mentioned the filling up of the shields. He had not had attention called to that matter before, but he would assure his hon. friend that he would consider it. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for West Islington that it was desirable that public works should not be interrupted. There had been some difficulty in the earlier stages with regard to the supply of stone, but that had now been removed. With regard to the contract for the South Kensington Museum, the contractors were up
    114
    to their date, but he would take care that in any new contract the suggestions of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton should be considered. They took a great deal of pains in selecting contractors, and they were always careful that the contractors occupied a proper financial position, and were able to proceed rapidly with the work. But they were naturally bound to take the lowest tender, provided it was satisfactory in other respects. The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the lighting of the parks. A great deal had been done in that direction during the last few years. He agreed that all the main thoroughfares in the parks should be properly lighted, but he was not in favour of placing lamps all over the parks. The hon. Member for Ross asked him one or two questions. He did not know if the hon. Member required a detailed answer, or would be satisfied with a general assurance.
    MR. WEIRsaid he brought forward two specific cases. One was the ease of an architect who received an allowance of £400 a year, in addition to his salary, for acting as architect to the public buildings at Westminster. The other was the case of a consulting engineer who was responsible for closing up the fireplaces in the Vote Office. He might also mention cases of gentlemen in China and Japan, who were paid double salaries although living was much cheaper in these countries than it was at home. He was heartily sick of such allowance, and he hoped they would be swept away.
    MR. AKERS DOUGLASsaid that the specific case mentioned by the hon. Member, was an extra allowance given to the architect of the Office of Works in respect

    115
    of work in connection with the new public buildings. The question was very carefully considered by the Treasury, who were generally most careful in such matters. He agreed with the hon. Member that allowances were objectionable A few years ago there were constant instances of allowances being given, but now, when new men were brought in, the, view of the hon. Member was the view likely to be carried out. With regard to gentlemen in China and Japan, they could not be asked to go out to foreign countries at the same salary as they were receiving at home. The other gentleman referred to by the hon. Member had really nothing whatever to do with the ventilation of the Vote Office. He could assure the hon. Member that the care and comfort of the officials of the House were always present to the Office of Works. He appealed to the Committee to pass the Vote.
    MR. ASHTONsaid that after the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman he desired to withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he was much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, but he was bound to say he did not consider his explanation satisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the recommendations of the Committee last year were not carried out because of the new Rules. He failed to see how the new Rules would affect many of the recommendations of the Committee. He quite admitted that with regard to the dining rooms, the new Rules might
    116
    have some effect; but they should not prevent the other recommendations from being carried out.
    It being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

  SHOP CLUBS BILL.
  Lords' Amendments considered.
  MR. CREMERsaid he had no serious objections to the Lords' Amendments, but he intended to divide the House as a protest against the action of the promoters of the Bill in rendering the measure practically useless. The Bill had been greatly improved by the Standing Committee, but it had since been emasculated and made worthless by the promoters weakly yielding to a single protest speech made on the other side, and striking out of the Bill Subsection C of Clause 1. The Bill was now useless, and of no more value than the paper upon which it is printed.
  Lords' Amendments agreed to.

  YARDLEY CHARITY BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported;
  Bill, as amended, to be considered this day.
  In pursuance of the Order of the House of the 28th day of this instant July, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes after Twelve o'clock.