HC Deb 02 March 1903 vol 118 cc1169-86

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum. not exceeding £10,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1903, for the expenses in connection with His Majesty's Embassies, Missions, and of Consular Establishments abroad, and other Expenditure chargeable on the Consular Vote."

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON asked the noble Lord if he was not going to give some explanation on this Vote.


I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman wishes me to explain.

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON said the first heading was £4,000 for special missions and services, and one of those items was for the China Tariff Commission. The second item was £6,000, which was entirely due to telegrams consequent on the state of affairs in the Far East.

*LORD CRANBORNE said the explanation as regarded the special missions was that the extra sum asked for was entirely due to the negotiations with China for the commercial treaty. That treaty was negotiated for at very great length. [An HON. MEMBER: Why?] Hon. Members who had had any negotiations with China knew that they could not be concluded within a very brief period. There was an inconceivable amount of obstruction, and references had to be made, but be did not think the hon. Gentleman would expect him to account for Chinese delays, because be knew that any Government which negotiated with China had to be prepared for delays. As regarded the telegrams, according to recent rulings of the Chair it had been held that on Supplementary Estimates they were not entitled to discuss the policy which those telegrams covered, and the only question for them was the reason for the extra charge and the responsibility of the Government for not having given the right Estimate to start with. The Committee was quite aware that it was impossible beforehand to tell what the amount of the charge for telegrams would come to. It was always an uncertain quantity, but the system adopted was that a normal sum was fixed upon and put forward in the ordinary main Estimates for the year. If it so happened that the negotiations threw a very much larger charge upon the telegrams, then they had to put matters right in the Supplementary Intimates. Of course the Committee could discuss the whole policy when the main Estimates were submitted, but it would be quite impossible for the Foreign Office, or any other branch of the public service, to enter fully into questions of policy on a Supplementary Estimate.


did not think the Committee had received a very satisfactory explanation from the noble Lord. He had given the same explanation for this Supplementary Estimate that was given by the President of the Hoard of Trade for the Estimate just passed, namely, that it was the custom to take an average sum, and not in the least to calculate the expenditure which would be necessary; and then, if it was necessary to spend much more money, to come to Parliament and ask sanction for the additional expenditure. He did not think the way to keep down expenditure was to encourage the Departments to come to the House with Supplementary Estimates. Surely on the subject of China the Committee might have bad a little more explanation of the necessity for the increased expenditure than had been given by the noble Lord. The House should have been warned that this treaty was to cost so much—an amount which was perhaps more than it was worth. He hoped that the practice which had obtained during the past two years of presenting these Supplementary Estimates would come to an end, and as a protest against its continuance he begged to move to reduce the Vote £100.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £9,900. be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Chides Hobhouse.)

MR. KEARLEY said that the Vote for 1901-2 for special service missions was £16,000, and now the Estimate for 1902-3 was £33,000. That showed an increase of £17,000. He presumed that the increase was put on the Estimate in contemplation of this particular China Tariff Commission. If so, they had the criticism to offer that, notwithstanding that the facts were known, there was a large under-estimate. Again, there had been critical times in China formerly, but the cost of telegrams then had not been nearly so great as it was now. The whole tendency was to increase expenditure without getting value for the money. The explanation the Committee had received to-day was no explanation at all.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES said the noble Lord had stated that it was difficult to say what the telegrams would cost in the course of the year. He did not think it was so impossible as the noble Lord represented. With regard to the item for telegrams, here it was said to be "consequent on the state of affairs in the Far East." What was the state of affairs that had cost £6,000 additional? No explanation had yet been given to the Committee of that. There was an item which was not in the Supplementary Estimate. There was nothing as to the state of affairs in Venezuela. A large expenditure must have occurred there. Why had it not been provided for? Was the Far West to be put under the cloak of the Far East? The special missions which were constantly recurring were much to be deprecated. We had a staff of am- bassadors, secretaries, and charges d'affaires, and surely they were sufficient for the special missions of this country. His own mission to Gibraltar had not cost the country anything, and he did not know why these special missions cost so much as they did.

The noble Lord had referred to the rulings which precluded the discussion of policy on Supplementary Estimates. Mr. Speaker Peel was of opinion that as a rule the Committee could not discuss policy on the Supplementary Estimates, but he pointed out that these Supplementary Estimates might be such as to raise new questions. Therefore there must be a caveat entered against the contention that the Committee could never discuss policy on a Supplementary Estimate. He thought it was very objectionable to have these Supplementary Estimates. A Supplementary Estimate was usual when the Chancellor of the Exchequer found that he had more money than he would require at the finish of the year. One thing that was an abomination to the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to let money go in diminution of the National Debt, and word was passed round to the Departments to get up some extra expenditure. That was the practice. The noble Lord sat with bent brow and did not deny it. When there were no Supplementary Estimates presented, the Departments found it possible to put the charges into next year's Estimate.

MR. COURTENAY WARNER (Staffordshire, Lichfield)

did not think a sufficient explanation had been given of the charge "consequent on the state of affairs in the Far East." The Member for Lynn Regis had probably hit upon the right reason. Certainly the Committee ought to know what was the state of affairs which had caused this enormous charge for telegrams.

*LORD CRANBORNE dissented from the view expressed by the hon. Member for Lynn Regis as to the reason for Supplementary Estimates being presented. The hon. Member had said that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer had a good deal of money to spare, word was conveyed to the Departments to send in Supplementary Estimates. He thought it was very seldom that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had money to spare. So far from pressure being put on the Departments to produce Supplementary Estimates, he could assure the hon. Memberand the Committee that nothing Annoyed the Government more than supplementary estimates because they were aware of the opportunities they afforded for taking up time that might be otherwise employed. In answer to the hon. Member for the Lich field Division, he had to state that the negotiation of the China Treaty alone would convince him of the necessity for a large bill for telegraphing, He had the commercial treaty in his hand. It covered ten or eleven pages of close print, every word of which was telegraphed to this country Then there were telegraphic charges not only for the treaty itself, but also for the negotiations, so that the plenipotentiaries of this country might be fully instructed. The Treaty was before the Committee, and he thought the explanations he had given ought to satisfy the Committee. There were many other matters of interest besides the Treaty which were agitated in the Far East in the year brought to a close, and about which telegrams had to be sent. He would like to remind hon. Gentlemen that they very often put questions to him as to the proceedings in the Far East, and very properly so, and that these questions frequently necessitated telegrams being sent to the Far Fast.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES asked if the Vote included the cost of telegrams in reference to Venezuela.

*LORD CRANBORNE said no; his answer referred only to telegrams to the Far Hast.

*MR. WYLIE (Dumbartonshire)

said the Foreign Office had had an enormous amount of work during the past year in connection with negotiations in the Far East. It had had to consult merchants in this country as well as in the Far East, and on the, whole it had done its work very well. He was sorry to notice a tendency on the part of some hon. Members to belittle the work which had been thrown on the Chinese Commission, because its work, he con- ceived, had been beneficial to this country. From the very first he had advocated the necessity for the abolition of the Likin duties and its feasibility The pessimistic views expressed by some hon. Members opposite had weakened the hands of Sir James MacKie in negotiating the treaty, and their predictions as to the faithlessness of the Chinese Government in carrying it out were also most injudicious. This commercial treaty was an enormous advance on the Tien-Tsin Treaty.

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON said he wished to ask whether anything could be discussed on tin; Supplementary Estimates which could not be discussed on the original Vote?

*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN was understood to rule that it could not, unless it was entirely new matter.

*MR. WYLIE said that the principal objection seemed to be taken to the sum of £4,000 in connection with special missions in the Far East, and he contended that that money had been exceedingly well spent, as those who were intimately acquainted with the facts knew perfectly well that the results we had derived from that expenditure were worth it.

SIR JOHN GORST (Cambridge University)

said that the Committee wanted to understand the answer the noble Lord had given. The hon. Member for Kings Lynn took exception to this £6,000 for telegrams, because he considered that a considerable part of it had been used for carrying on negotiations with Venezuela. Were the Committee to understand that these negotiations with Venezuela had in no. way increased the expense of telegrams beyond the sum now named in the Estimates? If they had entailed an increase as compared with the expenditure which was anticipated when the Estimates were framed, his hon. friend was entitled to an answer to his question.

*LORD CRANBORNE said that the money which he was now asking for was for the Far East, and the Far East alone. As to the sums which it had cost the country for telegrams with regard to Venezuela, when the proper time came it would be his duty to submit the matter to the consideration of the Committee.

SIR JOHN GORST asked if they spent all this money on Chinese telegrams, while the Venezuela telegrams had been paid for out of the money voted last year? The House of Commons had the right to know what particular services had caused this increase of expenditure, and if the negotiations with Venezuela had contributed to make that increase necessary the House of Commons had a right to know how much of that increase was due to the particular contingency of the negotiations with Venezuela.

MR. COURTENAY WARNER said that the noble Lord had not made this matter clear at all. It was very easy for the noble Lord to say that he allocated this £6,000 for the payment of Chinese telegrams, but he understood that the telegrams to Venezuela had been taken out of the original Vote, and that therefore the noble Lord would have less money to spend on the Chinese telegrams: hence the necessity for the Supplementary Estimate.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES said that the noble Lord had declared that the whole of this money was for telegrams to the Far East, and that no part of it was a provision for Venezuela telegrams. When he asked the noble Lord when he would be ready to explain the Venezuela telegrams, the noble Lord suggested that the money required for these telegrams would be asked for at some future date. What did that mean? It meant that it would appear in next year's Estimates. Why then did not this Eastern expenditure go into next year's Estimates? Where was the justification for separating the telegrams with regard to Venezuela and China when the expenditure was incurred in the same year? The reason for putting China into the Estimates and omitting Venezuela was conceivably that the Government were anxious to court a discussion with regard to China, and as anxious, or more anxious, to avoid discussion with regard to Venezuela. Would the noble Lord state what the telegrams in connection with Venezuela had cost? He himself put it down at £10,000. He was certain that that sum was not too much.

*THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN said he would remind the hon. Gentleman that the noble Lord had stated that no part of this Vote was for Venezuela telegrams.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES said he would not pursue the question of the amount of the Venezuela telegrams; but he had a right to complain of its omission.

*THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN said that hon. Gentleman could only discuss the Estimates on the paper.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES said that the Estimate on the paper was dishonest and incomplete, and he would vote for the Amendment.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)

said that the member of the Government from whom the Committee ought to have an explanation was not the noble Lord, but the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. It was obvious from the noble Lord's answer that there had been some alteration in those Estimates which had put the Committee in a very difficult position to discuss them. What they wanted to know was had there been an attempt made to avoid discussion on Venezuelan questions, and had not this been brought about by the fact that the excess over the original Estimates for telegrams had been put down to China, and the part due to Venezuelan telegrams had been excluded. Surely the Committee was entitled to ask some Member of the Government why it was that if there had been an excess on the China telegrams and equally an excess on the Venezuelan telegrams, the one was here on the Paper, and the other absent. There must be some reason, either financial, or political, for that omission. If the noble Lord could not give a clear explanation it would be necessary to send for the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. [At this point Mr. Hayes Fisher entered the House.] He was glad that the hon. Gentleman had returned to his place. What he wanted to ask the hon. Gentleman was—there must have been clearly an excess on the telegram Vote for Venezuela, and also an excess on the Vote for China—-whether the whole of the excess for general telegrams had been put down to China and whether the excess on the Venezuelan telegrams had been paid for out of the ordinary Votes; and, if so, why had the Vote for Venezuela been so placed as to put it out of the power of the Committee to discuss the question? Either both the Votes ought to have been on the Supplementary Estimates or neither of them.

MR. HAYES FISHER said he was sorry he had not been present when the hon. Gentleman first asked his question, but he had been called away by other business. The hon. Gentleman asked him why the Venezuelan telegrams were not included in the Supplementary Estimates. What happened, so far as the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was concerned, was that he sent round to the different departments, and asked them whether they had any Supplementary Estimates, and, if so, whether they would let him know by a certain date. They had obtained the best information they could on the occasion, and were informed that the cause of the Supplementary Estimate was the very excessive number of telegrams with reference to Chinese affairs. He could not possibly give the dates on which all the Supplementary Estimates had been asked for. It would be impossible for him to carry that in his recollection. They were told on the authority of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that enough money had not been taken in the Estimates to meet the necessities of the cost of telegrams in connection with Chinese affairs, and so far as he was aware nothing was said about Venezuela. Most certainly, from the point of view of the Treasury, they had no intention of hiding anything in connection with Venezuela.


The hon. Gentleman cannot discuss anything in connection with Venezuela on this Vote, as it is not included in the Vote.

MR. HAVES FISHER said he had no intention of discussing Venezuela. He was merely replying to the hon. Member who stated that the Estimate was pre- sented in such a manner as to shut out the discussion of other topics. The Estimates were not framed with that object, and the Treasury thought that sufficient reason had been adduced to warrant the Committee in passing the Estimate.

MR. KEARLEY said it now appeared that a new system had been introduced, which, in his opinion, was a very unbusinesslike one. At the present time of plentiful surpluses, the last thing a Chancellor of the Exchequer desired was to pay over any part of his surplus to the diminution of the National Debt.


I would remind the hon. Gentleman that he cannot discuss the general question on this Vote. It would not be in order for him to discuss transference of money from one Vote to another.

MR. KEARLEY said he thoroughly understood that. A question of principle was, however, involved. The system at the Treasury was that all the departments were requested to state their wants, whereupon their wants were satisfied.


That is a general question, and may be discussed on some other occasion. At present the hon. Member can only discuss the actual Supplementary Vote on the Paper.

MR. C. R. SPENCER (Northampton shire, Mid.)

said, on a point of order, that the Secretary to the Treasury explained to the Committee just now the system—


Istopped the Secretary of the Treasury, and perhaps I ought to have stopped him sooner.

SIR ALBERT ROLLIT said he accepted the ruling of the Chair, and wished to know what the telegrams were concerned with. The allusion to China was merely a note. Would the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs give the Committee an assurance that no part of the £6,000 had been used for any other purpose.

LORD CRANBORNE said he stated he was not taking it for any other purpose.

SIR ALBERT ROLLIT said the correct view to take of the matter was not what the money was taken for-, but how it was to be spent.

MR. KEARLEY said it was quite evident that the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs when he endeavoured to give the Committee an explanation was not fully acquainted with the Estimate. It now appeared that it had not been even decided how the money was to be spent; and the Committee; was entitled to know how it was to be spent. The noble Lord had no right to lay down a particular way in which money was to be spent. That was a matter for the Treasury. He submitted that he was entitled to ask the Under-Secretary why no money was taken for Somaliland telegrams and Venezuelan telegrams. That was what they wanted to get at, and they were simply being pulled away from the main track on the bare statement of the Under Secretary, who admittedly had not the knowledge of the Estimates possessed by the Secretary to the Treasury. The Committee was entitled to know whether another Supplementary Estimate would have to be submitted later for Somaliland and Venezuelan telegrams.

MR. MOON (St. Pancras, N.)

said he thought it would be in the recollection of many hon. Members, especially hon. Members who followed Chinese affairs, that British merchants had great difficulty in North-East China with regard to a certain British railway from Pekiu to, practically, Niuchwang. It had passed into the hands of another Power, and finally, after a great deal of trouble and several months negotiation, the Government obtained the railway back. It appeared to him that that process alone must have involved a great number of telegrams.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON said that as the Secretary to the Treasury was not responsible for the way in which the Estimate had been placed before the Committee, the responsibility went back to the Foreign Office. His point was that the noble Lord was responsible for the form of the Estimate. Altogether £50,000 had been spent on telegrams during the year, and it was quite clear that some of that money was expended on telegrams con- nected with Venezuela and Somaliland, because those two matters occurred unexpectedly and must have involved additional expenditure. Yet the noble Lord's Department had put down on the Estimate that the whole of the excess was caused by Chinese telegrams. It would be quite clear, he thought, that the excess was not due entirely and absolutely to China, and he therefore wished to know what was the ground on which the House of Commons was not allowed to discuss Somaliland or Venezuela, but was confined to the discussion of Chinese questions. It was not right or fair for the Department, by means of a small note, not only to deceive the House of Commons but to prevent hon. Members from having that legitimate discussion to which they were entitled. The Committee ought to have a really clear explanation from the noble Lord as to why the House of Commons had been jockeyed out of a discussion on Somaliland and Venezuela.

MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE asked if the noble Lord would state how much had been spent on Chinese telegrams over and above the amount in the Supplementary Estimate.

SIR J. BLUNDELL MAPLE (Camberwell, Dulwich)

, said he thought that the explanation on the Paper was quite as much as they could expect. They were told that the telegrams cost £ 6,000 in excess of the original Estimate. If a mistake were made with regard to the amount required for telegrams to China, and it was exceeded by £6,000, that was a sufficient explanation. He thought the Committee had been told quite sufficient.

*MR. ALFRED DAVIES (Carmarthen Boroughs)

thought that this was rather a storm in a teacup. When the noble Lord had given full explanation on this point every one would be satisfied. If they had the information as to how much of the £4: 4,000 had been allocated to telegrams to China and the information asked for by the hon. Member for Poplar they would be in the position of knowing how much had been spent.

*LORD CRANBORNE said the full amount spent for telegrams from Pekin was £16,846, including the sum now asked for; the telegrams from the Foreign Office were not distinguished and he could not therefore give that information. The hon. Member for Poplar had asked for some further explanation on this point. The hon. Member had quite mistaken what the original nature of the Estimate was. It was an Estimate for many years submitted to the Committee for a large sum of money for various items. It was impossible to tell how much telegrams were going to cost, and this sum was taken by the Foreign Office as an estimate of what was likely to be the cost of telegrams for the year. All sorts of contingencies bad to be taken into account and to say that the condition of things in South America was to be excluded from these Estimates was an unwarrantable assumption. There was no reason in the world why Venezuela should not be included in that sum. Among other places China had to be dealt with. The service to China was very expensive and a great expense had been thrown upon this country through what had taken place there. What had taken place in China? First of all, there was the commercial treaty which had been negotiated; then there was the transfer of the territory from the troops in occupation to the Chinese authorities, and there was also the question of the Russian evacuation of Manchuria, which at a later stage came within these telegrams; then there was the drawing up of the protocol. All these matters had to be done by telegram It would, of course, be out of order to discuss those questions now, and he had only mentioned

Abraham, W. (Cork, N. E.) Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Duffy, William J.
Ambrose, Robert Causton, Richard Knight Dunn, Sir William
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbt. Hy. Charming, Francis Allston Evans, Saml. T. (Glamorgan)
Atherley-Jones, L. Condon, Thomas Joseph Ffrenck, Peter
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Crean, Eugene Flavin, Michael Joseph
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Cullman, J. Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)
Blake, Edward Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Gilhooly, James
Roland, John Davies, M. Vaughan, (Cardign) Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Delany, William Griffith, Ellis J.
Bryce, Right Hon. James Dewar, John A. (Interness, sh.) Guidon, Sir W. Brampton
Burke, E. Haviland Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Haldane. Rt. Hon. Richard B.
Buxton, Sydney Charles Donelan, Captain A. Harmsworth. R. Leicester
Caldwell, James Doogan, P. C. Hemphill. Rt. Hon. Chas. H.
Cameron, Robert Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Holland, Sir William Henry

them to show how heavy was the charge thrown on the Foreign Office by telegrams to China. The House might be sure they were not going to be deprived of their right to criticise the Estimates, and that when the original Estimates came on there would be no such restriction as was placed by the Chairman on the Supplementary Estimates.

MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE said he certainly should not withdraw his Amendment, because the noble Lord had put the case for the Amendment even more strongly than it had been put before. The noble Lord had told the Committee that this Vote was taken for telegrams all over the world. It was all very well to say that when the Estimates came on there would be no restriction in discussing them, but they would be new Estimates dealing with new facts.

MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE thought these telegrams were a curse to the country. A great deal of money had been spent, and the noble Lord told them a commercial treaty had been ratified, every word of which had had to be telegraphed to and fro many times. That was a system of centralisation with which he did not agree. We sent competent and capable men abroad who had our interest at heart and if they continually felt the check string from Downing Street they lost all individuality. He protested against trying to manage all these matters from home.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 108; Noes, 189. (Division List No. 11.)

Horniman, Frederick John Norton, Capt. Cecil William Shipman, Dr. John G.
Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. O Brien, Kend. (Tipperary, Mid) Sinclair, John (Forfarshirc)
Joicey, Sir James O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Jones, Wm. (Garnarvonshire) O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W) Soares, Ernest J.
Joyce, Michael O'Doherty, William Speneer, Rt. Hn C. R. (Northants)
Kearley, Hudson E. O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) Strachey, Sir Edward
Lambert, George O'Dowd, John Sullivan, Donal
Law, H. Alex. (Donegal, W.) O'Kelly, Connor (Mayo, N.) Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)
Layland-Barratt, Francis O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N) Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)
Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington) O'Mara, James Toulmin, George
Lough, Thomas Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham) Wallace, Robert
London, W. Partington, Oswald Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. Paulton, James Mellor White, Luke (York, E. R.)
MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Power, Patrick Joseph Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah Price, Robert John Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
M'Govern, T. Reddy, M. Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
M'Kenna, Reginald Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid.)
Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Redmond, William (Clare) Yoxall, James Henry
Murnaghan, George Reid, Sir R. T. (Dumfries)
Murphy, John Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)
Nannetti, Joseph P. Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Charles Hobhouse and Mr. Warner.
Newnes, Sir George Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Nolan, Col. J. P. (Galway, N.) Schwann, Charles E.
Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Shackleton, David James
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Cripps, Charles Alfred Hoult, Joseph
Aird, Sir John Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton) Howard. J. (Midd., Tott'ham
Allsopp, Hon. George Crossley, Sir Savile Johnstone, Heywood
Anson, Sir William Reynell Dalrymple, Sir Charles Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George
Arkwright, John Stanhope Denny, Colonel Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Dewar, Sir T. R. (T'r. Haml'ts) Kimber, Henry
Atkinson, Right Hon. John Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Knowles, Lees
Bailey, James (Walworth) Douglas, Rt. Horn A. Akers Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.
Bain, Colonel James Robert Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore Laurie, Lieut.-General
Balcarres, Lord Duke, Henry Edward Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)
Baldwin, Alfred Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Man'r) Elliot, Eon. A. Ralph Douglas Lawson. John Grant
Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds) Faber, George Denison (York) Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed. Llewellyn, Evan Henry
Beckett, Ernest William Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Lockie, John
Bignold, Arthur Finch. Rt. Hon. George H. Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.
Bigwood, James Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Loder, Gerald Walter Erskhie
Blundell, Colonel Henry Fisher, William Hayes Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)
Bond, Edward Flannery, Sir Fortescue Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.)
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith) Flower, Ernest Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Boulnois, Edmund Forster, Henry William Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Bousfield, William Robert Gardner, Ernest Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth)
Brassey, Albert Garfit, William Macdona, John Cumming
Brotherton, Edward Allen Gibbs, Hn A. G. H (City of Lond) M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)
Bull, William James Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans) M'Calmont, Colonel James
Butcher, John George Cordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nrn) Malcolm, Ian
Campbell, Bt Hn J A (Glasg.) Gore, Hn. G. R. C. Ormsby- (Salop) Maple, Sir John Blundell
Carson. Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Gorst. Rt. Hon. Sir J Eldon Martin, Richard Biddulph
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim Melville, Beresford Valentine
Cavendish. V C W (Derbysh.) Goulding, Edward Alfred Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.
Cayzer, Sir Charles William Gretton, John Milvain, Thomas
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Greville, Hon. Ronald Mitchell, William
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Groves, James Grimble Morgan, David J (Walthamstow)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J A (Worc) Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. Morrison, James Archibald
Chapman, Edward Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld. G. (Midx) Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer
Clare, Octavius Leigh Hamilton, Marq. of (Londondy) Mount, William Arthur
Olive, Captain Percy A. Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robt. Wm. Muntz, Sir Philip A.
Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E. Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfd) Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute)
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Harris, Frederick Leverton O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready Haslett, Sir James Horner Parkes, Ebenezer
Colston, Chas. Edw H. Athole Hay, Hon. Claude George Peel, Hn Wm Robert Wellesley
Compton, Lord Alwyne Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. Percy, Earl
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg.) Hobhouse. Rt Hn H (Somrst E) Plummer, Walter R.
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Hogg. Lindsay Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) Hope, J. F. (Sheff., B'tside) Pretyman, Ernest George
Cranborne, Viscount Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry Purvis, Robert
Pym, C. Guy Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln) Walker, Col. William Hall
Randies, John S. Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight) Walrond. Rt. Hn. Sir William H
Rattigan, Sir William Henry Sharpe, William Edward T. Welby, Lt.-Col. A C E (Taunton)
Reid, James (Greenock) Sinclair, Louis (Romford) Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd
Remnant, James Farquharson Smith, James Parker (Lanarks) Wilson, A. Stanley (York E. R.)
Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge) Spear, John Ward Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green) Stanley, Lord (Lancs) Wilson, John ((Glasgow)
Ritchie, Rt Hon. Chas. Thomson Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M. Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)
Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) Stone, Sir Benjamin Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E . R. (Bath)
Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart
Rolleston, Sir John F. L. Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier Wylie, Alexander
Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye Talbot, Lord E, (Chichester) Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert Thorburn, Sir Walter Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter Thornton, Percy M.
Round, Rt. Hon. James Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Royds, Clement Molyneux Tritton, Charles Ernest TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther.
Russell, T. W. Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward
Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford Valentia, Viscount
Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert Vincent. Sir Edgar (Excter)

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Resolutions to be reported.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £69,600, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1903, for the Grant in aid of the British Protectorate in East Africa."

MR. M'KENNA (Monmouthshire, N.)

in moving the reduction of the Vote by £100, complained that no Papers dealing with the subject had been issued to Members who were entitled to know whether this Supplementary Estimate was due to a "muddle" or a "moss." The original Vote of £244,000 was nearly three times larger than the original Vote of the preceding year. Now they were asked for this additional £69,600, and not a word of explanation had been given. They were not told what had happened in British Hast Africa, or why this additional charge was proposed. Since the Government took over the protectorate from the British East Africa Company nine years ago we had spent in grants in aid of British East Africa £1,200,000. That was an average of £133,000 a year. But the expenditure had been increasing, and in the last three years the average was £212,300 a year. In the six years ended March 31st, 1900, we had spent in grants in aid £566,675, and during the same period the total British trade with British East Africa amounted only to £540,000. That meant that even if all the goods landed in British East Africa cost us nothing to manufacture or deliver, and all the goods we received were delivered here without cost, we should still be the losers.

And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Resolutions to be reported to-morrow; Committee also report Progress; to sit again this evening.