Commons Sitting of 22 February 1904

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 62 has been complied with, viz.:—Midland Railway Bill, Watford and District Tramways (Extension of Time) Bill. Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.
  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS].
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in respect of the Bills comprised in the List reported by the Chairman of Ways and Means as intended to originate in the House of Lords, he has certified that the Standing Orders have been complied with in the following case, viz.:—Preston and Lytham Tramways and Tramroad.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING (LONDON) BILL (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 18th day of this instant February, That, in the case of the following Bill, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have

  531
  been complied with, viz.:—Electric Lighting (London) Bill.
  Brixham Gas Bill; Great Northern Railway Bill; London, Camberwell, and Dulwich Tramways Bill; Mullingar, Kells, and Drogheda Railway Bill; Northwestern Electricity and Power Gas Bill; Ryde Gas Bill; Southend-on-Sea Gas Bill. Read a second time, and committed.
  Kilmarnock Corporation Order Confirmation Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
  Clyde Navigation (Shieldhall Dock) Bill. "To authorise the trustees of the Clyde Navigation to construct a dock at Shieldhall, and other works; to borrow additional money; and for other purposes," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time.
  Clyde Navigation (Works) Bill. "To authorise the trustees of the Clyde Navigation to construct quays, wharves, and basins at Yorkhill and Merklands, and river walls, tramways, and other works; to make further provision with respect to the storage of goods, tolls, and rates, and the borrowing of additional money; and for other purposes," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time.

  POLICE AND SANITARY COMMITTEE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Committee of Selection do nominate a Committee, not exceeding Eleven Members, to be called the Police and Sanitary Committee, to whom shall be committed all Private Bills promoted by municipal and other local authorities by which it is proposed to create powers relating to Police or Sanitary Regulations in conflict with, deviation from, or excess of the provisions of the general Law.
  "That Standing Orders 150 and 173A apply to all such Bills.
  "That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  "That Four be the quorum of the Committee.
  "That if the Committee shall report to the Committee of Selection that any Clauses of any Bill referred to them (other than Clauses containing police and sanitary regulations) are such, as having
  532
  regard to the terms of reference it is not in their opinion necessary or advisable for them to deal with, the Committee of Selection shall thereupon refer the Bill to a Select Committee, who shall consider those Clauses and so much of the Preamble of the Bill as relates thereto, and shall determine the expenditure (if any) to be authorised in respect of the parts of the Bill referred to them. That the Committee shall deal with the remaining Clauses of such Bill, and so much of the Preamble as relates thereto, and shall determine the period and mode of repayment of any money authorised by the Select Committee to be borrowed and shall report the whole Bill to the House, stating in their Report what parts of the Bill have been considered by each Committee.
  "That the Committee have power, if they so determine, to sit as two Committees, and in that event to apportion the Bills referred to the Committee between the two Committees, each of which shall have the full powers of, and be subject to the instructions which apply to, the undivided Committee, and that Three be the quorum of each of the two Committees."—(Mr. Cochrane.)
  MR. JOHN ELLISsaid that a year previously when a similar Motion was on the Paper he put down an Amendment which by accident was not discussed, and he had not done so this year because every one knew that the present was a moribund Parliamment, and probably it was the last time the Committee would be set up by this Parliament. If hon. Members referred to the records they would find that there used to be considerable discussion as to the policy of setting up of this Committeee, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton and other Members expressed strong opinions in regard to it. That arose no doubt from an unfortunate state of things which then existed, under which the Committee gave every little local authority all the powers they asked for in excess of and distinct from general powers. Hon. Members would remember how the boroughs of Torquay and Eastbourne obtained powers which they put to such use as to make it necessary for the House to step in and deprive them of such

  533
  powers. Since then a change had taken place in the policy of the Committee, which now required very strict proof as to the necessity for powers asked for. That principle had been pretty well established, so that it was not necessary to again raise the point. But there was one question he would like to touch upon, and that was as to the present exemption of members of this Committee from the necessity of referring to the declaration provided in Standing Order 117 as to the absence of personal interest or interest on the part of their constituencies in the matters with which the Committee had to deal. He was not making the observation in the slightest degree in a personal sense, but he could not see why the members of this Committee should not be subject to the conditions which attached to membership of other Committees, and he certainly should as at present advised raise the matter in the next Parliament.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order! order! It is a quarter past Two. The debate stands adjourned until to-morrow.
  And, it being a quarter past Two of the clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed to-morrow.

PETITIONS.
  LICENCE HOLDERS.
  Petition for redress of grievances: Whitby; and Bollington and Butley; to lie upon the Table.

  LICENCES (RENEWAL).
  Petitions against alteration of Law: from Bradford; Northumberland; Manchester; Kirkcaldy (two); Rochdale; Liskeard (two); Billshill; Port Mul-grave; Market Drayton; Melbury; Castleton; Leigh; Bannockburn; Sand-gate; Chester; Bedford; Ilford; Houns-low; Ratcliffe; Ongar; Waterford; Bromley by Bow; Liverpool; Finedon (two); Kincardine; Berwick; North Salford; Penmoch; Llwynfriod; Swel-son; Llwynygroes; Longsight; Weston-super-Mare; Salford; Newcastle-on-Tyne; North Hants; Handsworth;
  534
  Smethwick; St. Mellons; and New bridge; to lie upon the Table.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES (ELECTORS, ETC.) (UNITED KINGDOM).
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 3rd February; Sir Charles Dilke]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 69.]
  UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN.
  Copy presented, of Annual Statistical Report by the University Court of the University of Aberdeen for 1902–3 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 70.]
  FOREIGN BOUNTIES (COMMERCIAL, No. 2, 1904).
  Copy presented, of Reports by His Majesty's Representatives Abroad on Bounties other than those on Shipping and Navigation paid by the State in the countries in which they reside [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

    Poisoning Fatalities at Portsmouth Lunatic Asylum.
    MR. REMNANT: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been directed to the recent deaths, by poisoning, of four inmates of the Portsmouth Lunatic Asylum, and to the evidence given at the inquiry by the coroner, disclosing want of care in the dispensing arrangements in that public institution; and whether, in view of the danger to life involved in leaving the important duty of compounding medicines to unqualified persons, steps will be taken by the Department to ensure that every dispensary under the control of a local authority shall be in the charge of a person holding the qualification under the Pharmacy Acts.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) The inquest in this case is not yet concluded; but my hon. friend

    535
    may be assured that the point to which he draws attention will be carefully considered.

    Water Supply to Schools in Crofting Counties.
    MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state how many public schools in each of the crofting counties have no water supply laid on to the premises.
    (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray) My only information in regard to the subject of the hon. Member's Question is based upon the observations made by the inspectors of the Education Department in the course of their visits to schools. The matter, however, is primarily one for the sanitary authority, and no exact statistics can be compiled from the inspectors' reports. Many of the schools in these districts appear not to have a supply of water laid on by pipes; but it does not follow that other methods of supply more suitable to the local circumstances may not be satisfactory. Wherever they have reason to think that it is deficient, the inspectors call attention to the fact and urge improvement.

    Infectious Diseases in Crofting Counties— Closing of Schools.
    MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state how many public schools have been closed in each of the crofting counties during the past year on account of an outbreak of infectious disease, the name of each such school, the period during which it was closed, and the nature of the disease.
    (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) I am sending the hon. Member a list giving the information asked for in his Question. The list is too voluminous to form part of a printed answer to a Question.

    New Inclosure in Hyde Park.
    MR. COGHILL (Stoke-upon-Trent): To ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he will state by whose authority a new inclosure has been formed in the centre of Hyde Park, on the north side of the Serpentine; to what purposes will it be devoted; what is the extent of the piece of ground taken from the use of the
    536
    public; and whether the inclosure is to be of a temporary or of a permanent character.
    (Answered by Lord Balcarres.) The new inclosure in Hyde Park, to which my hon. friend refers, is being formed by the Office of Works, and will contain plant-houses and forcing-frames for the plants required for the service of the Royal parks, in place of those now in use, which stand in Kensington Gardens and spoil the architectural effect of the Palace and of Wren's Orangery. Some of; the existing houses are in bad condition, and it is essential that they should be renewed. There has always been a service-yard in Hyde Park, and the same spot was considered to be a far more suitable and central position for plant-houses for the parks. It is therefore determined to remove the plant and frame ground altogether to Hyde Park by an enlargement of the existing service-yard. The work is specially provided for in the Vote for Royal Parks, the first instalment of the cost having been passed in May last. The area now occupied by the houses and frames in Kensington Gardens will, when vacated, be laid out as an ornamental garden. Substantially the public will gain three acres of lawn and flower-beds in exchange for about an equal area of grass-land taken into the new frame-ground. When the works are all finished and the plantations grown there will be also a gain in picturesque effect, both in Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens.

    Postal Deliveries in County Tyrone.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that, in a district of country from three quarters of a mile to three miles around Fivemiletown, county Tyrone, there is only a tri-weekly delivery of letters and parcels, the postman passing daily within a few perches of part of the district; and if he will endeavour to have this grievance remedied.
    (Answered by Lord Stanley.) It is the fact that in a part of the district served from Fivemiletown a delivery is afforded on three days a week only. I have made inquiry on the subject of improv-

    537
    ing the service, but as regards the greater part of this district it appears that the cost already incurred is relatively high, and that no further expense for increasing the frequency of the delivery would be warranted. The case is not so clear, however, as regards Altagoaghan, Tattinabuddagh, and the neighbourhood, and I am having further inquiry made with the view of ascertaining whether any improvement would be warranted in the service to those places. I will communicate the result of the inquiry to the hon. Member.

    Accommodation at West Ham Union Schools.
    SIR ERNEST FLOWER (Bradford, W.): To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that the certificate of the Union Schools of the West Ham Guardians, which in November, 1901, was exceeded by 169 children and in November. 1902, and September, 1903, was still exceeded, is at present exceeded by over 200 children; that the boys are entirely without day-room accommodation; that 144 girls have day-room accommodation of 23 feet 6 inches by 18 feet 2 inches only; that eighty-six infants have a day-room in which they also take their meals of 27 feet 2 inches by 18 feet 2 inches only; and whether, seeing that this overcrowding makes it impossible to isolate infectious diseases, and that skin and eye complaints are present in the same dormitory, he will urge on the guardians the necessity of ascertaining if all those children at present dependent on the rates are entitled to such maintenance, and of providing temporary accommodation by hiring houses in which small groups of children might be placed.
    (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I am aware of the overcrowding at these schools, and have impressed upon the guardians the serious responsibility which attaches to them in this matter. The guardians inform me that they are endeavouring to make arrangements for boarding out some of the children beyond the union. I am still in communication with them, and I have urged them to hire homes in or near the union or to provide temporary buildings in order to remedy at once the present state of
    538
    things. I have also suggested that they should have a "call over" of the children with a view of ascertaining if the numbers cannot be reduced.

    Performing Elephants at the London Hippodrome.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the item on the programme of entertainment at the London Hippodrome, entitled, the Plunging Elephants, where the elephants are forced on to a steep incline and precipitated into the water; and whether he proposes to take any action to stop such a proceeding.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I have no special power in this matter; but, having made inquiry, I am informed that no force is used in the performance. The elephants, under the direction of a keeper, proceed to the head of the chute, and thence slide into the water. There is no cruelty; and the animals are said to be well kept and cared for.

    Vivisection at University College Hospital—Visits of Inspector.
    DR. SHIPMAN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the statement made by Mr. Bayliss, in his evidence in Bayliss v. Coleridge, that the inspector appointed under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876, visited University College on an average once a week during the period Mr. Bayliss was conducting his researches and lectures there; whether he will state the exact number of visits paid by the inspector to University College during the year 1902; whether the inspector is officially connected with University College; and how many times the inspector visited each of the other places registered for vivisection in 1902.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) Twelve visits to University College in 1902 were reported by the inspector; but I understand that owing to his constant attendance at the college he was able to pay many visits to the laboratory; and these, when he found

    539
    nothing special to report, were not included in his return. The Inspector is Professor of Anatomy in University College, London. During 1902 the inspector and the assistant inspector paid 106 visits to the other registered places in England and Scotland, making an average of just under two visits to each place.

    Vivisection—Visits of Inspectors.
    DR. SHIPMAN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the fact that the inspector appointed under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876, only witnessed the whole of one and part of eleven experiments out of the total of 14,906 performed in 1902, he will consider the advisability of increasing the number of inspectors.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) It has to be remembered that of the 14,906 experiments mentioned in the Question, 12,776 were of the character of inoculations or feeding experiments. Further, apart from the actual experiments witnessed, large numbers of the animals have been seen by the inspectors, and their condition after the initial experiment examined. I am satisfied that the inspection is sufficient to keep me fully informed as to the practical working of the Act and the observance of its provisions; but if at any time I come to the conclusion that more inspection is desirable, I shall not hesitate to endeavour to obtain the necessary increase of staff.

    Promotion in the Civil Service.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state how many Civil Service writers were promoted to the Second Division under the provisions of the Treasury Minute of December, 1886; how many Civil Service writers have been promoted to the establishment as assistant clerks (Abstractor Class) under Treasury Minute of August, 1889; how many temporary clerical assistants have been promoted to the establishment as assistant clerks (New Class); how many senior assistant clerks (Abstractor Class) have been promoted to the Second Division under Clause 15 of
    540
    the Order in Council of 29th November 1898, and what proportion of these relate to Ireland; and how many assistant clerks (New Class) have been promoted to the Second Division.
    (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The numbers are 70, 600, 151, 121 (of whom 18 or 15 per cent., were in exclusively Irish Departments), and 13 respectively.

    Unexpended Balances—Scotch and Irish Votes.
    MR. WEIR: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, having regard to the fact that the unexpended balances of Votes surrendered to the Exchequer by Government Departments during the last ten years amount to £11,613,119 19s. 9d., will he state how much of this sum represents Scottish and Irish Votes respectively, irrespective of the Post Office and Inland Revenue Departments.
    (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The unexpended balances surrendered to the Exchequer on Scottish Votes in the last ten years amounted to £204,013 15s. 6d., and on Irish Votes to £718,136 7s. 11d. These figures relate only to Votes which provide exclusively for Scottish and Irish Services. They omit not only the Votes for the Post Office and Revenue Departments, but all other Votes of a general character.

    Estate Duty on Colonial Securities.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Estate Duty Department at Somerset House require payment of Estate Duty in this country in respect of colonial securities belonging to deceased persons domiciled in a British colony where the bonds, debentures, or certificates representing such securities are locally situate in this country, notwithstanding that such securities have already paid Estate Duty in the colony; and, if so, will he remedy this state of affairs by the insertion of a clause in the forthcoming Finance Bill which shall be retro-active, and in the meantime direct the authorities to suspend proceedings for the recovery of

    541
    Estate Duty in any case where Estate Duty has already been paid in a British colony.
    (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) It is correct that Estate Duty is payable in this country in respect of colonial securities belonging to deceased persons domiciled in a British colony or foreign country where the documents of title are in this country at the time of the death and the securities are marketable property here. This rule applied equally to the old Probate Duty, which the Estate Duty replaced, and there seems no sufficient reason for an alteration of the law.

    Postage on Type-written Circulars.
    MR. O'SHEE: To ask the Postmaster-General if he will say whether a circular which is printed in imitation of typewriting, enclosed in an unsealed envelope, is liable to the letter rate of postage; and, if so, will he explain why a distinction is drawn between such printing and printing in ordinary type.
    (Answered by Lord Stanley.) Circulars printed in imitation of type-writing and enclosed in unsealed envelopes are admitted to the privilege of the halfpenny post on condition that they are handed in at a head or branch Post Office, that special attention is called to their nature, and that at least twenty copies are posted at the same time. Unless these conditions are complied with the circulars are liable to letter postage. There is no infallible and easily applied test which will enable the Post Office to distinguish between type-written letters and circulars printed to imitate them, and it is necessary to impose the special conditions referred to in order to afford evidence that the halfpenny post is not being improperly used for the transmission of typewritten correspondence.

    Annual Leave in the Edinburgh Post Office.
    SIR ANDREW AGNEW: To ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been directed to the fact that the period for the annual leave of absence of the supervising body in the postal branches at Edinburgh, which for some years was confined to the
    542
    six months, April to September, is now to be extended, so as to include March and October; and whether, seeing that on the telegraph side of the same office, with as large a staff of supervisors, no difficulty is found in giving the annual leave within a period of six months, he can see his way to continuing the same privilege to the postal supervising staff.
    (Answered by Lord Stanley) I am informed that the inclusion of March and October in the period for the annual leave of the supervising officers in the postal branches at Edinburgh is not an innovation. I will inquire whether the present arrangements can be modified; but I fear that it may be impossible to do so without waste of staff.

    Royal Naval Reserve Stations in the West Highlands.
    MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state whether it is proposed to establish Royal Naval Reserve stations at any other places in the Western Highlands besides Ullapool.
    (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) It is also proposed to build a Royal Naval Reserve drill battery at Portree, in the Island of Skye.

    Progress of the Dingwall and Cromarty Railway.
    MR. WEIR: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state what progress is being made with the Dingwall and Cromarty Railway.
    (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) No progress appears to have been made in the actual construction of the railway, but I am informed that an early meeting of the directors of the company has been fixed to arrange for the issue of the company's capital.

    Changes in Tariffs of Foreign Countries.
    MR. JOHN ELLIS: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, in what Parliamentary Paper a succinct statement of the various changes in the tariffs of foreign countries during 1902 and 1903 can be found; and, if such does not exist, whether he will

    543
    cause such a Paper to be compiled and laid upon the Table.
    (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The Return of Foreign Import Duties issued by the Board of Trade contains a detailed account of the rates of duty levied in the principal commercial countries on the produce and manufactures of the United Kingdom. A summary is prefixed to the Return showing briefly the principal changes since the publication of the previous Return. The last number of this Return (which is now published annually) was issued in November last (Cd. 1735 of 1903), and the previous Return was dated May, 1902 (Cd. 780 of 1902.) Particulars of changes of foreign tariffs are noted as they occur in the Board of Trade Journal. If the information contained in these Returns is not sufficient for the hon. Member's purpose I shall be glad if he will communicate with me.

    Transfer of Royal Colleges of Art or Science to University of London.
    MR. ALLHUSEN: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether it is proposed to transfer either the Royal College of Art or the Royal College of Science to the University of London; and, if so, when such transfer will take effect.
    (Answered by Sir William Anson.) No proposal is before the Board to transfer the Royal College of Art or the Royal College of Science to the University of London.

    Indentured Coolies on Indian Tea Plantations.
    MR. MARKHAM: To ask the Secretary of State for India will he say the number of coolies working under indentures in the tea plantations, and the dates of the Acts sanctioning their employment; and will he lay upon the Table the regulations under which these indentured labourers work.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The latest Beturns received by me are for the year 1902–3, and show that at the end of June last there were 93,278 coolies in Assam under indenture (out of a total
    544
    labour population of 650,937). The Acts under which these persons are indentured are Act I. of 1882 and Act VI. of 1901, the latter Act superseding the former except as regards contracts made under the Act of 1882 not yet expired. The regulations applicable to indentured labourers are contained in these Acts, which will be found in the Library of the House. I may also refer to the Return presented by my predecessor in April last in compliance with the Address moved by the hon. Member for the Northern Division of Manchester, which is likewise in the Library.

    Sales on the Cusack Estate.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the proposed sale of 860 acres of the lands of the Cusack estate to certain persons at a figure of twenty seven and a half years purchase requires the sanction of the Estates Commissioners; and, if so, can he state when the matter is likely to be brought before them.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) This estate is administered in the Land Judge's Court. I have no information on the matters alluded to in the Question. But I learn that the solicitor having carriage of the proceedings will apply forthwith to the Land Judge for an order authorising the Estates Commissioners to issue a request under Section 7 of the Act of 1903, with a view to their making an offer for the purchase of the property.

    Coal Supplies for Irish Public Buildings.
    SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will make inquiry into the question of the coal supplies for the model schools and other public buildings in Ireland under the control of the Board of Works; and if he will state in particular on what system are the coal supplies for the Enniscorthy model schools provided.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Tenders for coal supplies for model schools and other public buildings in Ireland are invited in the usual manner by advertisement published in the local Press.

    545
    This course was adopted in the case of the schools specially referred to in the Question.

    Pensions of Irish National Teachers.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how many Irish National Teachers have been placed on the I pension establishment since the new pension rules came into force on the 1st April, 1900.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The number of teachers retired on pension since the date mentioned is 740.

    Kenagh Drainage District—Election of Board.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will say who are the electors for the drainage district of Kenagh, county Longford; when the term of the office of the present board expires; and when and where the next election will be held.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The electors are the proprietors of lands in the drainage district. A nominal list of these is open, I apprehend, to the inspection of any person interested, upon application to the Drainage Trustees. The trustees were elected for three years; the date of the last election was 12th June, 1901. I have no information in respect of the precise date and place of the next election.

    Sale of King Harman Estate.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will say, in connection with the sale of the King Harman (Kenagh, county Longford) Estate, whether any outside proposals have been received for the purchase of the village of Kenagh; and, if so, will he direct the Estates Commissioners to give the occupying tenants preference.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Negotiations are proceeding for the sale of so much of this village as may be sold under the Land Purchase Acts to occupying tenants.

    Attendance of Resident Magistrates at Dungiven Petty Sessions.
    MR. O'DOHERTY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will say what is the rule regulating the attendance of resident magistrates at petty sessions held within the districts assigned to them by the Executive Government; and how many petty sessions Courts held at Dungiven, county Londonderry, were attended by the resident magistrate within whose district this petty sessions Court is during the past twelve months.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) A resident magistrate is required to attend the various Courts of petty sessions in his district unless prevented by illness or other sufficient reason. There were twelve such Courts at Dungiven during the past year. The resident magistrate was present at four of these; on four occasions he was absent through illness; and on four occasions he was absent on leave. On every occasion there was a good attendance of local justices.

    Sale of the O'Brien Estate, County Longford.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state why the negotiations for the sale of the O'Brien estate in Cornakelly and Corglass, county Longford, are not proceeding; and whether, seeing that the middle landlord's deeds, loss of which hitherto obstructed the sale, have now been produced, he will direct that the proceedings under the 40th Section of the Act of 1896 be now completed.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The deeds were only recently forthcoming. Negotiations for sale cannot be entered upon until the rental has been settled. There will be no avoidable delay in the proceedings.

    Completion of Pier at Loughshinny, County Dublin.
    MR. CLANCY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will explain why no funds are available for the completion of the pier at Loughshinny, county of Dublin, seeing that it appears

    547
    from the latest report of the Irish Board of Works that there were, on the 31st March, 1903, funds to the amount of £12,450, to meet the cost of works in progress and of any additional works to be undertaken under the Sea Fisheries Act, under which the existing Lough-shinny works have been constructed.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The available balance of the Sea Fisheries Fund at the present date is only £7,330. This money will be required to meet the necessities of fishing centres of relatively greater importance than Loughshinny.

    Construction of Piers at Falchorrib and Gortnasate.
    MR. HUGH LAW: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland when it is proposed to commence the construction of the piers at Falchorrib and Gortnasate, under the Marine Works (Ireland) Act.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) It is not practicable to fix a date for the commencement of either work. Preliminary plans and an estimate for a breakwater at Falchorrib are being prepared and will very shortly be completed. With respect to Gortnasate, the Government is in communication with the Congested Districts Board respecting the necessary allocation of the funds as between the harbour works and approach road. A decision will be come to without delay.

    Construction of Boat-slip at Port-a-raid.
    MR. HUGH LAW: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord - Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the Rossbeg fishery in Dowros Bay, county Donegal, is hampered by lack of adequate landing facilities; and whether steps will be taken to improve these by the construction of an additional boat-slip at Port-a-raid or elsewhere.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The question of the sufficiency of the landing accommodation at Rossbeg will be considered by the Congested Districts Board at its next meeting.

    Immigrants to New South African Colonies —Special Facilities to ex Soldiers.
    DR. SHIPMAN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any and, if so, what steps are being taken to facilitate immigrants from this country or the Colonies settling upon the land of the recently-acquired territory in South Africa; whether any, and, if any, what special facilities have been given to those who fought in the late South African war, and who were desirous of settling upon the Transvaal territory.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) Settlement on the land in the new Colonies is regulated by the Ordinances printed at pp. 25 and 69 of Cd. 1463. By Section 7 of the Orange River Colony Ordinance and Section 13 (5) of the Transvaal Ordinance a certain preference is given to applicants who have served.

    Chinese Coolies in Transvaal Mines.
    MR. ASHTON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is proposed to make regulations to prevent the Chinese coolies in the Transvaal mine compounds being mulcted of their wages by any truck system; if not, will he take steps to prevent it; and whether the officer to be stationed in China to inform the Chinese coolies of the conditions of service in the Transvaal mines will be in the pay of the Transvaal Government or of the mine-owners or their contractors.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) Lord Milner informs me that the law of the South African Republic, No. 18 of 1896, provides against truck system and has purposely never been repealed, that the truck system does not now exist on the mines and that its introduction in connection with Chinese labour has never been contemplated. The officer in China will be in the pay of the Transvaal Government.

    Queen Anne's Bounty—Relief of Poorer Benefices from Payment of First-fruits and tenths.
    SIR JOHN GORST: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will state what steps have been taken by the governors of Queen Anne's Bounty to relieve the

    549
    poorer benefices from payment of first-fruits and tenths; and whether arrangements can be made under the existing law for giving similar relief from payments of fees for presentation or induction to the poorer benefices out of the funds of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
    (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) The governors of Queen Anne's Bounty are now empowered to make grants to benefices not exceeding £200 a year in net annual income, and still chargeable with first-fruits and tenths, or either of them, to meet the sums from time to time becoming due in respect of these charges. They have communicated with the incumbents of all benefices still chargeable with first-fruits and tenths, and have received applications in respect of 750 benefices. Of these, 366 have been relieved of payment; 85 proved to be ineligible, as exceeding £200 per annum in value; the remainder are under consideration. The suggestion in the second part of the Question cannot be carried into effect without legislation.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    South State African Railways.
    MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state what are the Imperial Military Railways for which £900,000 is asked in the Supplementary Estimates, what will the total expenditure upon them be, and has Parliament approved of the undertakings.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLB-FORSTER,): This sum represents the balance of expenditure in connection with the State railways in the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies for the period ending 30th June, 1902, up to which date these railways were administered under the direction of the military authorities.
    MR. LOUGH: Has this ever been mentioned to Parliament before?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Yes, Sir, but it has now come into account for the first time.

    1st Army Corps Barrack Arrangements.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state what is the reason of certain regiments being shown in recent Army Orders as under orders to move from Sheffield or Lichfield to 1st Army Corps, instead of from one named station to another.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: There are various barracks in and about Aldershot in the 1st Army Corps Command and they are of different capacity. It is considered desirable to give the General Officer Commanding a free hand in placing the battalions transferred to his command in such barracks as he may think fit.

    South African Garrison.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will say whether the garrison regiments now stationed in the Mediterranean are under orders for South Africa; and, if so, what is the reason for this change of quarters; what are the stations in South Africa to which these regiments are being sent; and what will be the increased cost of these garrison regiments in South Africa as compared with ordinary regiments.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: These garrison battalions are under orders for South Africa and will be quartered at Pietermaritzburg (until quarters are ready at Pretoria), Standerton, Bloemfontein, and Harrismith. It was found impracticable to house more than a few of their families in Malta and Gibraltar, and it was, therefore, held to be preferable in the best interests of the men and their families to remove them to South Africa. The additional cost of a garrison battalion in South Africa as compared with a line battalion is about £20,000 a year; but against this a saving of £10,000 a year now paid as separation allowance to the families which cannot be accommodated in the Mediterranean should be set off.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: What is the percentage of married men?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Very large. In one case there are, I believe, 300.

    Military Weapons—The Sword.
    SIR THOMAS DEWAR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Government have yet decided to dispense with the use of swords for active service in the field; and, if so, will he state by what weapon they will be supplanted.
    MR. ARNOLD-FOSTER: No, Sir. The cavalry retain their swords. Swords, however, have been withdrawn from the artillery.

    Somaliland Operations.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state what is the total number of troops now employed in Somaliland; and what is their monthly cost.
    MR. ARNOLD FORSTER: The troops employed in Somaliland amount to 1,336 British and 7,026 native, or 8,362 in all. The monthly cost of the operations may be taken at £115,000.

    Sales of Military Stores.
    SIR HENRY FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can give the House any estimate of the cost price of the various items which form the excess appropriations in aid of Votes, 6, 7, 9, and 10 of the Army Estimates, the proceeds of which realised £3,230,000.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I am afraid that it is not possible to give this information. An enormous quantity of surplus animals and stores of every description and in various conditions had to be disposed of at the end of the war in South Africa. Large quantities were sold to the Civil Governments of the new Colonies, and the balance was disposed of locally on the best terms possible. But the proportion which the amounts realised bore to the original cost price could not be estimated.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.): And large quantities of stores were also publicly burnt.

    Village Councils in India.
    MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has
    552
    been drawn to an appeal made to the Viceroy by Mr. Malabari, editor of East and West, to reconstitute village councils in India, and to the reply given by Lord Curzon; and whether he will give support to a scheme for increasing the usefulness of these village councils.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK,): I am not acquainted with the Paper referred to, and have no doubt that the Government of India will give careful consideration to any scheme of the nature indicated that may be laid before them.

    Aden Boundary Commission.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can state the cost up to the present date of the Aden Boundary Commission, including the cost for troops; what is the number and composition of the troops employed in the protectorate of Aden: and what has been the total loss of life since the delimitation began.
    MR. BRODRICK: The normal garrison of Aden is about 2,400 men. The total number of troops in the Aden Protector-I ate on the 1st January last were:—2,077 British officers and men; 1,891 native ditto. Of these the troops employed at the present moment, in connection with the demarcation, are:—1,018 British infantry, 1,038 native infantry, 90 native cavalry, 461 native sappers, with six guns of British mule battery and six guns of native camel battery. The casualties reported since the commencement of the delimitation have been:—Killed: Non-commissioned officers and men—four British, seven native, and one native surveyor. Wounded—Officers: Two British, one native; Non-commissioned officers and men: Seventeen British, fourteen native. I have not yet received full accounts of the expenditure.

    India—Official Secrets Amendment Bill.
    MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will state the nature of the modifications proposed by the Select Committee of the Legislative Council of the Governor-General in the Official

    553
    Secrets Amendment Bill; and whether he can now give the House an assurance that the Bill will be confined to naval and military matters, and that the modifications referred to will provide for the retention in the Bill of those clauses in the original Act of 1889 which define the conditions under which a prosecution can be instituted and which place the onus of proving guilty intention upon the prosecution.
    Mr. BRODRICK: I have not received the Report of the Select Committee on the Bill, and do not know whether they have reported or what modifications they have proposed in it.

    The Transvaal Labour Ordinance.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will delay his final assent to the Transvaal Labour Ordinance (Introduction of Asiatics) until he has drawn up, placed upon the Table of the House, and given the House an opportunity of discussing the regulations which are to govern Clause 33 of the Ordinance dealing with the question of the wives and children of the indentured labourers.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,): I am not prepared to give the pledge asked for.
    MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government have now sanctioned the Transvaal Ordinance respecting Chinese labour, whether the regulations connected therewith have been framed; and whether he will now lay upon the Table a copy of these documents.
    MR. LYTTELTON: The answer to all these Questions is, No.

    Workmen's Compensation in the Transvaal.
    MR. BAYLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will put into force in the Transvaal the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897.
    MR. LYTTELTON: The matter is not one in which I am prepared to take
    554
    any action without consulting the Governor, whose attention shall be drawn to the matter.
    MR. BAYLEY: I will put another Question on this later on.

    Transport of Chinese Labourers' Families.
    DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the importer will in each case pay for the cost of transit of wives and families of Chinese labourers to South Africa indentured under the Ordinance; and, if not, who will bear the cost.
    MR. LYTTELTON: It is proposed to stipulate that the importer will pay.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will say who will pay the cost of repatriation of Chinese labourers and their wives and families in cases where the indenture has been completed, and in cases where the labourer seeks to return to China before completing the terms of the indenture.
    MR. LYTTELTON: It is proposed that the importer should pay in the case of completed indentures. In that of incomplete indentures the question of the cost of return passages will be taken into account in computing the amount the labourer has to pay for his breach of contract.

    The Chinese Minister's Suggestions on the Transvaal Labour Ordinance.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the conference proposed in his letter of 15th February to the Foreign Office for the purpose of incorporating the suggestions of the Chinese Minister in the Ordinance for the importation of Asiatic labourers into the Transvaal has yet been held; if not, whether he can say when it will be held; and whether the Ordinance and the regulations which accompany it will be laid before the House in the form as modified by the conference before final adoption by the Imperial Government.
    MR. LYTTELTON: The Conference will be held directly. In answer to the

    555
    second Question of the hon. Member I am unable to give any undertaking.
    DR. MACNAMARA: As I gather from the answer of the right hon. Gentleman that the Ordinance will probably be adopted before this House has had an opportunity of discussing the details, I will ask permission at the close of Questions to move the adjournment of the House.

    Amendment of Regulations.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the regulations which will accompany the Ordinance for the importation of Chinese labourers into the Transvaal may be varied without reference to the Imperial Government.
    MR. LYTTELTON: Any amendments of the regulations will be communicated to me, and Lord Milner will be instructed that no important amendment should be made without previous communication with the Secretary of State.

    Boer Protest Against Chinese Labour.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any evidence that General Botha and the other Boer leaders who have protested, in the name of the Boers in the Transvaal, gainst the importation of indentured Chinese to work in the mines, were actuated by unworthy motives; whether,>f so, he will lay that evidence upon the Table of the House; and whether he has replied to the protest of General Botha and the other Boer leaders.
    MR. LYTTELTON: I would refer the hon Member to the reply to the letter of the Boer leaders published at page 22 of Cd. 1899 on Monday last and to my statement in debate in the House of Commons on Tuesday last†

    Missionary Enterprise among the Chinese Labourers.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any attempts to convert the
    † See (4) Debates, cxxix., 1543.
    556
    Chinese in the Transvaal, whilst shut up in the compounds attached to the mines, will be prohibited unless with their assent; and whether the same facilities to approach them, if any are given, will be granted to the clergy of all religions and of all religious sects.
    MR. LYTTELTON: I think I may safely undertake on behalf of the Tranvaal Government to answer both Questions in the affirmative.

    Cost of Cabling Transvaal Documents.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the telegram sent to him by Lord Milner, in regard to an offer from a Boer to contest with General Botha the Chinese issue in the Transvaal in any district, was paid for out of either the money of the taxpayer in this country or of the taxpayer in the Transvaal, and if so, which; whether, if paid for out of public moneys, General Botha and the other Boer leaders who are opposed to the introduction of Chinese labour will be afforded the same financial facilities to transmit to him their views on questions before Parliament; and whether he has replied to the protest of the Boer leaders, and, if so, will he lay that reply upon the Table of the House.
    MR. LYTTELTON: The letter from Mr. Van Rensburg referred to was, as I understand, telegraphed at the expense of the Transvaal Government just as was the letter from the Boer leaders published with my reply in Cd. 1899. It must be left to Lord Milner to judge what documents are of sufficient importance to justify him in transmitting them to the Secretary of State for his information.
    MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has noticed that the last Paper circulated from the Transvaal contained ten pages of extracts from nine South African newspapers; whether any of this newspaper matter was telegraphed, and, if so, what was the cost of doing so; and whether he will consider the desirability of directing that Colonial Governors should not swell

    557
    their despatches by the inclusion of such extracts from the Press.
    MR. LYTTELTON: The newspaper matter in question was not telegraphed. I am not prepared to give any such general direction as is suggested.

    Chinese Labour Recruiting at Tientsin.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Colonial Secretary a Question of which I have given private notice—namely, whether Mr. Perry and Mr. J. 6. Hamilton were on Saturday last, on behalf of the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association, recruiting labour in Tientsin; whether the Ordinance has yet received the Royal Assent; and whether the right hon. Gentleman will order the recruiting to be stopped until the Ordinance and regulations in their complete operative form are before Parliament.
    MR. LYTTELTON: The hon. Member's Question was only handed in about five minutes ago, and then not in the form in which he now puts it. I am afraid I cannot give a complete answer, but I will answer so far as I can. I shall be greatly obliged if hon. Members interested in South Africa who wish for answers to Questions will be good enough to give me somewhat longer notice, as the telegraph communication with South Africa which is necessitated by Questions has been rendered rather difficult. With regard to the Question now put, I did see a paragraph to that effect in a morning paper, and I think it follows that if those gentlemen are now in China they must have gone there before the Labour Ordinance has been passed. The pledges which I gave on behalf of the Government in this House with regard to the appointment of a person responsible to the Government in China in order fully to explain any contract which Chinamen might enter into in China will be strictly adhered to, and manifestly until that gentleman is appointed no complete contract can possibly be made.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Is this person to be all over China or in some particular place?
    MR. LYTTELTON: He is to be in that place in which it is desirable he should be.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Has any definite settlement of this matter been come to with the Chinese Government?
    MR. LYTTELTON: No, Sir. I think hon. Members are in possession of certain requisitions made by the Chinese Government. We hold a conference, either to-morrow or the next day, with the Chinese Ambassador on the subject, and all expedition will be given to these matters, and no difficulty is expected.
    MR. CROOKS: Who is to interpret to the recruits in China—is it to be an Englishman understanding the Chinese language, or is the position of interpreter to be handed over to a Chinese mandarin?
    MR. LYTTELTON: The details are not arranged at the present time. I think the hon. Member may rely upon us to secure that sufficient precautions shall be taken to ensure that the contract is fully understood by the men.
    MR. JOHN ELLIS: Is it you or Lord Milner?
    MR. LYTTELTON: I am responsible for the pledge I gave to this House.
    MR. LOUGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman stop recruiting till he can put these regulations into force?
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Are we to understand that the details of this arrangement are left to the discretion of Lord Milner?
    MR. LYTTELTON: No, Sir, you may not understand that.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Well, I will understand it.

    Payment of South African War Debts.
    SIR JOHN LENG: On behalf of the hon. Member for Hawick Burghs I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the dissatisfaction in the new African Colonies owing to the

    559
    failure of the authorities to honour the military receipts for goods and stock supplied during the war; and whether he can facilitate the disposal of claims with despatch, or authorise interim payments in cases of severe distress.
    MR. LYTTELTON: A certain number of complaints have been brought to my notice, but in view of the complexity of the work I am not prepared to say that there has been undue delay. I am making inquiry as to the progress of the work.
    SIR JOHN LENG: On behalf of the hon. Member for Hawick Burghs I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the action of the authorities of the Orange River Colony in reference to the treatment of a claim by A. J. Griessel, Bloemfontein, for the honouring of military receipts granted during the late war and dated in May and November, 1901; and whether, seeing that the authorities at first denied the existence of the receipts, then admitted the same but refused payment on the ground that two sons of the claimant had rejoined the enemy, and finally, on it being explained that the claimant aged thirty-four had no sons but only a daughter aged four years, promised further consideration, he will state what consideration has been given; and whether, in view of the claimant's circumstances, he can arrange that payment of this claim shall be made.
    MR. LYTTELTON: I have no information with regard to this claim but will make inquiry.

    Transvaal—Taxation of Natives.
    The MASTER OF ELIBANK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the Government has considered the possibility of reverting to and amplifying the practice of the late Boer Government of remitting or reducing the hut tax in the Transvaal, in proportion to the amount of work done by the natives during the year, such work being proved on production of certificates from their employers, and thus affording them an inducement, by way of extra re- ion, to further the agricultural
    560
    and industrial development of the country.
    MR. LYTTELTON: This matter is receiving my attention in connection with the evidence given by Boer witnesses before the Labour Commission.

    Transvaal Magistracy.
    MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will lay a Return upon the Table, giving the names, ages, salaries, and previous careers and experience of the persons who have been appointed to the position of magistrate in the Transvaal; who is responsible for such appointments, and are any qualifications required from applicants for the post; and, in that case, what are they.
    MR. LYTTELTON: I will obtain the information required from the Governor by whom the appointments are made and will lay it.
    MR. JOHN ELLIS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any idea when the information will be ready?
    MR. LYTTELTON: I am afraid not.

    Fiscal Policy—Colonial Preference.
    MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has communicated to the Colonial Governments the intimation that it is now no part of the policy of His Majesty's Government to extend preferential treatment to the Colonies.
    MR. LYTTELTON: No, Sir.
    MR. DELANY: Have you communicated with the Colonial Governments on the question of Chinese labour?
    [No answer was returned.]

    Land Grants in East Africa.
    MR. CYTHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the names of the persons to whom a grant of 500 square miles of land has recently been assigned in East Africa; what consideration the Government has received on account thereof; if Government officials in East

    561
    Africa have made any report on the ad-visibility of such grants; and, if so, will he lay them upon the Table of the House; will he state also what consideration has been given to native rights, and if suitable reserves will be secured out of this grant for the natives; and if any other similar offers or grants of land are now proposed to be made to syndicates.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY,): A lease of 500 square miles of land, on terms approved by His Majesty's Treasury, is now being arranged with the East Africa Syndicate. The selection of the area was made last year by the local representative of the syndicate in consultation with His Majesty's Commissioner. The lease will be subject to the provisions of the East Africa Crown Lands Ordinance, 1902, which is in the library of the House, and under which the rights of natives are fully reserved. Negotiations are also in progress for the lease of certain forest lands in the vicinity of the coast to firms interested in the production and working of timber and rubber.
    MR. WHITLEY: Do these grants of land carry with them rights of government by the syndicate?
    EARL PERCYwas understood to reply in the negative.

    Brussels Sugar Comvention.
    MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that the British representatives, at a meeting of the Commission appointed under the Brussels Sugar Convention held during the Parliamentary recess on behalf of the exporters of confectionery and preserves in this country, brought forward the claim that the limitations of the surtax should apply to their manufactures, he will state what decision was arrived at; and whether any Report of the Proceedings will be laid on the Table of the House.
    EARL PERCY: At the meeting of the Commission in October last the majority of the Commissioners were of opinion
    562
    that the limitation of surtax under Article 3 of the Convention applied only to sugar itself, whether raw or refined, and not to sugared products. As, however, the general bearing of the Convention upon the treatment of such products remains in doubt, His Majesty's Government are of opinion that the course most conducive to the public interest will be to defer the laying of any further Papers on the subject until after the termination of the next session of the Commission, which will open on the 10th of March next.
    MR. LOUGH: Are we not entitled, under the terms of the Convention, to have a Report of the Proceedings? Will the Government let us know what was the nature of the decision, and give us some account, at least, of the arguments?
    EARL PERCY: I do not know what the hon. Member means by "nature of the decision."
    MR. LOUGH: By what majority was it come to?
    EARL PERCY: I have said the Government think it would not be in the public interest to lay any further Papers at present.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is there not a right of appeal in certain cases, and will the Government consider the propriety of calling a Conference for that purpose?
    EARL PERCY: The whole question is under negotiation, and the question of appeal has not arisen.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: But will it be considered?
    [No answer was returned.]
    MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any further negotiations have taken place between the Commission set up under the Brussels Sugar Convention and the Russian Government with regard to the treatment of sugar made in Russia, by the signatory Powers, and whether the Government can see its way

    563
    to cancel the prohibition of the import of sugar from Russia into this country.
    EARL PERCY: The answer to both Questions is in the negative.

    The Japanese and Wei-hai-Wei.
    MR. PLUMMER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question of which I have given private notice—namely whether his attention has been drawn to the report of the presence of Japanese battleships at Wei-hai-Wei previous to the attack on Port Arthur, and, if so, whether he is in a position to contradict the report.
    EARL PERCY: We have been informed by the Commander-in-Chief in Chinese waters that the Japanese men-of-war on their way to Port Arthur were not even sighted at Wei-hai-Wei, and no Japanese ships of war have visited that port since August, when two vessels went there on a complimentary visit for a few hours.

    London County Council—Contracts with Foreign Firms.
    SIR THOMASDEWAR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the number and value of contracts for rails and railway material placed by the London County Council with foreign makers during the last five years, and what percentage of these contracts were secured by German firms.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): Particulars of this nature do not, in the ordinary course, come to the knowledge of the Board of Trade. I have, however, been supplied with a statement on behalf of the London County Council, which I will read to the House. "The total value of all contracts let by the London County Council for tramway works is about £2,000,000, of that amount £150,000, or ½ per cent., represents foreign work. The Council began by restricting the tenders for this work to British firms, but owing to the limited number of tenders and the high prices, it then adopted open competition, and, as the result, all materials are now being obtained in this country and at much lower prices. Altogether the Council estimates that it has saved, in
    564
    rails alone, about £40,000 by its policy of open competition. No contracts have been sent to Germany."

    Post Office and the Cash on-Delivery System.
    MR. HEMPHILL (Tyrone, N.): I beg to ask the Postmaster - General whether his attention has been called to the dissatisfaction expressed in many quarters with the introduction of the cash-on-delivery system by the postal authorities; and whether, having regard thereto, he will withhold his sanction from the proposed system.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,): Representations have been made to me expressing dissatisfaction with the prospect of the introduction of a system of cash on delivery; and I have received others in support of such an arrangement. I have the question under consideration, and am collecting evidence as to the working of the system in the countries in which it is already established and its probable effect if instituted in the United Kingdom. I have as yet come to no decision on the scheme; and I do not propose to sanction its introduction unless, and until, I am satisfied that such a course would be for the benefit of the community in general.
    MR. BAYLEY: Will the noble Lord take the opinion of the House before he sanctions the experiment?
    LORD STANLEY: I certainly shall not introduce the system before the Estimates are introduced.

    Railway Rates on Agricultural Produce.
    CAPTAIN BAGOT: I beg to ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether any arrangements have now been arrived at between the Board and the railway companies whereby consignors of agricultural produce within the United Kingdom, either individually or in combination, may be enabled to secure for themselves better terms and facilities for the carriage of their goods.
    MR. AILWYN FELLOWES: The conferenec

    565
    between my noble friend and the general managers of the railway companies, of which the hon. Member is already aware, was followed up by a circular letter in which the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries asked for the companies' observations upon certain suggestions and difficulties which had presented themselves. The reply to this letter has only recently been received, and my noble friend proposes that this correspondence shall shortly be presented to both Houses of Parliament. Several companies already offer facilities for the aggregation of consignments of farm produce whereby lower rates may be obtained by the consignors of the individual lots included, and it is to be hoped that the ventilation of the subject resulting from the friendly discussion between the Board and the companies may lead to an extension of these facilities.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will the noble Lord communicate with his colleagues in the Cabinet who are railway directors?
    [No answer was returned.]

    Income tax Collection in Scotland.
    MR. EUGENE WASON: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh, I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that notices have been issued in Scotland demanding payment of income-tax within seven days, failing which the amount will be recovered by a sheriff's officer, with costs; and whether he will say if similar notices have been issued all over England, and whether recovery will be made by warrant on the expiry of the seven days in England with costs.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr.VICTOR CAVENDISH,): The instructions to collectors of income-tax, which are practically identical for England and Scotland, require that if the tax be not paid by the second week in February, steps should be taken for enforcing payment by legal process—and no doubt therefore, notices in the sense named in the Question have been issued by this time both in England and Scotland.
    566
    But, whether in England or in Scotland, action on the notice would not be taken in the case of a person who can show reasonable cause for further delay, and who can promise payment at a fixed date within the next few weeks. There must, however, be some excuse for nonpayment which the collecting authorities can properly accept, and in the absence thereof recovery would be made, with costs, on expiry of the seven days notice, both in England and in Scotland.

    Whisky Adulteration.
    MR. KILBRIDE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether be will appoint a Committee of analytical experts to fix a legal standard in the case of whisky, such as is done in other articles of consumption, in order to protect the public against spurious substitutions.
    MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: The Board of Inland Revenue do not think that it would be of any practical use to attempt to fix a legal standard for whisky. There is already a minimum legal standard of strength below which whisky may not be sold without notice, and other conditions must necessarily vary widely according to the taste of consumers.

    Grants to Welsh Colleges.
    MR. GEORGE KENYON: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will include the three Welsh Colleges, which are hindered in their work by lack of funds, in the list of University Colleges to receive increased grants during the current year; and on what principle these grants will be allocated.
    MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: The grants to the Welsh Colleges have been based on a different principle from that applicable to the Enlish Colleges and on a more liberal scale. I will consider the matter further; but at present I think that it will not be possible to increase the Welsh grants.

    West Clare Railway Works.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether

    567
    his attention has been drawn to a disturbance near Doonbeg, county Clare, on the 11th. inst., in reference to some work on the West Clare Railway line; and, seeing that a force of police was present on the occasion, whether 'he can state the circumstances which gave rise to the disturbance, and in what way the police were employed in reference to the matter and by whose orders.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): Owing to the flooding of the railway line near Doonbeg, which endangered the public safety, a number of workmen in the employment of the railway company were sent to cut a drain for the purpose of carrying away the water. The farmers objected to the surplus waters being conveyed to their lands adjoining the line, and showed their resentment by assembling with pitchforks, sticks, and stones. Acting under the orders of their superior officers a force of police was present to preserve the peace.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Are the railway company exercising a legal right in this work? What remedy have those who will be flooded in consequence of it?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I can hardly be expected to express an opinion on the legal merits of the question. Those who are injured have a remedy at law.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: As this affair has caused some excitement and disturbance may I ask whether it is usual to supply a large force of police to enable work to be carried out before it has been decided whether those doing it have a legal right.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. That is a general argument.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: But were the authorities satisfied that in giving the assistance of the police they were enabling legal work to be carried on?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I am quite satisfied that it was the duty of the Executive Government to send the police in view
    568
    of the hostile attitude of the people. Whether the railway company have a legal right can be determined by process of law.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: By whom were the police sent?
    MR. WYNDHAM: By their superior officer.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I shall call attention to this again.

    Arterial Drainage in Ireland.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is proposed during the present session to take any steps to give effect to the Unionist policy propounded in 1887 in regard to the arterial drainage of Ireland, and if anything will be done by Estimate or otherwise to provide funds for dealing with the flooding of the River Bann.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I am not in a position to take up the general question of arterial drainage. I do intend to submit certain proposals in respect of the River Bann.
    MR. DELANY: Did not the Unionst policy refer to the Barrow and not to the Bann.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: It referred to the whole country.

    Labourers (Ireland) Bill.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will immediately introduce the promised measure dealing with labourers in Ireland so as to afford ample time for the consideration of its provisions by those specially interested in the matter.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I shall endeavour to introduce this Bill at the earliest date consistent with the demands on the time of the House for concluding the financial business of the year.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Can the right hon. Gentleman not give us more definite information? It is of the utmost importance that we should have the terms

    569
    of the Bill in our hands at the earliest possible moment.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I have said that I shall introduce the Bill at the earliest possible moment, but in the absence of the Prime Minister it is quite impossible for me to arrange the business of the House.

    County Clare Police Occupations.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that members of the Royal Irish Constabulary have been employed in conveying cattle to, and herding cattle on a farm near Glanquin, county Clare; and will he say whether the employment of police in this manner has been sanctioned by the authorities.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. Member has not been correctly informed. There is no foundation for the suggestion in the Question.

    Extra Police at Cappawhite.
    MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state how many extra police are stationed in Cappawhite district, county Tipperary, and for what reason; whether he will say for what official use a. special transport car provided at Cappawhite is employed, and whether the head constable has authority to use it for his private business; and whether he is aware that this official recently used it to take him on a canvassing tour with reference to an expected vacancy in the clerkship of petty sessions.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The police force in this district was augmented in 1902, but the necessity for the additional men having passed away they were withdrawn some time ago. The transport car is still required for patrolling purposes. It has never been used by the head constable except when engaged on duty. The reply to the concluding inquiry is in the negative.

    Irish Under-Sheriffs.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-
    570
    Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is intended to introduce this session any Government measure to make under-sheriffs in Ireland permanent officials under the Crown, and to provide them with a staff of competent assistants; and, if not, whether the Government will afford facilities for a Bill of that character if introduced by a private Member.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Legislation with the object stated would entail a considerable expenditure of public money, and I cannot hold out any hope that the Government will undertake such legislation in the present session. The question of affording facilities for a private Member's Bill is one that should be addressed to the Prime Minister.

    Irish Labourers and Land Purchase.
    MR. O'SHEE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will say what steps have been taken by the Land Commission in reference to inquiries as to whether accommodation for labourers is needed on any estates for the purchase of which applications have been made to them for advances under the Irish Land Act, 1903; on how many estates have such inquiries been made up to the 1st instant; in how many cases has a scheme been framed under Section 96; and whether a copy of the Report of the Land Commission in reference to such accommodation on any estate can be obtained on application.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The inspectors are instructed to make the inquiries contemplated by Section 96. Such inquiries have been made to the present date in the case of fifty-three estates. On one estate the accommodation for labourers is reported to be insufficient, but no scheme has yet been framed by the Estates Commissioners. It would be contrary to established practice to publish these Reports, which, being departmental, are regarded as confidential; but I am considering whether the results of the investigations can be published in a summarised form.

    Irish Catholic University.
    MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view

    571
    of the promise made by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer to ask Parliament in this session to double the grant to University colleges in England in receipt of Parliamentary grants, he is prepared to submit to Parliament a proposal to establish in Ireland a University acceptable to the majority of the people of that country, and to which grants by Parliament could be given.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I cannot at the present moment usefully supplement my recent statement in this House on the subject of Irish University education.

    Rent Dispute on the Erne Estate.
    MR. EDWARD MITCHELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case of Margaret Dolan v. the Earl of Erne, heard before the County Court Judge at Enniskillen on Thursday the 28th ult., when the judge strongly commented upon the action of the landlord in consequence of the tenant having a fair rent fixed by the Land Court; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action to prevent such actions being brought.
    MR. WYNDHAM: My attention has been directed by the Question to a newspaper report of the proceedings. I am unable to say whether it is accurate. The landlord was within his right in suing for a. year's rent which the tenant admitted to be due. The Judge gave a decree, on her consent, payable in two instalments.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Did not the Judge comment severely on the action of the landlord?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I have seen the newspaper report which states so. It is not for me to say whether the statement is accurate.
    MR. EDWARD MITCHELL: The report is absolutely correct.
    MR. DELANY: Did not a similar case occur in King's County and the County Court Judge refuse to give costs?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

    Irish Language in Irish Schools.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will explain why, in the recent regulations issued by the National Board, steps were taken to prevent the teaching of Irish in primary schools as an extra subject.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I am informed by the Commissioners that they have recently issued revised programmes in extra subjects, including the Irish language, which it is proposed to bring into operation on the 1st April, 1904. If, however, managers of National Schools are not satisfied with these programmes they are at liberty to submit alternative programmes for the approval of the Commissioners. The programmes and regulations were not issued with the intention of preventing the teaching of extra subjects, but, on the contrary, to make instruction in these subjects more efficient.

    Irish Lind Purchase—Public Trustee.
    MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what are the position and duties of the Public Trustee under the Land Purchase Act; in what way are moneys realised by sale of lands and invested in his name secured for the beneficiaries; are the Government responsible for his integrity; is his sanction required in case trustees themselves desire to invest the proceeds of sale where the vendor is tenant for life; and whether in cases in which he acts as trustee of the purchase money can he invest the proceeds without the approval of the vendor.
    MR. WYNDHAM: If the hon. Member will refer to the 52nd Section of the Irish Land Act he will find most of hi3 Questions answered. Rules are being framed which, when approved of, will answer the others. These rules will be published when finally settled.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: What were the previous qualifications of this Public Trustee?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I have answered that before. He had had extensive ex perience as a land agent.

    Tredennick Estate.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to a resolution of a meeting of the Killaghter Branch of the United Irish League, held on 10th February, over which the Rev. P. B. Dunlany presided, urging, that inasmuch as the Congested Districts Board have had in their possession for the past three years two grass farms of about 280 acres on the Tredennick Estate, St. Colin's Point, that the Board should immediately take steps to divide these farms into suitable holdings for the fishermen of St. Colin's Point, who have now no land, and to build houses for them at reasonable purchase prices, and deprecating the use of those farms for grazing purposes; and, if so, will he say what steps, if any, he proposes to take in the matter.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The lands referred to in the Question will be rearranged and sold with the least possible delay.

    Cork Post Office Telegraph Learners.
    MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he will explain why two female learners, who entered the Cork Post Office in September, 1898, who have qualified in every respect, and have been employed as acting telegraphists for the past four years, are now classified and paid as learners; and why, seeing that these girls had risen from an initial wage of 5s. per week in 1898, to 16s. 6d. in 1904, this amount has been reduced to 10s. per week since 18th January, 1904.
    LORD STANLEY: In consequence of a falling-off in telegraph work at Cork, it was found necessary to discontinue the full time duty of these two learners, but it has now been found possible again to give them full time duties.

MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.

  TRANSVAAL LABOUR ORDINANCE.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, the action of the
  574
  Government in promulgating an Ordinance providing for the introduction of indentured Chinese labourers into the Transvaal before the Ordinance and its regulations have been discussed by the House of Commons in their complete and operative form.
  MR. SPEAKER: Had it been a question of the Ordinance alone, I should have had some difficulty in accepting the Motion after the recent debate; but I understand there are some regulations which are still under consideration. I think it would be impossible to separate the consideration of the Ordinance and the regulations, and, therefore, I will ask the leave of the House.
  Dr. MACNAMARArose in his place and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz., "The promulgation of the Ordinance providing for the introduction of Indentured Chinese Labour into the Transvaal before the Ordinance and its regulations have been discussed by the House of Commons in their complete and operative form;" but the pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. SPEAKER called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than forty Members having accordingly risen:—The Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 10, until the Evening Sitting this day.

NEW BILLS.
  TRADES UNIONS AND TRADE DISPUTES (No. 2) BILL.
  "To legalise the peaceful conduct of Trade Disputes and to alter the Law affecting the liability of Trade Union funds," presented by Sir Charles Dilke; supported by Mr. Keir Hardie; to be read a second time upon Friday, 25th March, and to be printed. [Bill 91.]

  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES, ETC., BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to the Housing of the Working Classes, to amend the Law of Rating, and to establish Fair Rent Courts," presented by Mr. Nannetti; supported by Mr. Harwood,

  575
  Mr. Field, Captain Norton, Mr. Keir Hardie, Mr. Bell, Mr. Crooks, Sir Fortes cue Flannery, Mr. Joyce, Dr. Farquharson, Mr. Fenwick, Mr. Jacoby, and Mr. Logan; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 2"2nd March, and to be printed. [Bill 92.]

  LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO BILL.
  "To enable localities by a direct vote to prevent the, issue of Licences for the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors," presented by Mr. Whittaker; supported by Sir Wilfrid Lawson, Mr. Henry J. Wilson, Mr. Burt, Mr. Channing, Mr. Cameron, and Mr. Rigg; to be read a second time upon Friday, 25th March, and to be printed. [Bill 93.]

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

  ARMY (SUPPLEMENTARY) ESTIMATES, 1903–4.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,700,000, 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, 1904, for Additional Expenditure, in respect of the following Army Services, viz:—

  £

  Vote 1. Pay, &c, of the Army

  2,000,000

  Vote 6. Transport and Remounts

  2,100,000

  Vote 7, Provisions, Forage, and other Supplies

  2,030,000

  Total

  £6,130,000

  Excess Appropriations-in-Aid (Votes 1, 6, 7, 9, and 10)

  3,430,000

  £2,700,000

  MR. LOUGH: On a point of order, would it not be possible to take each item separately? Say that for Somaliland?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member can move to reduce the Vote so far as the Somaliland expenditure is concerned,
  576
  but it is not the practice to put these items separately.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,)hoped he was not creating a very bad precedent in asking leave to address the Committee at that stage, but there were circumstances connected with the Vote which made it desirable for him to say a few words in explanation. The figure was a large one, amounting to £2,700,000, its character was composite, and it was practically a sweeping up of all outstanding accounts of the late war, supplemented by certain items which had no connection with the war. The Vote on account of the war related to transactions most of which took place many months ago—in fact, some years ago—and a great many of the incidents out of which the Votes arose had been discussed over and over again in Parliament. Although the amount of this Supplementary Estimate was large, he did not think any reflection could be cast on the Accountant-General of the Army in consequence of it. He could not give the exact figures of the actual expenditure beginning 1899, but he found in 1899–1900 there was an under-expenditure of £500,000 on a Vote of £43,000,000. The following year on an expenditure of £91,000,000 there was an under-expenditure of £600,000; in the next year on a Vote of £92,000,000, the under-expenditure was £254,000; and in the last year on a Vote of £69,000,000, there was an under-expenditure of £446,000. It would, he thought, be admitted, considering the circumstances under which the sums were voted, that this was not a discreditable record for the finance department of the War Office, and that it gave no ground for sneering at that office.
  He did not propose to discuss the details, but he felt it was due to the Committee to explain why these accounts which, in most cases, referred to transactions which were closed two years ago, came in now. There was a large sum in the Estimate which represented payments to be made on account of the colonial contingents. These accounts had to go through the process of being confirmed in South Africa, and that was the reason why they were now brought

  577
  for the first time before the House. The final Yeomanry charges had been delayed on the same ground. There had been many matters which it had been absolutely impossible to put into the account without careful investigation of the correctness of the claims put forward. Under the head of Gratuities there was a payment of £100,000 to the South African Constabulary. It was not originally contemplated to make this payment; but it was decided, in view of the fact that the services of the Constabulary were practically as much military as those of other troops in South Africa, to give the gratuity to them. There was also a small Vote for the Army Service Corps, rendered necessary by the retention of the services of a considerable number of natives, who had been engaged by the Army Service Corps in removing the great accumulation of stores, and by the provision of the necessary storehouses required to prevent deterioration of the materials. The railway charge had been referred to by his right hon. friend the Member for Wolverhampton. The railways of the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies were taken over by the military during the war, and on the conclusion of the war a claim was made by the War Office against the Colonial Governments for the work and labour that had been done, and the expenditure that had been incurred for the maintenance of these railways. This claim was not admitted in the first instance by the Colonial Governments, but there was no doubt that it was a valid one. They had not yet, however, been able to obtain payment from the two Colonies, and therefore it was necessary to write off the sum which appeared in the Estimates, though he hoped he was not too sanguine in anticipating that this amount might, at an early day. appear on the other side of the account. Then there was a Vote for land and inland water transport, which was practically due to the large number of troops kept in South Africa since the conclusion of the war, as well as a Vote for sea transport, which was due to the bringing back of more troops than was originally contemplated. The amount for provisions and allowances was attributable to the continuance of the very high cost of provisions in South Africa, and the necessity of retaining special allowances, which alone could
  578
  enable the officers and men to face the conditions under which they were living. The cost of forage was also very high, and the amount under this head was made greater by reason of the large number of horses left in the country in excess of the ordinary stock, and until those horses were disposed of it was necessary to provide forage, at very high cost, for their sustenance.
  The other principal branch of the Vote was the expenditure which had been incurred in respect of Somaliland. He did not propose to discuss on this Estimate the question of the policy in Somaliland. The Leader of the Opposition, he thought, the other day rather misrepresented what was going on in that country when he suggested that the war which we were compelled to carry on was an aggressive war, made with the object of taking the territory of somebody else. There had been three incursions into territory under British protection, and on every one of those occasions we had had in selfdefence, and in defence of those to whom our word was pledged, to take up arms. This was the third occasion on which we had had to resist the incursion of this enemy; and he honestly believed, how ever unpalatable it might be to us, that we should be compelled to carry on this unprofitable and unsatisfactory conflict.This was one of those campaigns which any Party sitting on his side of the Hous would be compelled to undertake and carry through. He was sure the Government took no pride in it and did not rejoice in it; but as long as our Empire was what it was, and as long as our responsibilities were as great as they were, occasions must arise when wars of this kind would have to be undertaken. He did not like to be too sanguine, but he did not think he was overstating the purport of the information at the disposal of the Government when he said that the operations were now in a more satisfactory position than they had been for many months past. Though he was very far from desiring to make any prophecy, he thought they were within reasonable distance of a development of this campaign which would make it much easier for them to bring it to a conclusion. So long as the enemy was within our territory, as he was now, so long as he was under arms,

  579
  and so long as the Government were certain, as they now were, that if they left him alone the movement would recrudesce and that they would be rewarded for their moderation by being compelled to make further military efforts, he thought they had no option but to continue the campaign until it was brought to a successful conclusion.
  There was also on the Estimates a small item for the China Expeditionary Force. It was perhaps strange that this item should appear on the accounts now; but the Indian Government undertook a large amount of work in connection with the expedition, and they had only now rendered the accounts—hence the delay.
  An item for increased pay and messing allowance required explanation. The reason of it was this, viz.: At the close of the war the establishments of two branches of the Army were largely in excess of the normal establishment. At the beginning of that year an estimate was made that there would be a large reduction of the establishment of the Army during that year. That anticipation had been realised. The numbers had come down to almost the precise figure that was anticipated, but they had not come down in exactly the way anticipated. The result was that they had, in addition to the extra troops in Somaliland, which accounted for a portion of the extra sum, an excess in the two most expensive branches of the service, viz., the artillery and cavalry, while they had a deficit, he was sorry to say, in respect of the infantry. It was not possible to forecast with exactitude what number of men would go out of every branch of the service during the year. It had been within the power of many men in these two branches to go into the reserve: but as a matter of fact, contrary to anticipations, they had chosen to remain in these two branches of the service. Hence it was that the Government had to ask for this additional sum for pay for messing allowances during the year. These were not matters with which he was very familiar, but he had thought it might ease the situation and render the discussion more profitable if he made
  580
  these explanations on points which had struck him on first examining the Votes.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANthought no apology was needed from the right hon. Gentleman for explanations which only anticipated inquiries which obviously must be made. They were now led to believe that they were emerging from the penumbra of the South African war. It was time that this should be so, and the Committee would be relieved to have this assurance. With regard to the new sub-head B.B. to Vote 6, "Expenditure in connection with Imperial military railways, £900,000," he wished to know whether it was not within the cognisance of the War Office at the time of the ordinary Estimates. When new items of large amount were introduced into the Supplementary Estimates or a small amount in the original Estimate was swollen into a large amount by these Estimates they began to wonder whether, human nature being what it was, there was not a little temptation to produce a somewhat more favourable Budget than circumstances really justified, by postponing till the Supplementary Estimates expenditure which might very well have been anticipated. Even the appearance of such a procedure was to be avoided, but certainly some of these items had that appearance. The same observations were applicable to sub-head M.M. in Vote 7, "Compensation claims in South Africa, £600,000." Why was this not provided for in the original Estimate? If not, why not? The loose and summary figures used in these Supplementary Estimates roused, he would not say suspicion, but a little of that surprise which the right hon. Gentleman appeared to have experienced himself when he had to look into them. For the compensation claims there was the round figure £600,000, for the item B.B., £900,000, and under sub-head E., excess appropriations in aid, in the entny "Proceeds of sale of cast and other animals, £1,000,000," there was no great evidence of exact calculation in these figures. These deductions of excess appropriations in aid had been carried to a length never contemplated when they were first authorised. One of the reasons for the

  581
  authorisation was that some departments, as, for instance, the Admiralty, were deterred from selling old and superfluous stores because the money would go to the Treasury instead of being retained by the Admiralty; but when they came to deal with large sums like this there was apt to be confusion in the account and an uncertainty as to how far they might not be paper figures, which was much to be deprecated. Another characteristic of these figures was the disproportion between them and the figures in the original Estimate. These disproportions were especially remarkable in the items of pay to the Colonial contingent, Imperial Yeomanry, and gratuities to the troops for active service, for which they were now asked £800,000, £150,000, and £100,000, as compared with £5,000, £10,000, and £3,000 in the original Estimate. In regard to the China payment, it was surely known that that would probably come into account this year, and ought therefore to have been provided for.
  Another feature of these Estimates was the discrepancy between the figures and the promises of the Government. He would take the case of Somaliland. He was not going to discuss the merits of the policy; enough was not known of it to enable him to do so. But on 18th June the Secretary of State for War stated—
  "The expenditure up to date on the Somaliland expedition amounts, so far as can be estimated, to about £400,000, as against £500,000 voted in last year's and the present Estimates."
  They had therefore about £100,000 in hand then, and now the Committee were asked to vote another £1,600,000. On 20th July the present Postmaster-General said—
  "As regards future operations, we are now in communication with General Egerton, but it would, of course, be impossible to publish the detailed action proposed. Further, it is not possible at present to calculate the possible expenditure, but there is no intention whatever of undertaking enterprises involving fresh expense."
  In view of these statements he thought further explanations were required both as to form and as to figures, apart altogether from the merits of the policy.
  But more important than the details was the overwhelming expenditure dis-
  582
  played as a whole. The Army expenditure this year amounted to £36,945,000, and it was almost impossible to tell what portion of this was a permanent recurring yearly charge. With regard to these Supplementary Estimates, he had tried to discover what proportion of the expenditure was of a permanent recurring yearly future charge, and what proportion was in payment of something past and done with. He had tried to find out what proportion represented expenditure which would go on year after year. The broad fact was that in 1895 the Army cost £18,000,000, and, keeping out war expenditure, before the present Estimates were presented, the cost was close on £30,000,000, an increase of £12,000,000. The Navy was to cost this year £35,727,000, as against £17,545,000 in 1895, therefore the Army expenditure had gone up 50 per cent. and Naval expenditure 100 per cent., £30,000,000 for both services having been added since the right hon. Gentlemen opposite came into power. When dealing with the first Supplementary Estimates of the year, they were entitled to consider the whole question of expenditure and make a comparison between the total expenditure for those two years. In 1895, the whole national expenditure was £93,918,000, and this year it was £139,199,000, an increase of £45,000,000, or, with Supplementary Estimates, £49,000,000. Within ten years there had been an increase of over 50 per cent., and this quite apart from the sum expended upon the war. There was no sign whatever of diminution, the truth being that an attempt was being made to create in this country a first-class military Power as well as a first-class naval Power, without any clear idea, so far as the country knew, why this should be done. A new council was created, possibly to arrange a rational basis for a wholly irrational departure. The increase would absorb twice over the product of the income-tax in 1895; it would practically swallow up the whole of the estimated receipts of the tax for the present year. That showed the rate at which expenditure was now going on. How much of the estimated taxation of this year would be required to find the sum of £65,000,000, or £66,000,000, which represented the

  583
  cost of these two services. The income and property tax would not cover half, and the whole of the receipts from Customs, amounting to £34,000,000,would be required to make it up. Taking the 1895 scale of taxation, to which all except tariff reformers would be glad to return, the receipts from income-tax, Customs, Excise, and stamps, would be required to maintain the fighting services. He had already given a comparison between 1895 and this year, and he had stated that there were no signs of diminution. The Government appeared to be unrepentant and unable to take any steps in the direction of economy; these small wars might almost be regarded as part of the normal expenditure of the country, and so they drifted along. But not from want of serious warnings.
  Speaking at Bristol, after his resignation in 1902, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol said—
  "They should remember that he had told them that in the last seven years the ordinary expenditure of the country had increased at a rate of no less than 5.500,000 a year. They could not go on in that way. They must stop the rate of increase. If they did not what would happen? He would tell them what would happen. A shilling income-tax would be utterly insufficient for the needs of the country even in time of peace; and all the people who complained now of the little, the small taxation that had been imposed upon sugar and corn, would be face to face with heavy taxation, not only perhaps on those articles, but on other great articles of popular consumption. They would have changed their fiscal system from a system of light taxation which had prevailed during the last forty years, and under which the industries of the country had been enormously developed, to a system of heavy taxation which would keep those industries down."
  His resignation, as he told the House last June, was due to the indifference with which his remonstrances were received by his colleagues. Proceeding, the right hon. Gentleman said—
  "I had protested as Chancellor of the Exchequer for years against that growth of expenditure. I had protested to my colleagues, I had protested to this House; and I had endeavoured to show to the country what I thought were the great dangers to our finance of that growth, because it must never be forgotten that that growth has been far in excess of the automatic growth of our revenue. Well, Sir, my protests and my sermons were received with indifference. But I am thankful to think that there has been a turn in the tide."
  Where was the turn in the tide? Then he went on to refer to his successor, the
  584
  late Chancellor of the Exchequer, and his Budget speech promising a considerable reduction in the Army expenditure in the course of the next year or two. He would now pass on to what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon said as Chancellor of the Exchequer—
  "As regards Army expenditure I hope we may be able to make considerable reductions in the next year or two as reorganisation on a normal peace footing becomes complete."
  But both these right hon. Gentlemen, admirable preachers and prophets, were now on the Back Benches with none of the little influence they once possessed with the Government. The Secretary of State for War had lately told them that he looked for no reduction in the expenditure, but he said they were getting better value for their money. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer belonged to the school believing in increased taxation on a scientific basis, and believed that taxes were only just beginning their career, and that the revenue they produced under these circumstances would be a mere by-product. That was the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (ME. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.): But the right hon. Gentleman is not reading from my speech.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid he was not quoting the right hon. Gentleman's actual words, but what he had stated was the legitimate deduction from his speech. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh, Oh!"] There had been efforts on the part of successive Chancellors of the Exchequer to check the growth of expenditure, but the efforts had been unavailing, and the present financial situation demanded the earnest attention of the House. A day should be allotted for consideration of the situation before the House was committed to this expenditure. This was called for by several circumstances. There was the expectation of reduction in expenditure held out a few months ago and not fulfilled; there was the suspension of the £30,000,000 from the Transvaal, which naturally disturbed the financial position of the country; there was the fact that half the taxation imposed for the war had not

  585
  been removed, nor was it likely to be removed; and the revenue prospects were most unfavourable. He regretted to say that the Government and the House seemed to have lost hold, to a large extent, on expenditure. He urged that the House should assert itself and have a full and searching examination and discussion upon this subject, which was as near to the prosperity, happiness, and future of the country and the Empire as any subject in which the House could be engaged.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that it was most desirable that an opportunity should be afforded of discussing what he ventured to think was the most grave and serious financial situation into which this country was gradually drifting.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The general financial situation of the country is not open for discussion on this Vote. That will come up on the Budget. The hon. Member is not entitled to discuss that on the War Office Supplementary Estimates.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he quite recognised that. He was referring to the suggestion which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition was allowed to make, and which he presumed it would not be out of order to refer to. He was about to say that he hoped the day would come, because this was not the day, when such a discussion would be in order. The seriousness of the financial situation was by nothing so absolutely proved as by this very Estimate now before the Committee. He thought an Estimate of this sort was absolutely unexampled, and if the Committee would permit him he would show why. This was an Estimate which professed to be for £2,700,000. As a matter of fact it was an Estimate for £9,500,000. The original War Office Estimates for this year were £37,600,000. Now, the Committee were asked to add to this sum £6,100,000. The original appropriations in aid for this year were £3,740,000. The Committee never voted that sum. The Committee could not in any way deal with appropriations in aid. It could
  586
  neither add to nor diminish them, and for the sufficient reason that it was not the House or the Committee that granted appropriations in aid. It was the Treasury acting under an Act of Parliament. The Committee were now asked to authorise an additional expenditure of £6,100,000, and an additional appropriation in aid of £3,400,000, and he submitted that instead of deducting the one from the other, the one should be added to the other. The first remark he had to make was that this was nothing less than enormous. He reminded the Committee that the original net Vote of last year was £34,250,000. The addition to this of £6,100,000 represented an addition to the expenditure of nearly 20 per cent. on the original Vote. What was the justification of a Supplementary Estimate? There was no justification whatever in ordinary times for any Supplementary Estimate at all. A commonly prudent Government had no Supplementary Estimates. A Supplementary Estimate before this Government came into office was of rare occurrence, and when there was a Supplementary Estimate it was for £100,000 to £200,000. But since 1895 the average had been £2,000,000 to £3,000,000 of Supplementary Estimates. He was pre- pared to admit that occasions might arise when the Government was unable to foresee with accuracy, or even with a moderate approach to accuracy, the expenditure of the year. New circumstances arose, and these were the only things that justified the Government in coming to the House for an entirely new grant of money. Therefore, whenever a Government came to the House with a Supplementary Estimate, it came as it were with a rope round its neck. It was bound to justify every item of that Estimate, and to show in respect of every item that it consisted of expenditure on matters which could not possibly be foreseen when the original Estimate was presented.
  The Secretary of State for War had said that he was taking a course to-day which was inconvenient, but it was one which he thought was convenient, and he thanked him for doing so, and for making a statement at the beginning of the discussion. He followed the right hon. Gentleman's statement throughout, and he was bound to say that in his opinion it

  587
  entirely failed to show that the circumstances were such that this extra expenditure the Committee were now asked to sanction, could not have been foreseen when the Estimates were presented last 3-ear. On the contrary, some of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman tended to show that they could have been foreseen. For instance, he told the Committee that certain items referred to matters which were finally closed two years ago, and that others referred to expenditure which was really incurred four years ago, but had not yet been brought into account. Why were these items brought forward now? Our system was annual. Things were supposed to be cleared up and ended at the close of each year, and, if we were to have this new system introduced, we should have our financial system worked on the plan followed in France where, by the introduction of what was called an "Exercise," accounts were sometimes dealt with ten or eleven years after the date to which they referred. He thought they were approaching that now. It seemed to him that some of the items here were such as must inevitably have been foreseen at the time, and certainly they ought not to have been left so late as this. The last item of the Vote was £600,000 for "South Africa-Compensation Claims." There had been discussion after discussion in this House on that matter, and they had voted sums up to millions for compensation claims. How could the Government say now that this was expenditure of an unexpected nature, and that at no previous portion of the year could it have been foreseen? How that could be contended he could not conceive. The same might be said of almost every item. He was not complaining of the items; they might be quite correct, but he was complaining of their being put before the Committee in a Supplementary Estimate. When the Public Accounts Committee were sitting he remembered asking with respect to several of the matters indicated here. He asked an official from the War Office what was the total amount of such and such an expenditure—referring to expenditure by officers in the field. That official was a very able man indeed, but his reply was "I cannot tell you." He asked "Can you tell me within a million
  588
  or two?" and the reply was "No, I cannot." That was the state of mind to which the War Office was reduced by South African expenditure. That expenditure was of the most lavish kind. There was practically no sort of Estimate. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the item of £1,000,000 for "Proceeds of sale of cast and other animals, etc." How could £1,000,000 be the wiping out of the whole account? When they wiped out an account they got the pounds, shillings, and pence. There was no finality about £1,000,000. With regard to Appropriations in aid he reminded the Committee that they were in a somewhat different situation. They were made, as he had pointed out, by the Treasury acting under the Public Charges Act, and the House had no control over them. Let the House observe that this Supplementary Estimate represented two huge mistakes—a mistake of £6,100,000 on the original Estimate, and a mistake of £3,400,000 on the Estimates of the Appopriation in aid. Such large mistakes, he fancied, had never been made before. He would not enlarge on that now, although he should object later on to the great vice of Appropriations in aid. They meant the withdrawing of the control of this House from the finances of the country. Last year they amounted to no less than £13,000,000, and this year they would probably amount to still more. He most earnestly begged the attention of the House and the Committee to the growing practice of the Government in making Estimats which were not to be trusted, and of coming in with Supplementary Estimates which were not justifiable and which played a part of a most dangerous character in dealing with Appropriations in aid.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid he agreed with the hon. Member for King's Lynn that the Government in laying before the Committee Supplementary Estimates like this were practically presenting a second Army Budget for the year. When the Committee came to go into the discussion of details it would be found, from those enormous sums asked for from the Committee, that the Estimates of the various sub-heads a year ago turned out to be absolutely fallacious. The

  589
  right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War in the few remarks with which he had opened the debate did not make any attempt to justify the conduct of the War Office. The right hon. Gentleman made a few observations on several of the large charges, but he did not say why these large charges, which might have been foreseen, had not been entered in round figures in the Estimates for the current year. There was the large figure of £800,000, payments to the Colonial contingents. The War Office must have known that a large sum of that sort was outstanding to the Colonies and that it would probably, and ought to, come in for payment in the current year. Why then was it not put in? With what countenance could the Government justify presenting an Estimate for £5,000 at the beginning of the year and in the month of February bringing in a Supplementary Estimate for £800,000? The right hon. Member the Secretary for War did not attempt to explain how it was that the War Office should be ignorant of the existence of a claim of this magnitude. In the next head the original Estimate was for £10,000, now it was £150,000: and in the third the paltry sum of £3,000 was in the original Estimate, now it was £100,000. Whence came that? Surely the Committee had a right to demand that a department should have a little more foresight as to the amount of the claims that must necessarily come in during the currency of the year. If all this confusion was true in regard to these particular charges, it was still more so in regard to the China charges. The right hon. Gentleman said that this was money that ought to have come in course for payment on 31st March, 1903; therefore it must have been known that it was due. Why, then, was it not in the Estimates? He had doubts that the delay was in the India Office; because he had found that very often it was the War Office that was responsible. The Committee had a right to some excuse or explanation how it came to pass that no sum whatever had been inserted in the earlier Estimates of the year for the £900,000 for Imperial Military Railways and £600,000 for South Africa—Compensation Claims? The right hon. Gentleman himself allowed that these had been outstanding sources of quarrel and
  590
  disagreement between the War Office and the Colonial Office for two years past; and if there was going to be such a vast sum placed on the charges for the current year it should have been in the original Estimate.
  This criticism applied with even greater force in regard to the Appropriations in aid. The hon. Member for King's Lynn, who had referred to this subject, did not point out its full gravity. He could quite understand that at the conclusion of a great war, larger sums for Appropriations in aid might be coming in, than on ordinary occasions; and the War Office might fairly come forward with some justification for what took place last year and the year before. The war came to an end in June two years ago and the expectations of the War Office were considerably thrown out of gear. The Appropriations in aid went up from £3,430,000 to £6,130,000, because when the war came to an end the War Office wanted to sell a good deal of their property in South Africa; but certainly that was an enormous discrepancy. In the previous year the Appropriations in aid amounted to £4,500,000, while in the Supplementary Estimates there was an additional sum of £5,500,000 or a total of £10,000,000. The war having come to an end a careful department might have anticipated that a very large sum must come to the credit side of the account, and if that was the case last year, â fortiori it should have applied this year, when the war had been finished for more than a year and a half, and when the War Office must have been aware of what they had to sell in the shape of cast horses and other animals, provisions, forage, stores, and materials, but there was as great a discrepancy as in preceding years. Under Vote 6 for the sale of cast horses and other animals the yearly Estimate was £77,000 while the Supplementary Estimate was £100,000, but the discrepancy was even greater in the case of sales of provisions, forage, and supplies. In the Estimates for the year the amount given was £76,800, while in the Supplementary Estimates it was £1,600,000. The discrepancy was not so great on the next item—Stores £650,000 and £500,000; and for Materials £137,000 and £130,000. But putting the four items together the amount in

  591
  the original Estimates was £941,000 nd the sum now given in the Supplementary Estimates was no less than £3,430,000 or an increase of 350 per cent. Surely they had a right to expect from the head of the War Office some statement to account for the hopeless error into which the War Office had fallen. This matter was important because it would become, under the existing system, almost impossible in future for students to discover the real cost of the war. He thought that it was of the greatest importance that the Public Accounts Committee should devise some alteration of the present practice, in the direction of simplification of the accounts of payments usually put under the heading of Appropriations in aid.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BROMLEY DAVENPORT,said that he did not intend to follow the right hon. Gentleman opposite into the regions of prophecy. He would endeavour to answer the considerable number of Questions that had been put to the best of his ability, and if he did not make himself perfectly clear he hoped hon. Members would be indulgent. The hon. Member for King's Lynn had referred to these Estimates as altogether unexampled, and had suggested that there was something improper in applying Appropriations in aid to meeting deficiencies in the Army Estimates. There was, however, nothing new in the practice, and if the hon. Member thought there was anything improper in it, he was surprised that he did not make the same speech last year. While we were at war it was absolutely impossible to arrive at an exact estimate of the cost of particular services. As to the question of the expenditure upon Imperial military railways, upon which he had been asked a question, he thought he could make the matter quite clear. So far as the War Department was concerned it was only an affair of book-keeping, and no money had passed. These railways had belonged to the Transvaal and the Orange River Colonies, and had been captured as prizes of war by our Army. During the war they were worked by the military authorities as military railways, and on the con-
  592
  clusion of hostilities they were handed over to the Colonial Government. Their price bad been a matter of discussion between the War Department and the Colonial Office, and finally a sum of £1,250,000 had been agreed upon. When he took office that sum was regarded as due to the War Department, but in the last few weeks it had been realised that under the South African War Loan Contribution Act, 1903, all moneys over and above £3,500,000 paid by the new Colonies must go, not to the relief of taxation, but to relief of the National Debt. It therefore became necessary in the Estimate now presented to write off £900,000, £350,000 of the amount having been already charged against the Army Votes in the form of stores supplied from stock. So far as the War Department were concerned, they realised that if, and when, this sum was paid over it would not go to them but would go in relief of the National Debt.
  The hon. Member turned to the excess of Appropriations in aid, and said he had been asked what was the meaning of the £1,000,000 shown. He explained that when the transports ceased to be required they contained a large quantity of coal; that receipts from the sale of transport animals in South Africa, other than the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies, amounted to £440,000; and that animals and vehicles in the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies accounted for £410,000. Altogether there were items amounting to a bout £1,000,000; but he did not suggest that that would be found to be the precise sum.
  MR. LOUGH: Then if we have not to pay it, why should it be in the Estimates?
  MR. BROMLEY-DAVENPORTsaid that it was because they had sold the railway, for which they had paid nothing, to the Colonial Government for£l,250,000.
  SIR EDGAR VINCENT: Why, if nothing is being paid, should we have a sum on the Estimates of £900,000?
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: It is put down to balance our account, to

  593
  show that we no longer take credit for the sum of £900,000.
  SIR EDGAR VINCENT: But that really is no explanation. Because you do not receive a sum which you expected, are you justified in stating that you are going to spend a sum which you do not intend to spend at all?
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: I am told that it is necessary to show it in this way.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that there would have been an Appropriation in aid to the extent of the £900,000, which would have been in reduction of the amount payable on the Supplementary Votes which they now had to pay. But that amount they now realised would not be paid, and, therefore, the original charge on the Supplementary Votes would not be met by a corresponding Appropriation in aid. In that sense they would have to pay £900,000 more out of the Army Votes.
  SIR EDGAR VINCENT: To whom? Who is the money to be paid to.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Might I ask one question? Take the next item, "Cast horses, £1,000,000." The hon. Gentleman takes credit in an Appropriation in aid for cast horses. Now supposing it was found, when that amount was gone into, that that was a mistake and that the amount was only £500,000. Would the hon. Member put the £500,000 down as having been spent on cast horses?
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: Are we to understand that the Estimates presented and approved by the House last April are £1,250,000 less than they ought to have been because you expected this amount to come back?
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid he was sorry he could not answer that Question; he did not look into the matter. He desired to make it quite plain. This sum would not be deducted from the Estimate. He was told that it was necessary to include it for book-keeping purposes. We had paid no money and had
  594
  received no money. As regarded the Yeomanry accounts, he thought that, in view of the conditions under which the men were recruited, coming as they did from many parts of the world, and receiving different rates of pay, it was rather unreasonable to expect that the accounts should be completely and accurately wound up so soon after the conclusion of the war. As to the China expeditionary force, the Vote comprised money expended to the amount of £400,000. There were, however, surplus Appropriations in aid amounting to £200,000. The old system of conducting a war was by a Vote of credit, and he was not quite sure, from the point of view of this House, whether that was not better. Hon. Members, at all events, then knew the amount for which they were responsible in any year. But it became much more difficult when a war was conducted, not by the War Office but by the India Office. The accounts were made up in China; they were then sent to India to be checked and audited, and were then sent to the War Office, by which they were presented to this House. That might be undesirable but it was in strict accordance with the recommendations of the Finance Committee. The expedition to China was in 1901, and though the delay in getting these accounts, he admitted, was most undesirable, still it was unavoidable. The same would apply to the Somaliland operations which were being conducted by the Indian Government. With regard to the compensations claims, £600,000, that was made up of three amounts, as hon. Members knew, in 1903. The Transvaal and Orange River Colonies agreed to take £3,000,000 in satisfaction of those claims. £1,500,000 was paid by us in 1902 and it was estimated in 1903 that the total amount of these claims amounted to £4,500,000, and the two Colonies agreed to accept £3,000,000 in satisfaction.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONcongratulated the hon. Member on his first appearance as a member of the Government supporting the Estimate before the Committee, and said had the hon. Member been more frequent in his attendance before he occupied his present position, when the Estimates were discussed, he would not have imagined that

  595
  the hon. Member for King's Lynn was making the protest he had made for the first time. It was not the first nor the fifth time that the hon. Gentleman and many others had made the same protest. The hon. Member had been speaking for twenty-five minutes in explanation of the military expenditure on South African railways but he could not even now pretend that he understood what those explanations were. So far as he had been able to gather the original statement contained an item of Appropriation-in-aid of £900,000 which was wrong.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid he found that he was mistaken in the statement he had made. He found that the £900,000 was actually spent and that it was now only charged against the Army Vote because it had not been repaid. It was anticipated that it would be repaid and it was admitted by the Colonies that it was due. As a matter of fact £350,000 was repaid, but the remaining £900,000 which was expended could not be repaid, and therefore bad to be charged against the Army Vote.
  SIR EDGAR VINCENT: Was it spent on these railways?
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: Yes.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he was obliged for the explanation but it did not correspond with what he understood the Secretary of State for War to say.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid there was no discrepancy. This amount of £900,000 was taken out of the Army funds as a temporary expenditure, and it was expected that it would be paid back. It was taken with the sanction of the Treasury. out of the Army Votes for current expenditure, and it was expected that it would be repaid.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid it now appeared thatthis£900,000 was an advance with the sanction of the Treasury from the Army funds because it was expected that it would be repaid within a year; it was therefore a loan.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: Expended by the military on a railway at a
  596
  time when that railway was being worked by the military.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid this amount was nothing but a loan which was not repaid as they expected it would be. They had had four or five explanations as to this matter but he could not say that he understood any one of them. This question ought to be raised on an Amendment which would bring the question before the Committee in a definite manner, when, perhaps, that Committee would get a proper explanation form the Government. His right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition in his speech had taken the financial ground, which was the only ground which could be taken in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman had shown what the amount would be if these items had been passed, but he omitted to take note of the Military Works Bill.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! This is not the occasion upon which to enter into a general review of Army expenditure. Upon Supplementary Estimates the debate must be strictly confined to matters contained in those Estimates.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONremarked that these Estimates so enormously swelled the total naval and military expenditure that he should hesitate before accepting them. Once these and the corresponding Naval Estimates were accepted the gross amount of naval and military expenditure would be nearer £85,000,000 than £75,000,000. A large amount of the extra expenditure related to the unhappy war in South Africa, the true character of which was becoming day by day more visible. The Estimates included a sum of £3,845,000 required for excess expenditure connected with South Africa. Before voting that sum the Committee were entitled to have a definite account of the total cost of the war to this country. Another point on which information was necessary was as to how much of these Estimates was for ancient and how much for current expenditure. It was recently stated that the present cost of the Army in South Africa was about £80,000 a week, but the Committee were entitled now to ask for more precise information. How much was to be the expenditure on military services.

  597
  in South Africa in the year ending 31st March, 1904? He further asked how the additional charge placed on the revenue of the country by these Supplementary Estimates was to be met?
  THE CHAIRMAN: That point cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply at all. The hon. Member must wait for Committee of Ways and Means.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONthought that possibly some preliminary suggestions might be allowed. The Estimates as they stood upset the financial equilibrium of the year, and until he was satisfied that that equilibrium could be restored he would be inclined to withhold his assent to the proposals. With regard to the item for pay to the Colonial Contingents, would the right hon. Gentleman state definitely what were the financial arrangements as to the pay of those contingents during the war, the amount paid to the colonials, both from this country and from the Colonies, and how that pay compared with that of the British soldier.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid there could be no doubt as to why the money was required to be voted for the railway. The great bulk of it had been spent on rolling stock.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK,)explained that of the £1,280,000, £800,000 was spent on new lines or on substantial repairs of the old lines, and £480,000 on rolling stock.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid the question of how the money was spent was not very material, and his recollection was that the bulk of it went in rolling stock, but, of course, the right hon. Gentleman was better informed as to that than he was. The course which had been adopted in bringing the matter before the Committee was perfectly plain and justifiable. In the expectation that it would be repaid by the Colonies the money had been placed to a suspense account. He had his doubts as to whether it would be repaid; he supposed that the Govern-; ment had their doubts also, and they had therefore acted quite properly in coming to the Committee, stating they were not quite
  598
  sure about the money being repaid, and asking the Committee to vote it. Even if the money was repaid it would go to the National Debt, so that the Government were acting quite properly, though he was bound to say that the explanations which had been given left much to be desired. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition attributed to him the prophecy that the cost of the Army would be immediately reduced. He had never been so foolish as to make any prophecy of the kind. All he did was to express the feeling entertained by himself and his colleagues that they might look in the near future for a reduction in expenditure. These Supplementary Estimates certainly added very considerably to the cost of the Army for the year, but, in view of the fact that a great deal of the money had been spent so far from home, and that they were engaged in winding up a long and costly war, he thought that if ever a Supplementary Estimate for a large sum was justified it was on this occasion. But when the Secretary of State for War took credit for having brought the war estimates and the expenditure nearly to an equality, he could not help remembering that when responsible for the finances of the country he was led by the then Secretary of State; for War to expect, not only that there would be no more expenditure in winding up the war, but that there would be a surrender of several millions. Naturally as Chancellor of the Exchequer he was very pleased to hear that, and he looked forward to being able to present to the House a much more favourable Budget than he ultimately was able to do. Gradually the £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 that were to be surrendered dwindled away; further information brought the sum down to £3,000,000,then to £2,000,000,and finally there was to be a deficit. He did not blame the War Office in this matter, but when credit was taken for the correct estimate of the final cost he could not help saying that that did not agree with his recollection of the circumstances of the case. The War Office naturally had to accept the estimates sent them from South Africa, and those estimates as to the final cost were constantly changing. The conclusion he came to was that the financial control in South Africa left much to be desired. The Government were

  599
  apparently sensible of the fact, for he noticed in the Press the other day that they were about to send out an Audit Commission to go into the whole question. Going by his own experience, when in office, he had no faith in any estimates of expenditure sent from South Africa, and he would not be in the least surprised if the Secretary of State for War was disappointed with regard to these Estimates winding up the war expenditure.
  There was one other item of expenditure which had, he would not say astonished him, but at any rate caused him considerable disappointment. When this expedition in Somaliland was undertaken, it was not contemplated that anything like this amount was likely to arise at all. The original idea was some £300,000 or £400,000, and the Estimates presented to the House were for £500,000, £250,000 one year and £250,000 the next year. Circumstances had occurred which led them to go beyond what was originally contemplated. He attached a great deal of value to precedent in this matter, but cost what it might, no Government could possibly leave that country now without making a clean job of it and fulfilling the task they had undertaken there. It was very unsatisfactory that the amount had been so considerable, and he confessed that he did not think they had seen the end of it yet. He was afraid they would not succeed in locating the Mullah, and if they did they would not catch him. Even if they succeeded in catching him, he believed that another Mullah would arise. He hoped some member of the Government would be able to tell them how soon they expected the operations to be brought to an end.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid the Secretary of State for War had asked him to say a word in reply to what had fallen from the hon. Member opposite, and from the Tight hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon in regard to this expenditure. He agreed with what had been said by the hon. Member for King's Lynn about the practice of introducing Supplementary Estimates. When he was at the War Office some years ago, after Lord Randolph Churchill's strong attacks upon
  600
  the expenditure, a great effort was made and the Supplementary Estimates' system was put for a time entirely on one side, and for two or three years running there were no more Supplementary Estimates, and the principle was only started again in recent years. He thought it would be impossible to compare what had taken place this year with any other year. With regard to what had been said about the operations in Somaliland he would leave it to his right hon. friend to deal with the adjustments. He wished, however, to explain exactly what were the difficulties which made it impossible for the Government to forecast last February what would be the receipts and the outgoings in South Africa with regard to these Supplementary Estimates. The Committee would recollect that last February they had not then completed the return of the troops, and there was a constant movement of troops from South Africa to this country which went on until last April. There was also the difficulty in regard to the stores sent out. The military authorities had not then decided what transport they were going to keep or what forces, and to take a mere survey of the stores and decide what amount was to be sold was a matter involving many months work. His right hon friend the Member for West Birmingham had not completed his visit to South Africa when those Estimates were framed, and it was inevitable that an immense number of questions must remain entirely unsettled, involving finance in which the report of his right hon. friend was the main deciding factor. This had especial regard to an item of expenditure connected with the railways amounting to £500,000. Those railways were taken over by the military authorities as quickly as they were captured, and they were administered purely for military purposes. They were broken by our enemies in a variety of places, all the chief bridges had to be put up again temporarily, and ultimately repaired. Sidings and short lines had to be added under military control. All this stood at £800,000 in the War Office accounts, and£400,000 was for locomotives and other non-consumable stores. For all this, after proper deductions for depreciation, they expected payment when taken over by the South African Colonies from the civil authorities. That was a charge which was reasonable from the

  601
  War Office point of view. There were prolonged negotiations.
  SIR HENRY FOWLERasked where the working expenses of the lines came in.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid the working expenses were entirely paid out of the military funds. The military authorities naturally held that they were entitled to use the lines to the fullest extent. It turned out to be difficult to adjust the claims of the civil authorities for wear and tear of the lines held by the British troops, or where they had spent money necessary to repair the lines. He put the case as strongly as he could from the point of view of the War Office, and the case was considered by the Government with great care. In the end the Treasury agreed that this £900,000 should not be charged against colonial revenue. Whether that was a wise policy or not was a matter for discussion, but he thought hon. Members would see that they had no alternative but to treat that sum as it was treated in these Estimates. They could not possibly take credit for the £900,000 still under discussion, upon which the then Colonial Secretary had not advised them. They could not charge it before, because they hoped to have a larger sum, and as soon as the sum could be settled it was brought before the House. He agreed that those charges were unsatisfactory, but in the course of a war, which lasted nearly three years over such a vast extent of territory, such charges were unavoidable, and the question for the Committee was whether the Government had shown want of foresight and caution in not avoiding those charges, or whether they were to blame for not submitting them to the Committee before. He thought he had shown that to submit them before was impossible. As regarded want of foresight, he agreed that in the management of the finance of the war they wanted a better authority on the spot than they had in South Africa. He was attacked the other day upon this point. He might say that the moment he took office he sent out one of the ablest men in the War Office to act as Lord Kitchener's adviser, and the hon. Member had brought before the House the considerable sums which had been saved to this country by
  602
  that gentleman in South Africa. He was glad that the system they began at Alder-shot, Salisbury Plain, and in Ireland was now being followed in South Africa, and he hoped this system would in future not only prevent unnecessary expenditure, but would also bring it within the purview of the House earlier. He was sure that the House would acquit the Government of any desire to depart from the precedent of the past in this matter.
  SIR A. HAYTERsaid he should like the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken to toll the Committee why these items appeared at all on the Military Estimates. One million had been voted on two previous occasions in the Civil Estimates, and now when the war was over these items were transferred to the military expenses. He could not understand why they had been so long in winding up this matter, The Estimate contained an item of £900,000 for "Expenditure in connection with Imperial military railways in South Africa." The whole of the accounts for railways in Cape Colony and Natal had been wound up some time ago, and he should like to know why there had been this extraordinary delay in regard to the accounts for these military railways. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to state also why they appeared in the Military Estimates and not in the Civil Service Estimates. Another item with regard to which he wished an explanation was £100,000 for ' Gratuities to the troops for active service." It was known long ago that the gratuities would amount to £1,800,000, and the amount had formerly been voted. He did not understand why this £100,000 had been left behind. The item of £150,000 for the pay of Imperial Yeomanry in South Africa included the famous5s. per day. He did not intend to reopen that question, because it had already been thoroughly thrashed out. He urged that the equipping of such a force should be in the lands of the regular military agents, because it had been found during the war in South Africa that the Yeomanry Committee competed with the agents of the regular Army for some things, with the result that the Yeomanry paid higher prices and received inferior goods.
  SIR EDGAR VINCENTsaid the House would find themselves in a

  603
  strange position if the Government made a practice of following all their disappointments by Supplementary Estimates. If the income-tax fell behind the Estimate by £5,000,000 were they to have a Supplementary Estimate? He would be the last to deny that the winding up of the accounts of the great campaign afforded some justification and excuse for considerable arrears, but he doubted whether this general principle altogether justified the enormous Supplementary Estimates which were now before the House. It must be remembered that they had rather lost their standard of measurement with regard to the Estimates. This £6,000,000 represented no less than twopence on the income-tax, and that was a very large amount to bring before the House as a Supplementary Estimate. In addition to the financial obligation it imposed upon the country, it had this secondary effect, that it very largely destroyed the value of the discussion on the Budget. When the Estimates were presented about the usual time they were entirely falsified by the two extraordinary Budgets which the country had now to meet. He referred to the Supplementary Estimates and to the expenditure on capital account. He hoped that the Government, now that we had done with war finance, would get on to the peace footing with the utmost rapidity, and that they would do their best, not only in the matter of frankness in stating fully all the expenditure they expected to incur, but also in regard to pressing their subordinate officers not to make safe Estimates but correct ones, to present to the House budgets worth discussing. It had been said that the House of Commons had somewhat lost control over expenditure in general and military expenditure in particular. He ventured to press upon the Government the consideration of those measures for improving the financial control over expenditure which were set forth in the Report of the Committee on National Expenditure presented last July. He associated himself entirely with what the late War Minister had said in advocacy of decentralisation of audit. One of the grave defects of our financial system was that the audit came too late after the events and was conducted too much by persons entirely ignorant of the kind of
  604
  expenditure they were called upon to control.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid he thought the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had put his finger upon an important point with regard to Army expenditure and the supervision of the Army Audit Department. He would not go into details, but he would say that the War Commission pointed out that a great deal of the expenditure in South Africa was entirely due to the fact that the Army Pay Department, which had the spending of £80,000,000, was absolutely unfit either by training or knowledge to give any sort of financial expert advice to the general in the field. The late Secretary of State for War had alluded to the fact that when he had taken office he had sent out to South Africa an expert. He did not doubt that fact, but he did not think that it absolved the predecessor of the hon. Gentleman from the charge of neglect in not having done so before, or absolved the Government from responsibility for the increased cost of the war owing to that neglect. It could be clearly pointed out that at least two or three millions were lost to this country by the neglect of having a proper financial department in the field. There was another point in connection with this expenditure upon which he wanted to touch. The second item of these Estimates was with reference to the "Pay, etc., of Colonial Contingents." The personnel of the Army Pay Department in South Africa was only half what it ought to have been. Instead of having 130 they had only 65 paymasters, and instead of having a force of 500 clerks they had only 250, and that was the reason all these accounts had fallen so hopelessly into arrear. It was not only the difficulty of collecting accounts from mobile forces, dispersed battalions or scattered departments of the Army, which rendered the collation of these accounts impossible, but it was due largely to the fact that, owing to the absence of paymasters in the field, no accounts in many cases were kept at all. These were the reasons why more than a year after the close of the war they got in accounts for £800,000 for the pay of the Colonial Contingent, and £150,000 for the pay of the Yeomanry. Both of these forces had been disbanded more than a year ago. However difficult it

  605
  might be to supply the accounts at the time, there was no excuse except the want of personnel in the Pay Department for their not having long ago reached the War Office. The Secretary of State for India was a confirmed optimist. He came down to the House when Secretary of State for War day after day, and told them that all was well in every branch of the Army, that the accounts were in perfect order, and that, in fact, not a word of justifiable criticism could be offered in regard to the whole system. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could not speak freely so long as he sat on the Treasury Bench, but if he was free to speak he would admit, now that he had quitted the War Office, with which he was so long connected, that all was not so well there as he had represented to the House.
  The test of good administration was not how much they spent, but how much value they received for what they did spend. The first was a mere spendthrift policy, and invariably brought those adopting it into the bankruptcy court. That was where the Government was landing this country in the matter of Army expenditure. It had been pointed out that the Army Estimates for the current year amounted to £43,000,000, of which this Supplementary Estimate represented something like a fifth; and the official explanation was that no accounting had been at all possible. All this was merely the aftermath of the war. The Government scattered their millions in every direction, and they could not be surprised if, when they were not really winding up but trying to wind up the expenditure they found it had very largely exceeded the Estimates. The late Secretary for War said that after the remonstrances of Lord Randolph Churchill the custom of presenting Supplementary Estimates ceased. He wished the recent remonstrances from both sides of the House against the uncontrolled extravagance of the present Government had had the same effect. Take the case of the Colonial Contingent. While a great deal of this expenditure was due to the lack of accounting, a great deal was also due to lack of preparation for war. The pay of the Colonial Contingent had been throughout the campaign a source of the greatest difficulty for the authorities out there and the War Office at home.
  606
  Despite the fact that in previous wars Colonial Contingents had been utilised, the experiences of the officers had never been collected and collated. Until three months ago the Government knew nothing about the organisation necessary to start a similar force. They were presenting a bill for £800,0000 to the House when the services of one officer for six months at an expenditure of £500 would have given the War Office the necessary information. This was a practical point, and he hoped the Secretary for War would do something in this direction in the course of his reorganisation. These might be small items but they went to make up a large whole, and the proper supervision of them would contribute) to the smooth working of the organisation. The Imperial Yeomanry were charged in this Supplementary Estimate with £150,00;). A late Secretary for War had said that that corps was an audacious innovation and he decided to leave them to their own resources. And what was the result? Over £10,000,000 had been expended in South Africa on these colonials, and with the present Vote the amount came to something over £11,000,000. Surely that was a subject worth consideration. When similar cases arrived a large sum ought to be saved by the careful preparation beforehand of the details of successful organisation.
  MR. AINSWORTHsaid he should like to know to whom the railways under discussion belonged, who worked them, and who got the profits. According to the Under-Secretary for War these railways in the Orange River Colony and the Transvaal were taken over during the war and therefore he presumed they passed into our possession for nothing. An expenditure of £900,000 had been incurred on them, and under those circumstances one would think these railways were a very valuable asset, and he should like to know who received the profit, for surely they ought to pay more than their working expenses, and under favourable circumstances there ought to be a considerable balance to the good. He presumed the railways were now the property of the British taxpayer, and that being Imperial military railways they were managed by military officers, but

  607
  under whatever circumstances it must be manifest that there must be a profit out of the working of the line.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that in answer to the hon. Gentleman who had spoken he meant to state that the railways to which he had referred were now the property of the Transvaal and Orange River Governments. He believed they were not profitable. He understood a great deal of expense had been incurred to put them in proper order after war usage. It should be remembered that the Committee were now dealing with Supplementary Estimates, of which he had had no previous experience, but he shared the view that Supplementary Estimates if properly presented should deal only with unforeseen expenditure. The hon. Member for East Bristol had made some remarks with which he entirely sympathised, and which certainly had great weight. The hon. Member spoke of the large amount of the Estimates which were due to excessive payments during the war, and he suggested what the remedy ought to be—a remedy which he was perfectly confident ought to be applied, and he hoped very shortly would be applied—and that was to provide the proper financial staff as part of the ordinary staff of every commander in the field. Until that was done and the staff practiced in time of peace to do what it was called upon to do in time of war, there would be this excess of expenditure in every campaign that was undertaken. A vast amount of the excess of expenditure was due to the fact that there had been no preparation in utilising the forces of the Colonials, and also the Volunteers from this country. He believed the irregularity of employing hundreds of men on different engagements, varying from day to day, had contributed largely to the expense and the confusion. He did not say that was avoidable at the time. The experiment having been made, however, they ought never to find themselves in the same difficulty again. They hoped very soon to have a scheme which would, he trusted, enable them to avoid these errors in the future.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition had found fault with him because he had been sparing in his references to expenditure, and had held out
  608
  no hope that we might ever return to our normal expenditure in our War Office Estimates. If he did not think that was possible he would not be standing there; but he did not want to anticipate what he might have to say at a later date. The right hon. Gentleman was therefore doing him an injustice in his remarks on a recent occasion in declaring that he had no hope of a reduction in our expenditure. That was not a correct representation of what he had said. What he did say, and what he adhered to, was, that he was not so crazy as to suppose that we could, instantly and at this moment, alter the scale of expenditure on the Army to any serious extent. That he believed to be true, but he should not like that statement to be construed as meaning that he did not believe we could with advantage reduce the expenditure on the Army. On the contrary, trusted he would be able to give effect to the hope which he had expressed at no distant date. An hon. Member asked for information in regard to Somaliland. He had already alluded to the matter, but he might add that the position was this. The Mullah had been driven northwards, by the energy of General Egerton and his troops, to a point which was on the edge between our protectorate and the desert. We had three positions, in fact—one on the west, one on the southwest, and one on the south, near where the Mullah now was. It was hoped that, by the co-operation of the chiefs who occupied this corner of North-East Africa, the Mullah would be placed between four forces, and that so we should be able to deliver a very heavy blow at him. In this way an opportunity might be given to bring these operations to a close with some certainty that the trouble would not begin all over again. The hon. Member for Walsall had asked a question in regard to certain railways in South Africa, and a grant that had been made for replacing railway stock owing to losses in the war. That was a purely civil transaction. The Vote under discussion had simply to do with military expenditure and the operations on the railways for the purpose of moving troops. As to the Army Pay Department they were very sensible of the reforms which

  609
  were necessary, and he had no reason to suppose that the hon. Gentleman's recommendations would not receive attention. He thought he had answered all the definite questions which had been put to him.
  SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid that with regard to the warlike operations in Somaliland, what they had to complain of was that the Government did not in the first instance tell the House of Commons what were their aims, who would conduct the operations and what would be their probable cost. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the original comparatively small Estimate for those military operations had passed the House of Commons. The House did pass those relatively small amounts very easily, but if the House had been told that they were only initial expenditure, as he might almost call it, he thought the House would require more information than had been given it as to the beginning of the war, who were going to carry it on, and what were the objectives of the Government which when achieved would bring the war to an end. They had the usual paraphrases about prestige and the obligations of this country to certain tribes who had trusted to British authority. But the House had not been given any details and did not know what those obligations amounted to, and how far the interests of this country were involved. At one time there was some doubt as to whether the war was being conducted by the Foreign Office, but it was no use crying over spilt milk, they would have to pay for it. Although he did not share the sanguine expectations of the Secretary of State, he hoped the war would be brought to an end as rapidly and cheaply as possible. The great value of the debate was, however, the eliciting from all parts of the House objections to the unsatisfactory state of those Supplementary Estimates. There were two Leaders in this House who did a great deal to destroy that practice. They were Mr. W. H. Smith and Mr. Gladstone. Mr. Gladstone set his face like flint against it, and in his Cabinet, too, and no such remarks could have then been made as were made by the penultimate Chancellor
  610
  of the Exchequer last year with reference to the support in the Cabinet of the Prime Minister. Mr. Gladstone looked on a Supplementry Estimate as almost a crime on the part of the department which presented it, and it was no easy task to get over his objections. The Estimates were cut down at the beginning of the year with the intention of presenting Supplementary Estimates to fill up the gaps. They were to be regarded as a dose of medicine to be taken in the early weeks of the session before the Appropriation Bill could be passed. They were all agreed that the Cabinet should put down its foot with regard to those Estimates, but the tendency of all departments and the strong influence they were able to exercise, enabled them to continue this disastrous procedure which caused the House to lose control over the expenditure of the year. He was not blaming the Government just now, because no doubt war was an exceptional time; one of the Supplementary Estimates was for £6,000,000 for the Army, and there was also an Estimate for the Navy of £1,500,000 or £1,750,000 and also for the Civil Service. Look how that increased the taxation of the year. The value he attached to the debate was that it directed attention to the financial unsoundness, the tendency to extravagance, and the diminution of the control of the House of Commons, which this growing practice of Supplementary Estimates involved.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid that the general discussion showed that military expenditure had increased, was increasing, and ought to be diminished, unless the country were to be absolutely ruined, and also that Supplementary Estimates had reached such a stage at present that they had become a scandal. Those two propositions having been admitted it was their duty to thoroughly examine the divers items in the Supplementary Estimates. It was no use hopping from one to another and talking about Somaliland one moment and the Imperial Yeomanry the next. The Estimates should be examined item by item, and they should have an explanation of every subject as it appeared on the Paper. The first item was regimental pay, extra pay and messing allowance. It was necessary to some extent to give the allowance, but surely

  611
  the Government knew the cost of living in South Africa was greater than in England. They were not told the amount of the extra pay that had been given. They had been told by the ex-Minister for War that the soldiers at Wellington Barracks were absolutely in the same condition as would be the miserable Chinese who were to be brought to South Africa to work in the mines. If that were the case there would be no necessity to vote anything, as the Army would be fighting as slaves. He should like the right hon. Gentleman to explain his position on that point. He thought the right hon. Gentleman ought to do something before they voted a further farthing for the Army, since he thought the position of the soldiers in Wellington Barracks was that which would be the position of the Chinese slaves in South Africa. An explanation was required before proceeding to the next item.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid he agreed with the hon. Gentleman that it was desirable that after a general discussion on the Vote they should look into every item and have an adequate explanation. One or two matters had arisen during the discussion which had not been answered. There was the sum which the House was asked to vote for the Imperial military railways in South Africa. They had it that it was an item which they expected would be received from Lord Milner as representing the 'Civil Governments in South Africa. He wanted to know whether the right hon. Gentleman would lay before the House the correspondence which had passed between himself or the Treasury and the South African Governments with regard to the liability for this amount. Did Lord Milner acknowledge the debt or did he not?
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: Certainly.
  MR. WHITLEYasked if the correspondence would be laid on the Table.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid there was no correspondence, but a bargain had been settled long ago. The account had to be written off so far as
  612
  the Army was concerned, because it could not be paid to the Army account.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid that as he understood the matter the money when paid would be paid to the National Debt, Was there a contract to pay the money, or was there not? If there was a contract some evidence of it should exist, Was it as flimsy a contract as the bargain entered into by the ex-Colonial Secretary with reference to the £10,000,000? There was a matter of £1,250,000 due to the taxpayers of this country from the taxpayers of the Transvaal, and before it was written off they had a right to know whether it was a good or bad debt or merely a hypothetical expectation.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: Does the right hon. Gentleman desire an answer now? I hardly understand what he means by the correspondence. There has been no correspondence; it is an acknowledged debt.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid he was glad to hear that explanation. He was glad to have extracted so strong a statement as that given to the Committee and hoped in a few days to be informed exactly how the bargain stood. It was extremely important that the Committee should see how it stood and how soon the money was to be repaid. It was only six months ago that this House voted £35,000,000 which was handed over to these Colonies which they could not yet have spent, and if this debt was acknowledged to be due why was not it paid out of the £35,000,000. This was only one illustration of the methods of finance between the House and the Transvaal Government, by which we did all the paying and the Transvaal all the receiving. There was a plea to be made on behalf of the British taxpayer. With Consols below eighty-six it was time they constituted themselves the champions of the British taxpayer. He noticed other items, such as that to the South African Constabulary, £100,000, and a similar amount with regard to the China Expedition. When these Votes were before the House list year they were told the amounts then required were the final amounts. Now they were asked for further sums and

  613
  were not told whether they were final or not.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the Question of his hon. friend had been clearly answered by the Financial Secretary to the War Office, but the answer given was diametrically in the teeth of the account of the transaction given by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer the right hon. Member for Croydon. The Financial Secretary had stated that this was an absolute bargain; the then Chancellor of the Exchequer had referred to no such bargain, and said he had had the gravest doubt whether we should ever get the money back at all.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid he asserted there was no bargain at all. It was a claim made by the Treasury against these Colonies and it was contested. When he left the Treasury it was still a matter of dispute between the Colonial Office and the Treasury as to whether this money would be repaid.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the right hon. Member's observations justified the statement he had made. The hon. Member's impression no doubt was that it was a bargain, but that impression was not true. It was clear that there was no agreement, and equally clear that the explanation of the Government would have been mi leading if the matter had not been cleared up. The matter upon which he rose, however, was another matter, and was the most important question which had been mentioned this afternoon in the course of general debate. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition had referred to a promise which he thought had been given last year by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer that there would be a reduction in military expenditure, and the present Secretary of State had used language of a definite kind at Liverpool in relation to that matter. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State had said it was not for him to reply to statements made in the previous year on the question of Army expenditure. The matter had been raised last year on several occasions and finally by a direct Question in the House, and what he (Sir
  614
  Charles) then understood the then Chancellor of the Exchequer to mean was that he did look forward to a considerable reduction in military expenditure in a year or two from that date. Unless a word was now said upon this point the Committee might be left with a very different impression from what they then had. As he understood, the Government did not desire to recede from what was then said but intimated that at a time of shift and change in the War Office they could not make any such change in the forthcoming Estimates, but that the words of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer were still to be relied on.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he just desired to make the matter of the £900,000 clear. The Financial Secretary said there was a binding contract to pay it. It was clear that the hon. Gentleman did not believe there was a binding contract, otherwise he would not have put it into a Supplementary Estimate. It was put into this Estimate because the Government believed it to be a bad debt, and they desired to write it off. If the Government believed it to be a binding contract there would be no necessity to write it off. This Vote showed the Committee for the first time a fact which nobody would have believed. It allowed a Government for the first time to withdraw a sum of £900,000 from a Vote, and devote it to a purpose for which it was not voted nor intended. The Committee voted every sum with the greatest exactitude, and thereby, as they fancied, chained up the Government, but they did nothing of the kind, because the Government came one day and said we have taken £900,000 from Army funds and spent it on two railways and we have got a lot of rolling stock and other things which we thought we should have sold and got the money back, but we have not and now we ask you to sanction this. Let the Committee remember that but for this Vote every farthing of the £3,340,000 which was an Appropriation in aid would have gone to swell the old Sinking Fund. It was only this Vote which withdrew it from its proper destination, and when this amount was voted, as he supposed it would be, the result would be to deprive the Chancellor of the Exchequer of this amount which would have gone to

  615
  diminish the Debt. He rose particulary to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he adhered to the statement that there was a binding contract by the Colonies to repay this £900,000, and if so why ho put it in a Supplementary Estimate.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTreminded the Committee that these transactions occurred before he came into office, and the information given to him was that it had been agreed, with the approval of the Treasury, to accept the round sum of £1,250,000. That, he thought, justified him in the language he had used. He now understood from the late Chancellor of the Exchequer that ho was wrong, and that the acceptance of the sum did not take with it the acceptance of the Colonies, but the acceptance of the Treasury and the War Office. To that extent he was inaccurate in the language he had used.
  MR. WHITLEYthought the hon. Member had placed the matter once more in a fog. Was this agreement simply one between the Treasury and the War Office, and not between the Home Government and Lord Milner; and did the hon. Member still maintain that there was no correspondence on the subject?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that unfortunately he had not been present during the whole of the discussion, laving been engaged in important business in another part of the House, but he thought the Committee had received from his hon. friend the Member for Croydon a clear account of what had taken place. There were included in the Appropriation in aid sums of money to be covered by the sale of stores and animals in South Africa. They were for sales made to the Colonies, and for which the Colonies did not dispute their liability, but in the present state of their finances it was not possible to recover the amount immediately, and therefore the Government were unable to take it into credit at the present time.
  MR. BUCHANAN: That is another explanation.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that if hon. Members would follow him they would see that his explanation was not inconsistent with what had already
  616
  been said. There was also a claim by the War Office against the Colonies for a sum of money expended on the railways. The figures of the claim were agreed as between the Colonies and the Government, but the Colonies had raised a counterclaim for damage done to the railways while in the occupation of the troops, for wear and tear, and so forth That counterclaim was disputed by the Government, who held that they ought, to recover the £900,000. He hoped that when the Colonies were in a more pros perous condition the sum would be recovered, but nobody who knew the present position could think that the Government would be wise or indeed that it would be possible to press for immediate payment. He could not at the moment give the exact figures of the counterclaim, but the amount was very similar to that of the claim of this country. The Government did not think the claim a fair one, but the correspondence was still proceeding on the subject. The Financial Secretary had been misunderstood. What he said was not that there was no correspondence, but that it was not in his possession. The Treasury supported the War Office in the claim they had made, and in their objection to the counterclaim. He apologised for his absence during part of the debate: it was not due to any want of respect to the Committee, but because of urgent duties elsewhere.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid the point which had troubled him was not so much the absence of certain sums from the Appropriation in aid as the fact that this item of £900,000 was to come out of the taxpayers' pocket, although the hon. Member said it was nominally only a question of account.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINexplained that the £900,000 was out-of-pocket expenditure from military funds by the War Office on these railways. Being the subject of a claim against the Colonies, it was not charged direct to the Votes of the year, but was kept in the suspense account as long as there was a prospect of its being recovered within a reasonable period. Now that the Government knew they could not get the money this year they thought the suspense account should be closed, and they

  617
  accordingly asked the House for the money. They were not writing the amount off as a bad debt; that would be a very different operation; he still hoped to recover the money, which when paid would go to the Sinking Fund.
  SIR JOHN GORSTthought the transaction was now perfectly clear. The £900,000 had been spent out of war funds, without the authority of Parliament, for the benefit of the Colonies, and because there was no Appropriation and no Parliamentary sanction the expenditure was carried to a suspense account. The Government now found that the money would not be paid by the Colonies, and at the eleventh hour they came to the Committee of Supply to vote the money which had been illegitimately spent out of war funds for colonial purposes.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid there was really no foundation for the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman. This money had been expended, not for colonial purposes, but for the use of the Army: it was spent by the engineers solely for the purpose of transporting the troops. The contention of the Government was that the money having been expended and the lines having benefited to the extent of £900,000 that sum ought to be reimbursed by the Colonies on taking over the railways.
  MR. RUNCIMANthought it was clear from the explanations that had been made that this £900,000 must be treated as a bad debt. He doubted whether the action of the Government in placing the sum on the Supplementary Estimates had improved their chance of ultimately recovering the money, as the Colonies when pressed would immediately say, "Oh, you have already received the money from the British taxpayer; we are in rather a bad way, and under the circumstances we think we are justified in asking that the matter should be allowed to lie where it is." The incident would simply add to the uneasiness felt both inside and outside the House with regard to the way in which. Supplementary Estimates were accumulating. The enormously heavy expenditure of the services had a great deal to do with the distress in all our home trades.
  618
  £30,000,000 of extra expenditure used in unproductive works must naturally cripple our industries, not only in the amount of capital available, but in the spendable capital for the home markets, which were the best customers for our manufactures. He wanted to know how far this kind of thing was to go, and he was curious to know how the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was to be a drag on the wheel. The Chancellor had certainly a very uncomfortable prospect before him so far as the Budget was concerned, for there never was a time in the history of the country when it was necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to put on the brake more heavily than at present. They had not only to foresee a very heavy expenditure, but a considerable amount of rebellion among the British taxpayers at the heavy total expenditure of the year. Some of the items were entirely unexplained, and as many of them had not been sorted out in the financial archives of the Treasury and War Office, there would be considerable dissatisfaction among those who would be asked to keep up the standard of the Navy. He considered that these Votes were not only bad from a financial point of view, but they injured the prospects of the First Lord of the Admiralty when he came down for a large Vote in the course of the next few weeks, and if it were only for the sake of the Navy he should join heartily against this proposed increased expenditure.
  MR. BRYCEsaid there was another item about which they ought to hear something more. He gathered that the Government were hopeful of cutting off the Mullah in the north-eastern portion of the province, but they ought to be told what was the policy of the Government. Did they intend to pursue him into the desert beyond if he escaped? They knew how very elusive his forces were, and the escape of part of his force might enable him to reappear again in another part of the country. They wanted to know whether the Government intended to try and make some sort of peace, or would they go on pursuing the Mullah into the desert? The sum of £1,600,000 was now asked for, and they had been told in reply to a

  619
  Question that they were spending money upon this expedition at the rats of £115,000 per month. That would mean another £1,500,000 if it continued for another year. Before they voted this sum they were entitled to have a much fuller statement, or at least they were entitled to have another opportunity of discussing this practice, which had become a very serious drain upon their expenditure. He hoped a proper explanation would be given.
  MR. ARNOLD-FGRSTERsaid he had already spoken twice with regard to Somaliland. He was not at all sanguine about a campaign of this sort. The right hon. Gentleman had asked most fairly what was the policy of the Government in regard to Somaliland. He did not think it was necessary to go through the whole history of the expedition from its initiation. There was very little more to say about the incidents of this campaign, for they were tedious, difficult, and prolonged. One incident was very much like another, except that the earlier attempts were marked by failure and the more recent ones had been marked by considerable success. He could tell the Committee the policy of the Government in a word. In the first place, it was on no account to add to our responsibilities or to increase our territories. In the second place, it was to continue the campaign until they had made it reasonably probable that further raids upon our territory would not occur. He had good reason for believing that they were nearer the realisation of that hope than they had been for some time past. It was a fact that the position was now, from the military point of view, less unfavourable than it had been in the past. It had been stated that they had driven the Mullah into the northern portion of the protectorate. There was a British force in his rear, and on the east side there was another force cooperating. The routes taken by the troops were governed to a large extent by the water supply, and therefore the procedure was not so absurd as some hon. Members appeared to think. The next few weeks they hoped would produce developments which, while they might not be decisive, would throw a good deal of light upon the policy they
  620
  could adopt in the future. The Mullah had retreated across the waterless desert with great loss to his troops, and he was now located in a district from which there were but limited means of escape. If the Mullah were to escape with an unbroken force and a reasonable probability that he would recommence his ! raids, the policy of the Government would again be the same as that of any other Government under similar circumstances, for they would have to continue those military operations which they had been compelled to undertake and which the Government regretted as much as any hon. Gentleman opposite. There was nothing more to be said, and he thought he should be simply wasting the time of the Committee if he elaborated at any great length the past history of this campaign. The present was satisfactory, the future was unknown, but the policy of the Government was perfectly clear.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid these Estimates included the pay of the Colonial Contingents, and this was one of the most important questions which had been discussed that afternoon. A large number of those items might perfectly easily have been foreseen and inserted in the general Estimates of the year. He did not think there was a single case amongst the many items which afforded a stronger example of this want of prudence and knowledge on the part of the War Office than this item of £800,000 for Colonial Contingents. Here in the last month of the financial year was a proposal for contingents whose services were rendered a year and a half ago, and during that time there had been ample opportunity, if not for definite settlement, at least to enable the War Office to have done something to meet these demands. The total amount rendered under Estimates for this item was only £5,000. The War Office was either so blind or in such a hurry or actuated by a desire to make its figures as low as possible that they grossly underestimated this item. One speaker had said that large sums had been asked for in previous years and there was a balance over, and the conclusion to be drawn from that was that the claims were not satisfied and they ought to have inserted a sum in the

  621
  Estimates. They ought to have some more satisfactory explanation from the representatives of the War Office on this subject. By not putting down an adequate sum in the general Estimates the figures had been made fallacious. He begged to move a reduction of this item by £10,000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item, Vote I, Sub-head F (B), Pay, etc. of Colonial Contigents (South Africa), be reduced by £10,000."—(Mr. Buchanan.)
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid the point on which the Committee were entitled to information could be put in one sentence. The Estimate last year was only £5,000, and the amount in the Supplementary Estimate was £800,000. It did not seem that that could be a mistake. Consequently there seemed to be a deliberate underestimate of what the total amount under this head would be. Perhaps it was wrong to impute motives before hearing the explanation, but he thought they were entitled to an explanation.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid that so far as he was concerned he must repudiate the suggestion that there had been any attempt to deceive the House of Commons by putting down an Estimate of £5,000 when they knew the amount would come to £800,000. It was no doubt a startling increase.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid they did not suspect the Treasury of trying to deceive the House of Commons, but the War Office was quite capable of doing this to make things more comfortable with the Treasury. What they objected to was the taking of these sums on the Supplementary Estimates instead of on the ordinary Estimates. It seemed to have been supposed that a surplus of £400,000 from the preceding year could be utilised in order to reduce the sum to a very much smaller amount, but even if that had been the case there would still have been a very large difference between £500,000 and £800,000. That did not explain the whole thing. This was only one of a series of mistakes that had been
  622
  made. He must press for a better explanation than had yet been given on this point.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he had already explained that in the Votes of 1902–3 there was a sum of £400,000 available for the purpose. Naturally, it was expected up to the last moment that this sum would come in, so as to enable it to be used for some portion of this Estimate. He did not think that any hon. Member would suppose that the £5,000 included in last year's Estimate was seriously intended by the War Office officials or by the Secretary of State to indicate exactly what would have to be paid. He was sorry there had been delay in the preparation and auditing of the accounts, but he was not responsible for it.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid it appeared from what the right hon. Gentle-I man had just said that he forgot the character of the Vote. The £5,000 was I for arrears of pay. It was indicated, ! therefore, that this would end the job. Having cheerfully voted £5,000 to end ! the whole of the claims of the Colonial Contingents the Committee were this year confronted with a demand for an extra £800,000. Surely no story out of "Alice in Wonderland" was more curious than this of the £5,000 Estimate which had grown to £800,000. He suggested that it was a step towards intercepting £3,000,000 which would otherwise go to the extinction of the National Debt. No Chancellor of the Exchequer and no Financial Secretary could ever contemplate without the greatest horror the prospect of anything going to the extinction of the National Debt.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid that he was not responsible for the appearance of this sum in its present form. As regarded half the item Parliament was made aware that it would have to be provided, but the adjustment was not concluded at the close of the last financial year. With regard to a considerable portion of the remainder very large sums had been under dispute with the Australian colonies as to the precise terms on which their contingents had to be paid, and as to the precise liability of the Imperial

  623
  Government. This caused delay in the adjustment of the accounts. He could assure the Committee that there was nothing in the nature of concealment in this matter as had been suggested. He fully admitted that there was great objection, if it could be avoided, to arrears being brought forward in this way, but in this case, with regard to three-fourths of the money, it would have been absolutely impossible for the House of Commons to have been made aware of it earlier.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid he was entirely at a loss to understand how the money was spent. Somebody in the House was responsible for the money that was expended, but one Gentleman after another had got up on the Treasury Bench to say that he was not responsible. An ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer also had said that he was not responsible. Who, then, in the name of wonder was responsible for the money? Ministers and ex-Ministers had been rigging the pea about, and now it is impossible to tell under which thimble it was. The Australian Governments scouted it, and the men brought an action against them for the payment of their 5.s a day which was paid. Was this payment only an advance by the Colonies, or did these men get 5s, a day from the Colonies and 5s. from the War Office? He Wanted to know what the transaction was from the beginning. Last year Parliament was told that these arrears of pay were £5,000, while this year a modest little sum of £800,000 had been sprung upon them; and yet they were informed that no one was responsible. The whole thing from beginning to end was an absurdity, and showed hew thoroughly badly the War Office accounts were kept. He did not see on the Treasury Bench the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had disappeared. Were they to take it tacitly that the right hon. Gentleman held he was not responsible by not speaking? The Committee ought to put a stop at once to this kind of procedure, and register some kind of protest. The country was being fooled, and the House of Commons ought to look more closely into these matters when they saw the wrong that had been done. Therefore, for his part, he would cheerfully go into the Lobby with his hon.
  624
  friend and vote for this reduction. He only regretted that it was not for the larger sum.
  MR. RUNCIMANsaid he wished to ask whoever was responsible for this Vote, how many men the sum represented. If it represented 10,000 men that meant that it was pay for 320 days. Then, when did the men actually receive the money in the year 1903–4, or in the previous year, or had they got it yet? He understood that there were still some creditors of the War Office amongst the men. When hon. Members saw the £5,000 on the Estimates last year, they understood that that was to clear up the accounts; and this £800,000, which seemed an absolutely new payment, required a much fuller explanation than had been given.
  SIR EDGAR VINCENTsaid the Committee ought to be informed which of these items were token Votes and which were not. Were they to be told next year that, although they had voted £2,700,000, that was merely an intimation that there was a further sum to pay, and had no reference whatever to the real amount? They must know whether these sums were final or not.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that his hon. friend the Member for Exeter would have an opportunity of judging when he saw the Estimates which would be shortly introduced. These items represented actual payments, and so far as his knowledge went they were final payments. If not, he should put into the Estimates the sums necessary to cover the costs. He could not tell the hon. Member for Dewsbury off-hand how many colonial troops left at a particular period of the year, or the number of men represented by the vote of £800,000.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLasked when the men were paid.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he supposed they were paid from the beginning of the war. The accounts for them were not rendered by the Colonial Governments till quite recently. There had been two separate payments to these

  625
  troops, one by the Colonial Governments and the other by our own Government on the accounts supplied by the Colonial Governments, and checked by the War Office.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid they were entitled to ask the late Secretary for War what were the reasons which induced him to fix £5,000 last year as being the proper amount that would be required. The explanation might probably be that so low a sum was fixed because it would be much easier to get it through the Committee, and thus take away the control of the House of Commons.
  SIR EDWARD GREYsaid he wished to know what happened to the £400,000 which was voted, but was not spent. Was it surrendered to the Treasury, and diverted afterwards to some other purpose?
  MR. BRODRICKsaid the right hon. Baronet was perfectly justified in asking the Question. The £400,000 was not spent, and was surrendered to the Exchequer in consequence. The £5,000 was put in the Estimates because he was assured that the sum at that time in course of payment, including the £400,000 which was not spent, would sufficiently cover the charges to be met. The sum the Committee were now dealing with was part of the adjustment of a sum of £10,000,000. He assured the Committee that his one wish in presenting the Estimates had been to put in all charges whatsoever, and to clear off the whole business. He had put every possible pressure on the Officials accordingly, but it had been found impossible to get all the items brought into account before the Estimates were prepared.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he hardly knew whether the mistakes made or the explanations given of them were the more extraordinary. According to the answer given to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwick there was a surplus of £400,000 from last year, and the explanation was that that sum was surrendered to the Exchequer because it was not considered necessary
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: That sum was necessary.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he was fully aware of that. It was then stated that only an Estimate of £5,000 would be required, but now a Supplementary Estimate for £800,000 was brought forward. If accounts were kept in such an absurd fashion in any counting-house in the Kingdom or by any county council somebody would have to go. He ventured on a previous occasion to call attention to the manner in which these Appropriations-in-aid were brought forward. That was the way in which the expenditure was increasing year by year. No one made an estimate of what was happening. The Financial Secretary to the War Office said in his explanation that after all they could not be absolutely precise in their Estimates. He, himself, did not expect anything unreasonable and if it was only a question of £5,000 or £10,000 the hon. Gentleman's explanation would be adequate, but when only £5,000 was asked for and the Vote was increased to £800,000 it was rather | trifling with the House of Commons to make such an explanation. How much more of it would the House of Commons stand? It seemed to him that the terrors of dissolution paralysed the power of criticism of hon. Gentlemen opposite. It was perfectly certain that in their own business they would not allow a clerk who made such a scandalous error and who repeated it to enter their office again.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid it was only an error of 4 per cent.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid it was an error of 1,600 per cent.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid that as the Colonies paid £6,000,000 he was over estimating it when he said the error was 4 per cent. It was really only about 2½ per cent.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the war was over ten months before the right hon. Gentleman made his statement last year. He tabled his account in March and whatever happened after that it was trifling in amount. It seemed to him

  627
  that this was trifling with the House of Commons and that something should be done to have the Supplementary Estimates more carefully framed. The Estimates were increasing year after year and the only man prepared to accept the responsibility for that was the Financial Secretary to the War Office, who really was not responsible. He hoped the House of Commons would record its sense of the absurd way in which these accounts had been prepared.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid the matter of the Vote of £800,000 for Pay, etc., ought to be explained. Was that amount included in the sum paid in the form of commission to the Colonial Governments for financial transactions connected with
  the payment of colonial troops? He noticed that the Comptroller and Auditor-General drew attention to certain claims made by the Colonial Government for a 3 per cent. commission on the amount transmitted through them for the colonial soldiers. He wanted to know if that were the case.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he believed the commission was paid in respect of stores, but he could not trace the amount.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 128; Noes, 197. (Division List No. 8).

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Grant, Corrie

  Partington, Oswald

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick)

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Allen, Charles P.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Price, Robert John

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Rea, Russell

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Reddy, M.

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Bell, Richard

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Boland, John

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Rigg, Richard

  Brown, George M.(Edinburgh)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Burt, Thomas

  Joyce, Michael

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Roche, John

  Caldwell, James

  Kilbride, Denis

  Rose, Charles Day

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Labouchere, Henry

  Runciman, Walter

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Lambert, George

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Langley, Batty

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Crean, Eugene

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Sheehy, David

  Cremer, William Randal

  Len, Sir John

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Crombie, John William

  Levy, Maurice

  Slack, John Bamford

  Cullinan, J.

  Lloyd-George, David

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Lundon, W.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Delany, William

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  M'Hugh, Patrick. A.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Murphy, John

  Tennant, Harold John

  Doogan, P. C.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Toulmin, George

  Ellice, Capt E. C (SAndrw's Bghs

  Nolan, Col. J. P. (Galway, N.)

  Wallace, Robert

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Walton, Jn. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Eve, Harry Trewlawney

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Fenwick, Charles

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

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  O'Dowd, John

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  O'Malley, William

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Mara, James

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Charles Hobhouse.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham)

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc)

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

  Aird, Sir John

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Myers, William Henry

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Ailsopp, Hon. George

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Greene, Sir E. W (B'ry S Edm'nds

  Percy, Earl

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Gretton, John

  Plummer, Walter R

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Hain, Edward

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Pym, C. Guy

  Balcarres, Lord

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Ridley, Hn. M.W. (Stalybridge)

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G (Midd'x

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christen.)

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Hartley, Sir George C. T.

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynemouth

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter

  Bignold, Arthur

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Heath, James (Staffords., N. W.

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

  Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside

  Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Horner, Frederick William

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Bull, William James

  Houston, Robers Paterson

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albeit

  Butcher, John George

  Howard, J. (Midd. Tottenham)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Cantley, Henry Strother

  Hunt, Rowland

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Johnstone, Heywood (Susse,

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

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

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Spear, John Ward

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A (Wore

  Kerr, John

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Chapman, Edward

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Laurie, Lieut. -General

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes.

  Olive, Captain Percy A.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monmouth)

  Stock, James Henry

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Lawrence. Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Lawson, Jn. G. (Yorks., N. R.)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fare-ham)

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G (Oxfd Univ.

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Dong, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.)

  Tuff, Charles

  Dewar, Sir T. R (Tower Hamlets

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Tutnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Valentia, Viscount

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Macdona, John Gumming

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H

  Dyke, Rt, Hn. Sir William Hart

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool.

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E (Taunton

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts.)

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Willoughby, de Eresby, Lord

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Fison, Frederick William

  Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

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

  Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G

  Wood, James

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Forster, Henry William

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland- Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Mount, William Arthur

  Gordon, Hn. J. E (Eilgn & Nairn)

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Original Question again proposed:—And, it being after 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.

EVENING SITTING.

  CHINESE LABOUR, IN THE TRANSVAAL.
  Adjournment (under Standing Order No. 10).
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid he rose to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely—
  "The promulgation of the Ordinance providing for the introduction of indentured Chinese Labour into the Transvaal before the Ordinance and its regulations have been discussed by the House of Commons in their complete and operative form."
  This was a matter of the very greatest importance, and one in which the British people were deeply concerned and the least they could ask was that it should have been treated by the Government or the Colonial Secretary with very great care and circumspection. He thought he was well within the mark when he said the reverse of that had been the act. The Ordinance itself had been hustled through this House with indecent haste, and the regulations they had not seen at all, and were not therefore able to discuss. But the regulations were at least as important as the Ordinance itself, and he could only find one intelligible reason why this thing had been hurried through in this manner. The whole thing was so repugnant to the sense of the British people that the Government got it out of the way as quickly as possible. This House commenced its sittings three weeks ago. and several Parliamentary Papers had been issued. One had been issued before the House met, but it was incomplete and had since the meeting of the House been re-issued. Four others containing 1,100 pages had all been issued since the assembling of the House. On the 4th of this month urgent representations were made to the Colonial Secretary to allow the House to discuss and settle this thing with a perfectly free hand, but the answer of the right hon. Gentleman was that he could not give any other opportunity than was afforded by the discussion on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, and they were confined to that discussion. That debate had been taken on the 16th
  632
  or 17th. Let the House observe the position in which they were placed as the result of that debate. The Ordinance adopted on that occasion was confessedly based on the Report of the Transvaal Labour Commissioners, of which only an abridged and incomplete edition was. issued before Parliament met. On the 14th a full copy was issued, with a complete copy of the correspondence between the Colonial Office and South Africa. That correspondence contained what might be termed the first edition of this Ordinance, and that and the second edition, as he would call it, of the Ordinance were in the hands of Members but a few Parliamentary days before the debate opened. He desired to call attention to the striking changes n those two editions, and to the transfer of certain matters which were in the first edition of the Ordinance to the regulations, which they had had no opportunity of discussing at all, of the second edition of the Ordinance. His case was that the regulations, which were the vital machinery to give effect to the Ordinance, and were of equal or more importance than the Ordinance itself, had been promulgated without any discussion in the House. The first edition of the Ordinance contained some exceedingly valuable and humane provisions with regard to the accompanying of the abourers by their wives and children. Those provisions were contained in paragraphs 13, 14, and 15, of the Blue-book, number 1895, page 123. In what he termed the second edition of the Ordinance all those provisions had been dropped out, and were summarised in the regulations which they had never had an opportunity of discussing, although the Ordinance had now been promulgated.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,): The regulations have never been published.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I am aware of that. Shall we have an opportunity of discussing them?
  MR. LYTTELTONsaid there would be the usual opportunities when they were laid on the Table of the House.
  DR. MACNAMARA: And in the meantime will the Ordinance be in operation?
  MR. LYTTELTON: The Ordinance will come into operation when these regulations are fixed and promulgated, and when they have been forwarded and satisfy me that they fulfil the pledges I have given to the House.
  DR. MACNAMARAasked whether an opportunity could be given to the House to discuss the regulations before the Ordnance came into operation.
  MR. LYTTELTONdissented.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid that that being so, this opportunity was the only one of discussing this matter, and he therefore proposed to take it. These regulations, which were the most vital part of the whole thing, would not come before the House and would not be discussed, there was also a third edition of this Ordinance on 10th; February, six days before the debate opened, and the changes in that were material and were the result of representations made to Lord Milner. It was not certain now that the Ordinance had reached its final form and yet it had been promulgated. When the debate took place on the 15th and 16th the Government were showering Blue-book after Blue-book, of voluminous character, on the House, and the Ordinance and regulations were still in process of alteration. Apparently, although the Ordinance had been promulgated the regulations which went with it would be laid upon the Table of the House, but the machinery for the recruiting of coolies was now in operation in China, as the telegram of the 19th went to show. He was not certain now whether the Ordinance had reached its final form. The Chinese Minister had made some very valuable suggestions and had suggested that they should be included in the Ordinance. If he was met by the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary the Ordinance would have to be altered again, but whether he did so or not the right hon. Gentleman certainly contemplated entirely altering the regulations to meet the Chinese Minister, and he desired to emphasise the fact that the regulations
  634
  were far more vital than the Ordinance itself and that they were very far from being in their final form. He protested against the Ordinance or the regulations being promulgated before the House had had an opportunity of fully and fairly discussing them. The day after the debate closed a document was issued containing the correspondence from the Chinese Minister, in which various suggestions were made which, in the opinion of the Chinese Minister, were necessary, in order to prevent the immigrant being made a mere chattel or article of commerce. It was a singular comment upon Western methods of civilisation that we had to go to the Chinese Minister for suggestions in order to find a means of mitigating the barbarity of the proposals sent out by the British Government. He asked, if the Government were going to put these suggestions into the Ordinance, why were people recruiting coolies under the Ordinance at the present time They had not seen the final draft of th3 regulations yet, and in the Ordinance there was nothing but the heads of the regulations. When were they going to see these regulations, because he protested against the Ordinance being promulgated until they had seen the whole of them? He did not believe in leaving the whole of this matter in the hands of a Lieutenant-Governor who might be, and probably was under, sinister influences. He understood a conference was to be held with regard to the inclusion of these suggestions in the Ordinance or regulations, and he derived some little comfort from the fact that the Chinese Minister would be present at that conference. He protested against the House being hustled in this matter in the way it had been; the matter was too grave a matter and one which had already caused great consternation in this country, and on this account and on account of the facts he had brought to the notice of the House, he begged to move.
  MR. WHITLEY, in seconding the Motion for the Adjournment of the House, said that recently the Colonial Secretary spoke of the happy

  635
  Chinese labourer, who was to be surrounded by every comfort that philanthropy could devise, and presumably that philanthropy was to be exhibited in the regulations which the House was not to be allowed to see. When it was discovered that the Chinese Ambassador had asked for the embodiment of certain important matters in the Ordinance the Colonial Secretary said they were minor matters and should be dealt with in the regulations. But he (Mr. Whitley) believed that the questions to be dealt with by the regulations were the very essence of the whole case and that the House ought to see them before they came into operation. He had put down five Questions which would have to be dealt with in the regulations, and the House would see that the way the Colonial Secretary dealt with these Questions would make all the difference between slavery and non-slavery. The first was whether these un fortunate coolies could be transferred or sold without their consent—whether it would be possible to have in a British colony agents putting up the cry in an open market, "Who bids for 5,000 Chinamen?" Surely there ought not to be any doubt left on that point. The second Question was equally vital. Were the managers of these compounds to be allowed to use the lash as a method of persuasion with coolie labour? The Government were over-ruling the opinion of the House and of the nation in the matter of this Labour Ordinance, and unless they were successful in the demand they were now making for an opportunity of discussing the regulations before the Ordinance became of effect, the House would be responsible for a condition of things from which a most vital provision was omitted. The third Question was—Were the wives and families of these coolies to be confined to the compounds with all the strict penalties and regulations of the labourers themselves? Presumably, they would. Then, would they pay for the maintenance of their wives and families or would they be at the charge of the importers or employers? If the latter, it would be quite possible for the importers to impose a prohibitive tariff. There was a very ominous suggestion in the Blue-book in the Report of the
  636
  Commissioner of Mines who was sent to investigate this question of employing Chinamen. Mr. Ross Skinner said that it would be desirable to mix up these Chinamen in order to prevent any danger of their combining. Was this proposal to be carried out? The fifth Question was, would it be possible for the employer to have a truck system inside these compounds whereby practically the whole of the money paid to the labourers would be restored to the mine-owner in the form of charges for food of various kinds? Mr. Ross Skinner on this point stated that certain mines could only be worked at a profit even with Chinese labour, by reason of the profits made under the truck system. It would be possible to enumerate many other vital points coming under these regulations. This Motion was made in order to assert the claim of the House of Commons to dismiss an Ordinance providing, if not slavery itself, something alien to the wish of the country and approaching perilously near to that condition of things. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No."] No one could read the opinion of the Chinese Minister without a blush of shame. It had been left to the Chinese Minister to suggest that the use of the lash should be prohibited and that the sale of human beings as goods and chattels should be made impossible under the terms of the Ordinance. The House was entitled to an assurance from the Colonial Secretary that no single human being would be engaged under this Ordinance until the terms of the regulations had been fully drawn up, and laid before the House for discussion. He begged to second the Motion.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Dr. Macnamara.)
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid he only rose to put a Question which he hoped the Colonial Secretary would answer. The jurisdiction of the Ordinance would obviously be confined to the Transvaal. The Colonial Secretary had pledged himself that certain things should be done in China. Certain regulations made by the Government here would have to be executed in China.

  637
  By what authority and means would force be given to those regulations? A still greater danger to these imported labourers was what might happen to them on the high seas. Neither the Government of the Transvaal nor His Majesty's Government had any power to enforce regulations in regard to the victualling, sanitary condition, and treatment of these labourers during the passage from China to the Cape. At the time of a similar importation of natives of the Pacific Islands to Queensland the British Government passed Acts—in 1872 and 1875—for the protection of the islanders during the passage. By the Act of 1872 provision was made regarding penalties for misconduct on the part of commanders of British vessels and certificates of licences required by those vessels, and special powers were given to the Colonial Courts by Imperial Statute to punish any offence against the regulations. If there was at present no provision for the protection of the Chinese immigrants on the high seas, he asked whether the Government would suspend the operation of the Ordinance until some provision had been made by the Imperial Parliament for the humane protection of these Chinese emigrants there.
  MR. BELLsaid he wished to support the Motion. He represented a section of the community which regarded schemes like this with very great suspicion. He felt that everything that was possible should be done by the Government to remove the causes of that suspicion. It was quite possible that there were persons in this country who would like an Ordinance of this kind put into operation at home. Were it not that the working men here had the franchise and were organised in trades unions, there were some employers here who would do what the mine-owners were doing in the Transvaal. So far as his voice and vote could have any effect he was determined to do all he could to prevent such arrangements wherever they were to be carried out. He had been rather struck by the attitude and the suggestions of the Chinese Minister. It appeared that notwithstanding the discussion which they recently had in that House the Ordinance was so incomplete that the Chinese Minister was not prepared to accept it without suggesting fresh proposals for insertion. That
  638
  was very significant. Personally he said that whatever confidence he might have in the representatives of His Majesty's Government at home he was not prepared to trust the authorities in South Africa so far as the framing of an Ordinance or the preparing of regulations in a matter like this was concerned. They should have the opportunity to examine every clause and every word for themselves. He had no doubt that the sympathies of the Colonial Secretary were in the right direction, but the mine-owners were the real Government of the Transvaal and they needed to make safeguards to ensure that they did not revert to the old conditions of slavery. Hon. Gentlemen opposite said "No."' Very likely some of them were of the kind of employers who would like to adopt a similar system in this country. They seemed very cheerful about adopting it in other parts of the British Empire.
  AN HON. MEMBER: You do not know what you are talking about.
  MR. BELLasked why did hon. Members opposite support proposals of the description submitted to that House last week and which they were discussing that night. Was it, as had been stated by some of the Rand magnates, because they were afraid that white labour in the Transvaal would organise itself and combine for the purpose of dictating the conditions of labour, and also to obtain political power when it had the opportunity? If such was the case, he was one of those who intended resisting, in that House, and out of it, to the fullest extent of his power, their getting such an opportunity. They had in this country hundreds and thousands of labourers who would be glad to have the opportunity of going to the Transvaal and doing the work which was there to be done; and while they had to bear so much of the expenditure incurred there he thought they were entitled to find employment for their surplus labour at home before such a system as was now proposed was introduced in the Transvaal. They wished to know would the Colonial Secretary allow them to see the Ordinance when the proposals of the Chinese Minister had been considered, so that they might know whether they were adopted wholly or partially, and also what

  639
  was the result of the conference which would be held next day and what would be there agreed to? He thought the people of this country, and at any rate the Members of the House, would like to know and take part in any official arrangement of that kind. The Colonial Secretary had been good enough to say that the regulations would be placed before the House after they had been adopted and that they might then discuss them. They might discuss them as much as they liked, but they could not alter them, and the messengers who were already out in China recruiting these Chinese would try and enter into some binding contract with these people, with the result that they would not be able to break it. He desired to see the completion of this business before any support of his was given, either in that House or in the country, to the proposal, and he heartily supported the Motion for the Adjournment.
  ME. MALCOLMsaid the hon. Member who last spoke supported the Adjournment Motion on the ground that it was the duty of the Government to find employment for our own surplus labour instead of finding work for the unemployed of foreign countries in South Africa. He hoped that the hon. Gentleman would make it plain to those for whom he wished to find employment in the Transvaal that when they got out there they would find a cottage of four rooms costing £200 a year and board and lodging costing 9s. a day, while the best wages for white unskilled labour to be obtained would not be more than 10s. a day. With that paltry margin before them could the hon. Member advise his fellow-countrymen to go out and degrade English white unskilled labour. The hon. Member said it would not be possible to alter the Ordinance when once promulgated if the evils predicted for it should come to pass. But surely it was in the power of the Government to stop the Ordinance the moment it was found to be dangerous to the white or indeed any other population. He could assure the hon. Member that Members on the Ministerial side of the House were equally jealous with himself of the honour of the British in
  640
  South Africa, and if the slightest taint of slavery should be found to attach to the Ordinance they would at once bring the matter up and vote against the Ordinance. The hon. Member for Halifax had mentioned the despatch of the Chinese Minister. That was only another illustration of the readiness of hon. Gentlemen opposite to take the opinion of foreigners against the opinion of their own countrymen. He would set against the opinion of the Chinese Minister on the slavery question the opinion of the Archbishop of Canterbury, who was perfectly satisfied with the explanations given by Lord Onslow. The hon. Member had asserted that according to the Chinese Minister it would be possible for the lash to be used under the Ordinance. Well, he could tell the hon. Member that the infliction of corporal punishment was the last thing in the world calculated to make an unwilling Chinaman work. The Chinese Minister's reference was, in fact, to some treatment meted out to Chinese subjects by other Colonies in days long past, and such things were not in the least likely to happen in the Transvaal. The hon. Member for Camberwell referred to the Chinese Minister's letter as if it were quite unknown at the time of the debate: but if he would carry his mind back to the last evening of the discussion he would remember that an effective point was made by the hon. Member for Lincoln in which he quoted the very phrase contained in the Chinese Minister's despatch as to Chinamen being treated as chattels or articles of commerce. That was taken from the letter itself, which had appeared in the same morning's newspapers, and it was another example of the pernicious habit of giving public documents to the Press before circulating them to Members of the House. These documents primarily belonged to the House of Commons and should be first given to its Members. There was really nothing to justifiy the charge brought by the hon. Member for Camberwell. It had been further suggested that the regulations would probably contain something that was distasteful not only to the House of Commons, but to the nation at large, and which, if known, would cause the regulations to be disowned at once. He did not think that

  641
  that was at all a proper suggestion to make. They on that side had, and hon. Members on the other, once professed the most complete trust in Lord Milner, and he had not belied that trust. To say that he was under sinister influences in the Transvaal was to make a most insulting charge. If hon. Members wished to be well served by Ministers of the Crown they must not make such insulting charges in their absence. Ministers were often charged with want of tact or want of judgment, but he had never known a Minister before to be charged with conniving at slavery. Lord Milner had, at any rate, rescued British subjects in the Transvaal from a state of helotry. As far as he could see there was nothing in the three points mentioned by the Chinese Ambassador that might not be granted. He agreed that the responsibility would rest with those who had to see that the Ordinance was properly carried out. The difference between the supporters of the Government and hon. Gentlemen opposite was that the Ministerialists believed that their fellow-countrymen in South Africa [would respect the honour of our flag in the future as they had done in the past, and that the Government of the Transvaal would be as great a success as in other British colonies.
  MR. CATHCART WASONasked what opinion abroad had been regarded by the supporters of this Ordinance. The opinion in all quarters where the subject was thoroughly understood and known from experience had been put on one side; the views of Australia and America had been disregarded; and attention had been paid only to the opinion of a few nominees of the Government in the Transvaal and of those directly or indirectly interested in getting Chinamen into South Africa. There was any amount of labour in the mines that could be done by white men without their coming into contact with the blacks at all. The only difficulty was that contact, which was frequently as distasteful to the black as to the white, and which could easily be obviated. If the right hon. Gentleman absolutely prohibited black labour in the mines it would be the finest thing that could happen to South Africa.
  642
  The Kaffirs could find ample employment on railways and on farms. The attitude of the Colonial Secretary on this question distressed him. His name stood for everything that was honourable in an English gentleman, and hon. Members could have no scruple in accepting his word under ordinary circumstance. He pledged his word the sacred word of an English gentleman that the yellow man would suffer no injustice, and that, under the regulations which he would publish, slavery would be unknown. But it was utterly beyond his power to fulfil a single word of these pledges. The most elementary knowledge of how things were managed in China would convince anyone that the regulations would not be worth the paper they were written on. Contracts would be made and coolies would be obtained who would be ready to accept any conditions, but they would not be free agents. The fear had been expressed that with a large white labouring population trades unionism would spring up, with the result that strikes and disputes would arise, but anybody with the least acquaintance with the subject knew that the most tyrannical trade union that ever existed was not a circumstance to the tyranny that over-rode the whole of the Chinese labour question. It would be a question not of trades unions, but of the secret societies which permeated China from one end to the other. But an even more serious matter was the proposed introduction of Chinese women into this unfortunate country. Not content with driving 100,000 Chinamen into the country, to the detriment of our own labourers, the right hon. Gentleman was going to introduce 50,000 Chinese women and so many thousand Chinese children. The right hon. Gentleman might salve his conscience with the thought that he had introduced so many thousands of women under the names of Mrs. Ah Sin and so forth, but they would not be the wives of the coolies. No Chinamen, except those of the highest class, ever took their wives with them. What was to be done with the women? Were they to be placed in the compounds, or were they to be let loose on the country to earn their living in any way that seemed good to them? The prospect for the

  643
  unhappy country was an appalling one. The introduction of Chinese women would be ten thousand times worse than the introduction of Chinese labour. What had happened elsewhere was well known, but the Chinese in Australia and New Zealand were in the nature of accidents, for no Government had ever entered into such an immoral and hateful contract as this. He was not at all sure that this was not the outcome of the royal progress of the late Colonial Secretary or that it was not part of the price we had to pay for the loan which was not yet underwritten. He did not wish to hurt the feelings of hon. Members opposite; he did not speak of them as individuals; but he did say that, in their aggregate capacity, for them to support the Government in this infamous matter was an action they would always regret.
  He strongly protested against this selling of flesh and blood for the sake of gold, not only to the present but the future ruination of South Africa for generations. The enlightened opinion of the world was against the Government on this question, even the people who were supporting the Government admitted that this was a bad business, but they thought it would be a worse thing if the Government were out of the office. He sympathised most sincerely with hon. Gentlemen opposite on this question, but he believed they were entirely wrong, and that the Government was wrong. The opinion of Europe, Australia, Canada, and America, was against the Government on this question, and he hoped that even at the eleventh hour the Government would repent. As happened in the days of Israel the unclean thing was in our camp and we could not stand against our enemies unless the accursed thing was removed from our midst.
  COLONEL SANDYSsaid it was not very often he troubled the House, but he thought it incumbent upon him to say a few words upon this question. He had listened carefully to the remarks of the previous speaker, and he was exceedingly sorry Mr. Speaker had had to call him to order for an interruption, because his indignation at the statements made by the hon. Member were
  644
  such that he could not help interrupting. The hon. Member opposite had never seen a Chinaman, but he had. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh, oh !"] Hon. Members opposite would not put him off because he had got his line. He had seen the administration of Oriental races by the British in the East, and he was acquainted with the administration of India which included a good many Chinamen. There Chinamen were the admiration of those who could express an honest opinion upon them. Personally he was quite prepared to trust His Majesty's Government and the authorities in the Transvaal in dealing with the Chinese and their conditions of labour, which he thought would be for the benefit of the Chinamen themselves and British labour in South Africa. They had had the statement of the Colonial Secretary that the conditions of labour for the Chinese were such that the Chinaman would take them, while that labour had been refused by the white man. The conditions of labour in those countries were not the same as in this country, and they could not put a white man, a black man, and a yellow man upon the same parallel and expect them to do similar work. Work in the mines was divided into two main portions, namely, the supervising which could very properly he entrusted to white men, and the hard work of the labourer which could only be carried out by men of the yellow or black race because white men would not do that work. He asked the House to exercise their power of discrimination, and not bring their overwhelming force to bear upon a condition of things which they could not possibly judge. They ought to trust the governors and those placed in authority with the conditions which would govern the labourers. He knew something of Asiatic races, and he might say that the description given by the last speaker of those races was against all his knowledge, and therefore he could not accept what the had stated about them. He thought that in this case the House should put its trust in Lord Milner, because this was not a question of Party politics. They ought to accept the conditions drawn up by Lord Milner and by the Minister responsible to this country. He hoped the House would treat this question without bias, and judge it fairly on its merits.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHsaid he had listened with some surprise and disappointment to the previous speakers. He understood that they were discussing the regulations for the introduction of Chinese labour into South Africa, and the principle of the importation of Chinese into South Africa had been accepted. They had now to decide what regulations should govern that importation. The speech of the hon. Member for Stowmarket had been a great disappointment to him, for he was some time a leader of a Party, and all the discontented people in the House followed his lead in regard to Army matters. They would see now that he considered the British soldier was very much like the Chinese labourer, and he was not at all surprised at the hon. Gentleman, after having taken such an interest in the British soldier, taking an equal interest in the collateral subject of Chinese labour. The very essence of this question was centred in the regulation. The importation was an important subject, but it was quite subsidiary to the regulations. What the Colonial Secretary said on the 27th January proved this fact beyond doubt, for he wrote that—
  "The satisfactory working of the Ordinance, if it come into operation, will largely depend upon the regulations."
  Why in the world when they were discussing this subject should they have the Ordinance without the regulations which they had not yet seen? Moreover, the Colonial Secretary stated that—
  "His Majesty's Government do not propose to arrive at a final decision until they have an opportunity of considering the law as passed."
  But the law depended upon the regulations. There had been some discussion upon a sort of understanding that there were regulations in force, but as a matter of fact there were no regulations, although there were some marginal notes. This was almost like passing factory legislation and giving a department power to deal with overcrowding, protection from machinery, and other vital questions. Although they did not know what the regulations were, they knew what the penalties would be for breaking those regulations. Dr. Jameson, in December,
  646
  1903, spoke distinctly against the importation of Asiatic labour. He wished to point out that the questions of inspection, punishment, and bonâ fide employer had not been touched at all. Would the right hon. Gentleman give them a pledge that these matters would be attended to. The Chinese Minister had dealt with the assignment, and he had stated that it was necessary for the employer to be a bonâ fide employer in order to prevent the immigrant being made a chattel or article of commerce. All their hopes now seemed to be centred in the Chinese Minister. He did not think anybody had a right to say that the Archbishop of Canterbury was in favour of the introduction of Chinese labour. He thought it was a pity that all these suggestions for improving the conditions should come from the Chinese Ambassador to the Colonial Secretary, and not from the Colonial Secretary to the Chinese Ambassador. The difference between the two appeared to be that the Chinese Ambassador was the heathen champion of Christianity, and the right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench was the Christian champion of heathenism. The question was whether the House of Commons was to have a right to consider a vital part in this Ordinance. The law was not passed, he understood, until the regulations were in force, and why should they not have an opportunity of discussing the regulations? The success of the Ordinance depended upon those regulations. The House of Commons had consented to the Ordinance, but it would have been infinitely of more value if Parliament had received a detailed explanation of the regulations.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid the hon. Member for North Camberwell had stated that it was not the Ordinance but the importation of Chinese which had caused so much irritation in the country. Only two or three days ago the hon. Member for Camberwell held a meeting in Camberwell. [OPPOSITION cheers.] He was glad to hear hon. Members cheer that, because the whole point of this Motion appeared to be not to discuss the Ordinance but to bring forward a good electioneering cry. He understood that upon this question

  647
  the eighty London Unionist Members were to be swept from their seats at the next election because they had voted for Chinese labour, and this was to be a sort of climax to the whole thing. The question of the importation of Chinese women and slavery and all sorts of things which had nothing whatever to do with the subject before them, had been introduced. The hon. Member opposite had said this was the only occasion upon which this question could be discussed, but he wished to point out that when the regulations were in force they could be discussed on the Colonial Secretary's salary, and if any of those evils which hon. Members opposite supposed would arise, did arise, they could then be discussed, and if they were so great as hon. Gentlemen seemed to think there was not much doubt that the Government would be defeated and the hon. Gentlemen opposite could then come in and alter the regulations. He should be extremely surprised if the Opposition came into power to see them attempting to prohibit Chinese labour. The fact of the matter was that this was a sentimental question. There was nobody on the Ministerial side of the House, any more than on the other side, who desired the importation of Chinese labour merely to import Chinese labour, but they recognised that the whole future of the Transvaal was bound up in the prosperity of the mines, and the commercial prosperity of this country was seriously at stake at the present moment in consequence. There was no doubt that an increase in the production of gold in the Transvaal would ease the commercial situation. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment to the Address upon this question knew what they were suffering from was want of money and good in the city, and the thing that would bring prosperity to the workmen, for whom the hon. Member for Derby was so anxious, was the influx of gold and capital into the country, and unless labour of this kind was introduced into the Transvaal to allow the mines to be worked it was impossible to have such an importation of gold. It was not a question of Chinese against white labour but it was Chinese against Kaffir labour. He hoped that when hon. Gentlemen opposite
  648
  got up to speak they would limit their remarks to the subject before them, and he trusted they would not be treated to any more speeches which had nothing to do with the subject before them, for such speeches as they had heard that night would be more appropriate at the next general election.
  MR. CROOKSsaid the last speaker had asked them not to moralise upon this question. When they remembered that there was no morality in those Chinamen he could understand what was meant. He once heard a man say that he had no objection to calling a black man his brother, but he objected to calling him his brother-in-law. The "moral" members of the House said it was impossible for South Africa to be made to pay without the introduction of, he would not call it slavery, but of indentured Chinese. He wanted to ask who watered the whole of this mining stock, so as to make it utterly impossible to realise dividends on the amount of capital invested in it. He had heard of a Member of Parliament—though not a Member now—who in the wonderful Chartered times made £36,000 in twenty-five minutes. That was a good profit indeed, but then they were asked to agree to the introduction of Chinese labour with the view of earning dividends for the poor creatures who had taken the shares at a price which enabled that gentleman to make £36,000 in this way. There had been a document issued calling attention to the virtues of the mining magnates. One mine which was originally promoted for £50,000, of which only £5,000 was paid up, was put on the market and realised £500,000, and it stood at this moment as being worth £2,250,000. If men asked them to introduce slavery in order to pay dividends he wanted to know where the morals came in at all. It was a question how much they could degrade the whole nation for people who had not got their money in an honest way. He held in his hand a letter, not from a Boer general who had been nominated to serve on the Transvaal Executive Council, but from a poor native in which he said—
  "I wish to bring to your notice a question which is at present causing a state of ferment in South Africa—the proposal to introduce

  649
  Chinise labourers to work on the Rand. The story told by the mining magnates is that it is impossible to get enough unskilled native labour for the mines. That is as black a lie as was ever told. There are thousands of natives in Johannesburg walking about idle, begging to be taken on.
  It was no doubt true that a large meeting of the people of the Rand had been held, at which a resolution in favour of Chinese labour was passed, but men were paid 15s. a head to attend the meeting. They could get them for less than that in England. He wanted hon. Members to get that into their heads, and also the people outside, who after all were a good deal more important than the people inside. It might be quite possible that hon. Members would not be swept from their seats for the opinions which they held at present, but it would not be the first time they had changed their opinions in order to retain their seats. They would bow to the desires of their constituents, and if a pro-Chinese cry would not go down, they would find another which would enable them to forget it.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURY: Will the hon. Member give me a single instance in which we have changed our opinions to keep our seats?
  MR. CROOKSsaid he was not concerned with the hon. Member and his opinions. If he were one of the hon. Member's constituents he would probably trip him up a little but not in this House. They had been told earlier in the day that the recruiting of Chinese labour had been going on. That was a serious thing indeed, having regard to the fact that the Ordinance had not been passed by the House. On whose authority was this being done? Was it on the authority of the Colonial Office or of those people who were an apology for a Government in the Transvaal? They were told that only unskilled labour was being recruited. He had documentary evidence to show that they were recruiting and signing on mechanics, carpenters, and different classes of skilled labour at the rate of £2 per month. He had received this information from a Chinaman, on whose authority he made the statement. He called the attention of a member of the Government to this matter the other day, and he was
  650
  told that if an employer put an unskilled workman to do skilled work that was not properly classed, he would be liable to a fine of £500. He would put the case this way. Supposing an accident happened, and it was necessary to have a skilled mechanic to do the job of putting the matter right, would they shut the mine until a white man could be got? Supposing a Chinaman were engaged on that work, would the mine-owner or the responsible manager be convicted for allowing him to do skilled work. It would rather be said that he was deserving of high praise for having allowed him to do the work instead of stopping the whole undertaking. As a matter of fact, a Chinaman could do anything and everything that an Englishman could do. What they objected to in Chinamen was their mode of living. The mine-owners knew that directly they got the Chinese they would be able to do without white men. If the mine-owners could get a job done for 2s., they would not give 5s. They might love their country but they loved money more. When they were told the other day that the Chinaman was docile, intelligent, and industrious, he interjected that he was cheap. He would be honest. He would not have much chance of being anything else. He would be kept in a compound and a tunnel would be made for him to pass to the mine, and if he took his holidays they would give him a good bucket of medicine which would keep him honest. And over all this floated the Union Jack. That worried him more than any other thing. He was not one of those who went about the country talking of the valuable asset of the Union Jack. He was one of those who thought it was the sign of liberty and justice for the downtrodden of the world. He thought hon. Members who were going to vote against the Adjournment had an advantage over some other people. The ambiguity of their language enabled it to be interpreted in half a dozen different ways and that was exceedingly useful to the cultivated intellect. Those who were opposed to the Ordinance would require a lot of persuading that what was proposed was not slavery. He had in his possession an election bill which was issued in the constituency of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India at the last

  651
  election. It called upon the electors to vote for the right hon. Gentleman and "freedom in South Africa." Hon. Members cheered that. The language was exceedingly ambiguous. Freedom for what? They had left it out. [An HON. MEMBER: The Rand.] There were white men in South Africa who, at any rate, expected something better than they were being offered. It seemed to him that what was proposed was freedom to the mine-owners to make as much as they could out of the whole thing. What guarantee had they that a proper class of men were to be brought from China? Who was to be the interpreter? He could fancy a man being brought before a Mandarin and told that he was to be an indentured apprentice to King Edward VII., and that he could go if he liked, and that if he did not go he would have his head cut off, or something of that kind. He wanted to know what measures were to be taken to ensure that none of these apprentices would be persons of disreputable character. They were asked to place their trust in the Government. The country trusted the Government three or four years ago, and the result was that we had incurred a war debt of £250,000,000, which had now to be paid off. He would not trust them in this matter. The Bishop of Bloemfontein, who had inquired into this matter, was of opinion that with improved machinery, native and white labour was sufficient to work the mines, but it was not sufficient to work them to earn dividends of enormous amount on watered stock. What was the original amount of the capital at which the mining companies were floated, and what was the capital they now stood at? When they got that information they would be able to say whether this was a matter in which they should sacrifice the sacred principle of liberty. He wanted to know whether what was proposed was in the interest of liberty and right and justice, or in the interest of the dividend-mongers.
  ME. LYTTELTON: I have some difficulty in knowing the case I am supposed to answer this evening. A great many speeches have been made, as they were made the other day, about "slavery," and the word "infamy" has been applied to the Government, to myself, and to Lord Milner. I think that Lord Milner can afford, and that I can afford, to
  652
  regard accusations of that kind with absolute contempt. I always endeavour to suppose in this House that everybody who makes a charge, and a grave charge, honestly believes it; and severely though my credulity has been strained upon the present occasion, I will give a few words to the question of slavery, or so-called slavery. I will not attempt to define it in a pedantic way, as I think it was defined the other day, but I will ask the House to remember that the last instance of the carrying on of slavery by a civilised country was that of America. A man there who owned a slave could coerce him into doing any work that he liked against the slave's will. He could keep him for his whole life doing that work against his will, and without paying him for it. He could even compel his own son, born of a black woman, to be a slave, and he could sell either the slave or the family of the slave, and part the slave from his family. That is what slavery was when it existed in America, the last civilised country which carried it on. And the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton the other night, in a speech in which, I am sorry to say, the word conscience occurred, thought it right to charge this Government and myself with instituting slavery in the Transvaal. Misrepresentation is always depressing, but when it is made in connection with the word "conscience" it becomes positively nauseous. I mean those words; I know they are hard words, but I will make them good. I have said that the condition of slavery in America was a condition in which the slave was treated like a beast. Will any fair-minded man in this House, apart from Party questions, say on his conscience that this contract which the Government propose is one which treats its subject as a beast?
  MAJOR SEELY: Yes; so the Chinese Minister thought.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I hope my hon. and gallant friend can be excused by his ignorance. [Cheers and counter-cheers, and Opposition cries of "Oh," and "Withdraw."]
  THE SPEAKER: Order! order. If the right hon. Gentleman had said anything that required my interference I

  653
  should have called upon him to withdraw.
  ME. LYTTELTON: I expressed a hope that my hon. and gallant friend would not have said that the subject of this contract was treated as a beast unless he was ignorant of some of the conditions, at all events, of the contract which it is proposed that the Chinaman should enter into. I will endeavour to make good that statement, and when I have recalled the conditions of the contract to him I will ask him whether he still holds that opinion. What is the contract? I have given pledges in this House, a breach of which, if I should be so bass as to depart from them, can be visited on me by this as well as by that side of the House, with the condemnation which I shall be worthy to receive if I do break them. The Chinaman, I believe, receives wages in his own country at the rate of about one penny or twopence a day. It is proposed that he should receive at least seven or eight times that amount in the Transvaal. Until I heard the great learning displayed below the gangway opposite, I believed I had information with regard to the Chinese from the greatest experts which this Empire can afford, and they informed me that it is perfectly easy to make intelligible to any ordinary Chinaman a bargain which he is entering into. I think hon. Members opposite who know them, will admit that they are a highly intelligent race. But in order that there may be no coercion and no misrepresentation—and our experiences in this debate make it very necessary to guard against it—we have undertaken that there shall be a protector appointed in China, who is to be at the port of departure, or at a place convenient thereto, who is to go elaborately through the contract with the Chinaman, explain what he is to get under it, and explain precisely the terms of it, what he is to get out of it, and the conditions of labour which he is entering into. If, after the contract has been fully explained to him, the Chinaman chooses to embark upon the contract, chooses to earn seven or eight times the wages he can earn in his own country, in order that in three years he may return and be in a far better position than he was
  654
  before, then he is at liberty to enter into the contract. That is the first step. The next step is that provision shall be made for a proper and sanitary method of transporting him from his own country to the Transvaal. My right hon. friend the Member for Cambridge University asked me a Question with regard to the Pacific Islanders Protection Act, which I think he represented as an Act passed in order to give proper sanitation to the Pacific Islanders. I have taken the trouble to look at that Act, and I see it is an Act for the prevention of kidnapping—for the prevention of the punishment of, and criminal outrages upon, natives of the Pacific Islands. That is my right hon. friend's idea of provision for sanitation!
  SIR JOHN GORST: That Act was passed chiefly in reference to the ships which conveyed the Pacific Islanders from their islands to Australia.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I have the Act before me. It is an Act for the prevention of the punishment of, and criminal outrages upon, natives of the Pacific Islands.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: There is a second Act.
  MR. LYTTELTON: There is a second Act which deals with kidnapping and the bond which the owner of the shipping must give. That is in the Schedule of the Act and provides for penalties upon the shipowner if he is unable to satisfy the Governor or British Consular officer that no kidnapping has been allowed in connection with any passenger carried. If my right hon. friend had been more careful; if he had given what the true principle of the Act was, he would have shown that. So far is it from this point having been neglected by the Government that an Act was passed in 1855, which I am informed by the officials of the Board of Trade is still in force, which regulates the carriage of Chinese passengers in Chinese ships from Chinese ports, providing for the proper equipment and manning of ships, including any ship from Hong-Kong, or any British ship

  655
  within 100 miles from Hong-Kong, providing a given amount of space on board, and is, in fact, a sanitary Act of the kind the right, hon. Gentleman would have us suppose the Pacific Islanders Act was, and it is applicable to Chinese. So, then, first the contract has to be explained by the officer who has charge of the embarkation in a ship properly manned and equipped, then on the other side we have a protector also to see that all sanitary and all necessary medical comforts and appliances are forthcoming, and then, having proceeded so far on his way to what some hon. Members prefer to call slavery, the Chinese labourer can break the contract at any time he thinks fit, if the conditions which have been explained to him in China at his own home and again in the Transvaal prove to be such that they are disagreeable to him. [Cries from the OPPOSITION Benches of "Nothing of that in the Ordinance."] I am perfectly well aware of that. [Ironical cheers from the OPPOSITION Benches.] I am not surprised at that cheer, for it is the habit of some hon. Members on that side of the House to disbelieve the word of an English Minister. [Cries of "No, no !"]
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLrose to order. The right hon. Gentleman had, he said, made a serious imputation against a certain section of the House—that they were in the habit of disbelieving the word of an English Minister. It was an imputation that should not be borne by any Member of this House.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid it did not appear to him to be a breach of order.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTSsaid he desired to raise
  656
  another point of order. He wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary was entitled to refer to what was in the regulations, they not being before the House.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid he understood the whole discussion was upon what was or ought to be contained in the regulations.
  MR. LYTTELTON: The point I was dealing with when that interruption took place was this. Some hon. Member on the other side shouted out, when I was about to say that a pledge had been given that it was not in the Ordinance. Now I want to know whether, when a definite pledge has been given by a Minister, however unworthy, in charge of a measure for the time being, that a certain, thing shall be inserted in that measure, I ask you whether you believe him or not?
  ME. WILLIAM REDMOND: We have a right to know.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I do not care in the least whether the hon Member believes me or not; it is sufficient for me that there are Members of the House who will believe me. What I have said is that the regulations shall, if the Ordinance does not, provide for the things I have said in the House shall be provided for.
  ME. WILLIAM REDMOND: We have a light to see them.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I now proceed with the subject from which I was diverted by interruptions. Hon. Members must be familiar with those Acts of Parliament which lay down general principles and provide for the framing of regulations.

  657
  sometimes to be laid on the Table of the House and sometimes not, to carry out those general principles in detail. That is the machinery which is adopted on the present occasion in a matter of difficulty and complexity. Some of the alterations which have been made on the face of the Ordinance have been made in order to give greater elasticity and flexibility, in order that we shall not bind ourselves for all time to a method which possibly may not be proved by experience to be the best. Members familiar with the Coal Mines Acts, Factory Acts, and similar Acts, are well aware that years and years after the principal Act has been passed regulations continue to be made under it. I think that that has been done as much as ten years after the passing of the principal Act.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: That is a very different thing.
  MR. LYTTELTON: What is the present situation? It is that the House affirmed only four or five days ago the principle of this legislation. It affirmed the fact that there was a great shortage of native labour in the Transvaal, and that white labour will not replace that black labour. Those were the first two principles definitely established by our debate last week. [An HON. MEMBER: By closure.] The third was that this was a matter of the most vital urgency.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: No.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I know that the hon. Member does not agree with me, but that was what the House thought. If I have carried the House so far with me, if they agree that the matter has been decided to be one of great urgency and
  658
  that regulations carrying out the Act may be propounded by the Lieutenant-Governor five or even more years after the passage of the principal Act, they will see that it would be perfectly ridiculous to ask that the operation of the Ordinance should be suspended for three, or four, or five years. The Ordinance gives power to make regulations continually, and they may be made, if occasion is necessary several years hence. The Amendment, then, would be an absurdity, because it asks us to postpone the passage of the Ordinance until that Ordinance and its regulations have been discussed by the House of Commons in their complete and operative form. Of course, if we are to wait for that, we may postpone the matter for years. I utterly repudiate what more than one hon. Member has said that we and our own countrymen in the Transvaal are treating this question on a level lower than the Chinese. I utterly repudiate that, whoever said it. [OPPOSITION cries of "Who said it," and "Name."] Several said it. I took down the words of the hon. Member for Camberwell—
  "The Chinese Minister has to be invoked to mitigate your barbarity."
  Hon. Members, I observe, first deny that the expression was used, and then, when they are convicted of using it, they cheer it. Well, I say it is untrue—if that is a Parliamentary expression—that the Chinese Minister has to be invoked in order to mitigate the Government's barbarity. The suggestions made by the Chinese Minister were all anticipated by myself—[OPPOSITION cries of "Where?"]—and if hon. Gentlemen opposite think that Sir Arthur Lawley is not to be trusted, let me assure them that I have made provision, lest by any chance anything

  659
  should be forgotten, that by regulation a transfer of the contract shall not be permitted without the consent of the labourer. I do not blame hon. Gentlemen opposite for not knowing the laws of the Transvaal, but I have been obliged to study them. Unless I am strangely mistaken, hon. Gentlemen opposite are utterly wrong, and the Chinese Minister was wrong, in supposing it was necessary to provide that corporal punishment shall not be permissible. I maintain, without any fear of contradiction, that the scheme of the Ordinance upon that point leaves the mine-owners without any power to inflict corporal punishment on the Chinese. Were they to do so the Chinese, as temporary citizens of that country, would have their remedy against them. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean the other day went out of his way to accuse me of being personally responsible for a violation of the Truck Act. It is not often that he is unacquainted with what he talks about, but I daresay he is not aware that by the law of the Transvaal the practices at which the Truck Act is directed are illegal. It is not intended to infringe that law by means of the Ordinance.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: My point was simply that the whole compound system violates the whole spirit of our Truck Act.
  ME. LYTTELTON: I understand the Truck Act in a less liberal sense than the right hon. Gentleman. That Act cannot be infringed by this Ordinance unless the law already existing in the Transvaal is specifically repealed. One other complaint is made—that recruiting was going forward in China. Why not? Anybody
  660
  has a perfect right to enter into preliminary arrangements in order to obtain these coolies, subject to the law which will be made to regulate this matter. No one in this House or out of it has the slightest power to stop it.
  MAJOR SEELYrose, and remained standing for a while amid loud and repeated cries of "Order" from the Government Benches and of "That is English courtesy" from the Irish Benches, but eventually resumed his seat.
  MR. LYTTELTONcontinuing, said:—I do not suppose that many hon. Members are aware that before this session it would have been perfectly competent for any citizen in the Transvaal to have introduced Chinamen into the Transvaal. The only purpose of this Ordinance was that legal effect might be given to such restrictions as appeared desirable when they were introduced.
  MAJOR SEELY: What was your predecessor's pledge?
  MR. LYTTELTON: Do right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite think that indentured labour under restrictions is a novelty in the British Empire? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, as a former Secretary of State for India, knows this practice very well, because coolies have left India under indentures, under, I suppose, his actual authority, and under conditions very slightly differing from those we are considering.
  MR. CROOKS: Not in compounds.
  MR. LYTTELTON: In the Trinidad Ordinance he will find that compulsory residence on the premises of the employer

  661
  was prescribed for the coolies who were imported under indenture from British India. I trust I shall always be perfectly frank with the House, and I desire to say that it is true that there is more holiday for the Trinidad coolie than is proposed under this Ordinance, but the conditions are not widely different. They cannot terminate the contract as we propose that the Chinamen should be able to terminate it. I respectfully submit that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, who was Secretary of State for India, and who, therefore, was responsible, for the time they were in operation, for these Acts which regulated the importation from India of coolies' to the Colonies, should think well before he accuses this Government of instituting a system of slavery. I do not wish to embitter this discussion; but I do say this—that it is impossible to get really the true inwardness of this Amendment and of this discussion without ascertaining that hon. Members who support the Amendment decline to believe what is pledged here on behalf of the Government and what is pledged on behalf of the Transvaal Government and Lord Milner. That is the position which hon. Gentlemen opposite take up, and I venture to say that they cannot get out of it. If these pledges are to be believed, then what you require will be effected. If they are not to be believed, then you will have ample opportunity when the regulations are laid on the Table, as they shall be, of moving a vote of censure on the Minister who has broken those pledges. That opportunity you shall have. These regulations shall be laid on the Table. If they do not carry out our pledges, we shall expect, and we shall deserve, the censure of the House.
  MR. ASQUITH: In the speech which the Colonial Secretary has just delivered he has attached, I venture to think, a very exaggerated and a very unnatural interpretation to the fact that this House last week, by an attenuated majority, refused to pass a vote of censure on His Majesty's Government. My right hon. friend, in the course of his speech, acknowledged the invalidity of the claim he made by elaborately re-arguing the merits of the question and by endeavouring to demonstrate to us by imputation, that my right hon. friend the Member for Wolverhampton had in a former case practically legalised the condition of slavery. My right hon. friend says that nobody can charge this Ordinance with legalising slavery unless he is in ignorance of the facts; yet he points by way of substantiating his argument to the precedent which he says exists, and he spoke of Trinidad and other parts of the British Empire. Let me examine that contention for a moment in the light of the facts. In the first place, is there any immigration Ordinance anywhere in force in the British Empire which does not limit the number of days in the year on which the workman is to labour? There is no such limitation in this Ordinance. I ask another question. Is there any immigration Ordinance in force in the British Empire which puts no limitation whatsoever on the number of hours in the day for labour? There is no such limitation in this Ordinance. Is there any Ordinance in force in any other part of the British Empire which makes no provision whatever as to the rate of wages? If my information is correct, in practically all these Ordinances provision is made that the wages to be paid to the indentured

  663
  workman are to be at the same rate, or at any rate in the same ratio, as the wages paid to labourers not under indentures in the district in which they work. Then, again, so far as my information goes, with the exception, if it be an exception, of [the solitary case the right hon. Gentleman has referred to, there has never been anywhere else in the British Empire a provision that the labourer must not quit the premises of his employer for more than forty-eight hours, and then only with a permit. Then, finally, is there anywhere in any other Ordinance in any part of the British Empire a clause parallel to the 11th Clause of this Ordinance, to which the Chinese Minister took, I think, just exception—a clause which enables the ndentured labourer to be sold without his own consent from one employer to another? I confess I think this is one of the least creditable things in the history of diplomacy that it should appear in a Paper presented to Parliament that an enactment of that kind, deliberately made by a British Legislative Assembly, and apparently to be sanctioned by the British Crown, has been protested against by the Minister of a foreign Power. My right hon. friend seems to regard the imputation of slavery as mere rhetoric and clap-trap.
  MR. LYTTELTON: My right hon. friend has asked whether any Ordinance in any part of the British Empire contains the power to transfer a contract. I find that section 199 of the Trinidad Ordinance states that if at any time there shall appear to the Governor sufficient grounds it shall be lawful for him to transfer a labourer during the length of his service from one employer to another.
  MR. ASQUITH: Let me point out that there is a broad distinction between a thing done on the initiative of the Government and the thing done here on the initiative of the employer, although it may require the assent of the Government to carry it out. ["Oh!"] If the right hon. Gentleman challenges me on that point, why is he going to accept the protest of the Chinese Government? If the Trinidad Ordinance is sufficient security for the freedom of the labourer, why is he going to alter this?
  MR. LYTTELTON: My right hon. friend asks me a Question. [Interruptions.]
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: You would not give way to Seely.
  MR. LYTTELTON: Before this message came from the Chinese Minister I had already made provision that that should be with the consent of the labourer.
  MR. ASQUITH: But, I am dealing with this Ordinance as it stands; and the 11th Clause, as it was presented for the assent of Parliament, in my opinion, completely transforms a contract of service into a status of serfdom, because it is of the essence of free service that the servant should have the power to exercise a veto on the transfer of his service from one employer to another. The right hon. Gentleman was indignant because he says we would not accept his pledges. It is not a question of believing in the good faith either of the Minister or any other servant of the Crown. I entirely protest against any such language. It is the case of the House of

  665
  Commons abdicating its functions. Let us see your pledges, not in vague and in indefinite language, but translated into the language of the law, put into the Ordinance and into the regulations which we can criticise and scrutinise, accept or reject, as they commend themselves to our judgment or otherwise.
  Let us come now for a moment—for this is the root and essence of the question—to the matter of the regulations themselves. What are these regulations? So far as the House is concerned, at this moment they are a piece of blank paper, but what do they deal with? Let me call attention to some of the matters which are left to the local Government by regulation to settle for themselves. I will quote three or four. The third is for the proper enforcement of contracts with labourers; the fifth is for the introduction, repatriation, and control of the families of labourers; the seventh, for the proper control of labourers; and the thirteenth, for preventing desertion from service by labourers. All these are matters which vitally affect the liberty of action, the comfort of life, and the ordinary daily existence of the labourer himself. You have given to the local authority of the Transvaal the power to make regulations on these vital matters, and (let the House not forget), by the 30th clause of the order, to enforce the regulations in the case of a labourer by a fine not exceeding £20, or imprisonment not exceeding six months. I say the House of Commons, in what everybody will admit is a question of extreme delicacy and complexity affecting vitally the liberty of the subject in that distant part of the dominions of the Crown, ought not to give a blank cheque to the local Ex-ecutive to make regulations of this kind
  666
  enforceable by fine or imprisonment without having the regulations submitted to it. The hon. Member for Stowmarket said—
  "I Cannot you trust the representatives of the Crown on the spot?"
  Yes, Sir I am not going to make any imputations of any sort or kind upon them i But it is a fundamental principle, not only I of law, but of common sense, that you may not delegate a trust, and this House in this matter is itself a trustee. It is a trustee not only for the white population, which is the dominant class; it is a trustee not only for the black population, which constitutes the great bulk of the indigenous race; but it is a trustee for I everybody who under the protection of the Crown, with the authority and consent of the Government, and still more by its invitation and by its contrivance comes within the dominions of the Crown, and becomes subject to its laws and its jurisdiction, and you cannot without grave dereliction of the duty which this House has always assumed, and which up to now, I believe, it has continuously and diligently discharged—the duty of watching over the liberty of everyone from whatever part of the world he may come who is for the time being on British soil and subject to British control—you cannot, without a grave dereliction of that great and traditional constitutional function, hand over to the discretion of a local authority the power of dealing with a matter of this kind which vitally affects the fundamental liberties of the people.
  How is this going to be done,? It is done, as we know, and as is not denied, in defiance of the opinion, so far as it has found articulate

  667
  expression, of all the self-governing Colonies of the Crown. It is done in defiance of the opinion, as far as it has or can be expressed, of the great mass of the people of this country. There is not an hon. Member opposite who will not agree that if a proposal of this kind bad been made to the House of Commons twelve or even six months ago it would have been rejected by a practically unanimous vote and repudiated, scouted, and laughed out of existence. What is the change? Simply that people are in a hurry and will not wait for the natural operation of remedial forces in a country devastated by war and misfortune of every kind. I say with all confidence that a weaker case for an interference so grave and fundamental with the essential liberties of British subjects and people living under British protection was never before presented.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked why, if the Colonial Secretary had made up his mind to alter the Ordinance in the respect he had mentioned, before the Chinese Minister suggested the alteration, no allusion was made to the circumstances in the reply to the Chinese Minister's letter?
  ME. LYTTELTON: What I stated was that I intended to instruct the Lieutenant-Governor not to consent to transfer of contracts without the consent of the labourer.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he wished to ask another Question.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid that the hon. Member could not speak a second time.
  Question put:—
  The House divided:—Ayes, 156; Noes, 212. (Division List No. 9.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Delany, William

  Hardie, J. K. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Allen, Charles P.

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Ambrose, Robert

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herb. Henry

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Ellice, Capt E. C (SAndrw's Bghs

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Bell, Richard

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Eve, Harry Trewlawney

  Joyce, Michael

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Burt, Thomas

  Fenwick, Charles

  Kilbride, Denis

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Labouchere, Henry

  Caldwell, James

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Lambert, George

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Langley, Batty

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Leng, Sir John

  Crean, Eugene

  Gilhooly, James

  Levy, Maurice

  Cremer, William Randal

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Lloyd-George, David

  Crombie, John William

  Grant, Corrie

  Lough, Thomas

  Crooks, William

  Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick)

  Lundon, W.

  Cullinan, J.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Reddy, M.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Murphy, John

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Rickett, J. Compton

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

  Newnes, Sir George

  Rigg, Rchard

  Toulmin, George

  Nolan, Col. J. P. (Galway, N.)

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Walton, Jn. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Norman, Henry

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Roche, John

  Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Runciman, Walter

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

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

  Russell, T. W.

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersf 'd

  O'Dowd, John

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B.(Isle of Wight

  Yoxall, James Henry

  O'Malley, William

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  O'Mara, James

  Sheehy, David

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. William M'Arthur.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Partington, Oswald

  Slack, John Bamford

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hamilton. Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

  Arnold- Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

  Davenport, William Bromley]

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Dewar, Sir T. R (Tower Hamlets

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Harris, F Leverton (Tynemouth

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Heath, A. Howard (Hanley)

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)

  Darning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christeh.

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Hobhouse, Rt Hn. H (Somers't E

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Horner, Frederick William

  Bignold, Arthur

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Bigwood, James

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Fison, Frederick William

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  FitzGerald, SirRobert Penrose-

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Hunt, Rowland

  Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

  Flannery, Sir Forteseue

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Forster, Henry William

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Butcher, John George

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Kerr, John

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Gardner, Ernest

  Keswick, William

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derby shire

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Kimber, Henry

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn)

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich

  Gordon, Maj. E. (T'r Hamlets)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A (Wore

  Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc)

  Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monmouth)

  Chapman, Edward

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

  Charrington, Spencer

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Lawson, Jn. G. (Yorks., N. R.)

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Greene, Sir E. W (B'ry S Edm'nds

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Gretton, John

  Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.)

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  670

  671

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Stock, James Henry

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Pym, C. Guy

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G (Oxfd Univ.

  Malcolm, Ian

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge)

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Tuff, Charles

  Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

  Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Milner, Rt Hn. Sir Frederick G

  Round, Rt. Hon James

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Valentia, Viscount

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Vincent, Col Sir C. E. H. (Sheff'ld.

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander-

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Morton, Arthur H. Ayhmer

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J.

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Mount, William Arthur

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E (Taunton

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts.)

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Myers, William Henry

  Skewes Cox, Thomas

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

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

  Wolff, Gustay Wilhelm

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Smith, H. C (North'mb. Tynside

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Parkes, Ebenezer

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

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Spear, John Ward

  Percy, Earl

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland- Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M Taggart

  WILD BIRDS PROTECTION ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time this day.
  INQUIRY INTO CHARITIES (COUNTY BOROUGH OF BOLTON).
  Return ordered, "comprising (1) the Reports made to the Charity Commissioners, in the result of an inquiry held in the county borough of Bolton into endowments, subject to the provisions of the Charitable Trusts Acts, 1853 to 1894, and appropriated in whole or in part for the benefit of that county borough, or of any part thereof, together with the Reports on those endowments of the Commissioners for inquiring concerning Charities, 1818 to 1837; (2) a Digest showing whether any, and, if any, what such endowments are recorded in the books of the Charity Commissioners in the county borough; and (3) an Index, alphabetically arranged, of names and places mentioned in the Reports."—

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS).
  Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to control the arrangements for the Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms in the Department of the Serjeant-at-Arms attending this House.
  Ordered, That the Committee do consist of seventeen Members.
  The Committee was accordingly nominated of—Mr. James Bailey, Mr. Broadhurst, Mr. Cremer, Mr. Dalziel, Sir Horatio Davies, Sir Thomas Firbank, Mr. Hudson, Mr. Jacoby, Colonel Lock-wood, Mr. Lonsdale, Dr. MacDonnel, Mr. Malcolm, Mr. George Ormsby-Gore, Mr. Pierpoint, Mr. Power, Mr. William Redmond, and Sir Harry Samuel.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Three be the quorum.—(Sir A. Acland-Hood)
  Adjourned at fourteen minutes after Twelve o'clock.