Commons Sitting of 8 March 1905

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Highland Railway Bill. Read a second time, and committed.
NORWICH UNION LIFE INSURANCE SOCIETY [STAMP DUTIES].
Committee to consider of authorising the imposition of a certain Stamp Duty in lieu of the Stamp Duties which would have been payable upon the deeds or assurances which, in case the Bill had not been passed into an Act, would have been required to pass to and vest in the Society certain property (King's Recommendation signified), to-morrow. (Mr. Caldwell.)
PETITIONS.
  JUVENILE SMOKING.
  Petition from Edinburgh, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT (1894) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition of the Scottish Poor Law Medical Officers' Association, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (SUNDAY) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Chippenham; and Corsham; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADES UNIONS AND TRADE DISPUTES BILL.
  Petition of the Mining Association of Great Britain, against; to lie upon the Table.
  WOMEN'S ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Ashton-under-Lyne; Chorlton-upon-Hardy; and Cowdenbeath and Lochgelly; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  LOAN FUND BOARD (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Sixty-seventh Annual Report, 1904 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  VACCINATION EXPENSES.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the President of the Local Government Board to inquire into the subject of Vaccination Expenses. Part I. Report [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  VACCINATION EXPENSES.
  Copy presented, of Minutes of Evidence taken before the Departmental Committee appointed by the President of the Local Government Board to inquire into the subject of Vaccination Expenses, together with Appendix and Index to Evidence. Part II. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  UNIVERSITY COLLEGES (GREAT BRITAIN) (GRANT IN AID).
  Copies presented, of (i) Treasury Minute, dated 30th March, 1904; (ii) First Report of the University Colleges Committee, dated 19th December, 1904; (iii) Treasury Minute, dated 28th December, 1904; (iv) Second and Third Reports of the Committee, dated 23rd February, 1905; and (v) Treasury Minute, dated 8th March, 1905, relating to the Grant in Aid of University Colleges, Great Britain [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, amending the Blackpool and Garstang Light Railway Order, 1901 (Blackpool and Fylde Light Railway) (Change of name, etc.) Order, 1905) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and confirmed by the Board of Trade, amending the North Lindsey Light Railways Order, 1900 (North Lindsey Light Railways (Amendment) Order, 1905) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of a Light Railway in the county of Derby, from the Midland Railway Company's (Dore and Chinley) Railway, at or near Hope Station, to Bradwell and Castleton (Hope, Bradwell, and Castleton Light Railway Order, 1905) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, amending the Mid Suffolk Light Railway Order, 1900 (Mid Suffolk Light Railway (Halesworth Deviation) Order, 1905) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of Light Railways in the county of Middlesex, between Hounslow and Cranford, and between Heston, Hounslow, Hanworth, Twickenham, and Sunbury Cross, being extensions of the existing and authorised undertaking of the London United Tramways (1901) Limited (London United Tramways (Light Railway Extensions) Order, 1904) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  RAILWAYS ABANDONMENT.
  Copy presented, of Report by the Board of Trade respecting the Southampton and Winchester Great Western Junction Railway (Abandonment) Bill and the objects thereof [pursuant to Standing Order 158B]; referred to the Committee on the Bill.

  PAPERS LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Soane's Museum. Copy of Statement of the Funds of the Museum of the late Sir John Soane on January 5th, 1905 [by Act].
  County Courts Act, 1888, and Supreme Court of Judicature (Officers) Act, 1879. Copy of Order made by the Lord Chan-
  700
  cellor, dated February 23rd, 1905, directing that the registrar of the County Court of Warwickshire, held at Birmingham, shall not practise as a solicitor, and that Section 20 of The Supreme Court of Judicature (Officers) Act, 1879, shall not apply to the office of Registrar of the said County Court [by Act].

  IMPERIAL REVENUE (COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURE) (GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND).
  Return ordered, "relating to Imperial Revenue (Collection and Expenditure) (Great Britain and Ireland) for the year ending the 31st day of March, 1905 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 269, of Session 1904)."—(Mr. Joseph A. Pease.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Grants to Shipowners for Carrying Boy Sailors.
  MR. CHARLES McARTHUR: To ask the President of the Board of Trade under which Class and Vote of the Estimates has provision been made for the allowance granted to shipowners for carrying boy sailors under Clause 6 of the Merchant Shipping (Mercantile Marine Fund) Act, 1898; and will any arrangement be made, on the cessation of these allowances, to meet the case of boys who have enrolled themselves in the Royal Naval Reserve but are liable to be thrown out of employment and so unable to fulfil their obligations owing to the withdrawal of the grant for their maintenance on board ship.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) Provision is made in Sub-head A of Vote 7, Royal Naval Reserves, of the Navy Estimates, for the allowances to shipowners in respect of boy sailors carried under Section 6 of the Merchant Shipping (Mercantile Marine Fund) Act, 1898. The sum provided in the Estimates for 1905–6 is £6,500. On the termination of the statutory limit on March 31st next, the power to pay the allowances in relief of light dues will come to an end, but boys entered under the Act in the "Probationer" class of the Royal Naval Reserve, who comply with the conditions laid down in

  701
  the regulations, will be eligible for transfer to the "Seaman" class of the Reserve, in accordance with the arrangement with the Admiralty.

  Private John Hanley, Leinster Regiment.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will state the grounds upon which Private John Hanley, No. 2153, of the Leinster Regiment, was discharged the service; and whether, in view of his conduct on and up to discharge and of the fact that this man is now unable to work and subject to periodic attacks of illness contracted whilst serving with the regiment, some bounty or pension will be accorded to him.
  (Answered by Mr. Bromley Davenport.) This man caught cold about fourteen years ago at Aldershot while on guard in wet weather, and pleurisy and palpitation supervened, which led to his discharge as medically unfit for the service. He had only served three years and 128 days, all at Home, and was therefore awarded a pension of three months for each year's service at sixpence a day, the rate for which he was eligible under the Royal Warrant then in force.

  Nationality of Irish Postmasters.
  DR. AMBROSE: To ask the Postmaster-General if he will state the number of English, Scotch, and Welshmen who have been appointed postmasters in Ireland within the last five years; what are their religious denominations; how many Irishmen have been appointed postmasters in England in the same period: and what are their religious denominations.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) In most cases I have no information as to the nationality of officers in the Post Office, and I consider that it would be undesirable to make inquiry as to their religious denomination. I am unable, therefore, to give the information for which the hon. Member asks.

  Postal Arrangements at Glastrigan, County Tipperary.
  MR. P. J. O'BRIEN: To ask the Postmaster-General
  702
  if he is aware of the necessity that exists for the establishing of a sub post office at the village of Glastrigan, in the parish of Kilcommon, North Tipperary, a populous district some six or seven Irish miles distant from a post office or even pillar-box; is he aware that in Glastrigan there is a creamery with two auxiliary depôts, the letters to which establishment alone average eighty weekly; and that there are also three business houses in the village with two schoolhouses adjacent; and, if so, seeing no letter can be despatched from there after 10.15 a.m. each day, he will consider the necessity for providing the locality with better postal arrangements.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I have no information at present as regards the postal requirements of the village of Glastrigan, but I will have inquiry made.

  Dismissal of Postal Officials.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Postmaster-General under what regulation or Act of Parliament he exercises the right to dismiss an established officer of long service, entitled to the benefits of the Superannuation Acts, 1884 and 1887, and against whom no direct charge of misconduct is made or proved.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) Under my patent of appointment I have full power and authority to appoint and remove such officers as I may think necessary.

  Recovery of Forfeited Good-Conduct Stripes by Postmen.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Postmaster-General if the rule under which postmen may regain forfeited good-conduct stripes by two years unblemished service is still in operation; and, if not, when it was cancelled, and what are the conditions now obtaining under which lost stripes can be recovered.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The rule is still in operation.

  Volunteers in the Post Office—Camp Leave.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Postmaster-General if officers of the Department belonging to Volunteer regiments are allowed any special privilege

  703
  in signing for their period of annual leave over an officer who may have a prior claim by seniority or otherwise to a particular period of the year.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) There is no general rule on the subject, but it appears to me reasonable that the periods of leave should be arranged, as far as possible, so as to permit Volunteers to attend camp.

  Sick Leave in the Post Office—Case of Mr. Emberson.
  MR. CREMER: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a telegraphist named Emberson, at the Central Telegraph Office, London, was attended by the official medical adviser at varying periods during October, November, and December of last year; that it became necessary for him to be sent home before his duty expired on occasions during this period; that, upon resuming after absence from an attack of illness, having been sent off by an official doctor, the chief medical officer sent for him, and reprimanded him for keeping away from work; and that this official stated that no reason existed for his absence, and in consequence a day's pay was deducted; and, if so, whether, in view of the fact that the chief medical officer had not attended Emberson previously, and made no examination of him at the time, he will investigate the circumstances of the case.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) Mr. Emberson was seen on November 30th by a medical officer of the headquarter staff who reported that Mr. Emberson was suffering from headache, and that he should either resume duty on the following day or obtain a renewal of the sick certificate. Mr. Emberson did neither, but absented himself without leave on December 1st and his pay for the day was rightly stopped, as the chief medical officer was satisfied that he was able to have visited the medical officer on that date.

  Publication of Reports of District Commissioners of the Coal Commission.
  MR. MARKHAM: To ask the Secretary of
  704
  State for the Home Department will he say when the Reports of the District Commissioners, Parts II.—VIII., of the Royal Commission on Coal Supplies will be issued.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) It is hoped that these Reports will be ready for issue about the end of this month.

  Poor Law Relief—Percentage of Alien Recipients.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state what is the percentage of aliens who receive Poor Law relief other than medical relief, and what is the percentage of the population as a whole receiving such relief.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The latest figures I have on this subject, so far as aliens are concerned, relate to July 1st, 1903. On that date the proportion which the number of aliens receiving relief other than medical relief only, bore to the total alien population according to the Census of 1901 was ·63 per cent. The percentage of the total population in receipt of such relief on the same date was 2·4.

  Disposal of Non-effective Ships.
  MAJOR SEELY: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what are the names of the ships ordered to be built since 1887 which are now reckoned as non-effective; how these ships are to be dealt with immediately; and in what way are they ultimately to be disposed of.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) I must refer the hon. Member to the Returns which have been moved for by the hon. Member for Dundee.

  Irish Local Government Board and New-town Stewart Cottage Scheme.
  MR. HEMPHILL: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether attention has been called to a recent correspondence between Mr. Michael M'Aleer, of Newtown Stewart, county Tyrone, and the Local Government Board, relative to the representation for a scheme under the Labourers Cottages

  705
  Acts, rejected on January 5th last, although a similar scheme had been approved of on a former occasion but had not been proceeded with; if so, whether he can state for what reason the Local Government Board have not, pursuant to the said Acts, directed a local inquiry to be held, and report made, as to the said representations.
  (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) The consideration of the representations was adjourned by the council on January 5th as some of the representations were not accompanied by the requisite certificates of the medical officer of health. The Board are at present in correspondence with the council relative to the pending scheme, but as the council have not made default under the Labourers Acts they have no grounds for ordering an inquiry under Section 4 of the Act of 1891. I may add that the councils of the two Strabane Rural Districts have authorised the building of 173 cottages.

  Extension of Pier at Darby's Point, Achill Island.
  DR. AMBROSE: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that the Congested Districts Board, at their meeting in last November, passed a vote for a timberpile extension of the pier at Darby's Point, Achill Island, and instructed their engineer to draw up plans and submit an estimate; have those plans and the estimate been yet submitted to the Board; if not, will he explain why; and whether, in view of the distress prevailing in Achill Island at present, he will urge on the Board to commence this useful work at once.
  (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) The engineering survey has been made and the matter will be further considered by the Board at its next meeting. Employment on this work will consist mainly of skilled labour.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Admiralty yacht "Enchantress".
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty can he explain how it is that the
  706
  Admiralty yacht "Enchantress" has been taken over from the builders although the last instalment of her cost has not been paid; has this been done with the consent of the builder; when is it proposed to pay that last instalment; what has been the average annual cost of coal for the Admiralty yacht during the past three years; and how many days in each of those three years has the Admiralty yacht, whether the "Enchantress" or one of her predecessors, been used by the Lords of the Admiralty.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN, Suffolk, Wood-bridge): This is the procedure adopted in the case of all ships for the Navy. It is not possible to make the final payments until the charges for works left to be done until the ships reach a dockyard have been agreed to. With regard to the second part of the Question: this has been done with the consent of the builder. It is hoped that the last instalment will be paid before the end of this month. The average annual cost of coal for the last three years has been £1,112 Omitting the year 1903, when the old "Enchantress" owing to its condition was not used, the yacht has been used by the Board as follows: 1904, twenty-four days (during the seven months she was available); 1902, thirty-four days; 1901, twenty-nine days.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is the sum of £1,112 included in or in addition to the cost of stores?
  MR. PRETYMANasked for notice.

  Grouping of Highland Regiments.
  MASTER OF ELIBANK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, under his new scheme for the redistribution of depôts in Scotland, he will group the Highland Light Infantry, the second senior Highland regiment, with the other Highland regiments at Perth Depot.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W.): The grouping has been carefully arranged to avoid as far as possible any territorial displacement. The Highland Light Infantry have now been at

  707
  Hamilton since 1881, and it would not, therefore, appear practicable to adopt the action suggested in the Question.
  MR. WEIR: Do I understand that the territorial system has been abandoned by the War Office and that Highland regiments and Lowlanders are to be mingled together?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  British Central African Natives in the Transvaal Mines.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state how many of the natives recruited from the British Central Africa Protectorate for labour in the Transvaal have arrived at the mines, how many have succumbed to disease, and how many have returned home.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON, Warwick and Leamington): The latest information I have received states that 1,385 have gone to the mines, that 134 have succumbed to disease, and that 709 have returned home, the rest not having completed their period of work. I have recently informed Lord Milner that he will no doubt agree with me that if this rate of mortality continues the experiment must cease. I believe the mortality has recently not been so heavy.

  Transvaal—Chinese Coolies and Secret Societies.
  MR. WHITLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has any information relating to the reported arrest of thirty-two Chinamen on the Simmer and Jack Mine on the charge of forming a secret society; whether the society was in the nature of a trade union; and what punishment was inflicted.
  MR. LYTTELTON: The hon. Member promised to furnish me with the report on which he bases his Question, but has not done so. I have not yet received the information from Lord Milner, but will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as I receive it.
  MR. WHITLEY: I regret that I misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman;
  708
  I thought he was going to cable for information.

  Transvaal Gold Mines—Labour and Output.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies will he say the number of white and coloured men working on the Transvaal gold mines in the month of August before the war and the value of gold produced; and will he state the figures for the month of December, 1904.
  MR. LYTTELTON: The figures for July, 1899, which will no doubt equally satisfy the hon. Member, are given at page 110 of Cd. 2104. White men employed on the Witwatersrand Mines, 12,330; coloured men employed, 107,482; gold output for the Transvaal, £1,737,861. The figures for December, 1904, are:—Whites in employ on the last day of the month, 15,023; coloured labourers and Chinese, 104,524; gold output, £1,538,377; representing an increase in white labour of nearly 2,500, whilst coloured and Chinese labour was still nearly 3,000 behind the figure given for 1899.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether those figures of white labour include the men engaged in building compounds?
  MR. LYTTELTON: I have answered that Question before. They are inclusive of those men.

  White Men's Wages in the Transvaal Mines.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, seeing the Mining Returns of the late Boer Government showed the average wage paid to white men on the gold mines was over £1 per day, he can say what is the present average wage; and whether since the war there has been any reduction in the standard rates of wages of white men; and can he say the approximate amount of wages at present monthly paid to white men on the gold mines over and above what was paid before the war.
  MR. LYTTELTON: The Government mining engineer in his report for the year 1902–3 states that the rate of wages paid to skilled white workmen remained practically at the same level as obtained before the war: and in his report for 1903–4 he says that the rate of pay earned by European mine employees practically remains unchanged. For the year, June, 1903, to June, 1904, I find that the average wage comes to very nearly £1. The increased numbers of white men now employed on the Rand as compared with July, 1899, amounting to over 2,500, represents approximately a monthly sum of over £60,000 in excess of the amount previously paid to white labour.

  Self-Government for the Transvaal— Boer Leaders' Speeches.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Lord Milner has forwarded him a report of the speeches of Generals Botha, De la Rey, and Mr. Esselen, delivered at Pretoria on January 28th and at Heidelberg on February 1st, calling his attention to the statements of those speakers that the Boers declined to take any part in the government of the Transvaal till full self-government had been granted to the colony in accordance with the terms of the Treaty of Vereeniging, and that if His Majesty's Government were of opinion that the time was not ready for granting this, the Boers would prefer the existing form of government should be maintained to any form of part self-government; and will he say what reply has been given to the representations of the Boer leaders on this subject.
  MR. LYTTELTON: The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's Question is in the affirmative. I have deferred making a reply to the representations of the Boer leaders for the present. But I would point out that Article 7 of the Terms of Surrender runs as follows:— "Military administration in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony will, at the earliest possible date, be succeeded by civil government, and, as soon as circumstances permit, representative institutions leading up to self-government will be introduced."
  MR. MARKHAMasked whether the right hon. Gentleman had any information from South Africa as to whether the country was ready for responsible government.
  MR. LYTTELTONreplied that he had a great deal of information on the subject.
  MR. MARKHAMasked how long it would be before an opportunity would be given to discuss this question.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.)said that on the Colonial Vote, which under the exigencies of Supply must be taken before March 31st, he would be able to meet that demand.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will the Government last so long?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If they do not last so long the arrangement will fall to the ground.

  Coolie Riots in the Transvaal.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that five Chinese coolies have each been sentenced to six months hard labour and eleven others each to three months hard labour in connection with a riot at the Simmer and Jack Mine on January 21st; whether the prisoners were represented at the trial by counsel or in any other way; and whether the proceedings were explained to them by interpreter; and, if he has no information on these matters, whether he will obtain the same from Lord Milner.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I have telegraphed to Lord Milner for the information, but have not yet received the reply.

  Effect of Chinese upon White Labour in the Transvaal Mines.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the steady decline in the proportion of white labour as compared with the proportion of coloured labour employed in the Transvaal mining

  711
  industry, he will continue the warning issued in the January Circular of the Emigration Office against white miners going to the Transvaal at the present time in search of work, and advise the Government to institute a Parliamentary inquiry into the results of the introduction of Chinese labour upon white labour in the Transvaal mining industry.
  MR. LYTTELTON: The decline in the proportion of white to coloured labour in the Transvaal mining industry cannot be described as steady, inasmuch as during 1904 it varied considerably from month to month, and I understand that it will continue to vary as different stages of development are reached. The Emigrants Information Office will continue to warn intending emigrants, so long as the supply of white labour in the Transvaal is in excess of the demand. I see no reason for instituting the Parliamentary enquiry proposed.

  South African War Compensation Claims.
  MR. AINSWORTH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what has been the total amount voted for compensation for damages sustained during the war in South Africa; how much of this amount has already been paid away; what is the amount of claims still to be dealt with; and who in South Africa is responsible for attending to these matters in the Transvaal, Orange River State, the Cape Colony, and Natal.
  MR. LYTTELTON: In amplification of the Answer which I gave to the hon. Member's Question on this subject on March 29th† last session, I would refer him for an explanation of what has been devoted to compensation to the despatch from Sir Arthur Lawley, printed in Cd. 2104, pages 11 and 12; and I would add that up to November 30th, a sum of £1,564,367 had been spent out of Head I. C. of the Guaranteed Loan, and £5,490,905 under Head III. I am not in a position to say what is the number of claims in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony which remain to be finally dealt with. As I stated in March last, the claims have been assessed in the Cape
  † See (4) Debates, cxxxii., 976.
  712
  Colony and Natal by Commissions appointed locally, and in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony by a Central Judicial Commission.
  MR. AINSWORTH: How long will it be before these claims are finally disposed of.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I am afraid I cannot give a very accurate answer. I hope, however, in two or three months.

  Rhodesia-Case of the late James Murray.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet received any reply to the inquiry he addressed to the High Commissioner for Rhodesia regarding a sum of £25 odd left by the late James Murray, alias M'Gavan, and which sum has never been accounted for by the administrator dative of his estate.
  MR. LYTTELTON: The hon. Member was informed in a letter dated June 7th last that no mention of the sum in question could be traced in the records of the hospital where the man died, but that the Master of the High Court was ready to make a further search if the relatives would state on what ground their inquiry was based. The mother of the deceased was so informed in a letter dated November 6th last, to which she has not replied.

  Preferential Customs Duties for British Goods in the Colonies.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will inform the House what preferential reduction of Customs Duties is allowed upon British, goods compared to foreign goods imported into the Dominion of Canada. Cape Colony and Natal, the Transvaal, the Orange State and Rhodesia, and New Zealand; and if he has any official information to the effect that a like preferential advantage to British goods will be adopted by the Commonwealth of Australia.
  MR. LYTTELTON: The amount of the preferential reduction varies on different classes of articles under the

  713
  three tariffs of Canada, South Africa, and New Zealand to such an extent that it could not be set forth in an oral reply to a Question, but full information will be found in the latest Return of Colonial Import Duties (Cd. 2185). No official information has been received as to the intention of the Commonwealth of Australia to adopt a tariff giving a similar preferential advantage to British goods.

  Employment in the Congo Free State.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government of Lagos has recently issued a notice warning native workmen against going to the Congo Free State in search of employment on account of the low level of wages and the treatment to which they may be subjected in the interior; and, if so, whether he will draw the attention of the Governments of the other West African Colonies to this notice.
  MR. LYTTELTON: Yes, and I will draw the attention of the Governments to the notice.

  Mecca Pilgrimage—Theft of Charitable Funds.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the sum of £E8,000 was this year stolen from the Mahmal Escort before the pilgrimage started from Abbassyeh (Cairo); will he state whether this money formed part of the sum placed at the disposal of the Mahmal Escort by the Government of Egypt for charitable gifts to the poor of Mecca and Medina; and what is the entire amount thus allocated.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY,: His Majesty's Government have no information on the subject.

  National Finance—Provision for Realised Deficits.
  MR. McCRAE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer under which Finance Act provision is made for a realised deficit, or part thereof, being carried forward into the accounts
  714
  of the succeeding year; and whether it is proposed to lay Supplementary Estimates to provide for the balance of last year's deficit amounting to £1,500,000.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.): If the hon. Member will be good enough to look at my Budget Statement of last year he will see how I proposed to deal with the draft made upon balances. Neither a Supplementary Estimate, nor any provision in the Finance Act, is required to carry out those proposals. The Sinking Fund Act of 1875 gives the Treasury standing powers to apply any surplus revenue in strengthening balances.
  MR. McCRAE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there is any precedent for not meeting a deficit by taxation?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Oh yes, Sir, there are plenty of precedents, and I quoted some in the course of the Budget discussion last year. I should be inclined to think the course I have pursued is the more usual one.

  The Budget.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the lateness of Easter this year, it is his intention to bring in his Budget before the Easter holidays; and, if so, whether he can yet fix the date.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am not yet able to fix a date for the Budget Statement.
  MR. LOUGH: Will it be before Easter?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think so.
  MR. LOUGH: I will put the Question again on Monday.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot promise to state definitely on Monday.

  Post Office Savings Bank—Depositors' Accounts.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether the accounts of depositors in the Post Office Savings Bank are subject to inspection by the public; and, further, if the depositor is liable to be called upon by the secretary of friendly societies to account for how he came by money lodged to credit.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY, Lancashire, Westhoughton): The accounts of depositors in the Post Office Savings Bank are not subject to inspection by the public, and the strictest secrecy is observed in regard to them. The Registrar of Friendly Societies (to whom I assume the hon. Member to refer) is the authority constituted by Parliament to settle all questions arising between the Postmaster-General and depositors in the Post Office Savings Bank; and in fulfilment of this duty it is open to him to make such inquiries as he thinks necessary.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is the Registrar of Friendly Societies allowed to inspect confidential accounts?
  LORD STANLEY: Yes, Sir, if he thinks it necessary. He is constituted by Act of Parliament to settle any question arising between the Postmaster-General and depositors.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is there any statutory authority for this violation of secrecy?
  LORD STANLEY: I believe so.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES:Will the noble Lord ascertain?
  LORD STANLEY: Yes, Sir.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: Is it competent for the Registrar to call upon depositors to come before him and explain the origin of their deposits, and has he to pay their expenses if he finds they are legitimate and bonâ fide?
  LORD STANLEYasked for notice of that Question.

  Vaccination Exemption Certificates—Case of Mr. Philip Cook.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that on April 5th last, Mr. Philip J. Cook applied before Mr. Fordham at the North London Police Court for a certificate of exemption from vaccination for his infant child, and that, although he explained that a certificate had been granted to him at that Court on a former occasion for another child, the magistrate declined to grant a certificate, that application was renewed a few days later before Mr. Cluer, who refused on the ground that it was extremely undesirable that he should overrule his colleague's ruling, and as an appeal at the Thames Police Court before Mr. Dickenson, who had granted the first certificate, failed on account of the applicant not being resident within the district of the Court, will the Secretary of State consider the advisability of directing the attention of Metropolitan Police Magistrates to the remarks made by the Lord Chief Justice on July 27th last when addressing the Grand Jury at Birmingham relative to the principle on which the Act ought to be administered, especially having regard to the fact that in the present instance the applicant was eventually forced to have his second child vaccinated under the pressure of a summons, although he still persisted in the same conscientious objections which secured him a certificate of exemption for his first child.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DODGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's): Mr. Cook wrote to me on February 9th and requested my intervention in this matter. The granting of certificates of exemption from vaccination is, however, placed by the statute within the discretion of the magistrates, and I have no authority to interfere with that discretion. The attention of all the Metropolitan Police Magistrates was called, by a circular issued in September last, to the remarks of the Lord Chief Justice at the Birmingham Summer Assizes.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay on the Table a

  717
  copy of the Memorandum issued by the Home Office?
  *MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I see no objection to that.

  The Disaster to Holyhead Fishermen.
  MR. OSMOND WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the case of the poor dependents of the five men who sacrificed their lives in attempting the rescue of the sailors in danger of shipwreck at Holyhead on Sunday the 26th ultimo; and whether he can do anything towards assisting them.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFODR, Leeds, Central): My attention has been drawn to the case, which was one in which great courage appears to have been shown by the unfortunate men who lost their lives, and I will consider the question whether anything can be done for the dependents whom they have left behind them. I fear that in any event the utmost the Board of Trade could do would be to give a small gratuity.

  Freight Charges to South African Ports.
  SIR CHARLES McLAREN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the representations of the Incorporated Federated Associations of Boot and Shoe Manufacturers of Great Britain and Ireland on the subject of differential shipping rates to South African ports, whereby shipping companies charge a rate per ton for the carriage of boots and shoes from British ports which is more than double the rate charged for the carriage of the same class of goods from New York direct to South Africa; and whether he will investigate the matter and take any action to redress the inequality complained of.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have received a copy of a resolution passed by the Incorporated Federated Associations of Boot and Shoe Manufacturers of Great Britain and Ireland. The whole subject of freight charges to and from South Africa, including differential charges made from competing ports,
  718
  has for some time past engaged the attention of the Government at home. A Conference of the Colonial Governments was recently held to consider what steps should be taken to deal effectively with the question, and the Conference has not yet finally concluded its deliberations. The resolutions already adopted at the Conference are receiving the consideration of the authorities.

  American Wheat and Flour Exports to the United Kingdom.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if there was any reduction in 1904 in the exports of wheat and flour from the United States of America to the United Kingdom compared to the previous year; and whether the deficiency was made up from Canada, India, and Australia.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: There was a large reduction in the imports of wheat and flour from the United States into the United Kingdom in 1904 as compared with the previous year. The deficiency was mainly made up by increased imports from Australia, India, Argentine, and Russia. The imports from Canada, however, showed a decline.

  Comparative Prices of Bread in London and Manchester.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade what was the average price of the quartern loaf of the quality usually consumed by the working classes in London and Manchester in March, 1902, March, 1903, March, 1904, and February, 1905; and what were the receipts from the registration fee upon imported wheat, meal, and flour in March, 1903.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: There is some difficulty in stating figures which shall be strictly comparable over the whole period, but so far as can be ascertained the prices required were approximately as follows:—

  London.

  Manchester.

  March, 1902

  4d. & 4½d.

  4d.

  March, 1903

  4½d & 5d.

  4d.

  March, 1904

  5d. & 5½d.

  4½d.

  February,1905

  5d.

  4½d.

  719
  The receipts from the duty on imported wheat, wheat meal, and flour in March, 1903, amounted to £127,062.
  MR. KEARLEY: Can we have the comparative prices of sugar for the same period?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Undischarged Bankrupts and Company Promotion.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether his attention has been drawn to the practice of undischarged bankrupts promoting companies and trading in the names of their wives; and will he introduce legislation to prevent this evasion of the criminal law.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs): The practice to which the Question refers, so far as it exists, has been made possible by the Married Women's Property Acts. I do not understand the statement in the Question that the practice constitutes an evasion of the criminal law, but it is, in my opinion, highly objectionable. There would, however, be great difficulty in amending the law in the sense of the Question, but any suggestion which the hon. Member has to offer will be fully considered.
  MR. MARKHAM: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman institute an inquiry into the widespread evils arising, especially among the working classes, from this practice?
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: Any information the hon. Gentleman can give me on the subject will be carefully considered.

  The Hooley-Lawson Prosecution.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General will he say why he decided not to commence criminal proceedings against Mr. Hooley, arising out of the case of "Bradshaw versus Kelly," seeing that Mr. Justice Darling, who tried this case, stated Mr. Hooley had committed fraud; will he say the costs the Treasury has incurred in the recent criminal proceedings against Mr. Hooley,
  720
  and who was responsible for instituting this particular prosecution.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: The case of "Bradshaw versus Kelly" led to inquiries being made by the Director of Public Prosecutions as to that case, and inquiry was also made as to other transactions which came to his knowledge. It was found after full inquiry and careful consideration that the facts and evidence available did not justify the institution by him of any criminal proceedings in respect of those transactions. The recent prosecution of Mr. Hooley and Mr. Lawson was instituted by my directions. The costs of that prosecution, in which Mr. Hooley was acquitted and H. J. Lawson convicted, were £3,529 13s. 4d.

  St. Joseph's Catholic School, Nymphsfield, Gloucestershire.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is aware that there is dissatisfaction with the action of the Gloucestershire Local Education Committee in its treatment of St. Joseph's Catholic School, Nymphsfield: and whether, in view of the representations made to the Board of Education on the subject, he will state what action he proposes to take.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON, Oxford University): The Board have carefully considered this case and given their decision. The matter is not at present before them.
  MR. BOLAND: Has the Department inquired into this matter or upon what inquiry was the decision come to?
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: The local authority conducted a very careful public inquiry, and on the result of that inquiry we came to the conclusion that it was not necessary to hold another inquiry.
  MR. BOLAND: Has any inquiry been conducted by the Board of Education or has it come purely from the local authorities?
  SIR. WILLIAM ANSON: The Board of Education had access to all the documents, and they were satisfied with the decision of the local authorities.

  Foreign Trawlers in the Moray Firth.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate if he will state how many foreign trawlers have been observed fishing in the Moray Firth during the year ending December 31st, 1904, and their respective nationalities.
  *THE LORD-ADVOCATE (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON, Glasgow, Bridgton): The total number of foreign trawlers which were observed fishing in the Moray Firth in 1904 were: Norwegian, 25; Belgian, 4; Dutch,2; Swedish,1; making a total of 32.

  North Sea Fishery Investigations.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, having regard to the fact that H.M.S. "Jackal," though lent by the Board of Admiralty for the purpose of protecting the interests of the line fishermen, was engaged last year on International North Sea Investigations, will he explain in what respect the steam trawler "Goldseeker," which was specially hired by the Fishery Board to assist in these investigations, failed to meet the requirements of the Board; and will he state her tonnage and speed.
  *MR. SCOTT DICKSON: The "Gold-seeker," whose tonnage is 199 tons gross, and speed 9 knots, was hired to conduct the trawling and biological experiments in connection with the North Sea Investigations and is well-fitted for that purpose. For the short periodical cruises necessary for the hydrographical survey of the stormy seas north of the Shetlands, which is equally part of the investigations, her size and power are insufficient.
  MR. WEIR: Then why was the "Jackal" put on the survey instead of the "Goldseeker?"
  *MR. SCOTT DICKSON: I presume she was better fitted for it.

  Irish Evicted Tenants—Case of Terence Reilly.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland, as representing the Irish Office, whether any action has been taken by the Estates Commissioners for the restoration to his holding of Terence Reilly, of Springtown Granard, who is in a condition of destitution, and for whom there are vacant lands adjoining if the Commissioners will purchase them.
  THE ATTORNEY- GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.): The former holding of this evicted tenant is in the occupation of a new tenant. Reilly was informed that the Commissioners could not interfere with the new tenant, but that when un-tenanted lands are acquired in the neighbourhood his case will be considered. No such lands have yet been acquired.
  MR. KILBRIDE: Have the Estates Commissioners approached the new tenant to see if he is willing to surrender the holding for reasonable compensation?
  MR. ATKINSONasked for notice.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: If I find out will the right hon. Gentleman request the Estates Commissioners to take the case into consideration?
  MR. ATKINSON: I am sure any information given by the hon. Gentleman will be carefully considered.

  Irish Elementary Science Sub-Organisers.
  MR. SHEEHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will explain why the sub-organisers in elementary science have, with one exception, been notified that their work shall cease on March 31st, in view of the feeling in favour of education in elementary science since that subject was introduced, and of the fact that the training courses for teachers and the whole organising work is now virtually and suddenly stopped.
  MR. ATKINSON: The services of the Head Organiser of elementary science

  723
  and of two of his assistants, have been retained permanently, and the grants for science apparatus have also been continued. I beg to refer to my reply to the Question on this subject addressed to me yesterday † by the hon. Member for the St. Patrick's Division, in which I entered into the matter at some length.

  Traction Traffic on County Down Roads.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Local Government Board has been called to the injury done to the roads between Newcastle, county Down, and Newry by traction engines, and to the inconvenience caused to residents by the working of those engines at night; and whether steps will be taken to limit the hours of working and to compel the owners of the traction engines to contribute to the upkeep of the roads.
  MR. ATKINSON: The Local Government Board have been informed that the road between Newcastle and Newry has been injured by traction-engine traffic. Under Section 6 of the Public Health (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1879, local authorities have power to make by-laws limiting the hours during which traction engines may pass over roads or highways in their districts. Section 23 of the Highways and Locomotives Act, 1878, empowers road authorities in England to recover the expenses caused by extraordinary traffic, which, it has been decided, includes the use of roads by traction engines. But this Act does not apply to Ireland, and the question of assimilating the law in the two countries would be a proper matter for consideration should a suitable opportunity present itself.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Do the Government propose to make any effort to assimilate the law in England and Ireland?
  *MR. SPEAKER: That is a different Question altogether.

  Dennehy Estate, County Kerry.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he
  † See page 588.
  724
  is aware that several communications have passed between the tenants on the Dennehy Estate, Glencar, county Kerry, and the Congested Districts Board since the early part of the summer of 1904; and that the inspector of the Board visited the district on January 7th last; and, if so, can he state what decision has been arrived at, in view of the fact that processes have been issued against several of the tenants, and that the hanging gale has been included in all cases at the sessions held in Cahirciveen.
  MR. ATKINSON: The Board are in correspondence with the owner, through his agent, of this estate with respect to the question of its purchase.

  Distress in Sligo.
  MR. WILLIAM McKILLOP: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Irish Government has received resolutions calling upon them to make inquiry in reference to distress in the congested districts of Sligo, and to take steps to avert suffering and starvation in those districts; and, if so, will he say what has been done in those districts in response to the representations made by local bodies and meetings.
  MR. ATKINSON:Representations to this effect have been received. The condition of the districts in question has received the careful attention of the Local Government Board, whose inspectors have made personal investigations in the localities where exceptional distress is apprehended. The inspectors are satisfied that no distress exists of a character which cannot be dealt with by the resources of the ordinary Poor Laws. They will continue, however, to give the matter their close attention.

  Public Works in Sligo.
  MR. WILLIAM McKILLOP: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any portion of the money voted under the Marine Works Act has been spent in the county of Sligo; and, if so, how much; can he say whether there is any money now available under the Marine Works Act or any other for the construction and

  725
  improvement of fishing piers and harbours in Ireland.
  MR. ATKINSON: The reply to the first inquiry is in the negative. There is a small balance amounting to about £4,000 on foot of the funds provided under the Sea Fisheries Act, 1883.
  MR. O'DOWD: Why is it Sligo has received no grant, although the necessity for public works has been urged upon the Government over and over again by public bodies of the county?

  Lough Melvin.
  MR. P. A. McHUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether a memorial has been received by the Congested Districts Board praying for the assistance of that Board in lowering the water level of Lough Melvin; and, if so, has the Board considered the memorial and can he state what action the Board proposes to take in reference to it.
  MR. ATKINSON: The Board will consider the memorial at its next meeting.

  The Duke of Abercorn and the Pettigo Magistracy.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, in response to his suggestion made on February 24th, 1904, recommendations by way of memorials signed by the principal lay Catholic inhabitants of Pettigo were made to the Duke of Abercorn as Lord-Lieutenant of the county of Donegal for the appointment of two Catholic gentlemen, fully qualified for the position, to the magisterial bench of Pettigo where one only of the seven magistrates is a Catholic, the majority of the population of the district being Catholics; whether he is aware that the Duke of Abercorn did not acknowledge the receipt of this memorial; and, if so, whether he will inquire whether the Duke of Abercorn forwarded the memorial to the Lord Chancellor of Ire-and; and whether any, and, if so, what steps will be taken by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland to make the bench more
  726
  representative of the religion of the majority of the people in this district.
  MR. ATKINSON: My right hon. friend the Member for Dover stated on February 24th,† 1904, that recommendations for the appointment of gentlemen to the Commission of the Peace are made to the Lord Chancellor or the Lieutenant of the County, and that any such recommendations, if made, would be duly considered, I understand that the petty sessions at Pettigo are held once a month and that they are well attended by the local justices, one of whom is believed to be a Catholic. The question of the sufficiency of the local Bench is entirely one for the Lord Chancellor and the Lieutenant of the County, and the matter is not one calling for the intervention of the Executive.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Did the Duke of Abercorn get the memorial and did he forward it to the Lord Chancellor? Why did he not reply to it?
  MR. ATKINSON: I cannot say what memorials the Duke of Abercorn receives.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is it true or not that out of seven magistrates, appointed only one is a Catholic?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Now, Sir, I want to ask a Question which distinctly arises out of the Answer the right hon. Gentleman has not given.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The Question on the Paper has been answered.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: The right hon. Gentleman has not given the Answer he ought to have given.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The time for Questions is limited. Notice should be given of any further Questions.

  Arnott Estate, Bandon.
  MR. CREAN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that the representatives of the Arnott Estate at Bandon, in the county of Cork, are breaking up the
  † See (4) Debates, cxxx., 851.

  727
  estate into parcels for the purpose of sale; and whether, in view of the provisions of the Act, that estates shall be sold as a whole, the Commissioners will refuse to sanction such sales.
  MR. ATKINSON: No proceedings for the sale of the Arnott Estate, county Cork, have been instituted before the Estates Commissioners.
  MR. CREAN: Would such an apportionment be approved by the Commissioners?
  MR. ATKINSON: The Commissioners must first be informed of the circumstances.

  De Freyne Estate.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the De Freyne Estate has been sold to the Congested Districts Board; and if he can state the number of tenants on the estate.
  MR. ATKINSON: No, Sir. The negotiations with the Board are still proceeding.

  Irish Local Government Board Orders— Downpatrick Union Suggestion.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board has considered the suggestion of the Downpatrick Union that the numerous Rules and Orders issued prior to and since the passing of the Local Government Act, 1898, should be issued in volume form, and indexed, and circulated amongst public boards in Ireland.
  MR. ATKINSON: On Thursday last † I referred the hon. Gentleman to three sets of Parliamentary Papers containing the Rules and Orders issued by the Board since the passing of the Act of 1898. These volumes, which are carefully indexed, are on sale and may be purchased by any local authority requiring them. The Government has no funds at its disposal for circulating the volumes amongst public boards free of cost.
  † See page 188.

  Virginia Road to Drogheda Mail Contract.
  MR. SHEEHY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General for what term is the contract for the conveyance by road of the mails from Virginia Road to Drogheda; when does it terminate; how much per annum does this service cost; and whether, seeing that this road route is almost parallel to and near the railway at every point, will he say at what time are the morning mails from Dublin delivered in Oldcastle, Kells, and Navan, and what would be the difference of cost to have these mails conveyed by a train timed to run from Drogheda on the arrival of the morning mail train from Dublin, with the transference of the carriage of the night mails from Virginia to the railway company, as compared with the present service; and whether he can see his way to examine the subject carefully with the view to a reform of the present system.
  LORD STANLEY: The contracts for the conveyance of the night mails by road between Drogheda and Virginia Road are all terminable at three months notice. The payments to the contractors amount to £821 a year. The morning mails from Dublin are delivered at Navan at 11.20 a.m.; Kells at 11.30 a.m.; Old-castle at 12 noon. I do not know what would be the additional cost of the acceleration desired by the hon. Member, but it would be considerable. As the cost of the postal service in the district is already very high as compared with the revenue from the correspondence, I regret that I am unable to effect the desired improvement.

  Aughacashel, County Leitrim— Telegraphic Arrangements.
  MR. P. A. McHUGH: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether a memorial has been received at the General Post Office, Dublin, praying for the establishment of a postal telegraph office at Aughacashel, county Leitrim; if so, has the memorial been brought under his notice; and whether, in view of the need of a telegraph office in the district named, he would have further inquiry made with a view to complying with the request of memorialists.
  LORD STANLEY: A memorial has been received, but I regret to say that I should not be warranted in establishing a telegraph office at Aughacashel. I understand there is no village there and that there would be practically no telegraph revenue, while on the other hand the line would cost £237, and the annual expense would be heavy.

  Addresses in Irish on Parcels.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he can state when the regulations found in paragraph 7, page 8, of the Post Office Guide were substituted for those previously in existence with reference to the address of parcels; whether such change was made in consequence of the number of parcels, addressed in Irish, which were despatched through post offices in Ireland; and whether steps will be taken to revise the regulations in consonance with the wishes of the Irish people.
  LORD STANLEY: The regulations referred to were altered in October last as a result of a question raised respecting the treatment of a registered letter addressed in Irish, but they extend, of course, to parcels addressed in other languages. It may be explained that registered letters and parcels have to be handed in at a post office, and it is reasonable that the opportunity should be taken of requiring the senders to give a translation of the address in English. I see no ground for altering the rule in question.
  MR. BOLAND: If the noble Lord is prepared to enter into a fight with the Gaelic League he will be defeated.

  Letters and Parcels Addressed in the Irish Language.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that in paragraph 4, page 442, of the Post Office Guide, with reference to letters addressed in the Russian language, it is stated that the name of the town and of the province should also be added in English, French, or German; and whether, in view of the fact that German characters, which are admittedly different from English, are recommended in the case of letters addressed from England
  730
  to Russia, he will state why Irish characters cannot be used in addressing letters and parcels in Ireland.
  LORD STANLEY: Letters from the United Kingdom for Russia centralise in London, where the French and German forms of the names of towns and provinces are sufficiently known for sorting purposes. I may point out to the hon. Member that the use of German characters is not recommended in the paragraph of the Post Office Guide to which he refers, but simply that of the German names of towns and provinces which may be, and quite commonly are, written in the same characters as English and French.
  MR. BOLAND: But if there is nothing in the regulation to say that German characters must not be used, how does the noble Lord say they are not recommended?

  Court of Criminal Appeal—The Beck Case.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government intend to take any steps to prevent such miscarriages of justice as have lately occurred in the cases of Adolf Beck and of Underwood; and whether, having regard to the frequency of cases of hardship in the administration of the criminal law, he would think it desirable to institute inquiries, by the appointment of a Royal Commission or otherwise, into the circumstances under which arrests on suspicion are made, the conditions and periods of detention before trial of prisoners, and the best method of adequately compensating innocent persons wrongfully convicted and imprisoned.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The case of Mr. Adolf Beck has been the subject of exhaustive inquiry by a Committee, presided over by the Master of the Rolls, and in accordance with the recommendations of that committee a Bill has been drafted and introduced in another place to effect a change in the law which, in the opinion of the committee, will prevent miscarriages of justice such as that which occurred in the Beck case. Certain administrative improvements have also been made

  731
  in accordance with the recommendations of that Committee. Cases of hardship in the administration of the criminal law must occasionally occur; but hardships such as those in the Beck and Underwood cases are so rare that I do not think they call for any further inquiry.
  SIR ROBERT REID: In connection with the Beck case and the proposals of the Government, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the propriety of establishing a Court of Criminal Appeal in this country, such as exists in other countries?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not qualified to give an Answer without notice upon a matter of such importance, nor would my opinion be worth much if I gave it; but I have always understood that expert opinion in this country was against a Court of Criminal Appeal.
  MR. LOUGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman order a Return to be given of the cases of hardship brought before the Government in recent years? I think they are very numerous.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. Perhaps he will put the Question to the Home Office and my right hon. friend will answer it.

  Underfed School Children.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that the provision of free meals for destitute school children in Manchester came to an end on Friday last for lack of funds; and whether, as the distress is still acute in parts of the city, he proposes taking any action for enabling the educational authority to continue the provision of such meals at the cost of the community.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg also to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that in Leeds, where distress due to bad trade is very acute, the Lord Mayor has intimated that after next week the free meals to destitute school children will require to be stopped owing to lack of funds; and whether, in view of the hardship which this will impose
  732
  on several hundreds of children, he will reconsider his decision not to introduce a Bill this session to empower educational authorities to provide meals for destitute children at the cost of the public.
  DR. MACNAMARA: May I at the same time ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the failure of voluntary effort in several parts of the country to cope with the needs of hungry children, he will now reconsider his decision not to introduce legislation this session to give effect to the unanimous recommendation of the Physical Deterioration (1904) Committee, to the effect that local education authorities should be empowered, out of the funds at their disposal, to provide meals for hungry children.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have received no information confirming the hon. Member's statement that provision of free meals for destitute school children in Manchester came to an end last Friday from lack of funds. I am advised that it applies to only one, and not to all sources of charitable supply. I am informed, with regard to Leeds, that the Lord Mayor's Fund for free meals was raised to meet exceptional distress, and when that fund was exhausted a fortnight ago the situation was considered by a committee representative of all parts of the city, and the Lord Mayor decided, after careful consideration by the committee, that the distress was no longer exceptional, but that the existing distress was chronic, and could be met by the ordinary charitable agencies. It was resolved to discontinue the fund, and not to try to raise more money. I am informed that no member of the committee demurred to this decision.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: May I tell the right hon. Gentleman that my information is official, and free meals were stopped at Manchester last Friday. Will he not reconsider his decision not to introduce a Bill empowering the authorities to provide free meals out of the rates?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member for North Camberwell has a Question on the same subject. I am not prepared to give any such pledge.
  DR. MACNAMARA: Will the right hon. Gentleman be willing to receive representations from the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil and myself as to the extreme urgency of the question of hungry children, with a view to a reconsideration of the decision not to introduce legislation?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The last thing I should refuse to do is to receive information on so important a subject from any Gentleman who is a Member of this House, but I will suggest to the hon. Gentleman that his representations should be primarily addressed to the Board of Education or the Local Government Board.
  DR. MACNAMARA: But the Board of Education have refused to adopt the recommendations of the Physical Deterioration Committee.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I said I could not give any pledge that we should deal with this matter in the manner which the Committee proposed. I do not think anything that the hon. Gentleman can say will reverse that decision, but I shall be glad to hear him.
  SIR JOHN GORST: Could not the Report of the Physical Deterioration Committee be considered by a Select Committee of this House?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will consider that Question, but cannot give a definite Answer at the present time. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will put the Question again in a week.

  Ministry of Commerce.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the interest taken in the question by chambers of commerce of the country, he is able to say when the Bill for establishing a Minister of Commerce and Industry will be introduced.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid that the amount of work we have to get through as regards Supply makes it impossible for me to give a definite Answer to my hon. friend.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I desire to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he has any objection to putting off the next stage of the Navy Estimates till Monday.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman made an appeal to me two days ago not to take the Navy Estimates on Thursday. At that time I hoped the information he was asking for would be available in time to make the request for postponement somewhat unreasonable in its character. My hopes, however, have been disappointed, and I acknowledge that under the circumstances there is a claim for postponement. I shall therefore take Supplementary Estimates to-morrow and defer the Navy Estimates till Monday.

  NEW MEMBER SWORN.
  Norman Lamont, esquire, for the County of Bute.
NEW BILLS.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT (1897) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897," presented by Mr. Shackleton; supported by Mr. Arthur Henderson, Mr. Bell, Mr. Crooks, Mr. John Johnson, Mr. Burns, Mr. Thomas Richards, and Mr. William Abraham; to be read a second time upon Friday, May 12th, and to be printed. [Bill 84.]
  MARINE INSURANCE BILL.
  "To codify the Law relating to Marine Insurance," presented by Mr. Attorney-General; supported by Mr. Solicitor-General; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 85.]
  LOGS BILL.
  "To consolidate and amend the enactments relating to Injury to Live Stock by Dogs, and otherwise to amend the Law relating to Dogs," presented by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes; supported by Mr. Solicitor General; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 86.)
  OPEN SPACES BILL.
  "To consolidate the enactments relating to Open Spaces," presented by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 87.]

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  THE LORD-ADVOCATE (Mr. SCOTT DIOKSON, Glasgow, Bridgton): Sir, in rising to introduce the Scotch Education Bill I make no apology for doing so under what is generally known as the Ten Minutes Rule, because the result is no doubt that the Bill is enabled to be introduced at an earlier date in the session than otherwise, and we thereby hope the House and public will be put in possession of the special details of the measure earlier, and also that by this earlier introduction we may be more certain that the Bill will ultimately find its place upon the Statute-book. As the House will also be aware from the King's Speech, the main features of the Bill are practically the same as those considered in this House last session, and accordingly my duty in introducing it will be amply discharged by explaining the principal points in which there is any difference from the Bill before the House last session. I am sure the House will pardon me for a moment if I say that while I quite recognise that upon these grounds no apology is necessary to the House, I cannot but recall to myself that, in this session, the Bill will no longer be under the guidance of my right hon. friend the late Secretary for Scotland, and I am sure it will not be regarded as affectation or modesty on my part if I say no one recognises more to the full than I do that the absence of his great Parliamentary skill and experience and his other abilities will make it necessary for me, not only at this stage, but in all the stages of the Bill, to make larger demands upon the indulgence of the House on both sides than he would have found it necessary to do. At the same time I am encouraged to think that that demand will meet with a ready response, because, Sir, I feel sure that on both sides of the House it is recognised that the time has come when we should do our best to give to Scottish education a large and wide measure of reform. While we
  736
  quite understand that questions of considerable importance will require to be discussed in this Bill, they are not, I venture to think, questions which will give rise to keen Party feeling or increase political bias. I am sure that all Members of the House on both sides are anxious to do their best for Scottish education, and they will give me credit for being actuated by a similar desire. It is in that view, I think, I shall get a generous indulgence so far as it is necessary in every stage of this Bill through the House.
  The House will remember that in the course of last session about half of the clauses of the Bill then before it passed through Committee, and so far as the present Bill is concerned it practically takes up the Bill as it then stood, and so far as it had then been considered. The districts will remain the same as before; but it will be in the recollection of those Members of the House who interested themselves in the matter that in the clauses dealing with the districts there were introduced in Committee various provisions giving elasticity and power to the Secretary for Scotland to divide counties and districts, and in the present Bill these powers will be further extended and enlarged. Then in the first part of the Bill—this Bill practically corresponds with that part of the Bill of last session—the only other change really is a subsidiary one as to the mode of election in burghs. We have at the request of the burghs provided in the present Bill that burghs and counties shall, instead of being treated as electoral divisions of the counties, conduct their school board elections as other burghs do, that is to say on the same day as the ordinary municipal elections, and of course on the municipal franchise. That will apply to all burghs with the exception of a few police burghs which have been called into existence since the 1899 Act, and where there would have been a good deal of complication, if we had adopted that course, in respect of their area not coinciding with the electoral division of the county. Practically the result is that at the request of the burghs we have given that concession to them. The clauses as to managers remain the same as in the Committee stage of the Bill of last year: managers will be optional in enumerated districts and compulsory in others, but

  737
  with a perfectly free hand for school boards to elect managers as they think proper.
  With regard to the second part of the Bill which deals with the powers of the school board, the House will remember that nearly the whole, I think the whole, of that was dealt with by the Committee last session. As to the clause as to rating, the House will recollect that a proposal was introduced in an Amendment by Mr. Murray proposing to have rating partly by population and partly by valuation. The final opinion of the Committee as to that was that the clause was passed on a pledge that the Bill should be recommitted as to that clause with a view to its reconsideration. Subsequent consideration of the point satisfied my right hon. friend that the proposal which he had submitted in this Amendment was not one which he should adhere to, and accordingly we propose in this Bill—and this really is substantially the most important modification as compared with last year—so far as the rating clause is concerned important modification as compared with last year—so far as the rating clause is controversy, the House will remember, between the outlying country parishes and the burghs as to pooling the debts, and, as the country parishes said, making them pay for the higher elementary schools in the burghs, the answer from the burgh side being, "Yes, but you are getting the benefit of the secondary education schools." After full consideration they thought that answer was not perfectly accurate, and I do not know indeed that any proposal will preserve altogether the minute equilibrium between the claims of the counties and burghs, but giving the best consideration to the matter we could, and after hearing the views of all parties, what we propose to do is this. As to existing debt, so far as it represents capital expenditure, which I suppose will practically be expenditure on buildings and sites, we propose to divide that into two, or rather that the school board shall divide it into two portions—so far as it represents expenditure on higher-class public schools, using the words in the sense of the, 1872 Act, it shall be a charge upon the whole district, and so far as it represents expenditure on buildings and sites other than higher-class public schools—if I may be
  738
  allowed to use the term expenditure on primary and ebmentary schools—it shall be treated as local and remain on the parishes which those elementary or local schools represent. The result is that debt representing charges in respect of higher-class or secondary schools will be placed upon the whole district, and the debt representing charges for elementary or primary schools or schools other than higher-class schools will remain parochial, as it is at present. The maintenance, of course, of both will be a charge upon the whole district. That is what we propose to do in regard to existing debt, and we propose also that with regard to future expenditure the same allocation shall be followed out. The result, the House will observe, is that so far as elementary or primary school capital charges are concerned they will remain parochial, but so far as higher-class school capital expenditure is concerned it will remain general over the district, and the maintenance charges with regard to both will be general. I quite appreciate, of course, that there are instances where that may work one way or the other differently from what it does at the present time, but upon the whole, and after consultation with the various parties interested, the proposal which we submit to the House seems to us the fairest which we can put before it, having regard to the competing interests of both sections of the community.
  Then as to the deficiency, we adhere to our original proposal in the Bill that the deficiency shall be rated upon the parishes according to their valuation, that is to say, the parishes of each district shall have allocated to them a proportion of the deficiency corresponding to their valuation. We propose, however, to collect that deficiency as was done in the Bill of last year according to the several regulations observed in each parish, the several classifications and deductions; and, in fact, to continue to collect the school board rate as it is collected at present on the same terms as the Poor Law rate. I quite appreciate again that that is a point on which different views are held, and much is to be said on both sides, but, having given the best consideration to it we could, it seemed on the whole that that was the

  739
  proper proposal which would meet with the most general acceptance.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The Standing Order requires that the right hon. Gentleman's statement should only be a brief one.
  MR. SCOTT DICKSON: I shall only be a few minutes more. That is the main point. We propose also to give special powers, as promised last year, to school boards to provide books, and we also propose to give the provincial councils somewhat larger powers than they have to-day. The education fund will remain practically the same as before, except that the local authorities will get £100,000 which the Act of 1902 originally gave them and we shall take the surplus; otherwise that proposal remains exactly as it was. The only other matter is that we propose to put the sanitary inspection of the schools under the ordinary local sanitary authorities, the medical officers of health, and the sanitary inspector; and we propose to introduce a clause dealing with school boards raising up a large debit in view of the Bill. I think I have explained in the main the immediate changes between this and the Bill of last session, and I beg leave to move it.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Law relating to Education in Scotland, and for other purposes connected therewith."—(The Lord-Advocate.)
  MR. THOMAS SHAWendorsed the Lord-Advocate's remarks with respect to the late Secretary for Scotland. He remarked that the Bill imported new topics and new methods of handling those topics which he thought provided elements of considerable danger as to its future. Still the general features remained the same. They were on the whole to retain their Scotch system; they were still to have universal school boards; they were still to have sole control of the taxpayer's money by representatives of the taxpayer, and they were still to have no embargo put upon the right of representatives to appoint teachers irrespective of creed or denomination. He thought it would have been a much wiser course for the
  740
  Government to have accepted the lessons inflicted upon them last year and to have adhered to the text of their original Bill. All that had happened with reference to the new proposal was a complete justification of the criticisms offered. With regard to the new change as to the incidence of rating, he rejoiced that reward had been given to their efforts by the original proposals of the Bill having been gone back upon, but he confessed that when the Lord-Advocate went further he had very considerable doubt as to the setting up of new districts and as to their having constant trouble with regard to the incidence within those districts of certain classes of expenditure. It would have been far simpler and better to have taken the districts as they were now situated, giving them over to authorities united by freedom, united by interest, and united by responsibility. They would watch the text of the Bill with very great interest and they would not commit themselves as to its further progress. He asked that the Bill should be printed at an early date and circulated in Scotland in time for feeling in Scotland to ripen and mould itself, and that there should be no attempt suddenly to ask for a Second Reading until Scotland itself had been consulted. He remarked that the Government would have to have regard to the opinion of Scotch representatives with reference to the important matter of feeding children and also with reference to gipsy or tinker children, and concluded by stating that on the whole those representatives would not be adverse to a good and true measure adhering to the main lines of popular representative control such as they found embodied in the Bill.
  Question agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by the LORD-ADVOCATE and Mr. COCHRANE.

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To amend the Laws relating to Education in Scotland, and for other purposes connected therewith," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 88.]

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

  ARMY (SUPPLEMENTARY) ESTIMATE, 1904–5 (SOMALILAND).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £550,000, 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, 1905, for Additional Expenditure in respect of the following Army Services, viz.—

  £

  Vote 1.

  Pay, etc., of the Army

  985,000

  Vote 2.

  Medical Establishments, Pay, etc.

  21,000

  Vote 6.

  Transport and Remounts

  265,000

  Vote 7.

  Provisions, Forage, and other Supplies

  260,000

  Vote 12.

  Miscellaneous Effective Services

  2,000

  Vote 14.

  Retired. Pay, Half-Pay, and other non-effective charges for Officers, etc.

  1,000

  Vote 15.

  Pensions and other non-effective charges for Warrant Officers, Non - Commissioned Officers, Men, and others

  2,000

  1,536,000

  Less Surpluses on other Votes

  386,000

  1,150,000

  Deduct Excess Appropriations in-Aid

  600,000

  £550,000"

  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £10,000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item, Vote 1, Sub-head BB (Somaliland Expeditionary Force) be reduced by £10,000."—(Mr. Charles Hob-house.)
  MR. PEELsaid that when the debate closed on the preceding evening he was making an attempt to discover the Mullah somewhere in the recesses of Somaliland. He was also trying to obtain information from the noble Lord who represented the Foreign Office as to the political and military position of the Mullah and the whereabouts of his following. The action of the Foreign Office had been very severely criticised by the hon. Member who moved the reduction, and the criticisms had been addressed to various points of view. The Foreign Office had been criticised first for plunging into the war; next for not starting the war soon enough; again, for starting it too soon; then for under-estimating the cost; and finally, for sending too small a force into the country. It was quite true that since the year 1886, when we first took up the responsibility for protecting the tribes of Somaliland, we had gained very wide experience of the nature of the Hinterlands, and we were now realising the responsibility thus thrown upon us. It was quite possible that had we at that time possessed the knowledge we had since obtained our attitude on this question might have been considerably altered. He would be very glad to know from the noble Lord what was the nature and extent, in point of time, of the responsibilities we had taken up towards these friendly tribes. When the matter was discussed a year ago there was some difference of opinion on the subject. The Secretary for War had practically declared that we had given them an absolute guarantee of security, but that statement was, to some extent, controverted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon, who said it was putting our obligation towards the tribes too high. He believed he was right in saying that since we undertook the responsibility some of the tribes had been placed under the protection of Abyssinia; so that it was clear that if we had an absolute duty to look after them, we still had power to delegate that duty to others.
  The hon. Member also criticised, he thought rather severely, at any rate in the case of a friendly Power, the action of the Italians. He said they had a very large protectorate, and he

  743
  asked why they should not look after the Mullah and the tribes? He seemed to suggest that we were doing dirty work for the Italians, work the responsibility for which should have fallen upon them, instead of upon ourselves. There again he did not think the hone Member had given sufficient consideration to the difficulties of the situation. The boundaries between the Italian, and British, and the Abyssinian protectorates were non-existent; they were imaginary lines of demarcation, and it was absolutely impossible to stand upon some line, as could be done if they were dealing with a country whose boundaries were clearly demarcated. Moreover our obligations with regard to the tribes were so strong that they could not be discharged by our saying, "You have been raided by the Mullah, who has driven your flocks away, but he has now gone into Italian territory, and you must look to the Italians for protection." He did not profess to know to what extent the Italians were in a position to give us assistance as regarded money and men. The hon. Member seemed to think that they ought to have done more, but he ought not to have forgotten that General Egerton, in his despatches, gave the highest praise to the Italian admiral for the assistance he had given our troops in stores and otherwise. He also intimated that he had had very valuable assistance from the Abyssinians, and his despatches showed that the Abyssinian expedition had had very considerable effect in restraining the operations of the Mullah. Short of capturing the Mullah himself a great deal had been done to diminish his power inasmuch as he had been defeated, and so had lost men, prestige, chattels, and stores. That, with a religious reformer of this kind, was almost better than if he had been killed outright, because the idea might then have arisen that he had become a sacred personage, and a series of myths might have grown up around his tomb. But he was now discredited, and in these cases an extinct volcano like the Mullah would be a lesson to other volcanoes not yet in eruption.
  The question was, what should be done with Somaliland in the future?
  744
  He was not certain that it would not be advantageous to hand the country back to the Indian Government. In many ways the Indian Government were able to deal with such a protectorate far better than the Foreign Office. They had considerable experiencee of such military operations as had lately been carried out, and they possessed a great number of officers with full knowledge of the manner in which all these tribes should be dealt with. The hon. Member for East Bristol had suggested that a Sandeman should be sent to Somaliland to exercise over the tribes there the same sort of control as had been exercised on the North-West Frontier of India and in Baluchistan. It was not easy to find such men, and there was also the difficulty that in India they had behind them the whole of the force concentrated in that peninsula, whereas the Somali tribes had no knowledge of British power, so that the exercise of moral force, partly from geographical considerations, would be far more difficult in Somaliland than on the North-West Frontier. Under Foreign Office control, officers had to be collected from all quarters of the British Empire, with the result that the force was of a very composite character, consisting of officers of all descriptions, who were extremely unlikely to be able to work together.
  MR. LOUGHasked who would pay the cost, if the administration was transferred to the Indian Government.
  MR. PEELsaid that when India controlled Somaliland previously, the protectorate not only paid its way, but made a contribution to the finances of India. It should be remembered, also, that this protectorate was maintained largely with a view to the question of Aden, and Aden itself was controlled by India. Therefore, on almost every ground, Somaliland would be more naturally managed by India than by the Foreign Office.
  Much had been said with regard to the obligations we had taken up towards these tribes, but there were reciprocal obligations on the part of the tribes towards us. But more than once in the

  745
  recent war it had happened that the tribes we had undertaken to protect against the Mullah and similar persons had had considerable sympathy with these religious reformers; in fact, the Mullah might have been captured if these friendly tribes had given assistance at the right time. If, therefore, the very stringent obligations towards these tribes were being renewed, an investigation should be made as to whether these tribes had been faithful to us and had given all the assistance they could. He asked what were the arrangements now being made with regard to patrolling the coast, and how far the Italians were assisting us, because, if the smuggling in of arms and ammunition could be prevented, it would enormously lighten any future difficulty. He also asked what arrangements were being made for the future management and administration of Somaliland, what civil and military officers were to be kept there, what was the size and composition of the force to be maintained, where it was to be stationed, and what were the characters of the officers and their experience of the country. After the three expeditions which had been sent it might well be that, without being able to send a Sandeman, we might be able to get men who would exercise such an influence over these tribes as, if not to prevent religious reformers rising up, which perhaps was impossible, at any rate, to secure such early information as would enable us to know when troubles were brewing, the forces which might be necessary to cope with them, and the methods by which such eruptions should be met. He did not see how the late war could have been avoided; but it had been a very expensive business, and the country desired to be satisfied that, as a result, we had at least discharged our obligations to the tribes, broken the Mullah, settled the country, and obtained the likelihood of a long period of security.
  *THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY, Kensington, S.)pointed out that these War Office Estimates covered the expenses only of that portion of the war which had taken place within the last two years, during which period the conduct of operations had not been under the control of the Office with which he
  746
  was connected. The hon. Member for East Bristol was under a misapprehension as to the character of the Estimate. It was concerned solely with expenditure on warlike operations and the winding up of those operations, and had nothing whatever to do with the expenses of the future administration of the country, for which a separate Vote was being asked in the Civil Service Supplementary Estimates. The hon. Member was also in error in estimating the cost of the war to the British Exchequer at £3,500,000; the actual total cost did not exceed £2,500,000. The total war expenditure for which the Foreign Office was responsible was £73,640, while the war expenditure incurred by the War Office since they had had control of the operations was £252,000 in 1902–3, £1,618,000 in 1903–4, and £550,000 in 1904–5, or a total of £2,420,000.
  MR. JOHN ELLISasked whether that was inclusive or exclusive of the appropriations-in-aid.
  *EARL PERCYsaid that amount included the whole of the military expenditure, but it did not include the expenditure under the head of grants-in-aid which had been asked for year by year.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the question of the hon. Member opposite was not as to grants-in-aid, but appropriations-in-aid.
  *EARL PERCYsaid he had answered that question by saying that the figures he had given represented the total expenditure on military operations.
  An hon. Member pointed out that on April 23rd, 1903, the present Marquess of Salisbury stated that the expenditure of the Foreign Office on military operations was £89,000, not £73,000.
  *EARL PERCYsaid the figure given him was £73,000. But even taking the higher sum the total would not be much more than £2,500,000. But the hon. Member had not confined himself to the policy of the War Office; he had roamed at large over the policy which led to the war, and the policy of the Government now that it

  747
  was over. Those who had listened to this and recent debates would naturally infer that His Majesty's Government had been the first Government to set foot in Somaliland, and that they were actuated in that policy either by a desire for military adventure or by quixotic philanthropy. The hon. Member for South Manchester, who had made one of the most useful contributions to the debate, pointed out that two totally inconsistent arguments had been advanced by the mover and the seconder of the Amendment, and the same inconsistency had run through many of the speeches delivered from that side of the House in the course of past discussions. The Opposition had two favourite theories in regard to this matter. One was that the Mullah was a harmless fanatic who might very well have been left to his own devices, and who would have given no trouble if he had not been interfered with. At the time the campaign against him was undertaken, he was actually in occupation of the whole of the eastern portion of the British protectorate, and was seizing all the property of the agents of the Administration. The wife of one of our agents was divorced from her husband by the Mullah, and appropriated to himself. Hon. gentlemen could not find language strong enough to denounce the conduct of Mahomedan peoples in parts of the world for which we had no direct responsibility, but when outrages were inflicted upon people who were under our protection they described them as the methods of a revivalist and temperance reformer. The second theory was that the Foreign Office was mainly to blame for the extent to which we had become involved by not taking the advice of their military advisers soon enough. There was no foundation for that suggestion. An expedition was first recommended by Consul Sadler in 1899, and preparations were at once made, but the Mullah withdrew. On his reappearance in 1900 the force was again collected, and with this force Colonel Swayne advanced in 1901 and inflicted three signal defeats on the Mullah at Ferdiddin, Sanala, and M'Neill's Zariba. It was withdrawn because the Mullah had retired to Muduc in Italian territory, where we had not then permission from the Italian Government to follow him. In 1902 be resumed
  748
  the offensive, and the Expedition, under Colonel Swayne, met with a severe check at Erigo, where complete disaster was only averted by the pluck and gallantry of the Yao troops. The conduct of the operations then passed from the Foreign Office to the War Office. He did not therefore feel called upon to discuss the strategic policy adopted in the later stages of the campaign.
  The hon. Member made it a special ground of censure that the Government had invited the co-operation of the Italian Government instead of calling upon them to keep their own tribes in order; but his facts were inaccurate and his proposals impracticable. The Mullah's following, including as it did the Dolbahanta and Aligheri, was not derived wholly from the tribes in the Italian sphere; and the Italian Government had never professed to exercise administrative control over the Hinterland of their own territory. They had not undertaken the same obligations to the tribes in their Protectorate as we had to the tribes in ours. We only invited Italian co-operation because, the Mullah having retreated into their territory, it was necessary to prevent him from escaping southward and menacing our Protectorate in East Africa. The object being to hem in the Mullah, we attempted to achieve that result by a simultaneous advance from Obbia and Bohotle in co-operation with an Abyssinian advance from the West. It was quite true that this attempt was not completely successful, in the sense that it did not result in the capture of the Mullah, but it enabled us to inflict the crushing defeat at Jidballi, which finally destroyed his effective power, dispersed the great majority of his followers, and has secured, the Protectorate from attack ever since.
  He would only say one word more upon the question of policy. It seemed to be imagined by some hon. Members, and was actually stated by the hon. Member for the Elland Division, that the whole of this forward policy on our part might have been avoided if we had been content with more modest measures of a purely defensive character upon our own frontier.

  749
  That policy was tried in 1901 and reconsidered in 1902, but was abandoned because it would have involved the occupation of a stretch of country 500 miles in length, and the establishment of a permanent garrison of 10,000 men. Now that the Mullah's power had been destroyed the defensive policy had been partially adopted. As to the objects of the war, we had not desired to acquire territory. We had gained nothing in that way; but we had kept something, which, if we lost, we might say "Good-bye" to the idea of governing native tribes at all—the reputation of being faithful to our engagements. Supposing that the Government had made the original miscalculation alleged by the hon. Member, what had that to do with this Vote? The hon. Member for Bristol said that the Government had spoken of this as a military promenade, but he did not recollect any one making use of an expression of that kind.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I quoted that expression from the first White Paper presented to the House, and it was used by the Consul-General.
  *EARL PERCYsaid he was under the impression that the hon Member was quoting from a speech made by the Prime Minister, and he concluded that he meant to imply that the Government had misled the House.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: But I gave the name.
  *EARL PERCYsaid he apologised to the hon. Member, if he had misunderstood him. Admitting that the Government, acting on the advice of their local officers, who were best able to form a judgment upon the matter, had made a miscalculation, if this were a just, necessary, and inevitable war, then the fact that His Majesty's Government did not know how much it would cost had nothing to do with the matter. If it were an inevitable war the Government was bound to spend the necessary money to see it through, whether they underestimated the total cost in the initial stages or not. Was it a necessary war? The war was mainly undertaken to defend the tribes
  750
  in our own Protectorate with whom this country had entered into distinct treaty engagements. Some hon. Members had discussed the origin of these treaties, and assumed that they were made by the Foreign Office—another instance of that peculiar administrative incompetence which was supposed to characterise the Department he represented, a Department which seemed to him to have been most unjustly and most unfairly criticized in the past. The Foreign Office was not originally intended or framed for the purpose of undertaking administrative duties of this kind, but as a matter of fact he doubted very much whether any Department could have so rapidly improved the financial status of any one of the Protectorates under the charge of the Foreign Office as that Department had done. It was assumed that these treaties were made by the Foreign Office and by a Conservative Administration. Neither of those hypotheses had the slightest foundation in fact. Not one of the treaties with the tribes in Somaliland had been made by the Foreign Office. Every one was made by the India Office, and out of the nine, six had been made by the Party opposite, and he thought the majority of them when Mr. Gladstone was Prime Minister.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNER: The conditions have been entirely altered by the extension of the protectorate.
  *EARL PERCYsaid the whole of these treaties had practically the same character; they were general treaties extending to the tribes the protection of His Majesty's Government. He did not know that it was necessary or very relevant to this discussion to enter upon a defence of the original policy of these treaties. Everybody knew that they were the consequence of our occupation of Somaliland and that occupation was dictated by various considerations of the intimate connection at that time between Somaliland and Abyssinia on the one hand, and on the other the Upper Nile Valley where we had not yet established our position—and the importance of Berbera, both from its situation on the high road to India, and from its convenience as a

  751
  provisioning basis for the garrison at Aden. The value of Berbera from that point of view depended entirely on our being able to keep open the trade routes to the Hinterland. There were three ways in which that object might be achieved. We might have undertaken the whole expense and responsibility of administering the inferior ourselves. No one had suggested that we ought to have adopted this course. We might have armed the tribes so as to enable them to defend themselves against the Mullah, or we might have adopted the policy, which the Government did adopt, of restricting the area of our administrative responsibilities, and whenever it became necessary to undertake the defence of the tribes to do so by means of punitive expeditions. The Government may have been right or wrong to fall back on the third policy, but they adopted it on grounds of economy. But whether it was right or wrong, there can be no doubt whatever that, having adopted that policy, and having entered into engagements with the tribes, we were bound to carry them out, and all the more bound for two reasons. In the first place, it was largely owing to the fact that we had made these treaties, and that the tribes relied upon us to protect them against attacks by the Mullah, that they had refused to make common cause with him. Another and even more cogent reason for our intervention was that we had deliberately disarmed all the tribes under our protection, and had therefore left them defenceless against the neighbouring tribes who were in possession of arms. In the opinion of the Government no other course was open to them than that which they had adopted unless they were prepared to plead force majeure. To admit that they were unable to carry out their treaty engagements would have been a confession humiliating in itself and would have had a most disastrous effect on the neighbouring tribes. It was a confession which the Government were not prepared to make; and he did not believe that in this matter hon. Members opposite would have followed a different course themselves. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife had never associated himself with the attacks which came from hon. Gentlemen opposite. In the debate on
  752
  April 30th, 1903, the right hon. Gentleman said—
  "It is perfectly true that the undertakings deliberately given by this country to savage or semi-savage tribes under our protection must be rigidly, honourably, and even scrupulously observed, and it is immaterial what Government is in office at the time."
  He turned now to the question of our policy in the future. No doubt the situation had changed. In performance of our treaty obligations we had incurred great expenditure both of money and life; and it was open to us, he thought, now to reconsider our position. He had already briefly outlined to the House the three main policies open to the Government originally. They chose the one which they thought would involve the least expense. As a matter of fact, the policy of punitive expeditions had proved in this case, as it had proved over and over again on the Indian frontier, the most extravagant policy which we could possibly pursue. It was not recognised when the treaties were concluded in 1886; but the Government had now come to the conclusion—a conclusion which he thought had been pressed upon them by all sections of the House—that the wisest and most prudent policy to pursue in the future was to limit our administrative responsibility as far as we possibly could to the coast line. But there was a corollary to that policy, and that was that we should arm the tribes and organise them so as to be in a position to defend themselves in the event of any future emergency such as that with which they had been recently confronted.
  Sir ROBERT REID: Do you adhere your obligations?
  *EARL PERCYsaid there was no question of repudiating our obligations; it was only a question of devising means to carry them out.
  SIR ROBERT REID: Does the noble Lord mean that in future this country is both to undertake their protection and to defend the tribes by arms, or are they to defend themselves?
  *EARL PERCYreplied that he could not say what action in each individual

  753
  case future governments might think it advisable to adopt, but the Government did not repudiate the general obligations into which they had entered with the tribes in Somaliland. This policy, however, of arming and organising the tribes so as to enable them to stand alone was obviously one which would take a little time, at all events, to carry out. They could not expect tribes never armed and never organised before to be in a fit position to defend themselves at once. Besides, therefore, lending the assistance of political officers for the purpose of controlling the organisation, the Government proposed to provide the requisite stiffening of Regular troops during the interval. They intended, in the first place, to bring the 6th battalion King's African Rifles, which had been seriously depleted, up to its full strength, and to transform it from an infantry into a mounted regiment. In future it would consist of 200 mounted Somalis and a camel corps of 300; and it would represent the permanent garrison of the protectorate. It was further proposed temporarily to locate in the protectorate the 33rd Regiment Punjabis for one year, after which it was hoped that the tribes would be in a position to resist any attack brought against them with the support of the permanent garrison.
  There was one other measure they thought it necessary to adopt. It was desirable to strengthen our administrative hold on the coast and to take fresh measures for the control and suppression of the arms traffic which had been responsible for much of the difficulty we had had to encounter in the past. Some hon. Members who had spoken in previous debates had rather implied that the dangers of this traffic had entirely escaped the attention of the Government. That was not the case. During the whole of these operations the Government had devoted the most anxious consideration to every possible method for suppressing it. There were three different sources from which a supply of arms could enter that region—from the coast line under British or Italian influence; from the East African Protectorate where it bordered on the Yuba River; and on the North-West across the Abyssinian frontier, from Harrar or Jibuti in the
  754
  French sphere of influence. The Government of Zanzibar had since the commencement of the operations kept a very close scrutiny on the importation of arms, the German and Italian Consuls had agreed to exercise strict supervision over their own vessels, and the Governor of German East Africa also issued special instructions on the subject. Between Lamu and Kismayu there was an armed dhow patrolling the coast and a road patrol on the main routes from Yuba to the Hinterland. On the North-West the French Government had given orders that no arms were to be issued to natives under French protection. In Abyssinia, the Emperor Menelik very soon after the war commenced issued special regulations in regard to the sale of arms, having already, under the new regulations, seized a large consignment. No dealer was to be at liberty to sell arms, except under special licence, and no native might carry them without the permission of the Court. The British coast did not present so much difficulty as the Italian—it was so mountainous for 120 out of the 240 miles that, practically, the importation of arms across that barrier was impossible, and off the remainder of the coast we had four British men-of-war. The Italians had employed one man-of-war and one torpedo vessel. The had also established at Bundin Kassim one additional Custom-House station for the control of the traffic. In addition, the Italian Government had allowed us to search suspected vessels in Italian territorial waters, and we had also obtained the consent of the Sultan of Muscat, from which much of the arms traffic came, to search ships flying his flag, not only in Muscat territorial waters, but also on the high seas. We proposed in future to strengthen our administration of the coast-line and Somaliland by placing there two additional coast stations at Hais and Las Khorai, and also an armed steamer, the initial expense of which would be £9,000, part of which would be recouped to us by our being able to dispense with a dhow.
  He could not give any precise information as to where the Mullah was at the present moment; he thought it was some where near Illig. In conclusion; he hoped the measures now

  755
  contemplated would commend themselves to the House as measures which would effectively carry out the declared policy of the Government to restrict the responsibilities of this country in future within the narrowest limits, and that in their effort to suppress the arms traffic they would continue to have the support and assistance of all the neighbouring Powers in Africa, to whose rule, no less than to our own, this traffic was a constant and dangerous menace
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that the defence of the policy of the Government in Somaliland just made by the noble Lord was very characteristic of all the previous defences of the same policy and of the same Government. The latter part of the speech of the noble Lord gave away the first part; but that was also characteristic of deliverances from the front bench opposite. In the first part the noble Lord stated that the Government had embarked on this expedition in Somaliland because they wanted to prove to everybody that they were a Government that kept their pledges. He did not say it was not necessary for this Government to give some such demonstration; but they might have done it in much better and less expensive ways and without spending two and a half millions of money.
  EARL PERCY: How?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that there was the hon. Member for King's Lynn behind them; they might have kept their pledges to him, and no one thought that that would have cost —2,500,000. But having sworn to their own virtue, and having entered into treaties with the Dolbahantas and all these tribes, saying, "We will protect you at any cost," they now declared, "We have come to the conclusion that it is too expensive to keep our word." The hon. Member for King's Lynn would have this satisfaction, that he was no worse off than the Dolbahantas tribes, except in one respect, that the Government were going to arm the Dolbahantas. What an extraordinary position
  EARL PERCY: The Dolbahantas are not one of the tribes under our protection.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid it did not matter; the Government were going to arm other tribes then. There were as many of these tribes as there were section amongst His Majesty's Government's supporters. The noble Lord entered into a very elaborate argument to prove how very important it was to prevent the importation of any arms into that part of Africa, and then he said how very difficult it was; how there were mountain barriers along the Somaliland coast, how the Italian frontier was quite impossible, how the French were defending Jibuti, and how the Abyssinians were making arrangements to prohibit the entry of arms in some other part. In fact the difficulties were insuperable. But then the noble Lord went on to say that the Government were going to solve these difficulties. They were going themselves to supply the tribes with arms! The fiscal policy of the Government was difficult enough to understand, but their policy in regard to these tribes was still more difficult. First of all, their policy was to exclude arms, and they entered into engagements with the European Powers and with the Sultan of Muscat to stop all traffic in arms; and then, having broken their word to the Somali tribes, except the Dolbahantas, they proceeded to break their word with all the European Powers. Really the policy of the Government was becoming more and more perplexing from day to day.
  The noble Lord said that the cost of this war so far was only £2,500,000. Millions were nothing to the Government; they just flung them away, and on a policy too which they themselves now acknowledged to be a failure. How did they start?—£80,000. The noble Lord said the war was inevitable. All the wars of this Government were inevitable. But not only the wars, but the miscalculations were inevitable. They had heard something of the sort before. £10,000,000 for a cheap trip for the army to Pretoria; £80,000 for an excursion to Somaliland, now run up to £2,500,000. It was the same thing in Tibet— just a few thousand pounds to leave the right hon. Gentleman's card on the Dalai Lama

  757
  Instead of that it was converted into a great military expedition. This was part of the policy of the Government; the only difference being that at last they had a Minister who said that the whole thing was a mistake and a miscalculation. He was glad that someone had acknowledged that. But what a position it was. They were dealing with a gentleman—a Mullah—he did not know what he was—he might be a revivalist,—but they did not send a military expedition to put down revivalists in this country. Why should they do it in another country? The Mullah was one day an Italian, the next day an Abyssinian, and another day a true Briton. He was just as elusive as the Prime Minister. But why should it be our job to deal with him at all? The noble Lord did not give the slightest indication of what he was going to do. Last year they were told that there was not going to be any more expenditure on this job; that the Government were simply going to negotiate with the Mullah. What had become of the negotiations? Why not send out the hon. Member for Central Bradford as a sort of envoy extraordinary to deal with the situation? It would be just as sensible a policy as that now being pursued. They had gone on year by year piling up expense; starting one policy, departing from it; entering on another, and departing from that. If the Government would only follow some definite line of action and put it through it would not be so bad; but they were simply doing nothing.
  There was one point referred to by his hon. friend the Member for East Bristol which was not dealt with by the noble Lord. His hon. friend quoted from The Times newspaper a statement that the Mullah, at the present moment, had more soldiers with him than when he started.
  EARL PERCYsaid that the latest information was that the Mullah had from 1,500 to 2,000 rifles.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that that was more than he had when he started. What a remarkable state of affairs! After four campaigns to put down this religious revivalist the only result had
  758
  been to increase his power. Of course, part of the £2,500,000 was spent in providing him with rifles. It was the only result of four years campaign. The noble Lord now wanted to start on another tack. Surely it was time that someone should be made responsible.
  EARL PERCYsaid that what he stated was that it was a possibly true proposition that the original policy of entering into these treaties was a mistake; but that was a policy for which hon. Gentlemen opposite were more responsible than the Government.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that an attempt was now being made by the Government to repudiate responsibility for their own action. Someone must have been responsible; and the policy had been begun while the present Government were in power. They embarked on these series of campaigns; and they ought to be responsible and to accept the responsibility. They had irritated the tribes in such a way as to actually increase the power of the Mullah. Anyone reading the documents could see what had happened. These tribes were the prey of both parties. They were between the Mullah and the British forces. One day they were attacked by our forces and the next day the Mullah attacked them. We robbed them of their sheep and camels, and drove them from their wells. The whole expedition was a story of driving the Mullah from well to well, while we attacked tribes whom we had sworn to protect and whom we had entered into an engagement to protect. The result was that they were deprived of their means of subsistence and joined marauding expeditions under the Mullah or some other leader. That was the sort of policy the Government was pursuing, and which they would never pursue if they were at war with a civilised Power. Why in making war on semi-savages should the Government pursue a policy which they would not dare to pursue if they were dealing with a civilised Power? The noble Lord said that they wanted to show the Somalis that when the British swore to a thing they would stick to it; but was it not equally important to show them that we could carry out military operations in a civilised way. What the

  759
  Government had been doing was, not attacking the Mullah's forces, but attacking the tribes. That was very different. What wore they doing now? They started, first of all, to pursue, the, Mullah. He left. Then they said he was done for. He turned up again with the April rains; he was attacked again; and then it was said he was no more. That was repeated three or four times and now no one knew where he was. That was very like the position of the Government. But really this was, after all, child's play. It was not the way to deal with the Mullah. They would not get rid of the Mullah by ignoring him. They could say that his power was at an end; they could even move the previous Question on him; but back he would come when the wells were full. They had had debate alter debate in this House on this policy; and each time the Government had given a totally different explanation and a totally different reason for entering on it. The only thing they knew was that hundreds of thousands of pounds had been spent on a policy which was absurd. and which created a feeling of distrust in the minds of the tribes and also in the minds of the people of this country.
  Sri CARNE RASCHsaid he had the good fortune to be associated recently with an officer who was connected with the three campaigns in Somaliland, and who probably know more about the country than any man in India or at home. The mistake which had been made by his right hon. friends on the Treasury bench was in abolishing the war before abolishing the Mullah. The Mullah being an ignorant man did not consider himself abolished; and was by no means an extinct volcano. He had always considered that there was no particular reason why there should be an expedition against the Mullah at all, except that he gave trouble some years ago. The Abyssinians attacked the Mullah; and the Mullah, instead of attacking the Abyssinians, attacked tribes on the coast who were under the protection of this country. Then came the three expeditions. The first was Colonel Swayne's, and if he had had 500 more men he would probably have finished the whole business. The war was conducted with the greatest economy; and Colonel
  760
  Swayne did not do what he might have done under other circumstances. Then there were the expeditions under General Manning and General Egerton. Money was expended some what recklessly; and the war was brought to an end rather sooner than it might have been. Colonel Swayne was still in command and was holding a very extended line of communication 500 miles long; and the situation was very precarious indeed. The country itself was not worth holding. There was no transport and no water. It was, however, the entrance to Abyssinia and might be very valuable to us in the future. The road from Berbera ran straight to Abyssinia; and if this country abandoned it, no doubt, our German friends would lay hold of it before we knew where we were. He always believed that the best policy was, instead of fighting the Mullah, to square him and make terms with him. The Mullah was what might be called a citizen of the world. He was once a cabdriver on the coast; and his word was not always to be depended on. He exhibited a considerable capacity for annexations which were not confined to gentlemen in Somaliland. He did not think the Government could be blamed for what they had done; they were bound to protect the tribes who were living under British influence; and if the expeditions had been more or less expensive, the Committee should remember they could not make omelettes without breaking eggs.
  MR. J. A. PEASEcomplained of the way in which the natives of Somaliland had been victimised owing to the vacillating policy pursued by His Majesty's Government. That policy had been as unstable as water. At times it had been everything and at times nothing. When the Government came into power in 1895 they found a protectorate with a large revenue ably administered by the Indian Government with the tribes extremely loyal to the British Throne, and one of their first acts was to hand over a large number of the, most loyal tribes to Abyssinia, an act which caused a considerable loss of prestige to this country and gave in consequence a good field for the Mullah to work on. The Government were

  761
  warned that the Mullah, under the pretext of religion, had gathered a large number of armed men around him and that he was a dangerous man. They, however, ignored the warning, as in 1896 they ignored their responsibility in this matter, and allowed the Mullah to raid the tribes both on the coast and in the interior. The Government then commenced operations against the Mullah, but with as little foresight as in most of our expeditions in connection with the South Africa campaign. The result was disaster after disaster. Operations were commenced at the wrong period of the year, when there was no water and camel transport had to be depended upon. Mistake after mistake was made, and we finally found ourselves saddled with an expenditure of £2,500,000, as was admitted by the noble Lord. The noble Lord, however, had not contradicted the figures given on the previous evening, from which it appeared the expenditure was nearer £3,500,000 than £2,500,000. In reply to a question by the hon. Member for Poplar last year, the Secretary of State said the cost of these expeditions was £2,250,000, and we now had on the Estimates £550,000, in addition to which we had grants-in-aid of £159,000 and £76,000. Those amounts would add up to considerably more than £2,500,000, and he thought the Committee was entitled to a definite statement as to what the cost really had been. Thousands of lives had been lost, and now, instead of finding, as the Government did in 1895, a large number of perfectly peaceful natives, we found them armed by our own Government. Had the policy pursued by the Government been pursued by a Liberal Administration they would have been denounced as unpatriotic on every platform in the country. He wanted to see justice done to the natives when this country undertook certain responsibilities with regard to them. He wanted to see the natives properly treated, and did not want to see them armed one against the other. In his opinion the policy pursued by the Government had been most vacillating, and therefore he should vote for the Amendment.
  *Mr. MALCOLMsaid he disagreed with the hon. Member
  762
  that there was anything like lack of decision in the policy of the Government. The noble Lord had made quite clear to the Committee the policy the Government was about to pursue in Somaliland. He had been much struck by the speech of the hon. Member for Carnarvon, and it had occurred to him that some of the speeches made in that House were so eloquent and sincere that they made a trivial subject appear serious. Other speeches, delivered in a light-hearted way, made the more important subjects appear trivial. Such was the speech delivered by the hon. Member. He had never heard a more grotesque description of the policy of the Government. Nobody more fully recognised than himself how great the expenditure must be in this matter or how far short of our ideal our policy had fallen, but to put it in the way in which the hon. Member had done was to misstate both the ideal and the effect of the policy. The question was not one so much of expenditure as of keeping faith with tribes that were unable to protect themselves. For an Empire like Great Britain that seemed to be the foundation of our Colonial policy. When he heard the phrase of his noble friend "Imperial reasons" laughed at and scoffed at by members of the Opposition; when he heard the explanation of how the expeditions were delayed in 1899 and 1900 ridiculed below the gangway, and when he heard that phrase from the hon. Member for Essex "Somaliland is not worth holding," he thanked God that hon. Members opposite were not responsible for the Imperial government of the country. The Government had plenty to answer for, but they were not wholly responsible for the policy respecting Somaliland. The Opposition was responsible for six of the nine treaties that brought that policy about. The question of keeping faith with the natives was most important, bur he was not perfectly certain that the Government had taken the right line in arming the natives. But what was to be done? In his view a punitive policy with expeditions ad hoc was really the safest and the cheapest. We should certainly be paramount in Somaliland, not only in order that we could protect the tribes in the protectorate, but because of the influence it would give us

  763
  with regard to the policy of Abyssinia. To retire from the Hinterland might have a very serious effect on our influence in Abyssinia; while, if the Abyssinians chose to imagine that we were hostile or weak, their influence on the Egyptian side might be more unfriendly than we cared to contemplate. He was not sure that the decision of the Government was a wise one, but at the same time he was convinced that the reasons put forward for the reduction of the Estimate were wrong, and therefore he should vote against the Amendment.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid he had been a consistent, and he hoped as long as he was a Member of this House to be a persistent, opponent of expeditions of this kind, which in previous years he had predicted would end, as they had ended, in loss of life, diminished prestige, and a considerable depletion of the national treasury. The opponents of this policy cared nothing for the rebukes of the hon. Member for the Stowmarket Division after the harm had been done, what they wanted was that hon. Members should recognise the justice of their warnings, the prescience of their advice, and the lamentable financial folly which had resulted from the ignoring of both. The hon. Member had said that it pained him to hear Imperial obligations scoffed at, and patriotic policies jeered at. But people were now becoming sober, clothed, and in their right mind. The war was over, expeditions were disappointing to the taxpayer, and a well-informed electorate were getting tired of excursions which compelled even Gentlemen like the hon. and gallant Member for the Chelmsford Division to be bracketed with pro-Boers like himself for scoffing at the Imperial obligations so-called. The hon. Member for the Stowmarket Division was labouring under the common delusion of the Jingo, that mere expansion was Imperialism, that bigness was greatness, that recklessness was courage, and that invasion meant civilisation. There was no foundation whatever for that delusion, and he believed that history would prove that this country was never so great mentally, morally, and physically, as when it had few colonies, and little external territory, and its chief pride was
  764
  the possession of strong men of good character and transcendent intellect.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W.): When was that?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I should say from the fifteenth to the end of the sixteenth century.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: England was then harrying the whole world.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid that if the right hon. Gentleman would look up his own primers and histories he would find that, like the rest of the Government, he was directly contradicted when in office and in a hole by himself when out of office, and before the revised versions of his histories were put on the market. A statesman for whom he had a sincere respect expressed his view when, in speaking to Lord Cromer, he said there was a certain school of politicians whose object it was to try and annex the, moon in order to prevent its being appropriated by the planet, Mars. That statesman was Lord Salisbury, who in that matter thought Imperially in the best sense of the word. But if the Secretary of State for War would like an authority from the century he had just misquoted he could have one—
  "By all means it is to be procured that the trunk be great enough to bear the branches and the bough, that is, that the natural subjects of the Crown or State boar a sufficient proportion to the stranger subjects that they govern, for to think that a handful of people can with the greatest courage and policy in the world embrace too large an extent of territory—it may hold for a time, but it will fail suddenly."
  That was written by Francis Bacon. But there was an even greater authority, and that was King Solomon, who, 4,000 years ago, adumbrated his colonial policy when he said to the Queen of Sheba, "The eyes of the fool are in the ends of the earth." The eyes of the fool had indeed been in the ends of the earth. The hon. and gallant Member for the Chelmsford Division had conveyed to the Committee the view of a distinguished soldier of experience and authority to the effect that Colonel Swayne might have finished the expedition if he had had men enough. Whose fault was it

  765
  that he had not men enough? It was the fault, not of the House of Commons, but of those responsible for the expedition. If the Government were always going to advance civilisation on a powder-cart why did they not do it thoroughly as King Harry knew how to do it? Instead of that, the Government sent out expeditions imperfectly equipped and badly provisioned to a country of which the Intelligence Department knew very little, where food was difficult to get, and the water still more difficult to obtain, and where for only four or five months in the year it was possible for human beings other than Somalis to live. But the hon. and gallant Member had also stated that the place was not worth holding. He himself had made a similar statement in 1896 and 1898, and was in consequence called a Little Englander and so forth. But the hon. and gallant Member reverted to the modern Imperialism and said the country must be held because it was the straight road to Abyssinia. Surely the Government did not intend holding Somaliland as a base from which to walk the straight and narrow path into Abyssinia. If they did the Abyssinians would surely resent, resist, and defeat the attempt, just as they had resisted and repelled the Italians. But the excuse originally given for having anything whatever to do with Somaliland was equally preposterous, viz., that it was near Berbera, and that Berbera more or less commanded the high road to India, and that we had to look after the upper reaches of the Nile. He remembered the Chairman suggesting that any man who thought that either the west or east coast or the southern portion of the Soudan ought to be occupied to prevent some ingenious French engineer from diverting the River Nile at its lower reaches ought to be not in the, House of Commons, but under detention, with the hon. Member for Central Bradford, in an institution maintained out of the rates.
  The noble Lord at the Foreign Office stated that the Mullah had to be put down because he made war on the neighbouring tribes. If Great, Britain was going to be arbiter in all inter-tribal disputes in the waste places of the earth, the annual expenditure on the Army and Navy would have to be not £70,000,000 but £170,000,000.
  766
  It was urged that the Mullah seized the best men in the neighbouring tribes for military service. There were Members of that House who were in favour of seizing for compulsory military service the best men at home. He wished an expedition could be sent to incarcerate or suppress them, but that was no argument for going to war. The fact was that the so-called Mad Mullah was not half so mad as those who had attempted to catch him. The Mullah was where we were in the fourteenth century when we were making raids upon Scotchmen and Scotchmen were making raids upon us. The Scotchmen got the advantage and they had retained it ever since. The noble Lord the Member for Kensington said this country had gained nothing in territory, but we had gained something in prestige by showing the natives that we had kept our word. How had they done this? An expedition was sent out pledged to suppress the Mullah, but he was still at liberty, his prestige had been enhanced, and his power to raid had been strengthened by the fact that the British Government had been trying to suppress him for four years and had failed. The noble Lord stated that it was now the intention of the Government to stick to the coast line, and he hoped they would adhere to that simple policy. To talk of promoting peace in this territory by arming the tribes was one of the most contradictory things he had ever heard of. Just in proportion as they gave them arms of greater precision and sold them arms more cheaply they provoked wars, and far more serious wars than they would otherwise be able to wage with their primitive weapons.
  The Government had pursued a sort of topsy-turvy Colonial policy which could not be justified by wisdom, ethics, or economy. Three nights ago the Irish Members asked the Irish Government to give them money for labourers' cottages and to simplify the procedure for obtaining them, but the Government replied that they had no money to give to the labourers of Ireland. When he heard that £2,500,000 had been spent on Somaliland he consulted the Blue-books and he found that in thirty years the Irish Government had spent out of Irish money only £2,000,000 in building 16,000 cottages for Irish

  767
  labourers. With the money spent upon this wicked, foolish, and extravagant expedition they could have built 20,000 cottages for Irish labourers and allayed some of the grievances and much of the discontent which Nationalist Members spoke of a few nights ago. They had got many grievances at home. They had the unemployed at their gates and the poor existed in large numbers in every town and city. The Government had promised to bring in some proposal—probably a gingerbread proposal dealing with the Poor Law—relating to the unemployed question. Look what they could have done for our own poverty-stricken countrymen if they had had £2,500,000 to spend upon remunerative employment. "The eyes of the fool are in the ends of the earth," but the eyes of Britain, after these fat years of extravagance abroad and leanness at home, were at home. They saw now what the fiscal campaign had taught them. He appealed especially to the front Opposition Bench to remember this, because they were on the eve of taking office, and this would come about sooner than they were expecting. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No, no!"] Well, it ought to. He asked the House to remember that in twenty years they had had twenty wars and expeditions in twenty different parts of the earth. They had annexed 4,000,000 square miles of territory and brought 60,000,000 of subject races beneath our flag; and for the great loss of life all this entailed and the expenditure of £1,000,000,000, they had secured less international trade from those waste places of the earth than every year this country got from the city of Berlin or Paris, a trade which was obtained without the expenditure of a single £100 for soldiers or war material. If they wanted trade and commerce, the place to get it was not in the waste places of the earth. When he was a commercial traveller up the Niger he found that he could sell more goods for the Royal Niger Company when he took good goods, told the natives the truth, and dealt with them fairly, for then they came again. This Government was now blacking the eyes of its best customers in the four corners of the world, and they were wasting money upon military parades and fruitless expeditions where there
  768
  was nothing to be got but discredit instead of rehabilitating the finances of this country from the material point of view. Morally this policy was damaging the prestige of the British Empire, which with all its faults was still the greatest Empire in the world; but it would not deserve or enjoy that reputation if it were governed by prancing pro-Consuls, who thought expansion was Imperialism and buccaneering civilisation, and who thought the way to increase our trade was to send expeditions to wild districts, where the natives considered themselves well dressed if they were only a bracelet and a smile. Upon every count this Government stood condemned, but in nothing more, than in the wanton waste and wicked extravagance to which it had subjected the taxpayers of this country. Now that the electorate was aroused and were thoroughly tired of these expeditions he trusted that the Government would give them an opportunity of pronouncing an opinion upon their conduct. When this opportunity was afforded he did not think that any of the acts of folly of the Government would be more strongly condemned than the foolish, extravagant Somaliland policy, which was a discredit and a disgrace to everybody who had had anything to do with it.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid that behind Somaliland there was a great desert, peopled by a number of wandering Arabs, who were divided into different tribes. He had read that these tribes indulged in stealing each other's camels. Because of this the Government came to the conclusion that, we must occupy the Hinterland, and this was not the first time that this had been done. The same thing had happened in Uganda and many other parts of Africa. They had been told that Somaliland was a very valuable country, but that contention had now been thrown over by the Government, for they had been told in an official dispatch that the country was practically worthless. The more he heard of the Mad Mullah the more respect he had for him. He remembered talking to Ismail Pasha, who told him that they would always have these

  769
  Mullahs, and he said that he had had the honour of the acquaintance of nine different Mahdis when he was in the Soudan, if he might call making the acquaintance, of a man having him hanged. Ismail Pasha told him that the English ought to give a little money to the tribes and make friends of them. In connection with these expeditions he should like to know about our agreement with Italy. These expeditions were not in our protectorate, but partly in that of the Italians. The Italians were the wisest natron in Europe. They cleared out of Africa as quickly as they could, and if we were to go to the Italian Chamber and ask for money for any of these operations the Chamber would absolutely refuse to give it. We had expended a considerable amount of money in Somaliland and destroyed a large amount of life. He wanted to know how in the name of wonder any Government could justify the agreement with Italy and the mode in which the agreement was carried out. Italy might have liked to have smashed the Mullah, but why in the name of wonder should we make an agreement with Italy? Having done so, we took in hand not only our own job, but the Italian job as well. This was one of the extraordinary illustrations of this Government always doing things in the wrong way. The outcome was that £3,000,000 had been spent there. Would anybody on the Treasury Bench tell him that that money was well and properly spent? The result was that we had made Christianity and civilisation odious in that part of the world by the way we had prosecuted the war. We had massacred the tribes. The Mullah had a better right to punish them than we had, if they were to be punished at all. The country belonged to the tribes. They had been there for countless ages. The Mullah seemed to have been an African Wallace in that part of the world, and he did not like the tribes taking our side. He thought the men who stood by the Mullah and did their best to repel our aggressions were better Somalilanders than the people we bribed to aid us in conquering that country.
  The Government had an extraordinary method of meeting this and
  770
  most other criticisms. They were always throwing the blame on each other. He never saw such an unhappy family. Their first idea was, Whom shall we sacrifice? and over went Jonah into the sea. On the Government bench there would eventually be no one left but the First Lord of the Treasury, and he would have to perform the happy despatch. The Foreign Office made a mess of Somaliland, and they immediately put forward the War Office. The India Office had also had something to do with it. Each in succession had been a greater failure than the other, and the War Office under the auspices of the new Secretary of State for War appeared to have made a more thorough mess of it than anyone else. He employed more men, and announced that it would soon be over. Napoleon had appeared and the thing would be settled at once. It was settled in a practical manner by our clearing out of the place, holding only a small portion, and leaving this African Wallace, so far as he could see, more powerful than he was at the commencement of the operations. The noble Lord the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs had told them that he was going to give up these punitive expeditions and arm the natives. Was there ever anything more abominable and scandalous than that we should arm the natives when we were parties to treaties preventing these men from having arms and preventing arms from being imported into Africa? How could they trust the natives who were to be armed? Did the Government really think if they wanted these arms back they would get them? They would have to undertake another punitive expedition to punish their own friends because they had turned against them.
  How long was this going on? Was it not time that we had a definite policy in Africa? We had already a great deal too much of Africa. He wished we could apply to some foreign nations to take a great deal of it off our hands. When Germany gave us a portion of Africa we gave Germany the Island of Heligoland. If Germany would be in favour of taking the whole of Africa from us as a gift, he should be inclined to give the Isle of Man as well. What did Sir Robert Peel say to the Jingoes, the expansionists, and

  771
  the Chamberlainites of his time? He said he was in favour of the expansion of the Empire and of obtaining territory where Englishmen could colonise, and live and thrive, but he believed that the more we took of those territories where there was a great native population, semi-barbarous, and where Englishmen really could not colonise, the more were we expanding our responsibilities, and the less were we gaining from that policy. That was his view of this African policy. He did not wish to go there to convert the natives. They had their religion, and we had our own. He had no more wish to convert them to our religion than that they should send Mohammedans here to convert us. Do not let us imagine that we were benefiting civilisation by committing atrocities in Uganda or Somaliland. War was carried on in those regions in a manner we would not dare to carry it on in any part of Europe. [An HON. MEMBER: Poisoning wells.] The poisoning of wells was against the code of war. What was the difference between the poisoning of wells and the stopping of people who were likely to drink the water from coming near it? That was not carrying on war by civilised methods. His main objection to these expeditions was that they were an absolute waste of money, and heaven knew there were many social improvements for which we required money in England. When Gentlemen representing the Government came to the House two or three years ago and proposed any expenditure for the purpose of increasing armaments the House was ready to vote for it, and there were many on the Opposition side who backed them up. The people of this country—the Radicals of this country—had converted them. They now sang a very different tale. Now that the Liberal Party had acquired sounder views than they had two or three years ago—in fact had acquired his ideas, he might say—he heartily wished them success at the election, which he trusted would come as soon as possible.
  *MAJOR EVANS GORDONsaid that he had listened to the debate with very great interest, but he was utterly in the dark as to what any Member opposite would
  772
  have done had he been in power under similar circumstances. They had not, throughout all their criticism, given a single hint on that point. They had ignored the facts and tried to fix responsibility for what had occurred on His Majesty's Government alone. He happened to have been in the Foreign Office in India when the question of entering into relations with the tribes of the Arabian and African littoral were gone into and thoroughly discussed. It was needless to rehearse the reasons which existed then, and which existed now with still greater force, for the policy which was adopted. After close correspondence with the Government at home, the Indian authorities decided that these treaties should be entered into. As had been pointed out, they were concluded by the Party opposite in six cases; and three others were subsequently formed by the Conservative Party. Therefore what, had been done was quite irrespective from any Party consideration at all. It had been the policy of this country equally pursued by both Parties. These agreements, having been entered into, certain responsibilities were incurred which this country was bound to abide by. These territories were looked after at that time by four British officers. He had been on the Somali coast and could speak from personal knowledge of the extraordinary manner in which those four British officers administered this protectorate, and the influence they were enabled to obtain over the tribes. Their administration would bear comparison with that in the neighbouring French territory, which was much loss in extent but had a perfect army of officials, fudges, soldiers, and Customhouse officers. Those four officers established the most friendly relations with all the tribes and gained their complete confidence. Trade routes, which were formerly dangerous, became as safe as Piccadily; and trade, which had been to a large extent abolished, was re-established. In 1900 the volume of trade amounted to £662,000 per annum, but it fell to £487,000. In 1903 it rose again to £565,000 per annum. Well, into this protectorate, which had been so well administered by those Indian officers, came the Mullah, who raided the tribes, and indiscriminately murdered men,

  773
  women, and children. Under those Circumstances what would hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have done? Putting all Party feeling aside, he did not believe for a moment that they would have said: "We will leave these tribes to their fate, the men to be murdered, the women to be carried away and the cattle to be driven off. We did not contemplate that when we entered into these agreements and now that they have become inconvenient we will repudiate them." He contended that everything which could be done to suppress the Mullah should be done. Very likely it might be thought that other means could have been adopted to put an end to the Mullah's raiding. But those means having failed, there had to be a resort to force. Hon. Gentlemen opposite would have found themselves in precisely the same position as the present Government. It was most regrettable that those things had to be done, but anybody who had been connected with the administration of native tribes on the Indian frontier or else where, as he had been, must know that it would have been an absolutely fatal policy to desert the Somali tribes and show them that this country was unwilling to carry out its obligations and unable to protect them when we had promised to do so. The hon. Member for Battersea wished to revert to the days of the sixteenth century, when, according to him, we were confining ourselves to our own country, and not adopting any adventurous policy abroad. Why, those were the days of Raleigh and Drake and the Spanish Maine, when we were the great raiders of the world and were laying the foundations of the great Empire the existence of which the hon. Member for Battersea now so much deplored. He held that if we were to maintain ourselves in Somaliland or on the Indian frontiers, where the conditions were much the same as in Somaliland, then we must adhere to our engagements.
  As to the policy for the future for shadowed by the noble Lord, he understood that steps were to be taken to enable the native tribes to protect themselves. A great deal of irony had been expended on that policy. On the one hand, it was said the Government
  774
  wished to keep arms out of the country, and, on the other hand, that they were going to arm the natives. He did not understand that to be the case at all. What he believed the policy to be was the same as that adopted on the North-West Frontier of India. In that region there had been for years and years expedition after expedition against the tribes. He himself was a witness of many of them, but it was found that that policy never led to wholly satisfactory results. It was then thought better to enter into political relations with those people, to appoint special Indian officers, and to arm the tribes so as to enable them to defend themselves from raids from outside. He understood that political officers—he trusted Indian officers—were to open negotiations with the tribes in Somaliland and to arm such numbers of them as they thought necessary to form, as it were, local levies in these territories under the supervision of Indian officers with subordinate native officers, as on the Indian frontier. By the expenditure of a small sum of money in that way he believed it would be found that these tribesmen could be taught to protect themselves from raids by the Mullah and his followers.
  MR. BRYCEsaid that the hon. and gallant Member had made some very interesting remarks, but had answered himself. The hon. and gallant Member asked the question what ought to have been done, and then went on to tell what had been done on the North-West Frontier of India. Why was not a policy similar to that applied everyday on the North-West Frontier and other parts of the India borders carried out in Somaliland?
  *MAJOR EVANS GORDONsaid it was all very well talking after the event.
  MR. BRYCEsaid that the whole argument of the hon. and gallant Gentleman was that we had abundance of Indian experience extending over forty years, and the result of that experience and that policy was that the Khyberees and other native tribes found how much better it was to enter into arrangements with the British Government than to go on raiding. The truth was that the

  775
  Pathans on the North-West Indian Frontier were just as fanatical as the tribes in Somaliland and were even better men; and what had been done in the Khyber Pass and in Beluchistan would have done just as well in Somaliland. Why that policy had not been carried out in Somaliland was that the officers out there and the Government at home did not realise how valuable that Indian experience was, and how much better and cheaper it would have been to keep open the trade routes and subsidise the tribes rather than enter into treaties which led to these deplorable punitive expeditions.
  EARL PERCYsaid that the Foreign Office had nothing to do with entering into the treaties with the Somali tribes.
  MR. BRYCEsaid that he referred to what took place before the Mullah began his raids. That was the time when the steps ought to have been taken to which he had alluded. The noble Lord seemed to think that he shuffled off responsibility by going back to the treaties made some twenty years ago; but those treaties were not made by men who contemplated war. Those treaties were made by Indian administrators who knew how to deal with such people. Why were Indian methods not adopted so as to endeavour to obtain in a peaceful way what had not been accomplished after an expenditure of nearly £3,000,000. They could not have a more instructive illustration of the methods of the present Government, which had entered into this Somaliland War just as they had entered into the South African War. Their first estimate of the cost of the Somaliland War was £80,000, although there was another of £250,000; and their first estimate of the cost of the South African War was £10,000,000. Then, if they were going to send an expedition against the Mullah, why did the Government not give Colonel Swayne sufficient support? Very likely if they had the Mullah would have been disposed of. But the result of all these enormously costly expeditions was to increase the importance of the Mullah. The tact was that the Mullah had entered upon a species of holy war, which was conducted by Mohammedans against the people of other religions, in
  776
  which every Moslem killed entered straight into Paradise. Therefore, the Mullah's followers had every inducement to carry on the war. He was sure the Mullah must have greatly enjoyed himself in continually getting away from our troops, who were merely idling. That was the way in which these continued expeditions were carried on. So far from the Mullah, being destroyed, the fruitless expeditions had only given him additional credit in the eyes of the inhabitants. There was an instructive phrase in a report of Lieu-tenant-General Sir C. Egerton in which he said that the great thing would have been to strike at the Mullah's chief advisers and his bodyguard. If that had been struck at the Mullah's influence would have been gone. Now his bodyguard and his councillors were undiminished in numbers and he had maintained his credit in the eyes of his people. When he was last heard of the Mullah had 2,000 followers. He believed the noble Lord did not know where the Mullah was at present.
  *EARL PERCYsaid he was understood to be in the neighbourhood of Illig.
  MR. BRYCEsaid that that showed how little had been attained by the whole campaign. The Committee ought not to omit to notice what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for, Croydon last year, because he presented an entirely different view to that given by the noble Lord. The right hon. Gentleman said that the position was not quite the same as was suggested, namely, that there was a large number of people under our protection who had been raided and massacred. His recollection, he said, was that a large portion of the inhabitants of that territory were rather in sympathy with the Mullah than with us. Then the right hon. Gentleman said that it was understood that when we drove the Mullah from certain territories we should consider our responsibilities at an end and would retire to our own territory, and by trade routes and perhaps railways extend our peaceful influence in order to counteract the Mullah's movements. It was apparently with that view that the right hon. Gentleman gave his consent to the operations. Now a bill was presented for £2,500,000 according to

  777
  the noble Lord, but which his hon. friend estimated at £3,000,000. He himself was not satisfied with the noble Lord's figures; and he thought a case had been mad out for showing that more than £2,500,000 had been expended. The result, however, had been nothing; and that was the material point. They had had four campaigns costing from £2,500,000 to £3,000,000 and there was no result whatever. They were exactly where they began, and were told in an easy off-hand way by the noble Lord that the war was inevitable. But a Government existed in order to foresee difficulties and to grapple with them. To be told that a Mohammedan fanatic had the power of putting this country to an expense of £3,000,000 and the loss of many precious lives was a test of the incompetence of any Government. The noble Lord did not state what he supposed the expense of the garrison and the other arrangements he described would be.
  *EARL PERCYsaid he did not enter into details as he thought it was desired to discuss the general question. They were asking the Committee for a Supplementary Civil Service Estimate for £54,000.
  MR. BRYCEasked if that would include the military expenditure.
  *EARL PERCYsaid, that in addition to the £54,000, they asked last July for £25,000, making a total of £79,000. That figure would be practically continued as long as the Punjabee regiment remained in the country. They only expected it to be there a year; after that they hoped the expenditure would be about £45,000.
  MR. BRYCEasked if that covered the cost of the coast arrangements.
  *EARL PERCYsaid it covered everything.
  MR. BRYCEsaid it, would probably cover everything until there was fresh trouble on the part of the Mullah. It might not turn out to be any benefit in the long run. If they armed these tribes, how could they tell how they
  778
  would use their arms. They might sell their arms to the Mullah, or the Mullah might take them by force; so that he did not feel at all sure that they were promoting peace and tranquillity by arming these tribes. That was not what was done on the Indian frontier. He should like to ask also whether Somaliland was to continue under the Foreign Office.
  *EARL PERCYsaid it would go to the Colonial Office with the other Protectorates on April 1st.
  MR. BRYCEsaid he hoped that the, country would have a better future before it. The entire business was an illustration of the pretext so often used by the Prime Minister that it was necessary for the present Government to remain in power because, it was the only Government that could manage foreign affairs. Could any Government have managed the Somaliland affair worse? His hon. friend the Member for East Bristol had rendered a service by moving his Motion. They had had an instructive debate, during which a great deal of light had been thrown on the policy of the Government. It was only £3,000,000; but it was the number of these little wars that contributed to the frightful increase of taxation which had taken place. Anyone either at the War Office, the Colonial Office or the Foreign Office who would set his face against these little wars would render a great service to the country.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he was glad that the right hon. Gentleman had in his closing remarks referred to the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Bristol, because he thought the hon. Gentleman had started the discussion on the right lines. He stated what was absolutely correct, that the retention of our hold on Somaliland was a strategic necessity. That dominated the whole discussion and was confirmed by many other hon. Members. If it were necessary in the national interests to retain control over Somaliland the only question that really arose was the extent to which our power should be exercised and the methods by which it should be exercised. A few speakers had thrown over any suggestion of that kind and had let it be understood that our

  779
  policy should be unconditional withdrawal from Somaliland. But that was not the prevalent view of the Committee. He noticed that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Chelmsford Division, who criticised the action of the Government from some points of view, agreed with the view of the hon. Member for East Bristol. The only hon. Member who took a distinct line to the contrary was the hon. Member for Battersea. The hon. Member used some very strong expressions and went very far in his illustrations; but he himself was not so much moved or convinced by them as perhaps he ought to have been. He did not know whether the hon. Member remembered that this country spent £800,000,000 during the Great War; and that that expenditure gave it control of the highways of the world and practically made the British Empire. The hon. Member drew an idyllic picture of the peaceful conditions in the sixteenth century; but at that period this country was fighting in Scotland, in France, in Ireland, in the Netherlands, and had just founded the Colonies of Virginia and Newfoundland. The hon. Gentleman would have to reconcile these historical facts with his statements before suggesting a return to that period. The hon. Member for Saffron Walden Division did not contest what was said by the hon. Member for East Bristol that there was a military necessity underlying our action. The hon. Member for the Elland Division said that the Government ought to have been more provident; ought to have foreseen what was going to take place; and ought to have been more uniformly successful. He also said that the Government was incompetent to conduct a mission of this kind. That, however, was a matter of opinion. He could carry his memory back to another Government and another expedition. There was then also a fanatic who used his power and influence to the injury of this country. A campaign was undertaken; and he himself gave up contesting a constituency as a protest against it. Blunder followed blunder; there was great bloodshed which horrified the people of this country, and the end of it was the sorrowful tragedy of Khartoum. Osman Digna was a person who came, disap-
  780
  peared, reappeared, and against whom we had to use, often without success, the forces of the country. As often as he reappeared and used his power for ill-using those who relied upon us for protection, so often were we compelled to proceed against him. Osman Digna had now disappeared forever, and we were reaping the reward of our insistence upon the policy then adopted, and when the hon. Member said that there was nothing to show for what had been done, he himself thought there was a strong opinion to the contrary.
  He did not intend to enter exhaustively into this matter, because his noble friend had dealt with it so fully that it was needless for him to do so, but he would like to recapitulate what had been said, in case there were Members now in the House who had not had the advantage of hearing the lucid exposition of his noble friend. He would be as brief as possible. What were the facts? The beginning of this matter did not lie with the present Government at all. The beginning of our connection with Somaliland dated back to 1877, when the Egyptian Government gave us a right to regard certain ports On the coast as free ports. The next step was the withdrawal of the Egyptian Government from those ports. In the opinion of experts of that time it then became necessary for us to assume control over that littoral, and we proclaimed a Protectorate over Somaliland. In 1886 we made treaties with the natives of the littoral, and it was beyond dispute that the majority of those treaties were made by those who belonged to the Party to which hon. Gentlemen opposite belonged. Therefore, the responsibility for those treaties rested on both Parties, and the obligations, if obligations there were, fell upon both Parties alike. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen had asked why the Government had been unable to deal with the situation in Somaliland, where, as he truly said, they had established themselves by resorting to Indian methods of administration. He asked why they could not leave well alone and follow the example set by the Indian Government on the North-Western Frontier of that country. That was exactly what had been done; that example had been followed; Indian

  781
  administrators administered Somaliland, and peace and order were conferred on that country. But the same thing happened there which had happened over and over again in India; it had often been the case that a long period of peace had been broken by unruly and uncontrolled tribes, influenced by a single man. That had been the case here. In the year 1889, an incursion into or invasion of our Protectorate was made by the Mullah. Hon. Members could not be deceived by descriptions which had been given of the Mullah, they all knew what, kind of a man he was. He had been accurately enough described by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen as a Mussulman fanatic acting after his kind. He had also been described as an African Wallace. Exaggeration could go no further than that, and the comparison was a poor compliment to a gallant man. But these invasions not only jeopardised life, but led to loss of life and property as well, and no Government that ever existed in this country could afford to stand by and see such eruptions take place without taking any steps to stop them. The Government took steps to resist this invasion of our territory by means of an armed force. That force was not sufficient, and it was true the campaign was not uniformly successful, but lie knew of hardly any British campaign that had been uniformly successful. He knew of some, but very few, and lie did not think it affected the policy of the Government in any degree if, in some engagements, they suffered defeats instead of achieving victory. That was not the point, the point was to see the ultimate goal to which they were moving, the ultimate result of their policy. They had had reverses as he had said, but finally they had a success of great magnitude and drove the forces of the Mullah out of the country. That was the opportunity taken by the Government to bring these operations to a close. It would have been desirable to have Captured the Mullah, and it would have been desirable in the case of Osman Digna, but they did not succeed in capturing either Osman Digna or the Mullah. What they did succeed in was in breaking his power and destroying a large number of those who were his
  782
  principal adherents. It was a mistake to suppose that the Mullah's following was as large as when he commenced operations. It was not to be compared with the following which he had had many times since. That was the position to which they had brought this matter. They had only moved when compelled to move. They had done their best to achieve and had achieved success, and they had taken the first opportunity of ceasing operations in order to restore that condition of peace which was enjoyed by Somaliland before. Some said that the Government were not doing enough to carry out their pledges, others said they were doing too much; both these views could not be true.
  The policy of the future had been explained by the noble Lord. He did not pretend that that policy could be a guaranteed policy, or could provide against all emergencies, it was said that they ought not to supply these natives with arms. But what was the alternative? They had deprived them of arms in the first instance, and they had now adopted the policy which they thought the breaking of the power of the Mullah had justified them in adopting. The result of the operations justified our remaining on the coast and replacing arms in the hands of the natives and restoring to them the right and power of defending themselves against possible enemies. They were entitled to know what hon. Gentlemen opposite conceived to be the duty of the British Government in a state of things of this kind. We were committed to retaining our hold upon this country and to protecting the interests of those to whom we were pledged by treaty. There were only two alternatives. Either we had to break the power of the Mullah, as far as we could, and, having done so, organise the country on Indian methods, by Indian officers, so that it might stand on its own feet for purposes of resistance, or we had to go out of the country and leave the whole of the people to their fate. He ventured to think that if hon. Gentlemen opposite were ever called upon to deal with this question they would do precisely as the present Government had done in the same circumstances.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTOXsaid that the right hon.

  783
  Gentleman compared the Somaliland operations to that of the Soudan. Nobody denied that there was not mess and muddle in the Soudan, but one would have thought that successive Governments would have learnt by the experience of the Soudan and would not have allowed a similar mess and muddle to have again occurred. As the result of the whole of these operations—the right hon. Gentleman did not deny that we had wasted between £2,000,000 and £3,000,000—we were now, so far as Somaliland was concerned, in a worse position than when we started. The speech of the noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State provided the greatest condemnation of what the Government had done, because it showed that what they were now proposing was an absolute and entire reversal of the policy which they entered upon this time last year. The right hon. Gentleman asked hon. Members on the Liberal side what was their policy with regard to Somaliland. The policy which they ventured to suggest last year was the very policy the Government now proposed to adopt. It was therefore a satisfaction to feel that the Government had adopted the policy for which they had all along contended. On February 25th of last year the Secretary of State declared that nothing would induce him or the Government to withdraw from the expedition or their then policy, but within a few weeks the right hon. Gentleman wisely came to the conclusion that military operations ought to be brought to an end. The ground then given was that the Mullah had been defeated and was a broken force. But if that was the sole ground for the suspension of operations, surely now that the Mullah had a force of 2,000 riflemen and many thousand spearmen it was the bounden duty of the Government to send another expedition and break up that force. But, fortunately, the right hon. Gentleman had learnt by experience, and was now embarking on a wiser policy.
  The whole argument put forward by the Secretary of State for War and the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs in defence of these costly and badly-managed expeditions had been the treaties to which reference had been made. No doubt if definite treaties were made the oblige-
  784
  tions entered into must be duly observed But these treaties had been put much too high. If the Government had known that the expeditions would cost so much money and lead to so great loss of life, he did not believe they would have adhered to their policy. If the noble Lord contended that the treaties imposed an absolute obligation to defend the tribes from attack, there must also be admitted an obligation to keep them under our ægis. Why, then, did the Government break their treaty obligations by handing over to Abyssinia against their will, some of the most loyal of the tribes?
  *EARL PERCYsaid the tribes referred to were not included among those with whom we had treaties.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsubmitted the they were included in the obligation equally with the others. If the treaties were to be used as an argument in one respect they should be used all round. The Under-Secretary also stated that in 1899 the Mullah was in actual occupation of a large part of our Protectorate, and yet the Government made no move in the matter until two years later.
  *EARL PERCYsaid an expedition was organised in 1899, but the Mullah retreated.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONunderstood from the noble Lord's own account that the first expedition was sent in 1901. These alleged treaty obligations ought to have been discovered before and an attempt made to turn out the Mullah at the earliest opportunity. At that time the Mullah had a comparatively small following; he was in possession of the Protectorate, more or less against the will of the people, and a small expedition could probably have destroyed his force. But he was left alone for two years, and during that time, seeing that the British Government were taking no steps, the tribes naturally went over to his side, with the result that when, at last, an expedition was sent the Mullah's power was infinitely greater than before.
  But what was to be done in the future? Apparently the Government intended to play fast and loose with the treaties. The noble Lord stated that whether or

  785
  not the Government would assist or protect the tribes would depend on circumstances.
  *EARL PERCYsaid that the manner in which our liabilities were interpreted would rest with the Government in power.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that possibly that innuendo was added, but the noble Lord in reply to a definite question gave, as representing the Government, a definite answer in these words: "How far we should protect them or assist them would depend on circumstances." In his opinion, that was a very wise answer. But if it depended on circumstances, it was manifestly absurd to base the whole case for this waste of money on absolute treaty obligations. The history of the expeditions showed the shilly-shallying character of the policy pursued by the Government, the only redeeming feature in the whole business being the great gallantry of both white and native troops in the face of most difficult circumstances. In regard to the future, the Government had admitted that they had reversed their policy. He was afraid that the difficulty of carrying out this policy would be infinitely greater now than it would have been at the beginning. The country had been disturbed and largely ruined and the Mullah was still at large. Somaliland itself was in a very bad way financially. This country would have to bear the cost not only of these military expeditions, but the cost of a large garrison, and there would probably be further Supplementary Estimates. This was another object-lesson, of which they had had a great many examples, in the policy of opening up these wild regions too rapidly. He objected to the policy, which was initiated by the right hon. Gentleman. the Member for West Birmingham, of increasing the liabilities of this country in the wilds of Africa, and attempting to carry out our policy quicker than ordinary conditions permitted, with the result that we were landed in this great expenditure.
  MR. POWERsaid that at first they were told that this expedition to Somaliland was only going to cost £80.000, but they had now been informed
  786
  that it would cost nearer £3,000,000 than £2,000,000. He had always complained that such expeditions were useless and expensive.
  He wished to ask the responsible authorities what steps were being taken for preventing horses being brought back to Ireland with disease. He urged the Government to take all possible steps to see that these animals from foreign countries which accompanied the Army did not introduce into Ireland any of those diseases which were so injurious to horses. He notice in The Times a paragraph stating that the Marquess of Waterford had been obliged to destroy two valuable horses because this South African disease had broken out in his stables. The paragraph went on to say that this disease was brought to Waterford by the artillery horses alter the South African campaign. That was a most serious state of things. At the present time people were afraid to drive into Waterford for fear of this disease, and if the veterinary authorities of the Army had destroyed all those horses upon landing in Ireland they would have prevented this epidemic. In the interests not only of Ireland, but of all classes of the community, it was necessary that some steps should be taken to prevent the spread of this disease. He hoped the House would be assured that effective measures would be taken. The apprehension in Waterford was serious and almost approached to consternation, and it was the duty of the War Office to see that this evil was not allowed to increase.
  *MR. MARKSsaid the principal objection to the policy of the Government in Somaliland appeared to be that they had met with less success than had been anticipated, and that the Government were not justified in sending out an expedition. The reasons had already been pointed out why the expedition had had less success than was at first anticipated, and it had been shown that the troops had had to face more than ordinary difficulties on account of the configuration of the country. But those reasons hardly went to the root of the matter. If a nation, having a just and good cause for war, was to be deterred on account of the character of the country or the

  787
  difficulties to be encountered, the whole history of the world would have been changed. How would England have fared if during the South African War we had abandoned our policy because of the difficulties which our troops met with by reason of the existence of kopjes behind which the Boers concealed themselves? How would the United States have acted in the Modee Indian War when they found the enemy hiding themselves in the lava beds of Oregon? The great consideration the Government had to bear in mind was not the ease or the difficulty of operations, but the justification for undertaking them. He contended that this debate had shown that the Government had every justification for engaging in the Somaliland operations. Having escaped the just penalties of his conduct the Mullah was now held up as a sort of hero, and if he had met the fate he deserved no doubt he would have been held up as a martyr. However that might be, it was interesting to note that, on this occasion at any rate. the conduct of the Government had not been criticised on the other side without some suggestion of an alternative, and in that respect the debate differed from some they had had. A very definite alternative had been offered by the hon. Member for Northampton, who said we should invite Germany to take over the whole of our possessions in Africa, and that we should throw in the Isle of Man. That might have the effect of saving us some money, but he did not think it would commend itself to the Government. He did not think it would make for the reputation or safety of the Empire. Certainly it would not improve our reputation for good faith towards the tribes with whom we had treaties. It was a policy which he was confident would not commend itself to the House. It was a policy which might be left to the Gentlemen opposite who hoped shortly to succeed the present Government.
  *MR LYELLsaid several speakers on the Government side of the House had complained that no alternative policy had been offered from his side. The policy of the hon. Member for Northampton did not count at all.
  788
  Speaking for himself he ventured to suggest a policy. They had in the Mullah one very much in the nature of Sir Antony MacDonnell. The Mullah was a distinguished Oriental administrator who did not get on with His Majesty's Government, and worst of all he would not resign. He suggested that the Government should adopt something of the policy with regard to the Mullah which they were adopting with regard to Sir Antony MacDonnell. and that was to recognise him and make the best of him. It had been done already by another European Power concerned in the territory. Italy had recognised the Mullah and come to some arrangement with him. It had been done before by this country on many occasions. For years we fought the tribes in the Khyber Pass. and eventually we came to an arrangement with the tribes and allowed them to keep arms on condition that they would keep the Pass open. That policy had been crowned with complete success. He suggested that as an alternative to the policy which the Government had been pursuing. He congratulated the Government on the loyal support they enjoyed from such Members as the hon. Member for Stowmarket and the hon. Member for Stepney. They supported the policy of disarming the tribes and promising full protection, and now that the tribes were to be armed and the promise of protection withdrawn the Government would receive their support, although they might consider the new policy not so good. He was not so happy as these hon. Members. He wanted to know a little more about this volte face of the Government. Their policy had been to prevent arms of any sort from going into the country, and now they were to have free trade in rifles. It seemed that there was to be a bounty-fed importation of rifles. Were they going to give the natives the discarded rifle of the British Army, or the new short rifle? Were they to be armed with artillery, and, if so, would it be quick-firing guns? Last of all, he should like to know who was to be the organiser of victory for these unfortunate tribes? Who was to be the Carnot of Somaliland? The noble Lord the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs sat with a great War Minister on each

  789
  side of him. He would suggest that as we were breaking our word with these tribes the least the Government could do would be to send out one of these great War Ministers to organise them. Pacta serva was the motto on which the Empire was built up. It had been said that the moment we broke our promise it was goodbye to British supremacy in that country. He asked the Committee to think of the effect on India when it became known that we had withdrawn our protection from those tribes, and left them to protect themselves with such rifles as we put into their hands.
  SIR ROBERT REIDsaid the ground taken by the Government was that we were under obligations to these tribes, and that the expeditions had been carried out with as much foresight as could be expected from the Government. It seemed to him that his right hon. friend the Member for South Aberdeen and others had very largely broken down that contention. There was no doubt of any sort or kind that the danger which had been injudiciously handled was a danger which had arisen from the making of these treaties. There was no doubt that within the last twenty years about a quarter of the present British Empire had been added to the Empire. It might be a right or a wrong policy, but all those expeditions, and accompanying and subsequent expenditure, were due to the policy of the Government. If the policy of extending the area of the Empire was pursued, the country must be prepared for this excessive expenditure. It was perfectly idle to make treaties with these semi-savage tribes in dark continents and not expect to pay heavily for it. For his part, he believed that such a policy was unwise. He was most sincerely desirous of maintaining the British Empire as it was, and of strengthening it, but they were pursuing a fatal course, and impairing their resources, if they continued to follow out the lines which necessitated this huge expenditure. That was the real moral to be drawn from the history of these expeditions. Some day the people of this country would not be prepared to pay this expenditure. They would contrast the millions that were squandered in all parts of the earth, in
  790
  building railways here and sanding expeditions there, with the difficulty of obtaining money at home to extend the natural facilities of the country and to improve the condition of the people. It was somewhat revolting so see money squandered abroad with freedom, and when some money was wanted for schools or for benefiting the poorer classes of the nation in dire necessity, the Treasury was obliged to show the greatest reluctance in granting it. It was time that hon. Members should turn their attention to the moral of these expeditions and see that the expenditure of these vast sums of money was due to unwise policy.
  *MR. JOSEPH WALTONsaid that one thing had been made clear in the course of the debate, and that was that the policy the Government had pursued in Somaliland had been a lamentable failure The noble Lord the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs had admitted to the House and the country that the Government contemplated a complete reversal of their recent policy in Somaliland. One defender of the Government supported the change of policy on the ground that a similar policy pursued on the North-West Frontier of India and the Khyber Pass had proved eminently successful. But he would remind the Committee that that policy was in full operation on the North-West Frontier long before the Government undertook any expeditions of a military character in Somaliland. He remembered pasting through the Khyber Pass twelve or fourteen years ago and he found it defended by a rifle corps levied from the tribes in that district. That corps had preserved order and tranquillity to a large extent, and if they had enjoyed proper support and the confidence of the Government in the last struggle that arose in that district they would have proved themselves able to repress it. Only after they lost that confidence had the troubles spread and the Government of India been put to a large expenditure. The Committee was face to face with the fact that though the Government had extravagantly spent £2,500,000 of the money of the taxpayers of this country in military operations in Somaliland,

  791
  no one could confidently say that the difficulties and troubles had been ended. He had been recently in those regions and others adjacent and had had the opportunity of meeting military men and civilians well acquainted with Somaliland, and from them he learned that there was a great fear that the present situation was full of great peril and difficulty. The £2,500,000 had been spent in an absolutely futile manner. When regard was had to the vast responsibilities of the British Empire all over the, world, when the national expenditure had gone up to the extent of £50,000 000, when the need was great for care in the distribution of the national expenditure,
  why should £2,500,000 be spent in Somaliland, where the interests of the British Empire were merely visionary? At the same time troops—both cavalry and artillery—were being withdrawn from Egypt and the Soudan, thus creating a situation which might be fraught with serious peril.
  Mr. SECRETARY ARNOLD-FORSTER Mr. SECRETARY ARNOLD-FORSTER rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 278; Noes, 222. (Division List No. 30.)

  AYES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Chapman, Edward

  Gardner, Ernest

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Garfit, William

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredrk.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

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

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Arnold-Forster, Rt Hn. Hugh O

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Gordon, Maj. Evans-(T'r H'm' ts)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H

  Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John C. R.

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Bagot, Cap. Josceline FitzRoy

  Colston, Chas. Ed. H. Athole

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Green, Walford D (Wednesbury)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. (JManch'r.)

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds)

  Crossley, Rt. Hn. Sir Savile

  Gretton, John

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Hain, Edward

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tower Hm'lts)

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Hamilton, Marq. Of (L'nd'nderry)

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Bigwood, James

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

  Bill, Charles

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Heath, Sir J. (Staffords. N. W.)

  Bingham, Lord

  Doughty, Sir George

  Helder, Augustus

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.)

  Bond, Edward

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside

  Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F. (Middlesex

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Brassey, Albert

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Horner, Frederick William

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon, St. John

  Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r

  Hoult, Joseph

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

  Bull, William James

  Finch, Rt. Hn. George H.

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Finlay, Sir R. B. (Inv'rn'ss B'ghs

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Butcher, John George

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Hunt, Rowland

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. Glasgow

  Fison, Frederick William

  Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Fitzgerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Jessel, Captain Herb. Merton

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T (Denbigh

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Forster, Henry William

  Kenyon-Slaney, Bt. Hn. Col. W.

  Chamberlain, Ht. Hon. J. (Birm

  Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, SW

  Kerr, John

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon J. A (Wore

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Myers, William Henry

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Smith, RtHnJ. Parker(Lanarks

  Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

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

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Spear, John Ward

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

  Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

  Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Stanley, Rt, Hon. Lord (Lancs.

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. NR

  Percy, Earl

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Stock, James Henry

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Stroyan, John

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Strutt, Hn. Charles Hedley

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Talbot. Rt. Hn JG (Oxf'd Univ

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

  Purvis, Robert

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Long, Rt Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

  Pym, C. Guy

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Randles, John S.

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Rankin, Sir James

  Tuff, Charles

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th)

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Turnour, Viscount

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Vincent, Col. Sir CEH (Sheffield)

  Maclver, David (Liverpool)

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Renwick, George

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

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

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

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

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und Lyne

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriesshire

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E, R,

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Fredrk. G.

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Milvain, Thomas

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks.)

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

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

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Moore, William

  Samuel, Sir Harry S (Limehouse

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Wortley, Rt, Hn. C. B. Stuart

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Dilke, Rt, Hn. Sir Charles

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Allen, Chales P.

  Burns, John

  Doogan, P. C.

  Asher, Alexander

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Caldwell, James

  Duffy, William J.

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herb. Henry

  Cameron, Robert

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Cawley, Frederick

  Edwards, Frank

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Elibank, Master of

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Ellice, Capt EC (S Andrw's Bghs

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Benn, John Williams

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Emmott, Alfred

  Black, Alexander William

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Bluke, Edward

  Crean, Eugene

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Boland, John

  Crombie, John William

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Cullinan, J.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Fenwick, Charles

  Brigg, John

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  Ffrench, Peter

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Delany, William

  Field, William

  Brown, George M, (Edinburgh)

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Findlay, Alex. (Lanark, N. E.)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  794

  795

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Roche, John

  Fowler, Rt. Hn. Sir Henry

  MaeNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Rose, Charles Day

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  M'Crae, George

  Runciman, Walter

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Russell, T. W.

  Gilhooly, James

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  M'Kean, John

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  M'Kenna, Reginald

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

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  M'Killop, W, (Sligo, North)

  Shackleton, David James

  Haldane, Rt. Hn. Richard B.

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Hammond John

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Hardie, J. Keir (MerthyrTydvil

  Mooney, John J.

  Sheehy, David

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Harrington, Timothy

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Harwood, George

  Murphy, John

  Slack, John Bamford

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

  Newnes, Sir George

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

  Norman, Henry

  Spencer, Rt HnC. R.(Northants

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Sullivan, Donal

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

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

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr

  Horniman, Frederick John

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

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

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk

  O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)

  Tillett, Louis John

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Tomkinson, James

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Toulmin, George

  Jocoby, James Alfred

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Johnson, John

  O'Dowd, John

  Walton, Joseph (Barusley)

  Joicey, Sir James

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  O'Malley, William

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O'Mara, James

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Joyce, Michael

  Palmer, Sir Charles M (Durham)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Kearley, Hudson, E.

  Parrott, William

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W

  Partington, Oswald

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

  Kitson, Sir James

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Labouchere, Henry

  Perks, Robert William

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Lambert, George

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Lamont, Norman

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Langley, Batty

  Rea, Russell

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Woodhouse, Sir J T. (Huddersf'd

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Reddy, M.

  Young, Samuel

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Richards, T. (W. Monm'th)

  TELLER FOR THE NOES—

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Mr. Herbert Gladstone and

  Lloyd-George, David

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Mr. Causton.

  Lough, Thomas

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Lundon, W.

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Question put accordingly, "That Item Vote 1, Sub-head BB (Somaliland Ex-
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 222; Noes, 278. (Division List No. 31.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Benn, John Williams

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Allen, Charles P.

  Black, Alexander William

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Asher, Alexander

  Blake, Edward

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Boland, John

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Burns, John

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Brigg, John

  Caldwell, James

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Cameron, Robert

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Hutton, Alfred F. (Morley)

  Perks, Robert William

  Cawley, Frederick

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Johnson, John

  Rea, Russell

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Joicey, Sir James

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Reddy, M.

  Crean, Eugene

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Crombie, John William

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Cullinan, J.

  Joyce, Michael

  Richards, Thomas (W Monm'th

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  Kilbride, Denis

  Roberts, John H.(Denbighs)

  Delany, William

  Kitson, Sir James

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Labouchere, Henry

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.

  Lambert, George

  Roche, John

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Lamont, Norman

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Langley, Batty

  Rose, Charles Day

  Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

  Runeiman, Walter

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Russell, T. W.

  Doogan, P. C.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Samuel, Herb. L. (Cleveland)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Duffy, William J.

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

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

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Shackleton, David James

  Dunn, Sir William

  Lloyd-George, David

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Edwards, Frank

  Lough, Thomas

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Elibank, Master of

  Lundon, W.

  Sheehy, David

  Ellice, Cap. E C (S. Andrw's Bghs

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Emmott, Alfred

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Slack, John Bamford

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  M'Crae, George

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants

  Fenwick, Charles

  M'Kean, John

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Sullivan, Donal

  Ffreneh, Peter

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Field, William

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, F.

  Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, NE

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Mooney, John J.

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

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Tillett, Louis John

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Tomkinson, James

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Murphy, John

  Toulmin, George

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Newnes, Sir George

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth South)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Gilhooly, James

  Norman, Henry

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Wason, JohnCatheart Orkney)

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Weir, James Galloway

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

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

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Hammond, John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Harrington, Timothy

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Harwood, George

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Hayter, Rt Hn. Sir Arthur D.

  O'Dowd. John

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N)

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf'd

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

  O'Malley, William

  Young, Samuel

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Mara, James

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Higham, John Sharpe

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

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

  Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham)

  TELLERS FUR THE AYES—Mr.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Parrott, William

  Herbert Gladstone and Mr.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Partington, Oswald

  Causton.

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Hutchinson, Dr. Chas. Fredk.

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  NOES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  798

  799

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir. J (Man'cr.

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Finlay, Sir R B. (Inv'rn'ss B'ghs.

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r.)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds)

  Fison, Frederick William

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Forster, Henry William

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

  Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W.

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Maclver, David (Liverpool)

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Gardner, Ernest

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Garfit, William

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredrk.

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Bigwood, James

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

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Bill, Charles

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Bingham, Lord

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Maxwell, WJH (Dumfriesshire)

  Bond, Edward

  Goschen, Hn. George Joachim

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Fredrk. G.

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Milvain, Thomas

  Bowles. Lt.-Col H. F. (Middlesex

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Brassey, Albert

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

  Moore, William

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Bull, William James

  Gretton, John

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Butcher, John George

  Hain, Edward

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

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

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Mount, William Arthur

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Halsey, Rt. Hn. Thomas F.

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire)

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Hamilton, Marq. Of (L'nd'nderry

  Myers, William Henry

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J (Birm.

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A. (Wore.

  Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

  Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

  Chapman, Edward

  Heath, Sir J. (Staftords. N. W.)

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Helder, Augustus

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

  Percy, Earl

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

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hope. J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John C. R.

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Horner, Frederick William

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Hoult, Joseph

  Pryce-Jones, Lt. -Col. Edward

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

  Purvis, Robert

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Pym, C. Guy

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Hozier, Hon. J. Henry Cecil

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Hunt, Rowland

  Randles, John S.

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

  Rankin, Sir James

  Crossley, Rt. Hn. Sir Savile

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Dewar, Sir T. R. (TowerH'm'ts

  Kerr, John

  Renwick, George

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Disraeli, Conings by Ralph

  Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Doughty, Sir George

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Lawrence, Sir J. (Monm'th

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (MileEnd)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. NR

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Sadler, Col. Smuel Alexander

  800

  801

  Samuel, Sir Harry S (Limehouse)

  Strutt, Hn. Charles Hedley

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-und-Lyne)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Talbot, Rt, Hn. J. G. (Oxf d Univ.

  Williams, Colonel R (Dorset)

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Wilson-Todd. Sir W. H. (Yorks.)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

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

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Tuff, Charles

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Smith, Rt. Hn. J. Parker (Lanarks

  Take, Sir John Batty

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

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

  Tumour, Viscount

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Spear, John Ward

  Valentia, Viscount

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H (Sheffield

  Wylie, Alexander

  Stanley, Rt Hon. Lord (Lancs.

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H

  Stock, James Henry

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

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

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Stroyan, John

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

  Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes

  peditionary Force) be reduced by £10,000."
  Mr. SECRETARY ARNOLD-FORSTERclaimed, "That the original Question be now put."
  Original Question put accordingly.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 273; Noes, 219. (Division List No. 32.)

  AYES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A. (Wore.

  Forster, Henry William

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Chapman, Edward

  Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W

  Arnold-Forster, Rt Hn. Hugh O

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Atkinson, Rt. Hn. John

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Gardner, Ernest

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt Hon Sir H

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

  Garfit, William

  Bagot, Capt. Joseeline FitzRoy

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredrk.

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

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

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John C. R

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'r H'ml'ts

  Balcarres, Lord

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Gosehen, Hn. George Joachim

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Green, Walford D (Wednesbury

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbur)

  Barry, Sir Franeis T. (Windsor

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Gretton, John

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michel Hicks

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tower Hamlets)

  Hain, Edward

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Halsey, Rt. Hn. Thomas F.

  Bigwood, James

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Bill, Charles

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Hamilton, Mar. of (L'nd'nderry

  Bingham, Lord

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Doughty, Sir George

  Hairis, F. Leverton (Tynemouth

  Bond, Edward

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Heath, Sir James (Staffords NW

  Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F. (Middlesex

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. Hart

  Helder, Augustus

  Brassey, Albert

  Egerton, Hn. A. de Tatton

  Henderson, Sir A (Stafford, W.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Bull, William James

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Butcher, John George

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A (Glasgow

  Finlay, Sir R. B. (Inv'rn'ssB'ghs

  Horner, Frederick William

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Hoult, Joseph

  Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire

  Fison, Frederick William

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Hunt, Rowland

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Skewes-Gox, Thomas

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Mount, William Arthur

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

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Spear, John Ward

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.

  Myers, William Henry

  Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

  Kerr, John

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Stock, James Henry

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Stroyan, John

  Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.

  Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley

  Strutt, Hn. Charles Hedley

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Percy, Earl

  Talbot, Rt Hn. J. G. (Oxf'dUniv.

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Lawson, John Grant (YorksNR

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Tuff, Charles

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Gol. Edward

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Leveson-Gower, Fredk. NS

  Purvis, Robert

  Turnour, Viscount

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Pym, C. Guy

  Valentia, Viscount

  Lockwood, Lieut-Col. A. R.

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Vincent, Col Sir C. E. H (Sheffield

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Randles, John S.

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Rankin, Sir James

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.

  Long, Rt Hn Walter (Bristol, S

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Ratcliff, R. F.

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

  Lowther, C (Cumb., Eskdale

  Reid, James (Greenock)

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

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und Lyne

  Lucas, Col Francis (Lowestoft)

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth)

  Renwick, George

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Macdona, John Gumming

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. Yorks.

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

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

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriesshire

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool

  Wyhe, Alexander

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Samuel, Sir Harry S (Limehouse

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Milvain, Thomas

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott(Hants)

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Moore, William

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Delany, William

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Allen, Charles P.

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Asher, Alexander

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Burns, John

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Doogan, P.C.

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Caldwell, James

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Duffy, William J.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Beaumont, Wentworth C.B.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Dunn, Sir William

  Benn, John Williams

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Edwards, Frank

  Black, Alexander William

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Ellice, Capt EC(S. Andrw's Bghs

  Blake, Edward

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Boland, John

  Crean, Eugene

  Emmott, Alfred

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Crombie, John William

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

  Cullinan, J.

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Brigg, John

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  804

  805

  Fenwick, Charles

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Ferguson, R.C. Munro (Leith)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lloyd-George, David

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Field, William

  Lough, Thomas

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, N E

  Lundon, W.

  Roche, John

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Runciman, Walter

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Mac Veagh, Jeremiah

  Russell, T.W.

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  M'Crae, George

  Samuel, Herbert L(Cleveland

  Fuller, J.M.F.

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Sehwann, Charles E.

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

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

  Gilhooly, James

  M'Kean, John

  Shackleton, David James

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  M'Laren, Sir Chas. Benjamin

  Sheehy, David

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Hammond, John

  Mooney, John J.

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Slack, John Bamford

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Moultou, John Fletcher

  Smith, Samuel(Flint)

  Harrington, Timothy

  Murphy, John

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Harwood, George

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Newnes, Sir George

  Spencer, Rt. Hn CR. (Northants.

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Norman Henry

  Sullivan, Donal

  Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Higham, John Sharps

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

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

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

  O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid

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

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Tillett, Louis John

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

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

  Tomkinson, James

  Horniman, Frederick John

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Toulmin, George

  Hutchinson, Dr. Chas. Fredk.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Trevclyan, Charles Philips

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  O'Connor, T.P. (Liverpool)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Isaacs, Rnfus Daniel

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  O'Dowd, John

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Johnson, John

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Joicey, Sir James

  O'Malley, William

  Weir, James Galloway

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  O'Mara, James

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North

  Joyce, Michael

  Parrott, William

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Partington, Oswald

  Whitley, J.H. (Halifax)

  Kempe, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Perks, Robert William

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Kitson, Sir James

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

  Labouchere, Henry

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Young, Samuel

  Lambert, George

  Rea, Russell

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Lamont, Norman

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Langley, Batty

  Reddy, M.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Herbert Gladstone and

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)

  Mr. Causton.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accringt'n

  Rickett, J. Compton

  And, it being after half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

EVENING SITTING.

  PREFERENTIAL TRADING WITH THE COLONIES.
  *MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: I have to ask the indulgence
  806
  of the House to enable me in the shortest possible time and in the fewest possible words to discharge the duty which the caprice of the ballot has imposed upon me. The Motion which I have placed upon the Paper refers to the proposals of the right hon. Member West Birmingham, proposals which were declared by the right hon. Gentleman to be urgent two years ago, and have ever since agitated the country, the Cabinet, and the House of Commons. I will not take up the time of the House in arguing

  807
  whether this is a Party question or not. I have noticed that whenever a distinguished politician declares that a particular question is above Party, what he really means is that everybody, without distinction of Party, shall vote for him. But I think it is incumbent upon me, as the mover of this Motion, at the very outset to acknowledge the admirable temper and calmness with which the great self-governing Colonies of the Empire have watched the development of this controversy, and also to acknowledge with gratitude and respect the correct attitude which has been maintained under very difficult circumstances by colonial statesmen, and particularly by those who are concerned with Australia and Canada. They have made it clear that, they wish Great Britain to decide this question upon its merits and as may be found good for the people of this country. They have shown the strongest dislike of being drawn into the arena of British politics. They do not intend to allow themselves to be made counters in the game of any political Party. They repudiate altogether the unworthy suggestion that they wish to make a profit out of the wages or the sufferings of the poorest classes in this country; and they have made it plain that the decision of this country, whatever it may be, will not influence, in an adverse sense, that Imperial sentiment of comradeship and loyalty which has marked the happy development of our colonial policy during the last two generations.
  The Motion refers specifically to the protective taxation of food. It does not make any special mentionof—though, of course, it does not exclude—the taxation of raw material. That is because the right hon. Member for Birmingham has complained frequently that he is misrepresented when it is suggested that his plan would involve the taxation of raw material. I have no wish to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman. But I submit to the House that there is no logical or scientific distinction between the raw material of manufacture and food, which is the raw material of human life. No scheme of colonial preferences could be a scientific scheme unless it applies equally to food and to raw material. That is equally true whether the question is argued from
  808
  a free-trade or a protectionist point of view. Every argument, moral or material, that can be advanced in favour of the preferential taxation of corn, meat and dairy produce holds good, even in a stronger degree, in favour of the preferential taxation of timber, leather, and wool. Any system of Imperial preference which includes the one and excludes the other must be lopsided and illogical in its conception, and whimsical and unfair in its operation. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham has spoken scornfully of the attitude of the Opposition with regard to the proposed Colonial Conference. The right hon. Gentleman has declared that to invite the Colonies to join us in a Conference, and to tell them beforehand that we are not prepared, whatever may be the result of their deliberations, to propose protective taxation on food is an insult to those great Colonies. Yet, at the same time, the right hon. Gentleman himself invites the Colonies to join in a Conference, and tells them beforehand that, whatever may be the result of their deliberations, he is not prepared to propose to this country protective taxation on raw material, and that it is a gross misrepresentation to suggest that he is. The right hon. Gentleman's argument appears to be that, if the Conference was called, prejudiced beforehand in respect to the taxation of food, it is an insult; but that if it was called, prejudiced beforehand in respect to the taxation of raw material, it is a wise and prudent act of Imperial statesmanship. Really, the right hon. Gentleman should give the country a better argument that that.
  I venture to draw the attention of the House to another point which is, in my opinion, fatal to the symmetry of the proposal that the right hon. Gentleman has put forward. He has forgotten India. Nothing reveals more clearly the genesis of the right hon. Gentleman's scheme than the neglect, in his argument, of the great dependency of India. I have always believed that it was not an Imperial but a Departmental plan; it comes from the Colonial Office in Downing Street. It springs, not from the perception of any natural principle, but from the reflections of a Minister who has been called upon over a number of

  809
  years to deal with those particular duties which happen quite arbitrarily to be allocated to the Colonial Department, If, for instance, we hid followed a different arrangement, if we had grouped together in one great Department all the duties which concerned the King's dominions beyond the seas, which would be a perfectly scientific and logical method, instead of splitting them up into India Office, Foreign Office, and Colonial Office, and if the right hon. Gentleman had been the head of that consolidated Department, it is inconceivable that in the scheme he puts forward India would not have occupied a much larger place. The right hon. Gentleman could not then have forgotten that India takes of our goods two-thirds as much as all the self-governing Colonies together, that she imposes no hostile tariffs—[An HON MEMBER:5 per cent.]— no hostile discrimination against our goods, which is vital to Lancashire, and that she contributes so vastly to our Imperial defences. The right hon. Gentleman could not have forgotten, if I may quote words which have been used in this House before—
  "That most truly bright and precious gem in the Crown of the King, the possession of which more than of all your other Colonies or great possessions raises the reputation of these small islands above the level of the majority of nations and of States, and places them in a position of equality with and possibly even of superiority over the greatest empires of ancient or modern times."
  We have to face the concrete proposals which the right hon. Gentleman, with all his candour and precision, has placed before the country. I would remind the House that they consisted in a 2s. duty on corn and 5 per cent. on meat and dairy produce. I am not going to argue this evening as to who is likely to pay those taxes if they were imposed; the very word preference means better prices, and if it does not mean that it is a sham. And if it does not mean that, and if concessions are to be obtained from the Colonies upon it, it is a fraud on those Colonies from whom concessions would be obtained under false pretences. But the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, and those who act with him, a more or less numerous body in the House—[a cheer]—not a very stentorian response—has admitted that the taxes
  810
  he proposes would have the effect of raising the price to the consumer of corn and meat in this country—he admitted it when he neglected to include maize and bacon in his proposed fiscal taxes. The right hon. Gentleman showed by that surprising admission what his own opinion was of the real incidence of these taxes, and he showed also that he would make a very much better free trader than he is ever likely to make a protectionist. But the main argument against these preferences is not the prices resulting from them. If the taxes are large the rise in price would be very large, and if they are small the rise would be small; and these are very small taxes. They are not large enough to alter the social and agricultural conditions of this country. They do not touch the fringe of the grave problems of rural depopulation and physical degeneracy; but they are large enough, perhaps, to somewhat increase the severity of existence upon the very poorest of the people, and they might, though that is doubtful, put small and fleeting profits into the pockets of some landowners and substantial farmers. [''No."] Not even that?
  The main argument against these taxes is based on a great principle, which is that this country should be free to purchase its supplies of food wherever it chooses and whenever it chooses in the open markets of the world. That is a principle greatly valued in the House of Commons, for which on this side every Member is prepared to make the greatest exertions, and for which on the other side of the House some Members have already made, and are still prepared to make, sacrifices, for which, I believe, their countrymen will not be ungrateful. It is a principle of special importance to Lancashire Members, who, travelling from one great city to another, see in every valley of that undulating region towns and townships which are the homes of a vast thriving population living on a soil which could not support in decent comfort a twentieth of their number. I have been told that within thirty miles of the Manchester Exchange—I might say of the Free Trade Hall—there is gathered together the greatest concentration of human beings on the surface of the globe. This mass of people are absolutely dependent for he food they eat and the material

  811
  they employ upon supplies which reach them mainly from foreign lands. They are dependent on the condition of a crop at one end of the world and the state of a market at the other; and yet, upon this artificial foundation, through the inestimable advantage, of unfettered enterprise and of unrestricted sea communication, they have been able to build up a vast industrial fabric which, it is no exaggeration to say, is the economic marvel of the world. They have had lately rather an unpleasant experience in Lancashire, a shortage of cotton and a "corner" following thereon. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham has reminded us piously that that shortage was due to the act of God; it is not, like the Sugar Bounties Convention, due to the wisdom of a paternal Government. But what is the remedy proposed for that state of things? It is to vary and multiply the sources of cotton supply so that, when there is a bad harvest in one place, good crops in another may repair the deficiency. But if your preference is effective, and in so far as it is effective it must tend to limit and localise the sources of supply, and to make them more and more dependent upon a single source of supply.
  At present we stand on very firm ground in respect to food. With the telegraph and with steamships there is hardly a food-exporting country in the world that is more than sixty days from Liverpool. The harvests of the world are at our disposal, and by the system which averages climatic risks we secure not merely a low but a fairly stable price. With that marvellous operation by which the crowded population of this island is fed we cannot take the responsibility of interfering. There will be good years and there will be bad years. Great fluctuations must necessarily occur from time to time in all commodities which depend upon climatic conditions; they have occurred in cotton, in corn, in sugar; and the right hon. Member for West Birmingham reminded us the other night they are now occurring in onions. It is quite true that the workings of nature are beyond our control. There are many factors in prices—harvests, freights, speculations—which do not recognise the authority of the House of Commons. Taxes alone are absolutely
  812
  in our own hand. These fluctuations have occurred in the past; no one can doubt that they will occur in the future. Whatever rise may take place in the future the preferential duties, if imposed—although, perhaps, only a small contributory factor to the rise—will have to bear the brunt of public indignation. It is upon these very links of Empire so laboriously and expensively forged that the direct impact of public displeasure in times of scarcity must inevitably descend. If there is an unpopular tax to-day we are in no great difficulty. If public opinion is sufficiently incensed a pliant Chancellor of the Exchequer, or, failing that, a vote in the House of Commons, will remove the cause of offence and gratify the national will. But these preferential duties, if they are imposed, will not be taxes which the House can remove at its pleasure. They will be fixed by treaty with every self-governing colony scattered all over the surface of the world. In consideration of these taxes this country will have received concessions—though that is not a part of the argument we hear much about—with regard, say, to certain classes of manufactured goods. Upon the basis of these mutual concessions industries will have grown up, and, however fierce the demand, you will not be able to alter your preferential duties without the consent of the other party to the bargain. In that day there will, indeed, be a shock to the permanent unity of the Empire which may well excite the concern of those who care about it. In that day, when a British Ministry with taxes which it cannot remove with out a long delay is confronted by the imperious demand of a hungry and an angry electorate, you will realise the truth—perhaps to be denied to-night— that it is a grand and cardinal error in Imperial statecraft to lay the foundations of a democratic Empire upon the protective taxation of food.
  It is a sober fact that the British Empire produces within its limits every commodity which luxury can imagine or industry require. I do not wonder that many hon. Gentlemen have been captivated by the idea of creating a self-supporting and self-contained Empire. I frankly admit myself

  813
  the fascination of the idea—until you look into it. Then it is apparent—though this, of course, is disputable— that it rests on no moral, logical, or scientific foundation. It does not make for prosperity, it does not make for international peace. The dangers which threaten the tranquillity of the modern world come not from those Powers that have become interdependent upon others, interwoven by commerce with other States; they come from those Powers which are more or less detached, which stand more or less aloof from the general intercourse of mankind, and are comparatively independent and self-supporting. Quite apart from the economic argument, which on this side we regard as sanctioned, we do not want to see the British Empire degenerate into a sullen confederacy, walled off, like a mediæval town, from the surrounding country, victualled for a siege, and containing within the circle of its battlements all that is necessary for war. We want this country and the States associated with it to take their part freely and fairly in the general intercourse of commercial nations. We do not mind even if we become dependent on foreign nations, because we know that by that very fact we make foreign nations dependent upon us. These, Sir, in brief and scanty outline, are some of the heads of a few of the principal and more obvious arguments which may be adduced in support of the merits of this Motion.
  Before I sit down I wish to say a word or two on its terms. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham has raised this great new controversy. He has declared that it is urgent and that it is vital to the future of the Empire, and he has announced that he will devote to the prosecution of this cause the life and strength which we all, without distinction of Party, hope he may abundantly enjoy. This is not the first time the right hon. Gentleman has abandoned great office and high authority for the sake of the opinions he has held. Those who disagree with him most flatly, who feel bound to meet him with the most unrelenting and most unwearying oppose-
  814
  tion, do not undervalue the advantages which such conduct in public men confer upon the dignity and standards of our Parliamentary life. But we have a right to hope that the right hon. Gentleman will adopt methods that are worthy of the high motives with which he is generally credited. I appealed to the right hon. Gentleman some days ago privately, and I now urge him publicly, to use the influence which he possesses with the Government to secure for the House to-night an unprejudiced decision upon this great question. I can only regret greatly that the right hon. Gentleman does not take that view of his obligations. At any rate, the position of the Opposition is perfectly clear. This Motion has been drafted with one object and one object alone. It has been drafted to encounter in terms not of prejudice but in terms of candour what we conceive to be the main proposition of the policy of Imperial preference. The Motion contains no censure, expressed or implied, upon the Government. It cannot injure the Government unless they, in defiance of their pledges, place themselves directly in the path. It is not aimed at the Government; it is aimed there. [The hon. Member indicated Mr.CHAMBERLAIN. [The Prime Minister has declared that he will not propose the policy of Imperial Preference until it has been ratified by two successive victorious general elections. Why then does he now intervene with the previous Question. Is he not a little late, with his previous Question? Would it not have been much better to have moved it, not in the House, but in the Cabinet two years ago, when the right hon. Member for Birmingham first raised these new and sudden proposals? We are, of course, in the hands of Government. If they chose to invade what is really a discussion between private Members on both sides of the House by the influence of the Party Whips, we, at any rate, cannot be accused of moving a vote of censure upon them. It is quite clear that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham does not agree with the Government. He resigned because he did not agree with them. He knows perfectly well that the word "Conference" will not unite him

  815
  to the Prime Minister, because the Conference which the Prime Minister proposes is a two-general-elections Conference, and the right lion. Gentleman has declared that he does not approve of that, and that he thinks that one victorious general election ought to decide the battle. Furthermore, the right hon. Gentleman declared as recently as Friday last that the policy of Major Noble, which was the policy of His Majesty's Government, was marked by excessive timidity, and he intimated that he regretted it as injurious not merely to the Unionist Party, but to the fortunes of the British Empire. With what consistency then, not to use a provocative word, can the right hon. Gentleman shelter himself on Wednesday night behind that very policy of delay and ambiguity which he criticised so strongly on Friday? How can the right hon. Gentleman expect a poor wretched candidate in the country, who wants to get into Parliament, to face the storm—and it is a storm—when the leader of the movement, the man who has announced that he will devote his life to the cause, does not hesitate to take refuge on every occasion when there is an attack in this House behind the Government breakwater, which in fair weather he despises? I go further, and say—after all, these are matters which concern Gentlemen opposite—that large causes can never be advanced by small Parliamentary manœuvres, and no man can hope to convince the conscience and intellect of the nation when his first step must be to paralyse and to prejudice the judgment of the House of Commons.
  The decision which we would take tonight, I suppose, cannot in any case be regarded as final. The present Parliament has witnessed the raising of this controversy, a controversy which has divided friends, broken up a Cabinet, and has, I am assured, though perhaps this will be denied, inflicted some injury upon a great Party. Our responsibility as a Parliament in respect to this controversy is real and grave. Courage and honour alike forbid us to repudiate it. It will be a reproach, and an abiding reproach, upon us if we melt away to the constituencies without having had the pluck or honesty to give a plain and candid answer. It may not be in our power to undo the harm that has been done; it may not be
  816
  in our power to knit again what has been sundered; we cannot expect to end this long campaign in a single engagement; but it is within our power, and it is certainly our duty, by our vote to-night to erect and establish a sign-post of warning I and instruction for the guidance of Parliaments to come. On these grounds, Mr. I Speaker, I beg to move, "That, in the opinion of this House, the permanent unity of the British Empire will not be secured through a system of preferential duties based upon the protective taxation of food."
  *MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR: The Resolution which has been submitted to the House in the brilliant speech to which we have just listened has my support for more than one reason. In the first place, it has my support because Members on this side of the House can speak and vote on this particular issue without the slightest impeachment of Party loyalty. That has been made perfectly apparent recently by correspondence affecting the seat of my noble friend the Member for Greenwich. Then this Resolution has a primary merit in that it offers to the policy of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham a direct challenge. Of course, that challenge may be evaded, other circumstances may intervene, but as long as it is on the floor of the House and holds the field it is a challenge to the policy which has emanated from Birmingham. What is that policy? I have studied the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman with some care for the last two years, and as far as I can interpret them the right hon. Gentleman says to his fellow-countrymen, "Unless you are prepared to don the livery of the commercial bargainer and say to the rest of the Empire, 'We will put on something that we may take off something, that we may give you something, that you may give us something'' why hen we cannot reckon upon the permanent cohesion of the British Empire." That is a position which I, for one, desire to see absolutely shattered at the earliest possible moment.
  Then, Sir, a second merit which this Resolution has in my eyes is that it takes us back to the very root of the fiscal controversy. It plants us at the point

  817
  and on the plane from which the controversy originally started. It lifts us out of the region of what I may, perhaps, without offence, call the merely parochial side of this question, as it effects the internal industries of the country, and rivets our gaze upon its wider and Imperial aspect. That ought to make it exceedingly grateful to the right hon. Member for West Birmingham and his followers. I welcome it because, though on that side it is infused with considerations of Imperial sentiment which to a certain extent may confuse the judgment, yet the issue is perfectly plain here between free trade and protection. There is no question here of the abatement of high and hostile protective tariffs by retaliatory duties. The object sought by this policy cannot with any accuracy be described as freer trade, but rather as a transfer of trade. What is aimed at is, to transfer the trade now done between the Empire and foreign counties and to convert it into terms of inter-Imperial trade between the component parts of the Empire. From that point of view these hostile tariffs are a blessing in disguise. If we had not got them we might have been confronted with a great deal more foreign trade than we have to-day. What an alarming prospect from which we have been delivered by America, Germany, and France! All that we have to do now is to emulate these countries by an Imperial tariff which will further assist in strangling the trade of the Empire with foreign countries, and then the task which the right hon. Gentleman has set himself will be more easily accomplished. The object aimed at by the right hon. Gentleman is not freer trade; it is monopoly. We have great free markets in the British Empire. I do not allude to India, Hong-Kong, the Straits Settlements, Ceylon, the West Indies, or West Africa, because the position of these great markets in the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman has never yet been accurately defined. But England, the great free market of the world, is no longer to be free. It is to be a monopoly of the Colonies, and the Colonies on their part, by raising their tariffs against the foreigner, are to become the preserves of the mother country. There is one great factor in; the problem which has always troubled
  818
  me, and that is that one-half of our mercantile tonnage is exclusively engaged in trade between one foreign country and another. From the right hon. Gentleman's point of view that is obviously a nefarious proceeding; it is really engaged in a clandestine trade; but if we abandon free trade, and with it our power of cheaply constructing mercantile tonnage, that is a problem which will shortly cease to trouble us.
  There is one other point in the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman which also has given me great searchings of heart. No one will deny the extreme lucidity of speech possessed by the right hon. Gentleman, but on one point I have not been able, and I think others have not been able, fully to fathom his meaning. Is what he proposes a series of commercial bargains, or is it a covenant of mutual sacrifice? At times the right hon. Gentleman has spoken in one sense and at times he has spoken in the other. One day we are exhorted to make great sacrifices for Imperial sentiment, and the next he regrets that there are no sacrifices he can call upon this country to make. But it is perfectly apparent that in the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman the rôle of the mother country is to perform a function towards the Colonies akin to that which the Central Governments in Austria, France, and Germany have performed to the growers of beet sugar. We are to have a bounty upon the production of cereals, live stock, and dairy produce in the Colonies, because a tariff is a bounty, but in a more vicious sense. In the case of a tariff the consumers pay, and in the case of a bounty the people pay through the Government of the country. De facto there is no distinction. Having got rid of restricted areas of sugar supply by means of the Sugar Convention, as a free trader I intend to vote against a scheme for the creation of restricted areas of wheat supply in the British Empire. The growth, culmination, and decay of great empires is a subject of surpassing, and sometimes melancholy interest. Sometimes they have had their origin in a moment of religious enthusiasm, sometimes they have developed along the lines of peaceful and commercial intercourse, some have been carved out by the sword, and welded together by blood and

  819
  iron. It has been reserved for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham to conceive the idea of unifying a great Empire by the simple expedient of a corner in wheat.
  If on free-trade principles I am against the right hon. Gentleman's scheme, I am also against it on the ground of practical expediency. The British Empire is a maritime empire. That is a fact which is sometimes conveniently ignored by the advocates of tariff reform. They seem to think that the British Empire, like Antœus, derives all its strength from contact with mother earth and its industries. In reality it draws its vitalising energy from the sea—the high road of all nations, yet the peculiar domain of one. Therefore, in considering questions of Imperial policy, surely our Navy the commerce it guards should be the objects of primary consideration. These islands form only one per cent. of the area of the Empire, but to-day they bear all but one per cent. of the cost of the Navy. I submit that, if it is open to the Colonies to say they will not advance along the path of Imperial union by shouldering the burdens common to Imperial defence, it is open to us in this country to say, without being subject to the charge of disloyalty to the Empire, that we will not advance along the path of Imperial union by running the risk of impairing our productive efficiency. I trust we shall be allowed to-night to take a direct vote "Aye or No" upon this simple issue. The wish of the Member for West Birmingham is that the country should be consulted as to whether it is for or against the taxation of food before negotiations are entered upon with the Colonies. That, at any rate, was his opinion on May 28th, 1903, and I assume it to be his view to-day. If the country is to be consulted, why not the House of Commons? The only reason I can imagine is that the House of Commons does not represent the country, an argument which will hardly be advanced from the Ministerial side of the House, and which, in so far as it affects me personally, I entirely repudiate. The question is—are we to go to our constituents with our minds unmade up upon this question? Are we to go to them
  820
  with the words of the Eastern poet upon our lips—
  "There was a door to which I found no key; There was a veil past which I could not see; Some little talk a while of me and thee There seemed; and then no more of thee and me."
  I think that that is an attitude unworthy of a great representative Assembly. We shall be dealing truly and fairly with our Colonies in letting them clearly understand what we think upon this question. Their attitude has been scrupulously exact. It is for us to define ours; and it is because I wish it defined by the only Assembly which has authority to define it that I second this Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, in the opinion of this House, the permanent unity of the British Empire will not be secured through a system of preferential duties based upon the protective taxation of food."—(Mr. Winston Churchill.)
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOB THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON, Warwick and Leamington): The brilliant speech of the mover of this Resolution described the attitude of the Government as timorous, and complained most vehemently that the Government and my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham would not look into the proposals which have been before the country for a considerable time. I venture to think that that is not a correct description of the attitude of the Government. The attitude of the Government in this House, as the result of a long and fruitful discussion on general principles, is that it is time to cease the discussion of abstractions, and definitely to ascertain in a businesslike spirit the exact proposals which the Colonies are willing to make to us, to discuss them with an unbiassed and unhampered mind, and to endeavour as a result to arrive on concrete proposals at what is the real truth and substance of the case. I think that he who enters into discussion freely and fearless of the result cannot be accused of timidity. On the other hand, he who has so little confidence in his principles as to think that free discussion between the parties interested can lead to no good has more

  821
  right to be taunted with timidity, seeing that he is afraid to put his opinions to the true test. The policy of the Government, as announced on more than one occasion, is to enter into a conference with the Colonies with a free and unfettered mind. I thought the great majority of the House, including the Opposition, were in favour of a free and unfettered Colonial Conference, and I would remind the House that in 1906 a conference will take place. The effect of this Motion, if accepted, would be to attach conditions to the Conference between the representatives of this country and the representatives of the Colonies.
  In the first place, I say, broadly, that to attach any fetter upon discussion is undesirable. But it is doubly undesirable to attach a condition which is in itself ambiguous. I say that deliberately, because the last words in the Motion are "protective taxation of food." If you took any twenty men in the House, indiscriminately chosen, I venture to say that you would not get from any two of them similar opinions as to what protective taxation of food means. We had in the course of the recess many speeches from the hon. Member who moved the Resolution. The information he possessed was freely given to the public, it might even be said copiously given, and many of his points were given with great lucidity. I cannot say that I have read all his speeches, but I have had them condensed into an encyclopædia, and certainly some of the headings in that encyclopædia are distinguished for plainness and lucidity. I do not think, however, that I got from it any very clear and definite definition of protective taxes on food. But let me ask a question or two upon that point. Is there any clear definition of what a protective tax on food is? Is it to be called protective taxation of food to propose a uniform import duty on all commodities? To say it is is to condemn the fiscal system of India as protective. I am not using the argument in a provocative sense, but to show that different meanings are attached to the word protection. The fiscal system of India has been controlled at different times by two such stalwarts as the noble Lord the Member for Ealing and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton. Now, in India
  822
  there is no Excise, and practically the Indian fiscal system is a uniform all-round duty upon all imports. In this case there appears to be a difference as to what protection means. Then, again, I ask if the shilling duty on corn is a protective tax. ["Hear, hear!" "Yes."]
  ME. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid he considered that a protective duty was anything which imposed an artificial discrimination between one class of producer and another.
  *MR. LYTTELTON: I suppose that under that definition the shilling duty would fall. I think I have heard all the perorations of 1846 refurbished to denounce the proposal of my right lion, friend the Member for West Bristol with reference to the Corn Tax. But I will not elaborate this; I have gone far enough to show that different people attach different meanings to the word. In the first place, then, the Motion will cause embarrassment among those who vote for it and, in the second place, it will have a very bad effect indeed in the Colonies. The Resolution of 1902 which was passed by representatives of the self-governing Colonies is familiar to the House; it was a unanimous Resolution recognising the principle of preferential trade between the United Kingdom and the Colonies. Are we prepared to say that we will rule out from discussion by a conference the question of how to carry into effect this general principle? Would they rule out of discussion absolutely such a topic even as a shilling duty on corn? ["Hear, hear," "Yes."] Certainly there are few on my side of the House who will agree with that opinion. Surely it would be better, as the matter has been discussed at very great length as regards general principles in the last two years, that when representatives are appointed to discuss this question, among others of high importance, that the representatives shall enter the discussion free and unfettered. Surely, from the point of those who like and those who dislike colonial preference this must be so. My noble friend the Member for Greenwich has stated that he does not believe in any form of colonial preference, because in his view it would be a source of discord and not of amity. But,

  823
  holding that view, he stated the other day that he could not oppose a conference. So clear-headed a man sees that if his case is right, the freer the discussion the better for truth. My right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham, who believes that in the principle of colonial preference there lies one of the greatest and finest ideals that has ever been proposed, is also in favour of the conference. Therefore, we have two honest, vigorous, and, of course, preeminently able men approaching this subject from opposite points of view, both equally confident and tenacious of the view which they hold, and both bold and courageous therefore in demanding that this matter should be submitted to a free conference, so that the truth may be ascertained. Both believe that their own opinion will be corroborated by further knowledge. I venture to say that we ought to seek the truth in this matter in the most excellent way. After a certain period surely it is not profitable to continue an abstract discussion. We should get the people who are interested in the matter together. Let us learn all the facts. Let us get out of a bewildering and endless maze into the safer region of a concrete proposition. A very distinguished man, well known to many hon. Gentlemen opposite, a very great lawyer and brilliant, wise, and witty man, Lord Bowen, once said to me—
  "A man of talent is a man who makes up his mind aright when he has got all the facts before him. A man of genius is a man who generally makes lip his mind aright when he has only some of the facts before him."
  I venture to think that the hon. Member for Oldham and his friends arrogate to themselves the claims of genius. They wish to make up their minds, and, more foolish still, they wish the Government to make up their minds, before they know all the facts, and when there is a proposal before them by which they can learn the facts. Is there a better way of learning the facts than by people who are anxious to make a bargain for their mutual advantage meeting together and discussing the whole matter? No one has suggested a better method of getting at the facts and of placing them clearly before the people of this country and people in the Colonies.
  AN HON. MEMBEK: Where is the offer?
  *MR. LYTTELTON: I have never said there was an offer. I have said that the Colonies, especially Canada, New Zealand, and Africa, have given us that which is better than any offer—they have given us actual preference. The Premiers of all the self-governing Colonies have passed resolutions in favour of preferential tariffs and, so far as I know, they uphold the idea of a Colonial Conference. To my mind it is better that we should get to close quarters with actual proposals. It is not reasonable to expect us to give either a definite "Yes" or a definite "No" in the course of a three hours debate on a proposition which I have tried to show, notwithstanding the interruptions to which I have been subjected [Cries of "Shame"], and which, I venture to say, I have proved to be ambiguous even in the estimation of the hon. Gentlemen who sit opposite. It being, as far as I understand the cheers heard, agreed that it is desirable that the conference shall take place, most Englishmen wish that conference to be free; and nobody, not even hon. Gentleman opposite, wish it to be futile. But if we impose a condition such as that in the Resolution we prevent freedom, and if we impose an ambiguous condition we ensure futility.
  I wish to imitate the commendable brevity of those who have preceded me, and I have only just a word more. This Motion, in my opinion, is not candidly or bona fide meant [Cheers, and some OPPOSITION cries of "Oh"] to clear up, but is intended to obscure the issue, it is not intended to strengthen, it is intended to weaken and invalidate the Colonial Conference. It is a device not to elicit the truth, but to mislead the unwary. It is impossible to affirm it or to deny it without giving to unscrupulous persons their opportunity, and its confessed ambiguity makes it liable to be misunderstood, and certain to be misrepresented. In these conditions, I have not the slightest hesitation in moving "That this Motion be not now put," and, so far from that being a Parliamentary manœuvre, it is precisely the occasion and the exigency for which this previous Question was intended, and it is precisely in order to meet tricky manœuvring

  825
  that this Parliamentary weapon is forged. In saying "tricky manœuvring" I perhaps use too strong a phrase. [Cries of "No."] I do not mean, to apply it in any offensive sense to the hon. Member who moved the original Motion. What I wish to point out is that, though I do not blame him for laving us a trap, I should blame ourselves were we to fall into it.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, ''That the Question be not now put."— (Mr. Lyttelton.)
  *LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I have listened with interest, but with regret, to the speech of my right hon. friend the Colonial Secretary. The Colonial Secretary, speaking, if my right hon. friend will excuse me for saying so, with a very limited Parliamentary experience [Cries of "Oh"], stated that the previous Question is a Motion which has been used in order to meet Motions of this character. I venture entirely to traverse that statement. The previous Question is a legitimate weapon of Parliamentary warfare, and Governments have had recourse to it under very exceptional circumstances. But I will undertake to say that neither my right hon. friend nor any one on the Treasury Bench will be able to cite a case where the previous Question has been used in connection with a Motion, made by a private Member, of a perfectly simple and straightforward character. The only occasion on which a Government has ever made use of this weapon has been whore the Motion was either obnoxious in itself or invalidated or anticipated proposals which they intended to lay before Parliament. Then it is a perfectly legitimate proposition. My right hon. friend told us that the Government had got certain proposals as regards in Imperial Conference. But the House of Commons is not seized of this matter. We know absolutely nothing about it. Where is tint proposition made, and who makes it?
  MR. LYTTELTON: The Prime Minister made it at Edinburgh.
  *LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The Prime Minister made a most admirable
  826
  speech at Edinburgh, because in it my right hon. friend repudiated the principles of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. A few days later my right hon. friend the Attorney-General, speaking at Inverness, pat on that Edinburgh speech exactly the same interpretation which I have put on it. Yet my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham, writing to the gentleman who is standing for the constituency of Baling, stated that there was no difference as to principles between himself and the Prime Minister, though there is a certain difference as to methods. But what did the Prime Minister propose at Edinburgh? Apparently he proposed that there should be an unfettered Conference between this country and the Colonies. But is this country, the predominant partner in the Empire, to give no expression whatever to its opinions upon the questions which are to be discussed at the Conference? Are the Colonies going into the Conference in the same way? Surely it is perfectly childish to maintain that the colonial representatives will not go into that Conference hampered. Every one who has studied the matter knows perfectly well that, however desirable might be the high ideal of trying to establish closer and more satisfactory relations between this country and the self- governing Colonies, there are two serious obstacles in the way, differing in their character, their origin, and their object. We in this country are free traders, the self-governing Colonies are protectionists. This country objects to the taxation of food; the Government and my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham object to the taxation of raw material. But what are the views of the Colonies? They have behaved right through in a perfectly straightforward manner. All the Colonial Ministers who have spoken on this subject have declared in the clearest and most emphatic terms that they will not agree to so alter their tariffs as to allow British manufactured goods to compete with the products of their own industries.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg my right hon. friend's pardon. Has he any proof of what be says?
  *LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Mr. Fielding, of Canada, speaking at the Conference of Prime Ministers, distinctly said—
  "There must be no misunderstanding; we are not going to allow British goods to compete with ours."
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Of course I absolutely accept my right lion, friend's good faith. But what I want to point out to him is that at the last Conference of Colonial Prime Ministers, over which I presided, Mr. Fielding and the Canadian Minister alluded to were perfectly ready to review and revise their tariffs so as to see whether they could not—[OPPOSITION cries of "Order," and "Speech."] I am perfectly in order—in order to see whether they could not give us not only advantages against the foreigner, but give us also advantages with regard to the tariffs which affect British goods.
  *LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: My right hon. friend's explanation does not really traverse the statement; I have are, what better opportunity could they advanced. Mr. Fielding, introducing the have of learning what are the views about Budget of 1903, frankly said—
  "We cannot undertake to give further preferences in a manner which would operate to the disadvantage of our own industries"
  But something more happened. It is a curious feature of this controversy that we in the House of Commons, the mother of the Parliaments of the Empire, must not express our free-trade opinions, and that only Ministers in the Colonies should give expression to their convictions. Mr. Fielding, ascertaining that English wollen goods were coming in under the tariffs and competing with Canadian goods, raised the general tariff from 30 to 45 per cent. and the preferencetial duties from 23½ to 33 per cent. There fore my point is this: if you want to come to a good arrangement with the Colonies—and I think I may say, putting all Party feeling aside, that both sides of the House desire to do what is mutually advantageous—surely it is ridiculous to talk about going into a free and untrammeled Conference when Colonial Ministers who hold protectionist views are thus giving effect to them, while we who sit here are not allowed to give expression to our free-trade opinions. I agree with the Prime Minister that a Conference such
  828
  as he suggested would be advisable; but if it is to bear any fruit it is essential that the representatives of this country and of the self-governing Colonies should clearly understand the nature of the difficulties which they have to overcome. It is ridiculous for this country to keep in the background its objections to taxation of food if the Colonies are allowed at the same time to increase their protective duties. If this Motion had been proposed two years and a half ago, I believe that it would have been assented to without a dissentient voice. What has happened in the meantime? The Government have taken a course which so far as I know is absolutely without parallel or precedent. We have looked forward to an enjoyable evening of encounter between ourselves and the tariff reformers. Why should the Government interfere? It would not hurt anybody; it would I not hurt them; the House would have come to a decision; and if the Government want to know, pending the next election, what the opinions of the country protective taxation than by allowing the representatives of the people to discuss the subject in the House freely and to vote as they like? But the Colonial It is Secretary says that he does not know controversy what is meant by the protective taxation of food, and he puts a series of queries in order, I suppose, to get a little information. My right hon. friend knows what the protective taxation of food is as well as any Member in the House.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.): My right hon. friend the Colonial Secretary referred to the shilling tax on corn proposed by the right hon. Member for West Bristol, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, and voted for by my noble friend and myself, and asked whether it was protective. Does the noble Lord consider that it was a protective tax or not?
  *LOED GEORGE HAMILTON: My early official life was spent under Lord Beaconsfield, a strict disciplinarian, and there was nothing he more severely rebuked than interruption in debate. Lord Beaconsfield was in the habit of

  829
  saying that, if the speaker who was interrupted kept his head, he would get the better of the interrupter. I was going to give my definition of protective taxation of food, which, I think, is that which is universally accepted. It is a tax imposed for purposes other than revenue. In my younger days we all had to know something about this question. I can assure my hon. friends who have come into Parliament in more recent days that if they raise this question, they will all have to be able to explain to their constituents what is the meaning of the taxation of food. I have given my definition, and I believe it to be accurate ["No, no."] Well, a new school has arisen among Members behind me, but I am afraid I am too old to take lessons from them. I intend to vote for this Motion. It contains doctrines that I have held all my life, and they were part and parcel of the Tory Party until a short time ago. [Cheers.] From those cheers I gather that I and my friends who act with me will be subjected to the imputation that we are voting against our Party. May I venture to give a little advice as an old Parliamentary hand to those of my friends who so cheer me? We shall vote against the Government, we cannot help it; but it does not always follow, towards the close of its tenure of office, that the interests of a Government are necessarily the interests of a Party. When a Government vacates office it dies, but the Party behind it lives; and during the final stage of the existence of a Government the primary duty of the Leader is to think of those behind him as well as of those who sit on the Front Bench alongside of him. I have seen the Tory Party rise from comparative insignificance until it became a great dominant and Imperial power in this House, and if the Prime Minister consults those of my own political standing they will one and all remind him that just in proportion as the Tory Party freed itself from the principles of protective taxation so did it flourish and prosper, and just in proportion as it gets involved in the principles of protective taxation, so will its influence dwindle and vanish away, and in opposition it will never be able to give effect to the great principles of which it is the sole custodian. I do not
  830
  want the Government to go out of office—I have nothing in common with the Party opposite, except, perhaps, in regard to the fiscal question—but worse evils may happen to a Party than that the Government should Vacate office after being nine years in power. Let the Government on this question raise a fair and square issue and abide by it. They may be beaten, but they will carry into opposition the esteem of their friends and even of their opponents, and the Party behind them will carry with them that power of rehabilitation which alone can enable us successfully to maintain our principles hereafter. But to-night pressure has been put on my hon. friends, and a number of men, as everybody knows will vote against the principles which they hold. Not only that, but the question upon which we have to vote to-night is, according to the statement of the Prime Minister, to be the great issue of the next election. Therefore, in voting reluctantly against the Government, I and my friends are sustained by the consciousness that we are acting in the true interests of a great political Party, to which, I can truly say, I have given, during the greater part of my life, an unswerving and unbroken allegiance.
  MR. J. CHAMBEKLAIN: I should have thought beforehand that there was no one better entitled to represent the great Conservative Party than my noble friend, who has been a devoted member of the Party and has served it in office probably longer than any other Member of the House and whom I am perfectly willing to allow the right to speak for it. But I know not how it comes—old friendships weaken—how it can be possible for my noble friend, who has now attained, as he says, the rank of an "old Parliamentary hand," to think so badly of those with whom he has worked for so many years as to suggest that on this occasion, under the pressure of the Party Whip, a large proportion of them are going to vote against their convictions. No enemy could have said worse. I think my noble friend has been betrayed into a statement which he will ultimately regret. I listened, Sir, with great interest—if I may say so, with a personal interest—which may not be shared by all Members

  831
  of the House—to the speech with which this debate commenced, by the hon. Gentleman the junior Member for Oldham, with whom and with whose family I have for so many years had intimate relations; and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman not only upon the ability of his speech, but also upon the fact that it was, as I think, in the best Parliamentary tradition, because, while expressing his own views and expressing them with vehemence and clearness, he was not betrayed into any of that personal bitterness which, I think, in our sober moments, we all desire to omit from our discussions. The hon. Member made to me a personal appeal. He said truly that he challenged my whole policy, and he asked me to use my influence—whatever that may be—with the Government to enable the discussion to be concluded by a division which was not to be taken on Party lines. That may be perfectly consistent on the part of the hon. Member, but it is ridiculous if he professes to represent the Party opposite. This question was brought before the country without reference to Party politics, I say here, what I have said again and again in public outside, that I desire that it should be treated as a non-Party question; and, as far as I am concerned, strongly as I feel the importance of the subject, I have endeavoured, and I believe I have succeeded, never to introduce anything in the nature of personal recrimination or attack. As far as possible I have avoided any purely personal argument or attack. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen laugh at that. Do they deny it? [Cries of "Yes" and "Certainly."] That being the case, it is very difficult to accept the hon. Gentleman's invitation to strive to make this a perfectly non-Party and debating society discussion.
  I have been challenged by my noble friend the Member for Greenwich on more than one occasion to bring forward my whole case and to ask the opinion of the House upon it; and I think my noble friend suggested that nothing but a lack of moral courage could have prevented me from doing so. I venture to suggest to the House and to my noble friend that there may be other reasons besides mere lack of pluck; and. among them, is the fact that all through
  832
  my life, political and other, I have hated anything in the nature of useless debate. I do not fear, I am glad to share, any debate which can possibly have a practical result; but I have never seen the value of these pious opinions and abstract Resolutions which the House of Commons, from time to time, while I have been a Member of it, has been accustomed to pass without the slightest effect upon the practical politics of the day. If I brought forward my whole case on an occasion on which it would be properly discussed, what would be the result? What practical result would be secured either on my side or in favour of the views of my noble friend? Suppose I brought forward this Resolution and it were rejected. Does any one in his senses suppose that that would have the slightest effect upon the agitation which is going on in the country? Would it in any sense be conclusive? Sir, after all, this is a matter which ultimately will be decided by the country. We all acknowledge that. I ask my noble friend and others to believe that we who entertain the conviction that this policy is necessary will have at least as much persistence as Mr. Cobden, who was not in the least disconcerted by a single vote of the House of Commons, but who persisted with his arguments and agitation until he successfully carried his views into effect. In my opinion, honestly expressed, it is a waste of strength to be putting our views before the House of Commons as the subject of what I call a debating-society discussion, until we have some reason to believe that we have converted the country to them. Our first duty is to convert the country. In order to do my part in that process, and to ask the country to look at what is now a new proposal and consider it, I have accepted a position of less responsibility and greater freedom; and it would be contrary altogether to my policy and belief on this question if I were to think it right to waste—for so I would consider it—the time of the House of Commons in an abstract discussion which can have no result. I have been speaking upon the assumption that such a Motion as my noble friend asks for were defeated. But suppose it succeeded. That is conceivable. What advantage should I gain? My Leader and the Government have distinctly pledged themselves that under

  833
  no circumstances will they raise this question during the present Parliament. What advantage is it to mo to get a vote of the present Parliament under those circumstances? I do not think we need recriminate between us these imputations of cowardice or any other political sin; but we may accept as reasonable—even those who feel as I do on this subject—that discussion by this House is premature and not very practical. That is my view.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, who takes a different view, does what I have neglected to do. He tells the House that he challenges the whole of my policy. Well, I cannot help thinking that he underestimates the force of his Resolution. It may challenge my policy, but it also challenges the policy of the Government. I will prove that in the course of my argument; but let me say that there is an important element in the decision of the House. It is not merely a condemnation of the proposal of one who is outside the Government, who is nothing but a private Member; it is also distinctly a condemnation of the avowed policy of His Majesty's Government. Some objection was taken to the expression of my right hon. friend the Secretary for the Colonies when he said that this was a tricky manœuvre; he agreed that he might have used another adjective, and I am going, with his permission, to suggest the adjective—it is a perfectly legitimate Party manœuvre, perfectly legitimate for an Opposition to put out the Government by any means in its power, and I give the hon. Member for Oldham every credit for having devised a very skilful means of securing that result. But if my noble friend who has just sat down has any idea that this is really a bona fide occasion for the discussion of the merits of preference and free trade, well, considering that he is an old Parliamentary hand, he is a more ingenuous person than I have ever vet met in this House. Sir, the Opposition do not want, discussion; for them it is wholly unnecessary. Does my noble friend forget that in the early days of this session they proposed an Amendment to the Address in which they said that the subject had been fully discussed? [An HON. MEMBER: Not in this House.] In the debate to-night discussion is nothing, the vote is everything.
  834
  The hon. Member for Oldham spread his net very wide, and he has caught my noble friend. I really feel pained to think of the result, because my noble friend, in the speech which he has just delivered, declared that he did not want to put out the Government, but that is the sole object of this Resolution! The man who does what he does not want to do is an object of universal sympathy. My noble friend is committed; but surely, as to the other Gentlemen who belong to the Party which, I believe, rejoices in the extraordinary name of free-fooders, but who tax food with the greatest regularity, if I may judge from their speeches in the country, they is not one of them who is not devotedly loyal to the Government. They accept the Government policy; it is quite true that they are all opposed to my policy, but that, as I shall show——
  MR. LAMBTON: We do not all accept the Government policy.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, but there are very few of you who confess that in the country. We are all anxious to make a clean breast of it in the present debate, and I hope that those who do not accept the Government policy will make it perfectly clear to the constituencies to-night.
  I want to call the attention of the House, to the form of this Resolution. It is rather a curious thing, it has not been noticed up to the present time, that the Resolution was altered at the last moment from the terms in which it was announced by the hon. Member for Oldham in the first place. The alteration consists in the introduction of the word "protective" before the words "taxation of food"; formerly it was that this House was to pledge itself against any colonial preference "based upon the taxation of food"; now it is, "based upon the protective taxation of food." What is the meaning of that? Why was the word "protective" introduced? Clearly, of course, it was to increase the spread of the net. I wonder what fish it is on this side for whom that extension of the meshes was made? Why! I do not know whether the hon. Member for Oldham knew it at the time but I assure him it might even admit me. I have said again and again in public that I am opposed to the protective

  835
  taxation of food. It is quite true my opponents think I do not understand my own policy. But, at all events, that has been from first to last my own representation in regard to it. When I spoke in May in Birmingham, before there was any Party question of any kind, I declared to my constituents that I was not, and never had been, a protectionist. We have, of course, in all these discussions to interpret words; and, while on my interpretation I am not a protectionist, I have no doubt that on the interpretation of hon. Gentlemen opposite I do belong to that much abused class. But as my vote and my decision have to be governed by my interpretation of my own words, I do venture to point out that there is nothing in the Resolution as it now stands which would logically prevent me from voting in its favour. [Cheers and OPPOSITION cries of "Agreed, agreed."] Oh, I am so glad you agree with me; I always thought you would, but I had no idea that it would come so soon. After all, we shall all be ready to agree that we want to vote, not according to verbal subtleties, but according to the real meaning and intention. Very well! I accept the meaning and intention of the Motion to be not only a challenge to my policy, but a challenge to the Government policy. What is the Government policy? To me it ought to be plain even to the meanest intelligence, for what is it declared to be? The calling of a Conference between the representatives of this country and the representatives of the Colonies and great dependencies of the Empire, which is to discuss any question that may be raised in that Conference by any of the parties attending it, and among others—this, of course, being an important matter at the present time—the prospect of a commercial union based upon preference between those parts of the Empire and the mother country. That is the first thing. Is not that intelligible? Here is the second point, which is equally important. It is that the Conference shall be open, absolutely open, that it shall not be committed beforehand.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman? Does he mean that it is to be open in respect to raw material?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: It is to be open as to everything; consequently there is nothing to prevent the Colonies, or ourselves from raising, if they please, the question of raw material. There is nothing to prevent us from raising the question of absolute free trade within the Empire. There is nothing, according to the proposal made by the Government, which is excluded from the discussions of that Conference. But what is the meaning of the interruption? Does the hon. Member think that because it is open to the Colonies to raise this question, therefore it will be raised or seriously discussed. Does he think, on the other hand, that because it is open to us to raise the question of free trade within the Empire our representatives are likely to do so when they know that the circumstances of the Colonies prevent, and, in my opinion, rightly prevent them at the present time from giving anything in the nature of absolute free trade? No, Sir! The Conference is to be free and open; but at the same time it is perfectly easy for any sensible man who has followed this controversy, and knows what the Colonies have said on the subject, to imagine beforehand, and probably correctly, what will be the serious subjects of discussion. Now, what would be the effect of the Resolution? The effect of the Resolution would be to muzzle the Conference in regard to the one subject——
  LORD HUGH CECIL: Why should it muzzle the Conference?
  ME. J. CHAMBERLAIN: To muzzle the Conference in reference to the one thing upon which I am confident the greatest attention will be directed. You may say to the Colonies, "It is open to you to talk about anything; you can talk about a contribution to the Navy, you can talk about a contribution to the Army; if you like you can talk about any mortal thing concerning the different parts of the Empire;" but you know perfectly well that the thing that they will come to talk about is this question of colonial preference. My noble friend said; Why will it muzzle the Conference? Perhaps he will say what he thinks the intention of this Resolution is. The intention of the other

  837
  side is to put out the Government, but is that his intention?
  LORD HUGH CECIL: No.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No; that is not his intention. He is a loyal supporter of the Government. Well, but in those circumstances the only practical effect will be that in view of a Resolution of the House of Commons, if the conference is held during the period of this House, the representatives of the country will go there practically with instructions given by this House that they are not to consider the question of preference or the only terms on which preference can he given. Then I should have thought, that my noble friend, who has a very quick intelligence, would have understood that the result would be to muzzle the conference and to try to prevent our representatives even from considering what I have said the Colonies would consider the most important part of the duty of the conference.
  MR. MOULTON: Prevent them wasting time.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Now, Sir, am I not right in saving in those circumstances that this Resolution is a challenge to the Government? The Government want an open conference; those who support this Resolution are in favour of a limited conference. I confess that if I could have had my way, if I had the influence which the hon. Member attributes to me, I would have invited the Government to meet this Motion with a direct negative. That is my own opinion. I do not like a challenge to be thrown down and not taken up. I regret, though I entirely assented to it and am bound by it, the decision of the Government not to deal with this question at all in the present Parliament. I should have desired that it should be dealt with, as far as Parliament could deal with it immediately. The Government, however, decided not to deal with it in this Parliament, and in those circumstances they are absolutely consistent in saying that this discussion is premature. I think they are more than consistent in inviting their followers, myself among
  838
  the number, not to commit ourselves to a decision with regard to this conference until we know what it will bring forth. I must say I am very much surprised that we should have to-night my hon. friend—[An HON. MEMBER: Divide; and MINISTERIAL cries of "Order" and "Go on."]—I was going to say I was amazed that my hon. friend the Member for Middlesex should use the language he did, because I think a fortnight ago, either in a letter or a speech, he declared that he welcomed the conference, because he was certain that that conference would show so great a difference between the sacrifices asked from us and the advantages to be given to us, that every one would see that my proposals are impossible. I assure him and the House if that is the result of the conference, if it is true, as my hon. friend believes, that we shall be asked for a very heavy sacrifice and, on the contrary, that no great advantage will be given to us, I should be the first to join with him and say I have been mistaken in my belief in the intention of the Colonies, and that as they have failed altogether to fulfil my anticipations, I would admit that any proposal of negotiation in this matter is unreasonable.
  If I may, I want for a few minutes once more to call the attention of the House to the real merits of the proposal which is attributed to me. I beg the House to consider it not merely in a Party spirit. This Empire of ours, we admit, is held together by sentiment. Is every hon. and right, hon. Gentleman satisfied about this? Do they think that sentiment alone is sufficient foundation on which we ought to rest the interests of the Empire? [OPPOSITION cries of "Yes."] If they do and will study the question, they will find that they are at variance with our Colonies themselves, and that there is hardly a great statesman in any of our Colonies who has not practically confirmed the expressed opinion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, that if in some way or another we do not draw closer we shall drift apart. That is a matter of immense importance. I say that the problem before us is, can we create a stronger organisation? Can we do something that will be more than mere sentiment? Can we add to the sentiment, the force and importance of which I do not deny, Imperial interests also? I will ask the

  839
  House, to make my argument clear—I do ask hon. Gentlemen, Do you now want a consolidated Empire? Do you desire, as I do, that the Empire shall be drawn closer together if reasonable means can be found? You have given up the doctrines of Mr. Cobden. [OPPOSITION cries of "No."] You no longer think as he expressed himself in a letter which I came across only to-day and in which he said—
  "Colonies, Army, Navy, and Church are with the Corn Laws, merely accessories of our aristocratic connections, and John Bull has his work cut out for him for the next fifty years to purge his house of these impurities.'
  I believe that doctrine has been entirely abandoned by the Liberal Party. I do not think it is now the desire of any member of the Liberal Party to treat the Colonies as "impurities." Very well, if I may assume that you are all agreed on the necessity and on the importance of consolidating the Empire, I say to you there is not one among you who can suggest any alternative to this step of commercial union, which is not the end, but only a step towards the end which I have proposed. No one has proposed an alternative. Alternatives have been considered and found by both sides impracticable. You have the advantage in this case of the support of the Colonies. There was an interruption that the Colonies made no offer. Sir Wilfrid Laurier said, "We offer to make a treaty with you." [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh, oh!"] You may refuse to discuss the terms of a treaty, and if you do they will make a treaty with others and they will be perfectly justified in doing so [CRIES of "Oh"]; and whereas now you have an opportunity of making a treaty which shall be to your material advantage, as well as to the increase of the strength of the Empire, you will, if you refuse it, go back to the policy of laisser faire which prevailed in the time of Cobden, and you will find that laisser faire will do nothing for the consolidation of the Empire or the security of its interests, but may very likely lead to a separation, which you will look back upon with regret.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): Mr. Speaker, there is no very great length of time
  840
  before us in which to finish the discussion, and I am aware that a right hon. Gentleman opposite has a desire to speak, as unquestionably he has a right to speak. I will therefore make such remarks as I must make as concise as possible; but I think the House will admit that I could not allow this debate to come to a conclusion without saying something in defence of the course for which the Government are responsible, and admit that they are responsible. The speeches of the mover and seconder were directed against my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham, who has just replied in a speech of singular lucidity and eloquence. But, as I conceive the situation, the true attack was not upon my right hon. friend, but is upon the Government, of which I am a member, and in particular against the policy I have advocated in more than one speech, and notably in a speech I made at Edinburgh. My noble friend the Member for Middlesex stated, in the earlier portion of his remarks, that he had read that speech, and that he found himself—I do not think he said in entire agreement—but, at all events, that he had a large measure of agreement with it. Now what did that speech essentially contain? It contained two statements; and the first was that I individually was unalterably attached to the principle of free trade, and that I did not, and never would, accept the responsibility for a protective policy. I may say that within that speech I defined, with un-impeachable lucidity, what I meant by protection, and my belief is that it is in accordance with the views of sound political economists for many generations past. I am not going to discuss the various definitions. My noble friend has given one of his own; but if he finds good authority for it in books of sound political economists I shall be rather surprised. At all events there was no ambiguity in mine; and it is because in the word as used by the hon. Gentleman who brought forward this Motion to-night there has been shown to be ambiguity, there is a reason why the Government propose the course they intend to take to-night, and in which they ask the House to follow them.
  Well, that was one element in that speech I made at Edinburgh; and what was the second element? It was an

  841
  appeal to the country in the face of the controversy raging on the fiscal question, an appeal to the country to discuss our colonial relations in a free Conference. I do not believe that my statement on that subject was a bit more ambiguous than my statement as to protection; it was clear, it was definite, it was complete; and it is because, in my judgment, the Resolution moved by the hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House, and seconded by an hon. Gentleman who is a Member of the Party on this side—it is because that Resolution flies in the face of that second part of my speech made at Edinburgh that, in my opinion, all who are good enough to accept the policy I have recommended to the country ought to support the Government in the lobby this evening. How my noble friend, who approves the speech made at Edinburgh, and who approves by implication of the proposition for a free Conference, can vote in support of a Resolution which flies in the face of a free Conference passes my comprehension altogether. My noble friend stated that all the Colonial Premiers have already laid down conditions which are inconsistent with a free Conference. I must not be taken as accepting my noble friend's statement of fact, but I will accept it provisionally for the purposes of this argument. It is precisely that example which I think ought not to be followed if we are to bring this great Imperial issue to a satisfactory conclusion; and the circumstance that these gentlemen have stated that they would never admit some cherished principle of their colony to come under discussion or be interfered with in a free Conference is surely a warning that we ought not to follow that example. We ought, on the other hand, carefully to abstain from doing anything of the kind and if we can induce our Colonies to imitate the course which I hope we shall take ourselves by coming into the Conference unpledged and unfettered in order to bring its deliberations to a successful termination.
  My noble friend is going to vote against us, because, as he says, he has always been against protective taxation of food; and for that reason whenever he sees a Resolution against protective taxation of food he will
  842
  throw every other consideration to the winds, and though no human being suspects him of wanting protective taxation of food, he must give open profession of his faith in the division lobby. I dare say there are Gentlemen in the House who are in favour of protective taxation of food. Certainly I am not, and I do not believe my noble friend thinks I am It seems to me sufficient to make that statement in the clearest and most explicit language, on the platform and in the House, without, by recording a vote which is perfectly unnecessary as a mere profession of faith, a violation of the very canons that, with my noble friend's consent and the general approval of the Party, I have ventured to lay down for the summoning of this Conference. Therefore I would respectfully say to my noble friend that, even if the Amendment which we are going to vote on to-night was an alternative to the Motion in the ordinary sense—if it was an Amendment to the Motion—I believe even then he might have supported the Government. As a matter of fact, my noble friend is perfectly aware that the essence of "The previous Question" is that it does not require those who vote for it to make any statement of policy, any statement of agreement—hon. Gentlemen would do so much better if they waited for the end of my sentence—this question does not require the House to express any agreement upon the substance of the Resolution. The essence of it is that the Resolution is one upon which at the moment, for reasons which may be good or which may be bad, it is not expedient for the House to express an opinion. Well, Sir, can you imagine a case in which "The previous Question," as it is called, can be put to a more legitimate purpose than we propose to put it to-night? I do not quarrel with the hon. Gentleman's proposition that we ought not to have a protective duty on food. Why should I quarrel with it? What I do quarrel with is the attempt to induce this House by a vote1 to do what it can to prevent the policy in which I firmly believe—the policy of a free Conference—coming to any useful or fruitful issue. And how can that be done so well as by the expedient we have adopted?

  843
  I am not going to enter into a controversy as to whether the motives of the hon. Gentleman who moved the Resolution are those of a declaration of his economic faith, or whether they are rather a Party device to embarrass the Government. I do not know that I take a deep interest in his economic faith, and I have no objection to his trying to defeat the Government. I think it is the proper corollary of the public step he has taken. Yes, Sir, but because the hon. Gentleman in the legitimate pursuit of his new vocation puts down a Resolution intended to embarass the Government, is that a reason why hon. Gentlemen on this side who agree with what I may briefly describe as the Edinburgh policy should choose, in order to help the hon. Gentleman to carry out his amiable and charitable intentions, to vote against a policy of which they have declared themselves supporters? The Resolution itself is ambiguous. If it were merely ambiguous I should not specially quarrel with it. But it is not only ambiguous, it is inexpedient. It is inexpedient because it is brought forward under circumstances which, if it were carried by the House, will not merely have the relatively insignificant result of turning out the present Government, but will have the result of producing a widespread misconception in this country, which is bad, and throughout our Colonial Empire, which is far, far worse. I therefore would venture to appeal to friends of mine who agree with the Edinburgh policy—I do not appeal to those who differ from it—not to do violence to their natural wish to support the Government by voting with the hon. Gentleman against their own view. It appears to me that no question of Parliamentary expediency can justify such a course as that. I am not asking them—I do not think this is the time or the place to ask them—for any profession of their economic faith. The previous Question does not touch that point at all. The man who votes for the previous Question votes that he thinks this Resolution is brought forward at an inexpedient time and in an inexpedient manner for the interests of the country and of the
  844
  Empire. Those who hold that, as I hold it most clearly, should surely have no hesitation in giving a vote which, as I have ventured to explain it, at all events is capable of no misinterpretation, of no charge of ambiguity. All those who vote for it declare that there should be a Conference, and that if that Conference is to bring forth any result adequate to the effort which it will involve and to the great interests committed to it it should be free. That is the reason why my right hon. friend moved on behalf of the Government the previous Question. That is the reason why I shall support it; and that is the reason why I, with some confidence, appeal to my friends on this side of the House to follow the example which we are endeavouring to set them.
  *MR. ASQUITH: I do not know whether my hon. friend the Member for Oldham, when he put down this Motion, was sanguine enough to suppose that the majority opposite; the tariff reformers below the gangway, and the Gentlemen of variegated opinions above the gangway—the Gentlemen who believed last year in the Sheffield programme and believe this year in the Edinburgh programme—would, if they could prevent it, allow the House of Commons to pronounce its judgment upon it. If he did, he fell into a strange delusion; because, as the Prime Minister has frankly told us, the Government, in moving the previous Question, are endeavouring to prevent, as far as they can, any departure from their policy of the open or, as it was called the other day, the empty mind. It would be strange indeed if the game of evasion and procrastination which has been played so long were now to be dropped at the eleventh hour, and, I venture to say, stranger still if the right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of this Assembly, permitted himself in this matter to lapse, even for a moment, into an attitude resembling respect for the opinion of the House of Commons—an opinion for which, as regards this fiscal controversy, he has now for two years exhibited an undisguised and unbroken contempt. We have heard a great deal to-night from the benches opposite of the advantages

  845
  of a free and unfettered Colonial Conference. Might they not have set an example by allowing a free and unfettered House of Commons, for once, at any rate, in this Parliament, to pronounce its opinion upon that which is the dominant and capital issue in the politics of the day? The Prime Minister will add, if he carries this Motion, to what I think an unenviable record of successful attempts to lock the door of the principal forum of free discussion in this Empire. I say "free discussion," because a discussion which is not allowed to terminate, as it ought naturally to terminate, in the expression of "Aye" or "No" to the proposition put is not discussion in any real sense of the word. But though the Government, by their majority, may carry the previous Question, they cannot shift the issue; and that issue—the only issue before the House, the country, and the Empire—is the issue which is embodied in the Resolution of my hon. friend. The official policy of the Government has been throughout to endeavour to confuse and disguise that issue. Last year we had the Sheffield programme. In the debates that took place on this subject last session there is not a hint or suggestion from any representative of the Government that it was desirable to submit the matter to a Colonial Conference. Why, at the very end of last session the Prime Minister himself, after the deliberate consideration of a solemn appeal made to him by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, disclaimed any intention of taking any such step.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not admit that.
  *MR. ASQUITH: It is recorded in Hansard. Yet, to-night, the Colonial
  846
  Secretary is put up to represent as the sole ground, not of opposing this Motion, but of burking the discussion of it, that we are to have a free and unfettered debate in a Colonial Conference. There is a story of Mirabeau, who remarked of his younger brother that, "In any other family than ours he would be considered a scapegrace and a wit;" and after the speech of the Colonial Secretary, when he told us amongst other things that not to be able to make up your mind is a presumptive sign of genius, we may say that in any other Government but this the Colonial Secretary would be regarded as a master of the kind of sophistry which takes nobody in.
  What are the facts? I am not surprised at the speech made by the Prime Minister. I do not claim any special gifts of prophecy, but apart from the right hon. Gentleman's elegance of style and the audacity of his dialectic I may say that forty-eight hours ago I could have made the speech which the Prime Minister has delivered to-night. But there is one person in this debate to whose speech I looked forward with much more curiosity and interest, and that was the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. What is the position of the right hon. Gentleman? He is going to vote for the previous Question. Just fancy, the missionary of a new creed, when the first article of his gospel is brought into challenge and made a matter of controversy, not upon one of those platforms where he is accustomed to stand surrounded by admirers and sympathisers, but here in the only place where he has to meet the representatives of the people face to face, the missionary of the new creed announces to the world which he has set himself to convert that

  847
  he is going to vote for the previous Question. I fancy that this is a new and unique incident in the propagation of faith. I will not go back to Moses, or St. Paul, or St. Bernard, but I will take an illustration from a man of lesser stature suggested not for the first time in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman himself. Among his many curious and characteristic travesties of history he is in the habit of comparing himself to Mr. Cobden. I agree that generally he prefaces it with a patronising or compassionate reference to Mr. Cobden's sincerity of motive and shortness of vision; but the right hon. Gentleman, at any rate, finds one common feature in those two historical figures. They are both pioneers of a new era, preachers of a new crusade. Imagine Mr. Cobden after he had been through the length and breadth of the country declaring that the unity of the Empire and the well-being of our people depended upon the adoption of a particular policy, and when that policy was challenged before this House, cowering, as the right hon. Gentleman is doing tonight, behind the cover of the previous Question. Yes, this is the right hon. Gentleman who, as he has just reminded us, a fortnight ago voted against the submission of this issue to the people by a general election. He will not allow either the House of Commons or the nation to pronounce their judgment on the great controversy on which the unity of the Empire depends. He may run away to-night, but I venture to tell him, and many hon. Members opposite who are hiding their heads in the sand, that they will not be able to run away when the issue comes, as it soon must, before a tribunal where no one can move the previous Question. The right hon. Gentleman told us—and I think the
  848
  Prime Minister rather assented to that view—that this Motion, which protests against any system of preference involving the taxation of food, is not a fair representation of his views. Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman is opposed to protective duties on food? I think sometimes he forgets essential parts of his own scheme. I should like to remind him of what he said at Glasgow, when he told us he was not going to tax maize and bacon. Why? Because they were articles of consumption of the poorest classes. If the foreigner pays the duty, what have the poorest classes got to do with it? And it is simply because the right hon. Gentleman knows very well—and by making that exception by implication admits it—that his scheme for the taxation of corn and flour and the rest is a protective scheme that he is compelled in order to make it more palatable to introduce what otherwise would be a totally illogical exception.
  We are told that, by voting for this Resolution we are voting against what the Prime Minister called a free and unfettered Conference. But the Prime Minister tells us he himself is opposed to the protective taxation of food. In other words, therefore, this Resolution is simply asking the House to put upon record, if as we all desire to do, we enter into friendly Conference with the Colonies, what they ought to know from the first, that in the opinion of the House of Commons, including the Prime Minister, the protective taxation of food cannot form the subject of bargain. And yet in the same breath the Prime Minister assures us that the passing of this Resolution will be damaging to the Empire, and might prejudice the ultimate results of the Conference, although, as I

  849
  have shown, the very effect of the Resolution will be to clear out of the way the possibility of serious misconception. The Colonies are going into the conference with a fixed and pronounced determination that under no circumstances are they going to lower their tariffs so as to bring British manufactured goods into effective competition with the products of their own native industry at home. Why should not we in the same spirit of candour tell them on the threshold of the conference that we are not going under any circumstances to make it a matter of bargain that food, the elementary subsistence of the people of this country, should become the subject of protective duties? That and that alone is the issue my hon. friend has raised, and I cannot understand even on the Prime Minister's own showing how there can be any justification on grounds of policy or Imperial interest in moving the previous Question. The truth, Sir, is, as the House knows very well, that this is the latest of a series of manœuvres unexampled in Parliamentary annals by which
  the present Government will, I believe, gain their best title to be remembered by posterity. The Prime Minister has found himself in the last two years confronted by the greatest and the most capital issue that has been raised in our time. No one at this moment knows where he stands. You may muzzle, as you propose to do to-night, and degrade the House of Commons, but you cannot befool and delude the people of the country. Every vote for the previous Question here to-night will be construed, and rightly construed, by the people as a vote, whether direct or indirect, whether by a straight or a devious route—a vote in favour of the protective taxation of food. That, Sir, is the question. Disguise it, distort it, delay it if you can, and as you may, it is in that sense, and that sense only, that the decision of this House will be interpreted.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 302; Noes, 260. (Division List No. 33.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A (Wore.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Aird, Sir John

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Chapman, Edward

  Allhusen Augustus Henry Eden

  Bigwood, James

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Bill, Charles

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bingham, Lord

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

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Arnold-Forster Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Bond, Edward

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Arrol, Sir William

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C R.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon Sir H.

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Bowles Lt.-Col. H. F (Middlesex

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Brassey, Albert

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim S.

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Balcarres, Lord

  Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Bull, William James

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J (Manch'r

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Butcher, John George

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christen.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Davenport, W. Bromley

  Banner, John S. Harmood

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham

  Barry, Sir Francis T (Windsor)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Dewar, Sir T. R (Tower Hamlets

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Morton

  Purvis, Robert

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon Sir Joseph C.

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon Sir John H.

  Pym, C. Guy

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T (Denbigh)

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W.

  Randles, John S.

  Doughty, Sir George

  Kerr, John

  Rankin, Sir James

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Keswick, William

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Reed, Sir Edw. James (Cardiff)

  Dyke, Rt. Hon Sir William Hart

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Reid James (Greenock)

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th)

  Renshaw Sir Charles Brine

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Renwick, George

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'r

  Lawson, Hn. H. L. W (Mile End)

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks N R

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lee Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Finlay, Sir R. B (Inv'rn'ss B'ghs

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Robinson, Brooke

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Legge, Col. Hon. Henage

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Fison, Frederick William

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol S)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool

  Forster, Henry William

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford)

  Foster Philip S. (Warwick S. W.

  Lowe, Francis William

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Limehouse

  Gardner, Ernest

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Garfit, William

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Scott, Sir S. (Maryebone, W.)

  Godson Sir Augustus Frederick

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

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

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry South

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Gordon, Maj Evans (T'rH'mlets

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Smith, Abel H (Hertford, East)

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Smith, Rt Hn J Parker (Lanarks

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Spear, John Ward

  Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich

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

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Stanley, Hon Arthur (Ormskirk

  Greene, Henry D (Shrewsbury)

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset)

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

  Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Stewart, Sir Mark J M'Taggart

  Gretton, John

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Stock, James Henry

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Milner, Rt. Hn Sir Frederick G

  Stroyan, John

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Milvain, Thomas

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G (Oxf'd Univ

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'donderry

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Moore, William

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  Morgan, David J (Walthamstow

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Tuff, Charles

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley)

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Heath, Sir James (Staffords, N W

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Turnour, Viscount

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Mount, William Arthur

  Valentia, Viscount

  Helder, Augustus

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Vincent, Col. Sir CEH (Sheffield

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.)

  Murray, Charles J. (Conventry)

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Myers, William Henry

  Walrond, Rt. Hon Sir William H

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Horner, Frederick William

  Parkes, Ebenezer

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

  Hoult, Joseph

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Peel, Hn. Wm Robert Wellesley

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon

  Howard, John (Kent Faversham

  Percy, Earl

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-und Lyne

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R.)

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H (Yorks

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon Arthur Fred.

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

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

  852

  853

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Wylie, Alexander

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Edwards, Frank

  Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Elibank, Master of

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W

  Allen, Charles P.

  Ellice, Capt E C (S.Andrw's Bghs

  Kilbride, Denis

  Ambrose, Robert

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Kitson, Sir James

  Asher, Alexander

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Labouchere, Henry

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Emmott, Alfred

  Lambert, George

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm

  Atherley Jones, L.

  Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone

  Lamont, Norman

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Langley, Batty

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Law, Hugh Alex.(Donegal, W.)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Beaumont, Wentworth, C. B.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Bell, Richard

  Ffrench, Peter

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Benn, John Williams

  Field, William

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Black, Alexander William

  Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, NE

  Lloyd-George, David

  Blake, Edward

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Lough, Thomas

  Boland, John

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Lundon, W.

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Brigg, John

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  M'Crae, George

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh

  Gilhooly, James

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  M'Kean, John

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Burns, John

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Guest, Hon. Ivor. Churchill

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Caldwell, James

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Cameron, Robert

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard. B

  Mooney, John J.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G. (Midd'x

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Hammond, John

  Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  Moss, Samuel

  Cawley, Frederick

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Harrington, Timothy

  Murphy, John

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Harwood, George

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hatch Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Newnes, Sir George

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Norman, Henry

  Crean, Eugene

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Cremer, William Randal

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Crombie, John William

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

  Crooks, William

  Higham, John Sharpe

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Cullinan, J.

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

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Hobhouse, Rt Hn H (Somers't, E

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

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  O'Connor, James W. (Wicklow)

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Delany, William

  Horniman, Frederick John

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  O'Dowd, John

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Johnson, John

  O'Malley, William

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Joicey, Sir James

  O'Mara, James

  Doogan, P. C.

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Palmer, Sir Charles M (Durham

  Duffy, William J.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Partington, Oswald

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Joyce, Michael

  Paulton, James Mellor

  854

  855

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Shackleton, David James

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Perks, Robert William

  Sheehy, David

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Priestley, Arthur

  Slack, John Bamford

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Rea, Russell

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Reddy, M.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Reid, Sir R Threshie (Dumfries

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Wills, Arthur Walters (N Dorset

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Sullivan, Donal

  Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.)

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Tennant, Harold John

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

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Roche, John

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.

  Rose, Charles Day

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

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T.(Hudd'rsf'd

  Runciman, Walter

  Tillett, Louis John

  Young, Samuel

  Russell, T. W

  Tomkinson, James

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Samuel, Herb. L. (Cleveland)

  Toulmin, George

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Mr. Churchill and Mr.

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Wallace, Robert

  Austin Taylor.

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

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

NEW BILL.
  CRIMINAL NEW TRIALS.
  Bill to make provision for a new trial in certain criminal cases, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bousfield, Mr. Fletcher Moulton, Mr. Wharton, Mr. Lloyd-George, and Sir Albert Rollit.
  CRIMINAL NEW TRIALS BILL.
  "To make provision for a new trial in certain criminal cases," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, March 22nd, and to be printed [Bill 89.]

  ADJOURNMENT.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD, Somersetshire, Wellington)said, in moving the adjournment of the House, he desired to state that the Irish Land Commission Vote
  856
  in the Civil Service Supplementary Estimates would be taken first at next day's Sitting, and afterwards the remaining Votes in Classes 3, 4, and 5, and the Report of the Vote taken to-day.
  MR. LOUGHasked when the second part of the Paper with reference to the Navy would be issued.
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOODasked the hon. Member to repeat the Question to-morrow.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid he hoped the hon. and gallant Gentleman would remember that a Minister gave a pledge that certain matters in connection with the Vote which was closured that evening would be discussed.
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOODsaid he would consult the Minister on the subject.
  Adjourned at twelve minutes after Twelve o'clock.