HC Deb 20 March 1905 vol 143 cc537-81

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £21,500,000, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charges for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1906, viz.:—

CIVIL SERVICES.
CLASS III.
£
Ireland:—
Land Commission 70,000
CLASS II.
United Kingdom and England:—
Colonial Office 25,000
Local Government Board 86,000
CLASS I.
Royal Palaces 26,000
Osborne 7,000
Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens 43,000
Houses of Parliament Buildings 25,000
Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain 33,000
Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain 15,000
Diplomatic and Consular Buildings 54,000
Revenue Buildings 200,000
Public Buildings, Great Britain 180,000
Surveys of the United Kingdom 90,000
£
Harbours under the Board of Trade 8,000
Peterhead Harbour 10,000
Rates on Government Property 260,000
Public Works and Buildings, Ireland 110,000
Railways, Ireland 35,000
CLASS II.
United Kingdom and England:—
House of Lords Offices 7,000
House of Commons Offices 15,000
Treasury and Subordinate Departments 40,000
Home Office 66,000
Foreign Office 25,000
Privy Council Office, etc. 3,000
Board of Trade 85,000
Mercantile Marine Services 30,000
Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade 3
Board of Agriculture and Fisheries 55,000
Charity Commission 15,000
Civil Service Commission 17,000
Exchequer and Audit Department 25,000
Friendly Societies Registry 3,000
Lunacy Commission 5,000
Mint (including Coinage) 5
National Debt Office 6,000
Public Record Office 10,000
Public Works Loan Commission 5
Registrar-General's Office 17,000
Stationery and Printing 330,000
Woods, Forests, etc., Office of 8,000
Works and Public Buildings, Office of 30,000
Secret Service 40,000
Scotland:—
Secretary for Scotland, Office of 25,000
Fishery Board 5,000
Lunacy Commission 3,000
Registrar-General's Office 2,000
Local Government Board 5,000
Ireland:—
Lord-Lieutenant's Household 2,000
Chief Secretary for Ireland 12,000
Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction 80,000
Charitable Donations and Be-quests Office 1,000
£
Local Government Board 27,000
Public Record Office 2,000
Public Works Office 17,000
Registrar-General's Office 5,000
Valuation and Boundary Survey 6,000
CLASS III.
United Kingdom and England:—
Law Charges 40,000
Miscellaneous Legal Expenses 28,000
Supreme Court of Judicature 140,000
Land Registry 18,000
County Courts 2,000
Police, England and Wales 13,000
Prisons, England and the Colonies 350,000
Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Great Britain 130,000
Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum 12,000
Scotland:—
Law Charges and Courts of Law 30,000
Register House, Edinburgh 15,000
Crofters' Commission, Scotland 2,000
Prisons, Scotland 37,000
Ireland:—
Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions 32,000
Supreme Court of Judicature, and other Legal Departments 43,000
County Court Officers, etc. 45,000
Dublin Metropolitan Police 60,000
Royal Irish Constabulary 600,000
Prisons, Ireland 54,000
Reformatory and Industrial Schools 55,000
Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum 3,500
CLASSIV.
United Kingdom and England:—
Board of Education 7,000,000
British Museum 70,000
National Gallery 10,000
National Portrait Gallery 3,000
Wallace Collection 3,000
Scientific Investigation, etc., United Kingdom 24,000
£
Universities and Colleges, Great Britain, and Intermediate Education, Wales 60,000
Scotland:—
Public Education 770,000
National Gallery 5,000
Ireland:—
Public Education 760,000
Endowed Schools Commissioners 400
National Gallery 2,500
Queen's Colleges 2,500
CLASS V.
Diplomatic and Consular Services 250,000
Colonial Services 595,000
Telegraph Subsidies and Pacific Cable 35,000
Cyprus (Grant in Aid) 15,000
CLASS VI.
Superannuation and Retired Allowances 300,000
Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions, etc., 1,500
Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances 1,000
Hospitals and Charities, Ireland 17,000
Savings Banks and Friendly Societies Deficiencies —
CLASS VII.
Temporary Commissions 20,000
Miscellaneous Expenses 14,587
Repayments to the Local Loans Fund —
Ireland Development Grant 100,000
Visit of Their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Wales to India —
Total for Civil Services £14,070,000
REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
£
Customs 350,000
Inland Revenue 830,000
Post Office 3,800,000
Post Office Packet Service 250,000
Post Office Telegraphs 2,200,000
Total for Revenue Departments £7,430,000
Grand Total £21,500,000

MR. SCHWANN (Manchester, N.)

said he desired to call attention to the want of education among the children of the Tamil coolies who worked on the tea estates in Ceylon. The Tamil coolies were those who came across the sea from Madras and other parts of Southern India and who settled down to work on the plantations of Ceylon, and for their children so slight a provision was made in the way of education that it could be left altogether without recognition. The whole state of education among the population was neither flattering to our rule nor very encouraging. According to the census of 1901, the population of Ceylon was 3,500,000, and of the number only 750,000 were able to read or write, the rest were without any education. So far as the children were concerned, of the Ceylonese three-fifths had education and two-fifths had none; the children of the Tamil coolies were even more neglected. They numbered roughly some 90,000 or 100,000, and of those only one in fifty received any education at all. Such a state of things did not redound to the credit of the tea-planter, or, this being a Crown Colony, to our institutions. Two years previously the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, when Colonial Secretary, had been good enough to refer this question of the education of the children to a Committee then sitting upon the incidence of taxation and education cess, and he believed a Report was made by every member of that Committee with regard to the education of the coolie children of Ceylon. That Report had never been given to the House. They now found quite recently that a new Committee had been established by Sir Henry Blake, the new Governor of Ceylon, for the purpose of examining this question. He desired to know the reason for appointing that Committee, because it was generally acknowledged by those who understood these matters that the appointment of a Committee was only another means for delay. He believed, however, from the reply that the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary had made to a Question upon this subject, that this Committee was for a benevolent object, and was to take into consideration the recommendations of the Committee which sat upon the incidence of taxation and education cess and to establish a system of education in Ceylon for these children. If that was so, he should be highly delighted and could only congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon commencing his official duties by such an act of real civilisation to this colony.

There were some Tea Estates Companies who felt they owed a duty to the children on their estates, and they had established schools which had been successful in obtaining grants from the Government, but there were only forty-three of those schools among 1,857 estates. The experience of the education obtained in those schools was of the greatest value to the Committee, a great many owners of estates expressing the opinion that the children on their estates, owing to the education they received, were a great deal more intelligent than before, that they were able to check the accounts of their families and thus keep a check upon the moneylenders, who were a great evil so far as the coolies were concerned in Ceylon. That established the position that education was not only in the interests of the children, but of the planters also, because it gave them intelligent workmen. Mr. J. Harwood, the Director of Public Instruction in Ceylon, had not a great opinion of the estates schools, and said— It was not unfair to say that there was hardly any proper educational provision for the children of the Tamil estate coolies. and further That no planter would deny that many children go out as pluckers at an age when they would be more appropriately going to school. In conclusion, Mr. Harwood said that these children— should have some instruction of a simple and elementary nature. Referring to the question of age, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take that question into consideration. These children of tender years were taken out into the fields and exposed for ten or twelve hours in all weathers, for there was not always sunshine in Ceylon, and he thought there should be some limitation to the time at which they should be at work. Mr. Harwood's opinion was that— The real solution of the question seems to be in the establishment of a special class of school for the estate coolies with a syllabus framed, to meet the real wants of these children. The extension of schools of a similar type through the more backward parts of the rural districts of Ceylon would be a wise measure. Mr. Kingsford, Chairman of the Planters Association of Ceylon, on the other hand, rather threw cold water upon that scheme and said— I would advocate an extension on a more liberal scale of the present Government grants. Unfortunately a rumour had reached him that the Director of Public Instruction there proposed to reduce the grants made by the Government. He hoped that that was not the case. Nobody proposed to give these children an elaborate education comprising algebra, trigonometry, and so forth; all they wanted to teach them was a little writing, reading, and arithmetic in their own vernacular. Two or three hours a day would be quite sufficient, and nobody suggested that these children should spend the whole day in school. Another idea which had struck a great many was that for the purposes of the schools the estates should be grouped together so that a school might be founded for the children of, say, four or five estates. He did not think the cost of such schools as he suggested would be alarming, seeing that a schoolmaster could be obtained for twenty rupees a month, and though the planters themselves were not very enthusiastic on the subject of education, he thought, if they only fell into line, they would in the end be glad to see, as some already did, the benefits of education extended to those whom they employed. The Times of Ceylon stated— We have little doubt that primary education for the Tamil children on the estates would create a more intelligent class, more free from crime than their more ignorant fathers. The hon. Sir James Ferguson, a member of the Government Council, Ceylon, said The primary duty lies with the estate proprietors, with the directors and chairman of Tea Companies. If this duty be neglected for long I can only say I shall feel bound to advocate compulsion. He himself held a certain number of tea shares, and was also connected with some estates in Ceylon, and was therefore able, as well as willing, to contribute his share towards promoting the welfare of the children. The right hon. Gentleman had already shown his interest in this question, and he hoped they would very shortly see a simple, cheap, and effective system of education introduced in Ceylon.

*MR. KEARLEY (Devonport)

said he had already about a fortnight since directed the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the treatment of British ships trading with the Marshall Islands, but the replies not being entirely satisfactory he was entitled to mention the subject again. The Commonwealth Government had made a strong protest to the Home Government against the outrageous treatment accorded to British ships trading between the Colonies and those islands which belonged to Germany. What were the facts? A Sydney firm intended to establish a line of steamers between Sydney and the Marshall Islands, but, before doing so, they approached the German authorities, who assured them that they would come in under the most-favoured-nation terms. On the arrival at the Marshall Islands of the first ship they were charged a licence fee at the rate of £2,700 per annum for the privilege of trading. Two voyages were made, both of which were necessarily unsuccessful, but at the urgent request of the native chiefs it was decided to make a third trip in the hope that the authorities would make some concession. On arrival, however, the captain of the ship was told the fees were doubled, and a trading fee at the rate of £5,400 per annum was levied. When the ship returned to Sydney and the facts became known considerable excitement arose in the harbour, culminating in the strong protest that was sent by the Commonwealth Government to the Home Government. A great deal was said now-a-days about protecting our trade from outrageous treatment; here was a case in which the Government could apply their policy of retaliation without any delay longer than that of obtaining the assent of Parliament, which would be freely given. Let them consider the difference in treatment accorded to German and other nationalities when trading with the group of islands under British control; ships of any nation could go and trade on payment of a fee of £100 a year! What was the nature of the protest of the Commonwealth Government, and were the Imperial Government discussing this question with Germany? because it was not a question which would brook much delay. He would like to know also whether the right hon. Gentleman would publish Papers. He hoped the Government would not tamely submit to this outrageous interference with our trade, and that if satisfaction was not accorded by Germany they would devise some means of retaliation.

*MR. McCRAE (Edinburgh, E.)

asked for information as to the issue of the first instalment of the £30,000,000 Transvaal loan. The answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the willingness of the guarantors to fulfil their obligations was entirely borne out by the correspondence. The Government had made the proposition for this £30,000,000 loan with an utter disregard to the one consideration they ought to bear in mind in all transactions of this kind. The arrangement the late Colonial Secretary made with the guarantors for the loan excluded all possibility of a sinking fund. A sinking fund was to be provided for the £35,000,000 loan which the late Colonial Secretary said was part of the agreement whereby this country was to guarantee the £30,000,000, and that fact ought to be kept in the forefront. The present Colonial Secretary, wiser than his predecessor, said a sinking fund must be provided for the £30,000,000 loan also, and the guarantors then asked for further particulars. So far as he could discover, all negotiations had since then been suspended with the guarantors, and he asked, Why this delay? Why had the right hon. Gentleman allowed fifteen months to elapse without taking action in the matter. In his letter of December 4th, 1903, to Messrs. Wernher Beit & Company, the Colonial Secretary stated— The necessary legal provisions for raising the loan had been embodied in a draft Ordinance which was forwarded some time ago to the Governor of the Transvaal, and which will be submitted in due course to the Legislative Council of the Colony, but an important point in connection with the Ordinance remains un settled, namely, the question of a sinking fund. Had anything been done since December, 1903, to get the assent of the Legislative Council of the Transvaal to the issue of this loan? The matter was in a most extraordinary position, and the Committee ought to have some definite and detailed statement from the Colonial Secretary as to how the whole matter stood. The first instalment was to have been paid some fifteen months ago, but there was no immediate prospect of the promise being fulfilled. Quite recently Lord Milner had stated that the finances of the Transvaal were in a very rosy condition, but it was only a few weeks back that the Colonial Secretary said that they were not sufficient to meet the sinking fund and interest for this first instalment of the loan. He thought, however, that, having regard to the contribution from the mines under the new system, the right hon. Gentleman would find, if he looked into the matter for the coming year, that the finances of the Transvaal would be sufficient to meet the sinking fund and interest. Moreover, the money market was in a condition favourable to the issue of the loan. All financial authorities would agree that at any time within the last two months a successful issue might have been secured; but in any case, so far as the first issue was concerned, the guarantors were liable for its success. How was it that the right hon. Gentleman had not taken advantage of the condition of the money market? Even the municipality of Johannesburg proposed to issue a loan of £2,500,000. If the reason for the non-issue of the loan was not the condition of the Transvaal finances or of the money market, was it connected with the Legislative Council? The right hon. Gentleman ought to make a clean breast of the matter, and he hoped he would take advantage of the present debate to give the Committee a clear and definite statement. He begged to move a reduction in the Vote of £100.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item, Class 2, Vote 6 (Colonial Office), be reduced by £100."—(Mr. McCrae.)

SIR GILBERT PARKER (Gravesend)

said the question raised by the hon. Member for Devonport was a serious one, and, with him, he appealed to his right hon. friend the Colonial Secretary to consider it. He would point out, however, that the action of Germany in regard to the Marshall Islands was not a single application of a singular principle, but the application of a general principle to the whole of His Majesty's Colonies by that Power. At the present time the North-German Lloyd Company, by its contract with the German Government, was prevented from taking from Australia to Germany a single pound's worth of wool, food stuffs or any raw material which Australia might produce. It seemed to him the Committee should consider this question in relation not only to Germany, but also to the United States. What was the policy of the United States with regard to our Colonies? He was aware that hon. Members opposite were opposed to him on the question of preference, but there was such a thing as not only preference in relation to the trade of foreign countries with our Colonies, but also practical prohibition. In 1885, England was commercially supreme in the Sandwich Islands. By virtue of a strenuous commercial policy the United States gained control of the commercial position there, turned that position into a political position, and eventually, as in Samoa, effected a territorial acquirement. The result was that now the shipping trade from Australia was not allowed to carry a pound of goods from the Sandwich Islands to San Francisco. How could Great Britain view a circumstance of that kind without considering her own position? In the Sandwich Islands, Samoa, and Mexico, the United States had, to use an American expression, "chiselled" us out of our position.

The hon. Member for Devonport had very properly protested against the action of Germany, and had asked what position the Government were going to take up with regard to what was practically a prohibitory proclamation against our trade. The matter was worthy of attention, and the Committee ought to consider whether the question of retaliation, whether applied to the dumping of goods in this country by foreign countries or to the passage of ships upon the sea, was not really a serious and critical question for this country. If a policy of retaliation might be applied in the case of Germany in regard to the Marshall Islands, should the Committee not consider whether it would be possible, or proper, to incorporate into our national policy a reconstruction of our navigation laws? We boasted of our shipping trade, and yet our position was only the same as fifty years ago, in spite of the vast increase of our population and the acquisition of large territories which ought to give us new markets. In Cuba there had been a policy of preference. ["Question."] The policy of retaliation involved the policy of preference, if it involved anything at all, ["No."] If a nation pursued a policy favourable to its own territories and oppressive to those of other Powers, that was a policy of preference. If the hon. Gentleman asked the Government to retaliate in this case, he was asking them to retaliate in the interests of some of the British dominions, and if that did not involve the principle of preference what, in the name of common-sense, did it involve? At any rate, it involved the principle of fair play for our shipping trade and of justice to our Colonies. This policy of preference or of justice to our dominions had been well exemplified in the relations between Canada and Germany. When Canada put a surtax upon sugar, Germany was exporting to Canada 188,000,000 lbs. of sugar. Immediately Canada put on the surtax the importation of German sugar ceased, but the importation from the West Indies and British Guiana went up to such an extent as to make good the cessation of the German supply. In the course of recent debates with regard to the Sugar Convention and the increased production in the West Indies, hon. Members had spoken of the importation into England as though that were all. But the Empire was larger than England, and if, by the Sugar Convention embodying the principle of preference to the West Indies, the Government had benefited the trade of Canada and developed the production of India, and by so completing the circle had drawn Canada closer to this country, they had been pursuing not only an Imperial idea of unity but an economic idea of security.

SIR ROBERT REID (Dumfries Burghs)

said that with regard to the Transvaal loan, there had been an entire failure to carry out the obligations contracted when the late Colonial Secretary went to South Africa. Three obligations were then entered into. The first was that the gold and property tax should not exceed a certain percentage. That was in favour of those interested in gold mines, and had been rigidly observed. The second was that this country should guarantee a loan of £35,000,000. That was for the benefit of the colony, and the money had been issued. The third was that a sum of £30,000,000, should be raised at 4 per cent., without guarantee by this country, towards the cost of the war. That was in favour of this country, but the obligation had been absolutely unfulfilled. He did not blame the Colonial Secretary for not carrying the arrangement into effect, his view being that we had no right until a representative Government adopted the proposal to impose upon the Transvaal such an immense burden of taxation as would be involved in another £30,000,000 of debt. The £35,000,000 already issued, and the additional £30,000,000 would amount to about £160 of debt per head of the white population of the Transvaal, an amount unprecedented in the history of any nation. The indebtedness in this country worked out to about £18 per head. He had endeavoured, with considerable trouble, to ascertain what the financial position of the Transvaal really was, but it was the most difficult thing in the world to investigate. The Blue-books gave the impression that the truth was being purposely concealed, so muddled and confused were the statements. He thought, however, that any impartial observer of the Transvaal accounts for last year would come to the conclusion that the financial prospect was anything but rosy. Did the Government really believe it possible to impose this fresh burden of £30,000,000 on the Transvaal. If so, he would be glad to hear it, as there were many persons in South Africa who profited very largely by the war, and who ought to pay something towards relieving the burden imposed upon this country. He had no feeling of tenderness for the capitalists of South Africa, who, he believed, were largely responsible for that most disastrous war, but business ought to be business, and it was idle to put an additional £30,000,000 of debt upon the Transvaal unless the Government were satisfied that the country could bear the burden. If the Colonial Secretary had doubts on the subject he would receive support from both sides if he said so at once and took the consequences, which, after all, would not be the result of his own acts. The truth was that this arrangement was an illusory and impossible bargain from beginning to end. He hoped the Colonial Secretary would tell the Committee what he really thought about the subject, and whether he proposed to leave the matter open until representative Government was established in the Transvaal, and that representative Government had taken upon itself the responsibility of this burden.

MR. BUCHANAN (Perthshire, E.)

said the hon. and learned Gentleman was one of the few Members who were justified in taking the line he had just followed, because in the discussions on the South African Loan Bill he took the fundamental objection that the condition of the Transvaal was such that a debt of £65,000,000 could not equitably be imposed upon the colony, and he had consistently opposed the policy of the Government from beginning to end. But that did not apply to all Members, and certainly not to the Government. There was a case, at any rate, for full inquiry and explanation. What was the condition of affairs with regard to this £30,000,000 loan? Without going through the matter from the beginning what was the condition now? The last statement they had upon this subject was one made two or three days ago by Lord Milner in Johannesburg, who said that he was leaving South Africa without a vestige of anxiety regarding the ability of the Transvaal to pay its way, and there was money enough there to meet all the normal requirements of good government. Lord Milner further stated that the contribution of the Transvaal to the burden of the war was one of honour, and one which no colonial statesman of any credit could ignore. That was quite a recent statement from Lord Milner, but they had had no information as the views of the Government upon this subject for more than a year.

His hon. and learned friend the Member for Dumfries seemed to indicate that the Colonial Secretary had held the idea that since the South African Loan Bill was introduced it had been practically impossible to attempt to demand the issue of this £30,000,000 loan. He did not think that idea was quite accurate In December, 1903, the Governor of the Transvaal telegraphed to the Colonial Secretary stating that he was expecting instructions with regard to the first instalment of that loan, and there were several communications with regard to the issue of the loan in accordance with the scheme of the Loan Bill, but it was not issued. He contended that the loan of £30,000,000 was not issued in 1903, not on the ground that the finances of the Transvaal would not bear it, but on account of the state of the money market. In the last few months there had been considerable improvement in the finances of the Transvaal. Therefore it did not lie in the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman to meet this argument on the ground of the condition of the finances of the Transvaal. They had not yet got the complete figures, but they had been given up to the end of December last. The figures they had got, however, marked a very considerable improvement, and he thought they might deduce from Lord Milner's statement that in his view the possibility of issuing the first instalment of the £30,000,000 loan was within a reasonable distance. He wished to remind the Committee of the White Paper which was issued with the Loan Bill, explaining the finance upon which it was founded. That Paper showed the way in which the interest was to be paid, and it stated that at first there would probably be a deficit, but that afterwards there would be a surplus. If that was the case in 1903, when the Transvaal finances were not so hopeful as at the present time, surely now that they had turned the corner they might fairly expect that some steps would be taken for the issue of the first instalment of this loan. With regard to the guarantors, he did not want to go into details as to their position, but he did not think they had been very eager.

THE SECRETARY OP STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTOX, Warwick and Leamington)

dissented.

MR. BUCHANAN

said at the beginning they had the most equivocal and categorical statement as to the way in which they had given their guarantee. They were going to underwrite the whole amount, and they were not going to take any preference or commission, and it was to be a full and complete guarantee. Up to the present they had shown that they were not particularly eager to join in the issue of the first instalment of this loan. When they' remembered the patriotic expressions with which they had expressed their readiness to join in this guarantee he thought they had good reason to be disappointed at the want of eagerness amongst the guarantors at the present moment. He asked the other day whether there had been any communication between the Colonial Office and the guarantors since 1904, and he was informed that there had been none. Absolutely all negotiations between them had ceased since February, 1904. He further asked if there had been any correspondence between the Home and the Transvaal Government upon this question, and he was informed that all the correspondence had been of a private and confidential character, and there was no correspondence which could be presented to the House. He thought some announcement ought to be made of the intentions of the Government with regard to asking the Transvaal to take steps for the issue, at any rate, of the first part of the loan, and that the Committee ought to have some more detailed statement of the condition of the Transvaal finances. Lord Milner appeared to contemplate the possibility of the Transvaal Government borrowing more money for capital expenditure, and he should like some information upon that point as well as upon the various points he had raised.

DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.)

said they had been told that it was desirable that they should be taught to think Imperially. In his opinion he thought it was quite time that the Government should be taught to weigh jam Imperially. He was bound to observe that the hon. Member for Gravesend was not quite so flamboyant upon the subject of preference when that question was before the House, because he took refuge in the previous Question.

SIR GILBERT PARKER

Does the hon. Member assume that I am not prepared to defend the principles which I hold?

DR. MACNAMARA

said he did not assume anything, but at any rate he had not the courage to support his views on that occasion. With regard to the question of local self-government in the Transvaal, he had no wish to place difficulties in the way of the Government, but he regretted that they had determined to proceed by way of letters patent. The South African War lasted thirty-seven months, cost them £250,000,000, and 450,000 British troops were engaged in it, and if ever there was a case in which procedure should be by statutory enactment which would have come fully before the House for decision this was such a case. He wished to know how far they would be in a position to discuss the form of the letters patent. Would it be in detail or would they be substantially perfected before the House had an opportunity of considering them? He understood that in the Government of the Transvaal they were going to keep the official element, take away the nominated members, and substitute for them elected members.

The Colonial Secretary had said that when the question of the Chinese Labour Ordinance was put before the representatives elected by the country they would see who was right and who was wrong upon that great issue, and that great issue was, did the country approve of the Ordinance? He held that the immediate purpose of the Government in conferring self-government on the Transvaal was to obtain a vote on the Labour Ordinance, and he warned the Colonial Secretary that it would be very disastrous indeed for the future of the Transvaal if, for the sake of securing a verdict favourable to that Ordinance, he in any way gerrymandered the Constitution. He would like to know why the Government did not propose to ask for a contribution from the Orange River Colony? They would have to watch this question with great care, because the Government had very peculiar views as to what was the expressed wish of the people of the Transvaal on the question of the Chinese Ordinance. The right hon. Gentleman sent a telegram to the successful candidate at the Chertsey election, in which he asked all fair-minded men to remember that the labourers who came willingly upon the terms offered to them had been introduced into the Transvaal at the express wish of the white population. That was the view of the Government. On May 20th, 1903, in reply to the Australian Federal Government, who protested against the introduction of the coolie into South Africa until a referendum had been taken as to the views of the white population, the right hon. Gentleman sent a cable stating that His Majesty's Government adhered to the policy of treating the Transvaal as a self-governing colony where Imperial interests were not concerned. How had they done this? The Legislative Council consisted of twenty-seven persons, thirteen of them officials and fourteen nominated persons, and twenty-two of these gentlemen had voted in favour of the Labour Ordinance. And yet the Colonial Secretary had thought fit to inform the electors of Chertsey that the opinion of such a Council was the expressed wish of the white population of the Transvaal, and the Australian Federal Government had been informed that the Transvaal was being treated as a self-governing colony. He did not think such statements would deceive anybody, and they would not influence a single vote in the country in favour of the Government. They would, however be likely to cause exasperation in a country which had cost this country already quite enough in blood and treasure.

MR. LYTTELTON

I think the circumstances of the Government's abstention at the present moment from the issue of £10,000,000, the first instalment of the loan no doubt require explanation; but I do not think that when the full facts of the case are put before the House they will require argument, or at any rate much argument. It is in placing the full facts of the case before the House that I shall seek the justification of His Majesty's Government for that abstention. I say in the first place that the financial state of the Transvaal is remarkably good, all things considered; but it must be remembered that it is less than three years since peace was concluded. In the interval it has been necessary to reconstruct the entire economic fabric of the Transvaal, to restore the people to their dwellings, to rebuild their dwellings, to restock their farms, and to give them seed for planting. You have to make up the leeway in the deterioration which naturally took place during three years in the mines; the railways have had to be repaired and reconstructed, the bridges have had to be rebuilt, and the roads to be made. It has been necessary, in fact, to reconstruct the entire condition of things, which had been, of course, desolated by the war. For that purpose, among others, a development loan of £35,000,000 was guaranteed by this country. It was secured on the revenues of the Transvaal and on the railway receipts of the Inter-Colonial Council. You had, therefore, as good a security as it was possible to have. There is an ample balance to secure the loan, and there is not the slightest doubt that it will always be paid. I venture to say that any one of us who had the money would be very glad to have a share in the loan. When you have taken that guarantee into consideration, when you have reckoned the £1,400,000 which is the interest on the £35,000,000, and when you have made every provision for the expenses of government in the Transvaal, you have about a balance of ordinary revenue and expenditure. In June, which is the end of the financial year, there is estimated to be a slight deficit. But assume that the greater degree of prosperity may result in financial equilibrium at the end of June, 1905. We are asked why we do not issue the war contribution, which is to take the form of a loan of £30,000,000 at 4 per cent., secured on the revenues of the Transvaal. I say in the first place, without fear of contradiction, from those experienced in colonial affairs, that when ordinary revenue and expenditure balance in a Crown Colony it is entirely against all precedent in the financial administration of either Party to permit a Crown colony to issue further loans. You have then nothing to issue them on. I say, therefore, with great respect to those who have advanced the contrary opinion, that even if you stop there, then you have a reason for not issuing the promised war contribution. There is no surplus on which to issue it at present, although we anticipate in the course of the next twelve months a good surplus. I wish to be very moderate in my statements in regard to the future; I do not profess to be an experienced financier, and although we have good reason to believe that there will be a reasonable and substantial surplus in 1905–6, still at the present moment, in a state of financial equilibrium, I say we are not justified in issuing the £30,000,000 loan.

But it may be said that the circumstances of the Transvaal are peculiar, because there has been a promise—it has always been put very loosely—that the £30,000,000 would be paid; and the first £10,000,000, it is vaguely said, has been guaranteed by the capitalists of the Rand. [Cries of "Not vaguely."] It is generally said. Please look at the facts. Every business man will recognise them at once. A contract of guarantee is ambiguous. It might be supposed that the capitalists of the Transvaal had guaranteed both the principal and interest of the first £10,000,000

*MR. McCRAE

Nobody said so.

MR. LYTTELTON

I believe nobody said so, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman, who is very well informed, would not say so, but I think from what passed in this House before, and certainly from what I have heard outside, there is a general belief that the Government, by asking for £10,000,000 at the present moment and issuing the loan, could obtain the money from the pockets of the capitalists of the Transvaal, and so make the position of the British taxpayer so much the lighter. I believe that was the idea. Now, I will point out that that is an absolute delusion. The contract was not a guarantee for principal and interest. It was an underwriting contract. I do not profess to be a City man myself, but everybody who has been in the City tells me that at the present moment, if you chose to issue that £10,000,000 at 4 per cent., there would not be the slightest difficulty in getting the money. I do not think that is disputed. Of course hon. Members will see in a moment that what would happen would be this. That loan would be issued, it would be subscribed, I venture to say—though no expert in these matters—many times over at 4 per cent. [An HON. MEMBER: At par?] Yes, I venture to say that it would go beyond par, probably to 101 or 102. Now please consider the consequence. The consequence is that the capitalists of the Transvaal, instead of paying the taxpayers of this country £10,000,000 out of their pockets, would receive in premiums on that loan something like £500,000. Is it not ridiculous to blame us for not bleeding the capitalists when the effect of their being bled would end in putting half a million into their pockets?

*MR. McCRAE

That is not so.

MR LYTTELTON

The House has heard my argument, and I am speaking in the hearing of gentlemen who know the circumstances of the money market better than I know them.

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

Does not the 4 per cent. include the sinking fund?

MR. LYTTELTON

It does not include the sinking fund. But let me allow for a margin of error. Let me suppose that the 4 per cent. loan would not go beyond par. In that case the capitalists of the Transvaal would lose or gain nothing, but the burden of this contribution would fall, not upon them, but upon the taxpayers of the Transvaal. I think that it is only justice to the gentlemen who made that engagement to say that in 1902 the circumstances of the Transvaal were widely different. There was a period which no one could foresee when the economic prosperity of the country would revive. This underwriting contract was made by the capitalists without any commission, without any certainty what the results of it would be, when, indeed, their position might be one of serious loss. They ought to have the credit of that. But do not let us hear any more of the plea that we can get £10,000,000 out of these gentlemen when, in point of fact, the result of such an operation would be to put money into their pockets.

*MR. McCRAE

You are misstating the case.

MR. LYTTELTON

I do not wish to make any statement beyond bringing to the attention of hon. Members the great seriousness of what the contract of underwriting was. What was the so-called contract for £30,000,000? It was an undertaking made by fourteen prominent citizens of the Witwatersrand. They described themselves as being large taxpayers resident on the Witwatersrand, and to these fourteen members were added the Johannesburg Town Council, the chambers of mines and commerce the Stock Exchange, and other bodies. I think that, looking at the list with perfect impartiality, we would say that it was a very representative body. What did they resolve to do? Great as my admiration is for my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham, I think that one of the most important and triumphant of his feats is to have secured a resolution from that body to this effect. It was the result of a powerful and magnetic personality. This was the resolution— This meeting, consisting of large taxpayers resident on the Witwatersrand, expresses its approval of the principle that the colony should make a voluntary contribution to the Imperial Government of £30,000,000 towards the cost of the recent war, and that this sum be a debt on the public revenues of this colony, the amount to be provided by a 4 per cent, loan raised in three yearly instalments of £10,000,000 each, commencing January, 1904. That is the arrangement. [An HON. MEMBER: But that is not a guarantee.] I thought I had made the matters of the guarantee clear to the hon. Gentleman who interrupted me. The guarantee was £10,000,000, to be issued at 4 per cent., secured on the revenues of the Transvaal, This is £30,000,000. Will hon. Gentlemen be kind enough to keep these two things separate? That is the promise made by leading residents on the Witwatersrand. My right hon. friend the late Colonial Secretary, in recounting the circumstances and the conditions on which this loan was made, enumerated them with great precision. It is perfectly true he did say that the £30,000,000 of war contribution was part of the arrangement of the £35,000,000 guarantee. But he said also that we have always laid down two conditions on which we thought it possible to obtain this assistance. I agree that was part of the arrangement whereby the guarantee of £35,000,000 was made, but what are the other conditions? There were three other conditions. First, that we did not intend to impose any additional taxation in the Transvaal beyond the 10 per cent, profit tax we had put on the mining industry. Secondly, that we should not put upon them any obligation which would hinder a prompt and sufficient development of the country. That has always been a cardinal feature of the policy of the Government. And the third condition was "that any contribution which is to be made should be made willingly, voluntarily, and not be enforced or imposed upon them by the superior Power." There was a further engagement which I should notice, namely, "that the loan should not be issued when market conditions were unfavourable." Please let the House consider this matter, as I only wish to put the abolute facts before them. I have read my right hon. friend's words. If we now exacted this loan of £30,000,000 are we in a position to say that we should not enforce or impose it by the superior Power? I pointed out at the beginning of my speech that there was only an equilibrium of revenue and expenditure, and that we were not in a position to make such a demand at any time, and more particularly when the whole right of our obligation arises from an arrangement made, and that arrangement is on the terms that the contribution is only to be made willingly and voluntarily. Can it be said that the imposition of this obligation now would not hinder the proper and sufficient development of the country? I say it would take away for some years the entire surplus revenue of the colony; and everybody knows that when a colony is in the condition of the Transvaal development works are exceedingly urgent; and if you wish to make a good thing of the colony, if you wish results from the Transvaal such as have been seen in many of the self-governing Colonies, I say, Do not ride the horse too hard at the beginning. Let him get on his legs. Do not gallop him on deep ground. Treat him gently; he will gallop well enough when you get him on the straight afterwards. I wish to ask this question seriously, is anybody who follows me in a position to say, were we to issue this £30,000,000 loan at the present moment, that it could be done without imposing fresh taxation, without hindering its proper and sufficient development, or without imposing the will of the superior Power on the Transvaal, and not voluntarily by the Transvaal? If he cannot affirm these three propositions, then in asking the House to issue this loan he is asking it to break the conditions which were made. [Cries of "Oh."] Yes, he is asking us to break the conditions which were made by my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham, and which were stated with the utmost lucidity to the House of Commons.

I ought to mention that the debt of the Transvaal, with a population of 300,000 men, is £35,000,000, and that debt has been undertaken and provision made for the payment of interest on the debt within three years of a long and desolating war. If you add £30,000,000 more you would have a debt of £65,000,000. The figures of population must not be pressed too far, because you have an industrial population of Kaffirs and Chinamen also, which amount, I daresay, altogether to six or seven times that number. It would not be right to treat it as a matter affecting the whites only, because you have a great deal of industrial potentiality; but still, if you were to multiply that 300,000 by six or seven, such a debt would be a very heavy burden at the present moment. I venture to think it ought not to be imposed at a moment when we are on the eve of granting them representative government. I am endeavouring to place the exact facts of the case before hon. Members. They may possibly not accept them. The hon. Member for Camberwell and the hon. Member for East Perthshire stated that legislation is required before this debt of £30,000,000 can be imposed. Legislation is required, and I do not deny that if we were to exercise our powers at the present moment, and if we were to force the vote through the present Legislative Council by the us of the official vote we could possibly pas that legislation.

DR. MACNAMARA

Like the Ordinance.

MR. LYTTELTON

If the hon. Member's memory was as good as I thought it was he would remember that the official vote was not used on that occasion.

DR. MACNAMARA

The Ordinance was carried by twenty-two to four, and the total membership, official and nominated, is twenty-seven.

MR. LYTTELTON

The hon. Member appears to think that is an answer. If his memory was as good as I thought it was, he would know that specific injunctions were given from home that the official members were to vote as they pleased.

MR. EMMOTT (Oldham)

Did any vote against? [Cries of "No."]

MR. LYTTELTON

Yes, I think four did. I do not wish to pursue that interruption. It is not germane to what I am saying. If we were to force the necessary legislation through by the use of the official vote, instructing every membèr of the Government that he must vote for it or resign his seat, I am not at all sure that we would get it through, but we should have a chance of getting it through. But, assuming that we should get it, do hon. Members think such a course would be wise or in conformity with the traditions of colonial administration in this country? On the eve of the grant of a large measure of representative government—yes, and upon a very democratic franchise—do they think it would be wise to exact from a moribund Assembly a contribution of £30,000,000, plus the £35,000,000 already upon the shoulders of the taxpayers of the Transvaal? I say it would be most unwise, and I should be surprised if any Member of the Party opposite got up and said that it would be otherwise than most unwise and impolitic co force such a vote through a moribund nominated Assembly.

Now, I have endeavoured to show that the Government are fully justified in abstaining at the present moment from forcing this contribution, so to say, at the point of the bayonet from the Transvaal. I have pointed out the circumstances of their financial condition. I have pointed out the conditions on which my predecessor obtained this concession from the capitalists of the Transvaal. I have pointed out the circumstances of the finances of the colony at the present moment, and the financial equilibrium. These are all against the immediate imposition of this war contribution loan. Now let me say why I consider—avoiding anything like undue optimism—that we have an excellent chance of obtaining in due time, and in the near future, this contribution. In the year 1905–6 the Premier Diamond Mine falls into, so to say, profitable uses. At present, as hon. Gentlemen who are familiar with the country know, all the revenue of the mine is carried to capital account, to pay for the working expenses and plant. But that ceases, as I have said, in the present financial year. So far as my information goes, the share of the profits of the mine to which the Transvaal Government are entitled, will bring them in between £400,000 and £500,000 a year, and £400,000 would be sufficient to pay the interest on the first £10,000,000. But that is not all; although I do not wish to put this too highly. I do not think the full profits of the gold mines which have resulted from the introduction of Chinese labour have yet begun to fructify, although at the end of 1905–6 they will have made up the leeway. Still, I believe that in the course of this financial year the return of 10 per cent, of the profits which go to the Transvaal Government will on that account be much larger than they are now. If I am right in what I have said about the mines, and if the rest of the country continues to expand in prosperity at the same rate as it is progressing now, the colony will soon be placed in a position in which there will be some ground, at any rate, for saying that there will be a surplus revenue sufficient to serve the interest on the loan of £10,000,000. Of course, we must all recognise that the profits of the diamond mines to which I have referred, would be, to a prudent investor, of a somewhat speculative and conjectural kind. Still, there they are, and there is every hope that they will expand.

In the next place, our fellow-subjects in the Transvaal ought to remember, and I believe they do remember, that we have fulfilled our part of the bargain which was made with them by my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham. That is to say, as the first part of the arrangement whereby they promised us £30,000,000, we guaranteed them £35,000,000 as a development loan. Our fellow-subjects must remember that they have obtained a large sum, not by any means all used up in development but also in the repatriation of the Boers, and the reconstruction of farms, on undoubtedly easier terms than they would have had without our guarantee. I think hon. Gentlemen familiar with this matter fully admit that they obtained that loan 1 per cent cheaper than they would have got it without our guarantee and had they had to rely upon their own resources. Just think what that means. That means that as a result of that guarantee, which was, no doubt, given to them as part of the arrangement, they are richer by £350,000 a year than they would have been had we not given the guarantee. Our friends in the Transvaal ought to remember that. I have not the slightest doubt they will remember it.

Now let me review for a moment the financial position, and pray let the House remember I am only giving the results of estimates on the present figures. On the diamond mines alone at the present rate of production the probable accretion to the Transvaal revenue is something like £400,000 a year. The result of our guaranteeing the £35,000,000 betters the position of the Transvaal by £300,000 a year. That surely gives us a right to say, "Consider how we have treated you with consideration in not pressing you at a time when your revenue did not exceed your expenses. We have not pressed the loan when we might have done so, because we believed it would be more in consonance with the traditions of this country to wait until elected representatives should willingly take on themselves this debt rather than that we should rely on an undertaking which was got in the circumstances I have narrated." Above all, we can say to them, "Remember your better position. Remember the bargain that some of your representatives made. Remember the fulfilment of every tittle of the bargain that we made on our side. Lastly, remember the immense sacrifices which this country has made. Yes, not as has I been often said, for the gold mines, but remember the immense sacrifices we have made for the British Empire in South Africa. Of those sacrifices you among others have obtained the benefit. When you are in a position, without, adding to your taxation and without arresting the development of the country, to fulfil the bargain you made, then we may surely rely upon you to fulfil that which has now become a debt—not a legal debt, but a debt of honour—such as all honourable men desire to discharge."

Now, let me just review in a few sentences the arguments I have endeavoured to put before the House. I think it would be most wrong of me to keep back any facts, so far as they are present to my I mind, and I wish the House to be fully seised of all the facts. We admit that at the present moment it would be competent to the Government to force through legislation and to raise £10,000,000 of money. We agree that that is possible, though the revenue shows no excess over expenditure at the present moment. We agree that in the next financial year sufficient revenue may possibly accrue to pay the interest on that sum. But we deliberately refrain from forcing legislation through a nominated Assembly. We are, above all, most anxious to avoid any appearance or any colour of exaction or compulsion. We most earnestly desire, and I believe hon. Members opposite earnestly desire it also, in no way to arrest the progress and development of the colony. We desire not to impose any undue taxation upon its inhabitants. We are, indeed—I do not hestiate to say it, and I hope our successors will not forget it—we are all most anxious to obtain a contribution towards the heavy cost of the war; but we are even more anxious, and we trust that hon. Gentlemen opposite also will be more anxious, that that contribution should be paid in the willing spirit in which it was promised, and which represented the unabated desire of those who promised it to share the burden cast on the Motherland.

SIR M. HICKS BEACH (Bristol, W.)

Perhaps the House will allow me to intervene for a short time in this debate, because I feel I have some special responsibility with regard to the matter now under consideration. When I was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and had to make proposals to the House from time to time to raise funds for the prosecution of the South African War, I often had occasion to allude to the portion of the cost of that war which it might be possible to recover from the Transvaal; and though I never named a sum, and though I do not think my anticipations were very sanguine, yet I always held out an expectation that there would be a substantial sum recoverable by way of indemnity from the Transvaal. I was, therefore, very glad when, I think nearly two years ago, my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham, after his return from South Africa, on introducing to this House a Bill for the guarantee of the loan of £35,000,00 for the Transvaal, stated that he had made an arrangement by which at any rate those who could then speak with some responsibility for the Transvaal agreed to accept a debt of £30,000,000 from the Transvaal to this country as an indemnity, so to speak, towards the expenses of the South African War. I remember very well that my right hon. friend rather minimised at the time the amount of that contribution. He said that more might have been expected, that if we had left the matter open possibly more might have been received, but that it was for the advantage of all that the matter should then be closed, that a bird in the hand was worth two in the bush, or words to that effect, and that we had better take the £30,000,000 instead of expecting an indefinite and larger sum. Well, Sir, on the faith of that statement and, as my right hon. friend the Colonial Secretary has said this evening, as part of that arrangement, Parliament guaranteed the loan of £35,000,000 to the Transvaal, an act which has never before been done by the Parliament of this country for any colony throughout all our possessions, but which was perfectly justifiable and perfectly necessary as part of the general arrangement after all that had happened in the South African War. Sir, this House accepted that arrangement as a whole. And although I remember I ventured at the time myself to express some little doubt as to whether the first ten millions would be forthcoming and as to whether the second and the third ten millions would be forthcoming at the time when they might be expected to fall due, yet it was generally expected that that arrangement, that that bargain with Parliament, as I call it, would be thoroughly and completely fulfilled—that in fact, on guaranteeing the £35,000,000, Parliament might expect on behalf of the taxpayers of this country the contribution of £30,000,000 from the Transvaal.

Well, Sir, the first ten millions of that loan was due more than a year ago. It was not issued, and it was rightly not issued, for the only effect of its issue would have been to impose a liability at that time, not upon the taxpayers of the Transvaal, but on the taxpayers of this country for the interest of that debt. Any one who has followed the progress of the revenue and expenditure of the Transvaal will have seen that the optimist expectations of two years ago were disappointed and that it was absolutely impossible that the Transvaal revenue should pay the interest upon that £10,000,000; and therefore. Sir, my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and His Majesty's Government were absolutely justified, and are still, in my opinion, absolutely justified, in declining to take any steps towards the issue of that first £10,000,000. But, Sir, what I want to know is this. We passed here an Act of Parliament guaranteeing that £35,000,000. Why was not the Transvaal Legislature asked at the same time to pass an Ordinance imposing on the Transvaal the £30,000,000 which His Majesty's Government proposed to this House as part of the bargain? I really do not know why this necessary step was not taken. My right hon. friend says that it is not well that it should be attempted now. Well, I admit that there is force in his argument. For reasons which, no doubt, seem adequate, His Majesty's Government have decided to confer representative government upon the Transvaal. I must say I hope it is not premature; but at any rate it is for them, not for me, to judge. But in conferring representative government on the Transvaal, and within a few weeks from the time of conferring it, I admit there is force in the argument of the Secretary for the Colonies that it would be unpleasant to force through a nominated Legislature a Bill or Ordinance for imposing a debt of £30,000,000 upon the Colony. I admit that. Well, but, Sir, let me pursue this a little more. I do not propose to dwell upon the question of the guarantee of the war loan. I think a great deal too much has been made of that from both sides. If the Transvaal credit was good it was perfectly obvious that that guarantee was really worth nothing at all; but if the Colonial Government felt bound to issue that £10,000,000 at 4 per cent.—and they would be foolish if they did—the mine owners might put a very handsome little profit into their pockets. But I do not wish the loan to be issued a moment before the Transvaal revenue is sufficient to pay the interest upon it, because I do not want that interest to fall on the taxpayers of this country. His Majesty's Government have decided to confer representative government on the Transvaal, and that would presumably give to that Government full control of the revenue of the Transvaal from whatever source it is derived—from taxation, from mining receipts, from every source of every kind.

Now my right hon. friend says quite rightly that my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham, when he put forward the conditions upon which, in his opinion, this charge of £30,000,000 should be imposed on the Transvaal, said, in the first place, that it should not require additional taxation; in the second place, that it should not interfere with the proper development of the country; and, thirdly, that it should be willingly undertaken. Well, it was willingly undertaken two years ago. There is no question of imposing additional taxation to bear the interest of this debt; and my right hon. friend has said this evening that he anticipates that the profits from the Premier Diamond Mines to the Transvaal revenue in 1905–6 will amount to £400,000, while there are other mining rights he has referred to as matters that will largely increase the Transvaal re- venue. I would earnestly beg His Majesty's Government to consider whether, in giving I representative government to the Transvaal, they may not—whether they ought not to—take security for this debt of honour to this country, a debt which was part of the bargain made with this House on the whole matter, by retaining in their power when they give representative government this revenue from the Premier Diamond Mines and other mining rights in the country. That is imposing no new taxation on the Transvaal; it is not injurious to the development of the country; it is merely taking ordinary, proper, business-like security for the payment of a debt of honour when giving representative government. I do not wish to detain the House any longer. I do not find any fault with His Majesty's Government for what they have done; but I do hope that certain allusions in the speech of my right hon. friend the Colonial Secretary to the burden of this £65,000,000 of debt and the necessity to devote funds to the development of the Transvaal do not portend a breach of faith with the House, do not portend a readiness to tell us at some future time that we are to allow the new representative Assembly to wipe off this debt altogether, after all that has passed.

MR. THOMAS SHAW (Hawick Burghs)

said he had no wish to detain the House after the speech to which they had just listened from the right hon. Member for West Bristol. He desired to say, in the first place, that he believed the House of Commons knew, when the; arrangement was made, that it was a two-sided arrangement—on the one side that this country was to guarantee the loan of £35,000,000 and on the other side that we were to receive £30,000,000 as a war indemnity. In other words the arrangement was one compacted body of agreement. He had to thank, quite seriously, the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary for the first full statement giving the truth of the matter which the House and country had ever had. He believed that the country would now realise that this House had been deluded by the imposture originally perpetrated upon it at the inception of this loan business. His view in regard to the matter was that the taxpayers had a bargain fully laid before them, expressed in the language of the letter of Mr. Eckstein, embodied in the Bluebook— His Majesty's Government would not desire to make any profit out of the premiums on the loan; the arrangement being that the British public should receive a definite sum of £30,000,000 in relief of the war burden on the British taxpayer. That definite sum for the relief of war taxation was gradually disappearing. The Colonial Secretary had stated the difficulties of the situation; but he failed to see that the state of affairs now existing in the Transvaal, which was the same as the state of things that existed when the arrangement was made, should be used as an argument for postponing the fulfilment of that undertaking. They were never informed that this loan was only to be issued when they were assured that the chances were excellent in a speculative gamble upon diamond mines because that was what it came to in the present situation. He sympathised with the view that it was altogether out of the question to attempt to force this loan upon the Transvaal at the present time, He feared that for many years that colony would be, unable to face the burden of its debt; and therefore his hope with regard to the raising of this money was of the most shadowy description. He did not say the time had come to forego our claim; but, if these discoveries as to the repayment of the loan had been made at the time the arrangement was initiated, he doubted whether the electors of the country, or the Members of that House, would have assented to such a transaction. The House of Commons should not be treated in this manner.

With regard to the Orange River Colony, he did not think that the House had sufficiently considered that part of His Majesty's dominions. It was universally considered that before the war it was governed with the greatest harmony. He had before him a memorial signed by burghers in the neighbourhood of Bloem-fontein who had surrendered their arms and obtained protection under the proclamation issued by Lord Roberts and Lord Kitchener. These memorialists, who complained of the manner in which their claims for compensation had been dealt with, were confronted with a complete non possumus on the part of the Governor of the Orange River Colony and were informed by Sir H. Goold-Adams that there was no hope of his being able to grant what the petitioners asked for. They stated that claims had beer paid on a basis of compensation varying from 15 per cent. to 2½ per cent., and that it was impossible to understand the reasons which influenced the Commissioners. Receipts which were stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham to be as good as Bank of England notes remained still unpaid. In Kroonstadt, too, there was a feeling of absolute disgust with what I was considered the breach of faith on the part of the British Government in regard to payments under receipts given by British officers. Would the House of Commons believe that the answer given by Sir H. Goold-Adams, in reply to a representation from the municipality of Wynberg, was that a great many of the memorialists might be thankful that they had not had all their goods confiscated, or that they not had been shot, because a proclamation had been issued that every one who did not come in on September 1st would be regarded as a rebel and his property confiscated, and that every person breaking his oath would be shot. That was a senseless taunt, which had pierced the heart of these people, and had created a strong feeling of unrest and dissatisfaction. The time had come when there ought to be a very much fuller inquiry into the whole position of affairs in South Africa. They must get rid of prejudiced testimony on either side. They must have an impartial inquiry into how matters stood, not only on the labour question, but also on the general question of finance and upon the necessity for a further grant in order to enable the honourable word of Great Britain to be fulfilled, otherwise they would never have peace in that part of His Majesty's dominions.

MR. WHITLEY (Halifax)

said that the Colonial Secretary, referring to the £30,000,000 loan, quoted from his predecessor's speech of 6th May, 1903, a certain condition, viz., that the contribution should be a voluntary undertaking. He should like to remind the right hon. Gentleman that his predecessor, during his tour in South Africa, spoke of £70,000,000 or £100,000,000, which he considered was due by the colonies; and he proceeded further to claim £30,000,000. Therefore the argument of the Colonial Secretary fell to the ground; and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol was perfectly justified in speaking as strongly as he did in the matter. What they had to complain of was not a breach of faith between the Boers and this House, but between the Government and this House. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham asked directly and plainly for £35,000,000 as a loan on the distinct understanding that the first instalment of the £30,000,000 would be received in 1904, and other instalments within a period of three years. He was quite sure that it was that assurance that induced the House to pass the proposal. He wished to ask the Colonial Secretary a question with reference to £1,250,000 due on account of the railways which were handed over to the civil Government at the end of the war. The matter was discussed twelve months ago, and they were then told by the officials of the War Office that it was au acknowledged debt, and that Lord Milner had acknowledged that this amount was due to the Home Government. Notwithstanding this, the other day the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in answering a Question of his, had said that the Home Government had only received £500,000, and that that amount had been accepted in full settlement of the claims. On what ground did the Colonial Government base their repudiation of that debt? Why should such a large sum be put on the shoulders of the British taxpayers in order to relieve the colonial taxpayer? The English taxpayer had to bear a heavy burden enough; and it should not be made heavier by these continual remissions on the part of the Colonial Office.

MR. LYTTELTON

That debt has never been acknowledged by the Transvaal, and it has never been acknowledged by me: £1,250,000 was claimed by the War Office from the Transvaal in respect, if I remember aright, of certain accretions to the value of the railway. If somebody said it was acknowledged—

MR. WHITLEY

The Government said so.

MR. LYTTELTON

They may have said so, but it is not so. The claim of the War Office was put forward on the footing that it had taken possession of the railways in the Transvaal during the war, and added to those railways certain rolling stock and made certain branches which had increased their capital value. The value of those accretions was claimed as £1,250,000, and that was acknowledged. Perhaps sufficient precaution was not taken in stating that the word acknowledged meant that the sum of £1,250,000 was acknowledged to be the sum due in respect of those accretions, unless there was any set-off against them. Now there was a set-off against them. It was that during the progress of the war the railways—for which the Transvaal Government had paid something like £14,000,000 on a footing that they were in perfectly good order—became by military user damaged to the extent of a very large sum of money. The position ultimately was that on the one side the War Office were asking for all benefit which accrued to the railways during their tenure, and on the other side were denying the burden which attached to them by reason of their damage. I do not think any reasonable man would admit that that was a solid position. Therefore a compromise was made, and the claim of £1,250,000 was reduced to £500,000, on grounds that I think were absolutely sound.

SIR ALBERT ROLLIT (Islington, S.)

said the Committee was indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for his clear explanation of the position. He wished to ask whether the guarantee of the mineowners rested merely on the resolution of the meeting, or was it ever reduced to any formal shape? Was it obligatory or voluntary, joint or several, or both? In the event of death or failure occurring among the guarantors, would the residue remain liable for the whole amount? In short, what was the status of the guarantors?

MR. LYTTELTON

In my opinion—but the hon. Member is as well able to judge as I am—this is not a legal obligation. It is a voluntary obligation which would not, were the Government disposed to sue, be one which we could enforce in law.

SIR ALBERT ROLLIT

Is it in writing?

MR. LYTTELTON

It is not in writing beyond that set forth in the Blue-book.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said that the result of the debate showed that the taxpayer had been done out of £30,000,000, and the House of Commons had, under false pretences, been induced to vote a guarantee of £36,000,000. The moral was that they ought not to send a gentleman to discuss with the Transvaal who was a special friend of the Transvaalers when he had to look after the interest of the taxpayers, although he might have a powerful and magnetic mind. It was his sole business to look after the taxpayers and not be humbugged by those people in Park Lane. He did not believe any business man in that House would give more than £5 for the chance of their getting any of that £30,000,000. He intended to divide the House, after they had got that Vote, against the whole Vote as a protest against the way the Government, in whom he had no confidence whatever, were getting that money. If the Vote was bona fide to be devoted to the Civil Service it would carry the Government on for five months, when the House would be breaking up; but

when the money was to be spent on naval and military matters that was in itself a sufficient reason for opposing the Vote. His confidence in the Government was not a question of millions, it was not even a question of half-a-crown, and he would therefore fall back on the old constitutional procedure that when a Member had no confidence in a Government he should do his best to turn them out.

*MR. AINSWORTH (Argyllshire)

said he thought that the money spent on the railways should be refunded. Further there were a large number of claims for damage, even from persons who fought with us during the war, which were still unpaid. There was one case to his own knowledge in which a colonist of standing, who fought on our side, had not yet been compensated for the destruction of his two farms by our own troops. He hoped that case would be settled without delay.

And, it being Midnight, the Chairman proceeded, in pursuance of Standing Order No. 15, to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the Vote.

Question put, "That Item, Class 2 Vote 6 (Colonial Office), be reduced by £100."

The Committee divided; Ayes, 143; Noes, 206. (Division List No. 66.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark) Hayden, John Patrick
Ainsworth, John Stirling Crombie, John William Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.
Allen, Charles P. Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan Henderson, Arthur (Durham)
Asquith, Rt Hon. Herbert Henry Delany, William Higham, John Sharpe
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.
Bell, Richard Duffy, William J. Holland, Sir William Henry
Benn, John Williams Duncan, J. Hastings Horniman, Frederick John
Boland, John Edwards, Frank Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.
Brigg, John Ellice, Capt EC(S Andrw's Bghs) Jacoby, James Alfred
Bright, Allan Heywood Ellis, John Edward (Notts.) Johnson, John
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) Emmott, Alfred Joicey, Sir James
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Eve, Harry Trelawney Jones, Leif (Appleby)
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Fenwick, Charles Jones, William (Carnarvonshire
Burke, E. Haviland Ffrench, Peter Jordan, Jeremiah
Burns, John Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, NE Kearley, Hudson E.
Buxton, Sydney Charles Flavin, Michael Joseph Kilbride, Denis
Caldwell, James Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) Labouchere, Henry
Campbell, John (Armagh S.) Freeman-Thomas, Captain F. Lamont, Norman
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Fuller, J. M. F. Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)
Cawley, Frederick Goddard, Daniel Ford Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)
Channing, Francis Allston Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E, (Berwick) Layland-Barratt, Francis
Cheetham, John Frederick Griffith, Ellis J. Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington
Churchill, Winston Spencer Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Leigh, Sir Joseph
Clancy, John Joseph Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) Levy, Maurice
Condon, Thomas Joseph Harrington, Timothy Lewis, John Herbert
Lough, Thomas Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries) Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)
Lundon, W. Richards, Thomas(W. Monm'th Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)
Lyell, Charles Henry Rickett, J. Compton Tomkinson, James
Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Roberts, John H. (Denbighs) Toulmin, George
MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Roche, John Trevelyan, Charles Philips
MacVeagh, Jeremiah Roe, Sir Thomas Ure, Alexander
M'Crae, George Rose, Charles Day Wallace, Robert
M'Kean, John Runciman, Walter Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
M'Kenna, Reginald Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland) Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Moss, Samuel Schwann, Charles E. Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Moulton, John Fletcher Seely, Maj. J. E. B.(Isle of Wight Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney
Murphy, John Shackleton, David James White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Nannetti, Joseph P. Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Norman, Henry Sheehy, David Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid Shipman, Dr. John G. Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) Wills, Arthur W. (N. Dorset
O'Brien, P. J. (Tepperary, N.) Slack, John Bamford Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Smith, Samuel (Flint) Wilson, John (Falkirk)
O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) Scares, Ernest J. Wood, James
O'Malley, William Strachey, Sir Edward Young, Samuel
O'Mara, James Sullivan, Donal
O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.
Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) Tennant, Harold John Herbert Gladstone and Mr.
Reddy, M. Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E. Causton.
NOES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Cust, Henry John C. Hoult, Joseph
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Dalrymple, Sir Charles Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham
Allbusen, Augustus Henry Eden Davenport, William Bromley Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil
Anson, Sir William Reynell Davies, Sir Horatio D.(Chatham Hunt, Rowland
Arkwright, John Stanhope Denny, Colonel Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred
Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O Dickinson, Robert Edmond Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.
Arrol, Sir William Dickson, Charles Scott Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Dorington, Rt Hn. Sir John E. Kerr, John
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt Hon. Sir H Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Keswick, William
Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitzroy Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart King, Sir Henry Seymour
Bailey, James (Walworth) Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)
Bain, Colonel James Robert Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Lawrence, Sir J. (Monmouth)
Balcarres, Lord Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J (Manc'r Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End
Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W(Leeds Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Lawson, J. Grant(Yorks. N. R.
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christen. Finlay, Sir R. B. (Inv'rn'ssB'ghs Lee, Arthur H. (Hants. Fareham
Banbury, Sir Frederick George FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead
Banner, John S. Harmood- Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Flower, Sir Ernest Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.
Bignold, Sir Arthur Forster, Henry William Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.
Bigwood, James Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S. W.) Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine
Bill, Charles Galloway, William Johnson Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)
Bingham, Lord Gardner, Ernest Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol. S
Blundell, Colonel Henry Godson, Sir Augustus Fredrk. Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Bond, Edward Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin&Nairn Lowe, Francis William
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith Gore, Hon S. F. Ormsby- Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Goschen, Hn. George Joachim Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft
Brotherton, Edward Allen Goulding, Edward Alfred Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th)
Burdett-Coutts, W. Graham, Henry Robert Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred
Butcher, John George Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Macdona, John Cumming
Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H. Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury Maconochie, A. W.
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Gretton, John M'Calmont, Colonel James
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Greville, Hon. Ronald Majendie, James A. H.
Chamberlain, Rt. HnJ. A. (Wore. Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. Malcolm, Ian
Chapman, Edward Hambro, Charles Eric Marks, Harry Hananel
Clive, Captain Percy A. Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nerry Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F
Coates, Edward Feetham Hare, Thomas Leigh Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriesshire
Cochrane, Hon. Thos H. A. E. Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th) Milvain, Thomas
Colomb, Rt Hon. Sir John C. R Hay, Hon. Claude George Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow Heath, Sir James (Staffords N. W Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)
Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S. Heaton, John Henniker Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow Helder, Augustus Morpeth, Viscount
Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. Morrell, George Herbert
Crossley, Rt. Hn. Sir Savile Hogg, Lindsay Morrison, James Archibald
Cubitt, Hon. Henry Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside) Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer
Mount, William Arthur Ridley, S. Forde Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. Robertson, Herb. (Hackney) Tuff, Charles
Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye Tuke, Sir John Batty
Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter Turnour, Viscount
Myers, William Henry Round, Rt. Hon. James Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
Nicholson, William Graham Royds, Clement Molyneux Walker, Col. William Hall
Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury) Rutherford, John (Lancashire Walrond, Rt Hn Sir William H.
Parker, Sir Gilbert Sackville, Col. S. G. (Stopford) Warde, Colonel C. E.
Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse) Welby, Lt, -Col. A. C. E. (Taunton
Percy, Earl Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) Welby, Sir Chas. G. E (Notts.)
Plummer, Sir Walter R. Shaw-Stewart, Sir H (Renfrew) Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd
Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Sinclair, Louis (Romford) Whiteley, H. (Ashton und Lyne
Pretyman, Ernest George Smith, HC (North'mbTyneside) Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Pryce-Jones, Lt. -Col. Edward Smith, Rt Hn J. Parker (Lanarks Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Purvis, Robert Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand) Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. E.
Pym, C. Guy Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Randles, John S. Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes. Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks)
Rankin, Sir James Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne Stock, James Henry Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart
Ratcliff, R. F. Stroyan, John Wylie, Alexander
Reid, James (Greenock) Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Remnant, James Farquharson Talbot, Rt. Hn J. G (Oxf'd Univ. TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir
Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) Alexander Acland-Hood and
Renwick, George Thornton, Percy M. Viscount Valentia.

Original Question put—

The Committee divided; Ayes, 200 Noes, 138. (Division List No. 67.)

AYES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton Heath, Sir Jas. (Staffords. N. W
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile Heaton, John Henniker
Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden Cubitt, Hon. Henry Helder, Augustus
Anson, Sir William Reynell Cust, Henry John C. Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.
Arkwright, John Stanhope Dalrymple, Sir Charles Hogg, Lindsay
Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O Davenport, William Bromley Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside
Arrol, Sir William Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham) Hoult, Joseph
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Denny, Colonel Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn Sir H. Dickinson, Robert Edmond Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Dickson, Charles Scott Hunt, Rowland
Bailey, James (Walworth) Dorington, Rt Hn. Sir John E. Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.
Bain, Colonel James Robert Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.
Balcarres, Lord Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William H. Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col W.
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r. Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Kerr, John
Balfour, RtHn. Gerald W. (Leeds Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Keswick, William
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Man'r. Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Lawrence, Sir J. (Monmouth)
Banner, John S. Harmood- Finch, Rt. Hn. George H. Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Finlay, Sir R. B. (Inv'rn'ssB'ghs Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End)
Bignold, Sir Arthur FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose Lawson, John Grant (Yorks N. R
Bigwood, James Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham
Bingham, Lord Flower, Sir Ernest Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage
Blundell, Colonel Henry Forster, Henry William Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S
Bond, Edward Foster, Philip S. (Warwick. S. W Lockwood, Lieut. -Col. A. R.
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith Galloway, William Johnson Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine
Brodrick, Rt Hon. St. John Gardner, Ernest Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)
Brotherton, Edward Allen Godson, Sir Augustus Fredrk. Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.
Burdett-Coutts, W. Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin&Nairn) Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Butcher, John George Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby- Lowe, Francis William
Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H. Goschen, Hon. George Joachim Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire Graham, Henry Robert Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Green, Walford D (Wednesbury Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc. Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury Macdona, John Cumming
Chapman, Edward Gretton, John Maconochie, A. W.
Clive, Captain Percy A. Greville, Hon. Ronald M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool
Coates, Edward Feetham Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. M'Calmont, Colonel James
Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E. Hambro, Charles Eric Majendie, James A. H.
Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C. R Hamilton, Marq. C. of(L'd'nd'rry Malcolm, Ian
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Hare, Thomas Leigh Marks, Harry Hananel
Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th Massey-Mainmaring, Hn. W. F.
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Hay, Hon. Claude George Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriesshire
Milvain, Thomas Ratcliff, R. F. Talbot, Rt Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.
Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants) Reid, James (Greenock) Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow) Remnant, James Farquharson Thornton, Percy M.
Morpeth, Viscount Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Morrell, George Herbert Renwick, George Tuff, Charles
Morrison, James Archibald Ridley, S. Forde Tuke, Sir John Batty
Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) Turnour, Viscount
Mount, William Arthur Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter Walker, Col. William Hall
Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Round, Rt. Hon. James Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.
Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath Royds, Clement Molyneux Warde, Colonel C. E.
Myers, William Henry Rutherford, John (Lancashire) Welby, Lt. -Col. A. C. E. (Taunton
Nicholson, William Graham Sackville, Co. S. G. Stopford Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts.)
Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury) Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse) Whiteley, H. (Ashton und Lyne
Parker, Sir Gilbert Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Percy, Earl Sinclair, Louis (Romford) Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.
Plummer, Sir Walter R Smith, H. C. (North'mbTyneside Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Smith, Rt Hn J. Parker (Lanarks Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks
Pretyman, Ernest George Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Pryce-Jones, Lt. -Col. Edward Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart
Purvis, Robert Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes. Wylie, Alexander
Pym, C. Guy Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Randles, John S. Stock, James Henry TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir
Rankin, Sir James Stroyan, John Alexander Acland-Hood and
Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) Viscount Valentia
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E. Goddard, Daniel Ford Norman, Henry
Ainsworth, John Stirling Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick O'Brien, Kendal (TipperaryMid.
Allen, Charles P. Griffith, Ellis J. O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)
Bell, Richard Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Benn, John Williams Harrington, Timothy O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
Boland, John Hayden, John Patrick O'Malley, William
Brigg, John Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. O'Mara, James
Bright, Allan Heywood Henderson, Arthur (Durham) O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) Higham, John Sharpe Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E Reddy, M.
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Holland, Sir William Henry Richards, Thomas(W. Monm'th
Burke, E. Haviland Horniman, Frederick John Rickett, J. Compton
Caldwell, James Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredrk. Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Jacoby, James Alfred Roche, John
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Johnson, John Roe, Sir Thomas
Causton, Richard Knight Joicey, Sir James Rose, Charles Day
Cawley, Frederick Jones, Leif (Appleby) Runciman, Walter
Channing, Francis Allston Jones, William (Carnarvonshire Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland
Cheetham, John Frederick Jordan, Jeremiah Schwann, Charles E.
Churchill, Winston Spencer Kilbride, Denis Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight
Clancy, John Joseph Labouchere, Henry Shackleton, David James
Condon, Thomas Joseph Lamont, Norman Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark) Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W. Sheehy, David
Crombie, John William Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall Shipman, Dr. John G.
Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan Layland-Barratt, Francis Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Delany, William Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington Slack, John Bamford
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Leigh, Sir Joseph Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Duffy, William J. Levy, Maurice Soares, Ernest J.
Duncan, J, Hastings Lewis, John Herbert Strachey, Sir Edward
Edwards, Frank Lundon, W. Sullivan, Donal
Ellice, Capt. EC.S, (Andrw'sBghs Lyell, Charles Henry Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Ellis, John Edward (Notts.) Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Tennant, Harold John
Emmott, Alfred MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan., E.)
Eve, Harry Trelawney MacVeagh, Jeremiah Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Fenwick, Charles M'Crae, George Thomson, F. W. (York W. R.
Ffrench, Peter M'Kean, John Tomkinson, James
Findlay, Alex. (Lanark, N. E. M'Kenna, Reginald Toulmin, George
Flavin, Michael Joseph Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N. Trevelyan Charles Philips
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) Moss, Samuel Ure, Alexander
Freeman-Thomas, Captain F. Moulton, John Fletcher
Fuller, J. M. F. Murphy, John Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John Nannetti, Joseph P. Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan Whittaker, Thomas Palmer TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney Wills, Arthur Walters(N. Dorset Lough and Mr. John Wilson
White, Luke (York, E R.) Wilson, John (Falkirk) (Durham)
White, Patrick (Meath, North Wood, James
Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) Young, Samuel

Question put, and agreed to.

And, it being after Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Resolution to be reported upon Wednesday; Committee to sit again to-morrow.