Commons Sitting of 30 July 1907

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Aberdeen Corporation Electricity Bill [Lords], As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
Midland Railway Bill [Lords]; Portishead District Water Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Aberdeen Corporation Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill [Lords], Read a second time, and committed.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill [Lords] (by Order). Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London No. 1) Bill [Lords]. Reported without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.
Tramways Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Reported, with an Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 4) Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill [Lords]. Reported, with an Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill. Board of Education Scheme (Hulme Trust Estates Educational) Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.
Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Bill. Collooney, Ballina, and Belmullet Railways and Piers Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to—Sheffield Corporation Bill [Lords]; Kensington Borough Council (Superannuation) Bill [Lords]; Tynemouth Corporation (Water) Bills [Lords]; Middlesbrough, Stockton-on-Tees, and Thornaby Tramways Bill [Lords]; Humber Conservancy Bill [Lords].
Amendment to — Pasley Children Legitimisation Bill [Lords]; without Amendment.
City of London (Union of Parishes) Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP K).
MR. ARTHUR STANLEY reported from the Committee on Group K of Private Bills. That, for the convenience of parties the Committee had adjourned until Saturday, at half-past Ten of the Clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.

PETITION
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Petition from Rhynie, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY.
  Three Petitions from Reading, for prohibition; to lie upon the Table.
  VACCINATION ACTS.
  Petition from Derby, for repeal; to lie upon the Table.
  WEEKLY REST-DAY BILL.
  Petition from Pirbright, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904 (CLOSING ORDERS).
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 2nd May; Mr. Crooks]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 277.]
  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
  Copy presented, of Agricultural Statistics, 1906. Vol. XLI. Part III. Prices and Supplies of Corn, Live Stock, and other Agricultural Produce [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CRIMINAL AND JUDICIAL STATISTICS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Criminal and Judicial Statistics of Ireland for the year 1906. Part I. Criminal Statistics [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  GAS AND WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL [LORDS.]
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Regulation of Shipbuilding Work
  MR. NIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty in how many cases during the last five years has the completion of a ship been delayed by the Admiralty in order to prevent undue fluctuation of work in the building yard.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The only case during the last five years is that of the "Defence."

  The Slave Trade in Central Africa.
  MR. BYLES: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that slave labour recruited in West Africa is largely employed on the islands of St. Thomé and Principé whether the Portuguese Government has undertaken to put down the slave trade in her West African territory; whether England in 1830 paid

  741
  a large sum of money to Portugal to secure that suppression; whether Great Britain, in concert with other Powers, has bound herself, by the Ashburton Treaty in 1842, by the Berlin General Act in 1855, and by the Brussels General Act in 1890, to suppress every kind of slave trade in the interior of Africa; and why are these solemn undertakings ignored.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) I am aware that the labour in San Thomé and Principé is largely recruited in Portuguese West Africa. There is no trace of any payment having been made to Portugal in 1830 for the suppression of the slave trade in West Africa. But in 1815, by the Convention of the 21st January, a sum of £300,000 was paid to Portugal in discharge of claims for Portuguese ships detained by British cruisers previously to the 1st June, 1814, on the ground that they were engaged in illegal slave trade. And on the 22nd January of the same year a treaty was concluded with Portugal by which the Portuguese slave trade in all parts of Africa north of the Equator was declared to be thenceforward illegal. In this treaty Portugal also engaged to "determine by a subsequent treaty the period at which the Portuguese slave trade should cease universally." Great Britain, on her side, remitted in favour of Portugal the whole of what remained amounting to £480,000, due to Great Britain out of a loan of £600,000 raised in 1809 for the service of Portugal. The articles of the Ashburton Treaty referred to are Articles VIII. and IX., of which Article VIII. relates to the maintenance, co-operation, etc., of British and United States squadrons off the coast of Africa; and Article IX. arranges for the address of remonstrances to Powers within whose dominions slave markets exist. But these articles do not refer to the slave trade in the interior of Africa. By the Berlin Act of 1885 and the Brussels Act of 1890 the Powers undertook the suppression of slave markets and the slave trade in their territories in Africa. As the hon. Member is aware, His Majesty's Government are prepared to communicate to the Portuguese Government any authentic information which is at their disposal tending to show that anything in the nature of slavery exists in these parts

  Reductions, Remissions, etc, in the Rawal Pindi District.
  MR. C. J. O'DONNELL: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether any and, if any, what reduction, remission, or suspension of and revenue has been made this year in the Rawal Pindi district of the Punjab, in which district recent enhancements of and tax has caused great discontent.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I would refer the hon. Member to the in- formation which I gave with regard to the Rawal Pindi district in my Answer to a similar Question on the 16th July.† The Local Government will set right any cases of over-assessment which may come to light. I do not think that the agricultural circumstances of the district necessitate exceptional measures for remitting or suspending the land revenue. Rules are in force in all districts of the province for the grant of remissions and suspensions in cases of failure of the crops.

  Land Taxation in India.
  MR. C. J. O'DONNELL: To ask the Secretary of State for India if his attention has been drawn to the increase last year in evictions in the districts of the Bombay Presidency for non-payment of land revenue, and to the statement of the Hon. Sir Pherozeshah Mehta in the Bombay legislative Council last month that the unrest in that province was due to the oppressive way in which the Bombay revenue system had been worked for years; and whether, having regard to the warning of John, Lord Lawrence, that we must lose India if the agricultural population become our foes, he will appoint an independent Commission to inquire into and taxation in India.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The latest figures which I have are for the year 1904–5. In that year the area of and declared forfeited for arrears of and revenue was 39,026 acres, against 80,453 acres in 1903–4. There was, therefore, a decrease, not an increase. I have seen the speech to which the hon. Member refers, and am glad to find that it also states that, owing to the issue of amended rules for land revenue remissions
  †See (4) Debates, clxxviii., 526.

  743
  and suspensions, the Bombay revenue system has now been improved. I do not propose to take action in the direction suggested.

  Indian Grievances.
  MR. C. J. O'DONNELL: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the recent speech of Lord Curzon, he will reconsider his refusal to appoint a Committee of this House to hold an open independent inquiry in order to sift Indian grievances.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I do not conceive that Lord Curzon's speech affects my decision.

  The Transvaal Loan—Outstanding Balance on an old Loan.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the sum of £1,800,000, as yet unpaid on the old Transvaal Loan has, by a book-keeping error, been allowed to remain outstanding; whether it is to be deducted from the principal of the new loan, or whether it is to be paid at all; and whether he can state what it is proposed to do in this matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) I am not aware of any error of the kind referred to.

  Irish Audit Work.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, seeing that only £800 of the Exchequer and Audit Vote is annually spent in Ireland, he will now take steps to have the Irish audit work done in Dublin, so as to give Ireland her just share of the expenditure under this and subsidiary Votes which approximately amounts to £10,000 per annum.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I must refer the hon. Member to the Answer given him on this subject by the right hon. Member for West Derbyshire on the 28th February,905,† to which I have nothing to add.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state the biennial cost of preparing duplicate records in the Dublin Education Office and despatching them to the London
  †See (4) Debates, cxli., 1452.
  744
  Audit Office, and the annual cost of the work entailed in Dublin and in London of keeping these duplicate records amended up to date.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) These records are required because the establishment books in the Dublin Education Department cannot be spared for the inspection of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. The cost entailed by the records would have to be specially calculated by the two Departments, and I see no sufficient reason for calling upon them to undertake the task.

  Duties of the Assistant Comptroller and Auditor-General.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the chief clerkship in the audit office was abolished because the duties were very light, as were also those of the Assistant Comptroller and Auditor; whether this official undertook to perform the duties of chief clerk in addition to his own, and applied to the Treasury for increased emoluments owing to increased work; whether it was found impossible to give him this increase; and whether, in consequence of this, he now delegates some of these duties to the private secretary.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The Assistant-Comptroller and Auditor on appointment undertook to perform any additional duties that might devolve upon him as a result of the abolition of the chief clerkship then in contemplation. The suggestions in the latter sentences of the Question are entirely without foundation. There are similarly unfounded suggestions referring to the same officer in two other Questions of the hon. Member put down for later dates; and I desire to express my regret that the hon. Member should have thought fit to make suggestions of this character with regard to a high officer who occupies a position of peculiar responsibility towards this House.

  Dangerous Level Crossing at Colwick, Nottinghamshire.
  MR. ELLIS: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the death of a school girl who was run over by a train at what is known as Saville's Crossing on the Midland and

  745
  Great Northern Railways at Colwick, Nottinghamshire, on Tuesday, 16th July; and whether, having regard to the numerous fatalities at this place during recent years, to the increase in the adjacent population and the large and increasing number of trains which pass, he will suggest to the railway companies concerned the desirability of replacing the level crossing by a bridge.
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) The accident in question occurred on the lines of the Great Northern Railway Company, and the company have, as my right hon. friend informed the hon. Member for South Nottingham yesterday, decided to erect a footbridge at the crossing.

  The American Tobacco Trust.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has seen the suit brought against the Imperial Tobacco Company of Great Britain and Ireland in the Courts at Washington for agreements in restraint of trade with the American Tobacco Trust; and whether he will watch the same with a view to bringing in legislation against trusts here of a similar character to that proposed in the United States.
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) The Board of Trade are aware of the case to which the hon. Member refers. As at present advised they can hold out no hope of the introduction of legislation on the lines suggested.

  Deaths caused by Eating Tuberculous Foods, etc.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state if the Returns compiled by the Registrar-General are so framed as to give the number of deaths alleged to be attributable to the eating of cooked tuberculous meat and drinking uncooked tuberculous milk; and whether the infantile mortality is specified with regard to those alleged causes.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The reply to the Question is in the negative.

  Small Holdings Bill—Estimated Cost of Administration.
  MR. E. GARDNER: To ask the hon. Member
  746
  for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the Board of Agriculture have made an estimate of the total cost of the administration of the Small Holdings and Allotments Bill should it pass into law; and, if so, what is the amount of that estimate.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The Answer is in the negative. It is impossible to forecast the probable cost of administration until we have some experience of the amount of work to be dealt with.

  Foul Brood amongst Bees.
  MR. LARDNER: To ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) if he is aware of the increase of foul brood among bees; and if he will state what steps he intends to take, by legislation or otherwise, to save an industry which is now a growing and valuable asset to the Irish farmer, particularly in mountain districts.
  (Answered by Mr. T. W. Russell.) The Department are aware of the existence of foul brood in many parts of Ireland, but have no information to show that it is increasing. County committees of agriculture have been empowered by the Department to deal with the disease and to grant compensation for destruction of infected hives. The Department are considering legislation to enable local authorities to deal compulsorily with the disease.

  Erection of Barracks, Military Hospitals, etc., in Transvaal and Orange River Colony.
  MR. WHITBREAD: To ask the Secretary of State for War what military barracks, hospitals, and cantonments have been erected since the war in the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies; where they are situated and what has been the total expenditure in respect of them at each place; what is the amount of accommodation at each of them and the number of troops now in occupation at each place; and to what use it is proposed to appropriate these institutions in the future.

  747
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.)The information is as follows:— It is proposed to appropriate these institutions

  Station.

  Accommodation.

  Occupation.

  Cost.

  Officers.

  Men.

  Officers.

  Men.

  Transvaal:

  £

  Pretoria

  139

  3,749

  136

  3,350

  732,100

  Potchefstroom

  108

  2,674

  72

  1,836

  344,000

  Middleburg*

  54

  2,440

  20

  467

  248,000

  Barberton* †

  24

  530

  Nil

  Nil

  10,789

  Standerton

  65

  1,784

  52

  1,408

  248,000

  Pietersburg*†

  12

  294

  Nil

  Nil

  20,206

  Orange River Colony:

  Bloemfontein

  145

  4,250

  94

  2,521

  561,200

  Harrismith

  65

  1,787

  48

  1,354

  253,200

  * In these cases buildings have been or are being transferred elsewhere on reduction of garrison.

  † In these cases buildings have been sold.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  "H.M.S. Renown."
  MR. GRETTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what portion of the secondary armament of the "Renown" is now on shore.
  The SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,): Ten 6-inch and four 12-pounders have been landed.
  MR. GRETTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the estimated cost of removing the present yacht fittings from H.M.S. "Renown," and reconverting that ship within five days as a unit of the fleet available for active service.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: No estimate has been prepared of the cost of replacing the "Renown's" armament in an
  in the future according to the exigencies of the service.
  emergency. I am informed that if the guns were lifted in by dockyard labour the rest of the work could be done by the ship's crew.

  H.M.S. "New Zealand."
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that a circular letter was issued in December, 1904, that no ship will be in dockyard hands for more than thirty working days in each year; and whether the case of H.M.S. "New Zealand," which left the Channel Fleet on 23rd April and was away 113 days before her defects were completed, indicates that the rule has been abandoned, seeing that the ship was not replaced during the time she was away.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The reply to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. The "New Zealand" was in dockyard hands for repairs

  749
  and alterations seventy-nine days, not 113, as stated in the Question. I may point out that only ninety-eight days have elapsed from the 23rd April up till now. The inference in the last part of the Question is not correct. The Admiralty exercise their discretion in any case which seems to justify any relaxation of the usual procedure.

  The Channel Fleet.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that a circular letter was issued by the Board of Admiralty in December, 1904, at the time of the redistribution of the fleets, ordering that not more than two battleships were to be absent from the Channel Fleet for the purpose of refit or of visiting their home port for leave; whether he is aware that in March, 1905, it was followed by a memorandum from the First Lord of the Admiralty stating that orders have been given that, as a rule, not more than one large vessel of a fleet or squadron is to be under repair in dockyard hands at one time, so as to insure the various fleets being kept always at their effective strength and ready for instant service; and whether the fact that as many as three or four battleships have been absent this year for many days from the present Channel Fleet indicates that the policy of previous years has been abandoned.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The reply to the first two Questions is in the affirmative. The reply to the third Question is in the negative; but, in applying the policy, the Admiralty must exercise their discretion according to the necessities of the public service for the time being.

  English Shooting Team for the Colonies.
  MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether officers who accompany the shooting team from England to the Colonies will be placed on half-pay; and, if so, for what reason. In putting this Question, may I ask, Sir, if when a number of Questions are handed in they should not appear on the Question Paper in the order in which they are handed in.
  *Mr. SPEAKER: I do not know why the order was changed except for the
  750
  convenience of the setting up the type by the printer.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): The hon. Member is presumably alluding to an officer holding a staff appointment who accompanies the team. His staff pay, at the expiration of sixty-one days leave, will, in accordance with the provisions of the Royal Warrant, drop to a rate equal to the half-pay of his rank. He will not be gazetted to half-pay.

  Cartridge Breech Pressures.
  MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what are the breech pressures of the service ·303 cartridge and the Swift ·303 cartridge respectively; and what is the proof breech pressure of the service rifle.
  MR. HALDANE: There are two patterns of Swift cartridge known to the War Office, one for a special chamber, the pressure given by which is not known, and another for the service chamber, giving about twenty tons per square inch at 60º F. The mean pressure given by the service cartridge at 60º F. does not exceed 16·5 tons per square inch. The service rifles are proved to twenty-one and a half tons per sqaure inch.
  In reply to a further Question,
  MR. HALDANEsaid the War Office always like to have a considerable margin of pressure in the interests of safety.

  Colonial Grants to Shooting Teams.
  MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will make inquiries as to the nature and amounts of the grants and allowances made by Colonial Governments to the shooting teams which represent their respective Colonies at Bisley and elsewhere; and whether he will give similar treatment to the team which will represent the Mother Country in the Colonies.
  MR. HALDANE: I have nothing to add to the replies which have already boon given to the hon. Member on this subject.

  Copper Pressure Gauges.
  MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the copper pressure gauges used by the War Department to ascertain the breech pressure of high-velocity ammunition are previously tested to approximately the same pressure as is expected from such ammunition; whether they are the 15-ton coppers ordinarily used for testing service ammunition; and whether he is aware that accurate results can only be obtained by the use of coppers which have been previously tested to within a ton of the pressure exerted by the ammunition under test.
  MR. HALDANE: As regards the first part of the Question, assuming that the hon. Member refers to the coppers used in the gauges and not the pressure gauges themselves, the reply is in the affirmative. To the second part of the Question the reply is in the negative. The point raised in the last part of the Question is a matter of opinion, but as a fact coppers are so treated before use.

  Bullet Velocities.
  MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that at 1,000 yards range the remaining velocity of the ·303 service bullet is 870 foot seconds, of the German Spitzer bullet 1,040 foot seconds, and of the ·303 Swift bullet 1,240 foot seconds, and that at 2,000 yards range the remaining velocity of the ·303 service bullet is 580 foot seconds, of the German Spitzer bullet 625 foot seconds, and of the ·303 Swift bullet 820 foot seconds, he will state how the official estimate of the velocity of these bullets already given was calculated.
  MR. HALDANE: No official estimate of the velocity of the Swift bullet has been given. The estimates of the velocities of the service and German Spitzer bullets were published in a memorandum last year, and are approximately the same as stated in the Question.
  MR. COURTHOPE: May I give the right hon. Gentleman the accurate figures presently?
  MR. HALDANE: I shall be glad to hear any figures, whether accurate or not.

  Muzzle Velocity.
  MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the ·303 Swift cartridge, giving a muzzle velocity of about 2,400 foot seconds, a fixed sight range of over 700 yards, and an extreme range of about 4,500 yards, can be used for magazine fire from the present magazines of the service rifle.
  MR. HALDANE: The only Swift cartridge known to the War Office as giving 2,400 foot seconds velocity is for a special chamber differing from that of the service rifle, and cannot, therefore, be used in the latter.

  Army Contracts for Wales.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that contracts to the value of upwards of £58,000 were placed in Ireland last year, he will consider the propriety of placing contracts for an equal amount in Wales during the current year.
  MR. HALDANE: Orders to the amount of £23,349 were placed in Wales last year. I think it would hardly be practicable to place orders on the lines suggested by my hon. friend.

  Mooltan Barracks, Tidworth.
  *Captain FABER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state what was the cost of Mooltan block of barracks lately erected at Tidworth; and how much it is proposed to spend on altering this block into a hospital.
  MR. HALDANE: Approximately the cost of these barracks has been about £120,000. The amount allotted for the alterations for hospital purposes is £30,000.
  CAPTAIN FABER: Would it not have been better to build a new hospital?
  MR. HALDANEsaid he did not think so. These blocks were not wanted.

  County Association Secretaryships.
  *CAPTAIN FABER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the secretaryships of the county associations in the new Territorial Force will be open

  753
  to retired officers only or to officers on full pay, or to both.
  MR. HALDANE: It would be premature to make any statement on this subject, which is now under consideration.
  *CAPTAIN FABERasked if the right hon. Gentleman would also consider the claims of the warrant and non-commissioned officers?
  MR. HALDANE:The claims of the service have to be considered first.

  The Royal Scots Greys.
  Viscount TURNOUR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the horses of the 2nd Dragoons (Royal Scots Greys) are at present picketed; and whether it is intended that they shall remain picketed throughout the winter.
  MR. HALDANE: The horses of the Scots Greys, with the exception of those of the squadron at Dorchester, are at present picketed. The reply to the rest of the Question is in the negative.
  VISCOUNT TURNOURasked where it was proposed to put the new buildings.
  [The reply was inaudible.]
  *CAPTAIN FABER: Have the new stables been begun?
  MR. HALDANE: I have every reason to believe that a beginning will be made this week.
  *Captain FABER: Can the right hon. Gentleman give me the name of the contractor?
  MR. HALDANE: That has been settled and I hope to report progress this week.

  Scots Greys Officers' Accommodation at Tidworth.
  VISCOUNT TURNOUR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, owing to insufficient barrack accommodation at Tidworth, some of the junior officers of the 2nd Dragoons (Royal Scots Greys) have been compelled to sleep in tents; and whether he proposes to take steps to remedy this state of affairs before the winter.
  MR. HALDANE: There is nothing unusual in officers or others being placed under canvas during the camping season owing to lack of barrack accommodation, and when it is more convenient than having recourse to the lodging list of billets. These officers will not be kept under canvas during the winter months in contravention of the King's Regulations.
  VISCOUNT TURNOURasked where it was proposed to put these officers.
  MR. HALDANE: I do not think we need trouble ourselves very much about that. They will go through the usual healthy discipline.
  VISCOUNT TURNOURpressing for an answer,
  MR. HALDANEsaid those officers would be under canvas.
  VISCOUNT TURNOUR: I referred to the winter.
  MR. HALDANE: I am not talking now of the winter.
  VISCOUNT TURNOUR: Then will the-right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my Question?
  MR. HALDANE: I do not think the officers of the Scots Greys, which is a gallant regiment and likes to take its share of camping hardships, will thank the noble Lord for his interference.
  MR. ASHLEY: When do the winter months officially begin?
  MR. HALDANE: The hon. Member seems to think there is no accommodation for officers and men at Tidworth. There is very large accommodation. What is wanted is not accommodation for officers, but stables.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY:Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us where these officers are to be accommodated?
  MR. HALDANE: In the open air under tents.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: In the winter I mean.
  MR. FLAVIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman supply cots or cradles for officers of the type of the noble Lord?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Opium Cultivation in India.
  SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, owing to the constant advance in the price of labour and in the value of crops other than opium, the ryots who cultivate opium are growing more and more dissatisfied with the present fixed price of opium; and, if so, whether he will bear the fact in mind in considering the question of reducing the area of opium cultivation in India.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. MORLEY,): The Report of the Opium Department for 1905–6 contains a statement to the effect stated by the hon. Member. The fact has not been lost sight of in arranging for a substantial reduction in the area under poppy cultivation in 1907–8.

  Indian Administration.
  Sir H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is now in a position to give any information regarding the submission of the Report on the separation of executive and judicial functions in India, called for from the Government of India in 1899, in consequence of a memorial on the subject which was signed by the late Lord Hobhouse and other distinguished retired Members of the Indian Government.
  MR. MORLEY: The question is still under the consideration of the Government of India, but I am glad to believe that it is making progress towards a settlement.
  MR. REESasked if the right hon. Gentleman had any proof that the mass of the people desired the creation of these magistrateships at their expense as well as the class who would occupy the position.
  MR. MORLEY.As my hon. friend must know it is not the easiest thing in the world to find out what the masses want.
  Sir H. COTTONasked the right hon. Gentleman if he understood that his Question was not directed to the appointment of magistrates, but simply to the separation of executive and judicial functions.
  MR. MORLEYsaid he quite understood the purport of the Question, a most important one in India, and substantial progress was being made towards a settlement of it.

  The Mymensingh Riots.
  Sir H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the judgments of Mr. Chotzner, district and sessions judge, Mr. Beatson Bell, additional district magistrate, Mr. Barneville, joint magistrate, and Moulvie Mahomed Momin, Moulvie Faizuddin Hossein, and Baboo Jamini Mohun Das, deputy magistrates, who were all employed in trying Mahomedan riot cases in the Mymensingh district of Eastern Bengal, to the effect that the disturbances were attributable to a wave of fanaticism due to causes specified in their judgments entirely unconnected with the boycott of British goods; whether the official explanation of these riots was that they owed their origin to the Hindoos interfering with the Mahomedans in the purchase of British goods; and whether, having regard to these conflicting statements and the importance of the matter, he will direct an independent inquiry to be made, by means of a Commission or otherwise, into the causes of the recent riots in the Mymensingh district.
  MR. MORLEY: I expect to receive in due course from the local government a report giving a comprehensive view of these disturbances, and the causes to which they were due will then no doubt be further elucidated. The opinions of the officers who tried the cases will of course be taken into consideration by the local Government. There does not appear to be any reason why a special inquiry should be instituted.

  Indian Agents Provocateurs.
  MR. BEES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that advertisements have appeared in Bengali newspapers asking for the services of agents provocateurs for the purpose of spreading sedition; and will he say what action the Government of Bengal proposes to take in the matter.
  MR. MORLEY: An advertisement for candidates for training as political missionaries has appeared in certain Bengali newspapers, but it contained no suggestion that the so-called missionaries should act in the manner described in the Question. The Government of Bengal do not propose to take any action in the matter.

  Seditious Indian Newspapers.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the newspaper named the Indian Sociologist, edited in London by one Shyamaji Krishnavarma, M.A., Oxon., elsewhere described as president of the Indian Homo Rule Society, in which it is said in an editorial article that if a man is to be dubbed an ardent native rebel simply because he advises his countrymen to shake off an oppressive foreign yoke, we confess we are proud to be called such, and in which it is further said that there is a school of Indian patriots whose ideal is not only to have independence in government in India by ousting the English from that country, but also to recover untold millions of money of which the Indian people have been unjustly deprived, which ideal involves the occupation of England by India till such claims are satisfied; further, whether his attention has been called to the speech made by the said Shyamaji Krishnavarma, in which he says that no concession can ever satisfy him save one, the disappearance of the alien yoke from India; and whether, since the editor claims that he is no British subject, the Government will consider the propriety of moving the Public Prosecutor to proceed against this person in view to his ultimate expulsion as an undesirable alien, who endeavours to debauch the loyal subjects of His Majesty.
  MR. MORLEY: I do not think that the language that my hon. friend quotes
  758
  is worth either the advertisement that he has given it himself, or of that which he wishes me to give it.
  MR. REES: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that this person maintains a boarding-house to which young Indians are attracted for the purpose of perversion on their arrival in this country?
  MR. MORLEY: I have no official information.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: is the Question in order, seeing that it contains not only a long extract from a newspaper—and I have been prevented embodying extracts from the Saturday Review in my Questions—but it also embodies certain high rhetoric on the part of the hon. Member putting it?
  MR. REES: The Question does not contain a single opinion of my own.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: But is the last line in order, in so far as it suggests endeavours to "debauch" loyal subjects?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Child Labour in Indian Factories.
  MR. T. DAVIES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the Report of the Textile Factory Labour Committee, and more particularly to that part which deals with child labour; is he aware that the present practice, according to the Report of that Committee, is to work children beyond their strength, resulting in their growth and development being stunted; will he bring all pressure possible to bear on the Government of India to pass such laws and to enforce regulations that are found necessary to put an end to the existing state of things in the textile and other factories in India; and will he specially direct the attention of the authorities to the urgency of definite suggestion 7 in the Report.
  MR. MORLEY: As I have already explained in answer to previous Questions on the subject, the Government of India intend to appoint a representative Commission to deal comprehensively with the

  759
  question of factory labour and to propose remedies. The Report of the Committee was preliminary only. The Commission will be appointed with all despatch, and will be instructed to report with as little delay as possible. The question of child labour will, of course, receive special attention.

  Chenab Canal Lands.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India what was the selling price per acre of land now irrigated by the Chenab Canal before the construction of that work of irrigation, and what is the present selling price.
  MR. MORLEY: Before the canal was made the land was practically valueless. Ten pounds an acre is now paid for land of fair average quality irrigated from the canal.

  Moti Lal Singh.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Hindu, Moti Lal Singh, son of Amrit Lal Singh, a Swadeshi leader, who is accused of having assaulted a young Mahomedan, who lies in a precarious condition in Serajganj hospital, has been apprehended.
  MR. MORLEY: Moti Lal Singh has surrendered and will be placed on his trial; the injured man is reported to have recovered.

  Lala Rajpat Rai.
  MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is yet in a position, without danger to the State, to inform the House in general terms what is the nature of the defence made by Lala Rajpat Rai under the provisions of the Ordinance of 1818 to the Government of India.
  MR. MORLEY: As my hon. friend is aware, Regulation III. of 1818 does not contemplate the formulation of specific charges. But Rajpat Rai was furnished with a copy of the warrant for his arrest, and was informed that the reason for his arrest and deportation was to preserve a portion of His Majesty's dominions from internal commotion. He submitted a memorial to the Government of India denying that he has ever done anything
  760
  to cause such commotion, and he has requested that his memorial may be submitted to the King. The procedure necessary for this purpose has been explained to him.
  MR. MACKARNESSasked whether the memorial would be laid before the House.
  MR. MORLEYcould not answer the Question until he had received the memorial.
  MR. REESasked whether in that part of India which was governed according to native traditions— the Native States— similar powers to those used by the British Government were not exercised by the ruling chiefs.
  *Mr. SPEAKER: Notice should be given of that.
  *Mr. LUPTON: But by what method is it proposed to redress the grievances of the people of India?
  *Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the Question on the Paper.

  Unskilled Labour in the Transvaal Mines.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the conditions under which British subjects, white and coloured, may undertake to do unskilled work in the mines of the Transvaal.
  The UNDER - SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,): The special restrictions imposed by the Labour Importation Ordinance apply to the classes specified in the Ordinance, viz.: non-Europeans other than Africans south of twelve degrees north of the equator introduced under contract for work in the mines. No similar restrictions apply to other British subjects.
  Sir GILBERT PARKERasked if the Government had taken any steps to remove this disability from British labour.
  MR. CHURCHILL: A provision was inserted in the Transvaal constitution which will have the effect of abrogating it.

  Isthmian Canal Labour Contracts.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies why the Trinidad Government did not supervise the contract drawn up between the Isthmian Canal Commissioners and British subjects in the island.
  MR. CHURCHILLThe form of contract was approved by the Government of Trinidad.

  British Garrison in Central Africa.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, what reduction has been made in the armed forces at Zomba, and if any further reduction is contemplated.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The armed forces in the British Central Africa Protectorate have been reduced by two companies of 100 men and a depot company which was only provisionally stationed at Zomba. No further reduction is contemplated.

  Brunei Protectorate Finance.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Federated Malay States have lent $200,000 to the Protectorate of Brunei; if so, on what security the money has been lent; whether the Government of the Malay States exercises any supervision over the Government of Brunei; whether this money is being used to defray current expenditure; whether it is proposed to make it an annual grant; and whether there is any precedent for one Colony financing another.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Answer to the first Question is in the affirmative. The State was practically bankrupt when it was taken over by His Majesty's Government and the money was needed to enable the Government to buy out a number of monopolists and to organise a system of administration. So far as I am aware no question of security has ever been raised, but the administration of Brunei is entirely under the control of His Majesty's Government, who will see that the money is repaid when the financial position of the State makes repayment possible. The Government of the Federated Malay States exercises no
  762
  control over that of Brunei, but the High Commissioner for the Federated Malay States it also High Commissioner for Brunei. The revenue for last year did not cover the expenditure, and the deficit has, therefore, been met from the loan. I may perhaps point out that a British Resident was first appointed at the beginning of 1906 and that it must naturally take a little time to place the finances on a satisfactory basis. There is no intention of making an annual grant. A parallel can be found in the Malay Peninsula where the Colony of the Straits Settlements financed the Protected Malay States in their early stages and where the State of Pahang has been regularly financed by its wealthier neighbours.
  Mr WEDGWOODasked whether the proposal to finance Brunei originated in the Malay Peninsula or at home, and whether the Government encouraged the financing of non-prosperous by prosperous Colonies.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I cannot say where it actually originated, but I have given a precedent for this system of financing, i.e., the State of Pahang.

  Trinidad Foreign Labour Contracts.
  MR. STARKEY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Trinidad Foreign Labour Contracts Ordinance (No. 106) was referred to and has received the sanction of His Majesty's Government; and, if so, whether they have taken steps to ensure that the labourers shall be treated and paid wages in accordance with the terms of that contract whilst working in the canal zone of the Isthmus of Panama.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Trinidad Foreign Labour Ordinance was sanctioned in 1900 in the usual manner, but its provisions are not applicable to contracts for labour within the Panama Canal zone. The Trinidad Government approved a form of contract based upon that scheduled to the Ordinance and the form, it is assumed, inadvertently, makes reference to the Ordinance. The Government of Trinidad was satisfied that the terms contained in the contract gave sufficient security to the labourers who are working, as I would remind the hon. Member, not for a private employer, but

  763
  for an organised and carefully supervised department of the Government of the United States.
  Lord BALCARRES: Has not the right hon. Gentleman said the terms of the contract cannot be enforced?
  MR. CHURCHILL: No, Sir, I said we were sending for further particulars and more precise and definite information on the point. The question whether the contract can be enforced rests between the Governments concerned and the Canal Commission.

  New Hebrides Convention.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the cause of the prolonged delay in proclaiming the New Hebrides Convention, the draft of which was signed on 20th October last year.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The delay in proclaiming the Convention is due to the complicated legal questions which have first to be settled.
  MR. LYTTELTON: Has any alteration or amendment been made in the draft Convention embodied in the Blue-book?
  MR. CHURCHILL: Under the Convention there was power to make regulations. These regulations have been made with great care and elaboration.
  MR. LYTTELTON: Are any alterations or amendments made in the draft Convention?
  MR. CHURCHILL: In the regulations under the Convention, but not in the Convention.

  Colonial Officials' Pensions.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether any permanent officials, with pension rights in other Colonies, transferred upon the responsibility of this Government to the Transvaal service, have suffered heavy material loss in consequence of changes connected with the new Government; and, if so, will they be duly compensated.
  MR. CHURCHILL: My right hon. friend has asked me to answer this. I am not aware of any case in which the usual rules are not being followed in awarding the compensation due to such officers.

  Transvaal Civil Service Regulations.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether the leave regulations of the Transvaal Civil Service have been so altered as to deprive British members of the service of an accumulated leave enabling them occasionally to visit Great Britain, and which they were led to expect would be periodically granted to them; and whether, in granting self-government to the Transvaal, any attempt was made to safeguard the the interests of the existing members of the service.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State has not heard of such an alteration; but in any case the subject falls within the proper authority of the Transvaal Government. With regard to the last part of the Question, I may refer the hon. Member to the Answer I give to his similar Question on the 23rd instant, †

  China and Indian Opium.
  Sir H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a despatch has now been sent to the Government of China in reply to the proposals presented to the British Government on the 29th November last regarding the traffic of Indian opium to China; and, if so, whether Papers will be laid upon the Table.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): I must refer the hon. Member to the reply given yesterday to the hon. Member for Holmfirth by my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for India. ‡ It is not proposed at present to lay Papers on the subject.

  Explosives from Airships.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can inform the House whether there
  †See (4) Debates, clxxviii., 1350.
  ‡See page 457.

  765
  is any prospect of a now prohibition of the use of explosives from airships being agreed to by the Hague Conference, to replace the temporary prohibition which resulted from the previous Hague Conference and has now expired.
  Sir EDWARD GREY: It is expected that this subject will come before the Conference, and we shall be glad to support an agreement to this effect.

  Anglo-Russian Understanding.
  MR. SNOWDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the exact terms of the proposed understanding with Russia; and whether the British Government is insisting, as a condition of this understanding, that the constitutional form of government in Russia as laid down in the manifesto of 30th October, 1905, should be guaranteed.
  Sir EDWARD GREY: I am unable to make any statement as to negotiations in progress. With regard to the second part of the Question I must refer the hon. Member to the reply given yesterday to the hon. Member for Leicester, †
  MR. SNOWDENwas understood to ask if the Government could not insist on Russia recognising the rights of the people.
  Sir EDWARD GREYreplied that it was impossible to introduce conditions affecting the internal affairs of other countries into such negotiations as these.

  Russia and the Aland Islands.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Russian troops are still in occupation of the Aland Islands, in violation of the provisions of the Treaty of Paris; whether their numbers have boon increased since last year; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
  Sir EDWARD GREY: I have no information subsequent to that contained in the reply returned to the Question asked by the hon. Member on 25th October last. ‡ No action on the part of
  †See page 481.
  ‡See (4) Debates, clxiii., 411.
  766
  His Majesty's Government appears to be necessary.
  MR. ASHLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman make further inquiry as to the state of this garrison?
  Sir EDWARD GREY: No, Sir.
  MR. ASHLEY: Then how does he know the real state of the affairs?
  Sir EDWARD GREY: It is the business of our agents abroad to send full information.

  Treaty with Sweden and Norway.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any progress has yet been made in the negotiations between this country and other Powers with a view to the substitution of a new treaty for that of 1855 with reference to Sweden and Norway.
  Sir EDWARD GREY: I can only refer the hon. Member to my reply of 14th May on this subject, to which, at present, I have nothing to add. When a definite conclusion has been arrived at the result will no doubt be made known by the Powers concerned.

  Irish-Cured Mackerel in the United States.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the principal market for Irish-cured mackerel is in the United States; will he use his best endeavours, in connection with the important negotiations now being carried on between England, Newfoundland, Canada, and the United States, as regards the fisheries question, to represent to the United States that the tariff of 8s. per barrel now collected on Irish mackerel is seriously detrimental to the Irish fishing industry; and, in the event of Canadian fish being allowed to enter free of duty to the United States, will he endeavour to secure a similar privilege to Irish exporters.
  I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that 70,000 barrels of Irish-cured mackerel were exported to the United States in 1906, and that £28,000 was
  §See (4) Debates, clxxiv.,788.

  767
  collected by import duty; and whether, in view of the efforts now being made to secure a brand for Irish-cured fish, he will represent to the United States Government the necessity of lowering their tariff against this important Irish industry.
  Sir EDWARD GREY: I am informed that the facts as stated are approximately accurate. If a favourable opportunity occurs for trying to obtain a reduction of duties in the United States on the produce of the United Kingdom, the case of Irish-cured mackerel will not be overlooked. But the negotiations on the subject of Colonial fish which took place some time ago did not lead to any result.

  Opium Trade.
  Sir H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Chinese Government have formally given their consent to the proposals presented by the American Minister inviting China to co-operate with the United States, Great Britain, France, Germany, Holland, and Japan in an inquiry into the whole question of the opium trade and production; and whether there is any objection to laying Papers on the subject.
  Sir EDWARD GREY: I have not yet heard that the formal consent of the Chinese Government has been given. With regard to the second part of the hon. Member's Question, the arrangements are not yet in a sufficiently advanced state to justify the laying of Papers.

  Egyptian Army of Occupation—Decree of 1895.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the undertakings given by him and Lord Cromer, at various dates subsequent to the Denshawi executions, that the decree of 1895 relative to offences against the Army of Occupation would be superseded by another decree, he is in a position to state the time when such decree will be promulgated; and, if not, whether he can account for the delay in giving effect to the decision announced a year ago.
  Sir EDWARD GREY: Before Lord Cromer's departure from Egypt it had already been found that the practical
  768
  difficulties in the way of reforming the special tribunal were very great, and it was therefore proposed temporarily to rely upon the ordinary law courts of Egypt. In the meanwhile there is no necessity to abrogate the decree of 1895, as the special tribunal can only be convoked on the application of His Majesty's Agent and Consul-General, who has been instructed not to take this step without previous reference to His Majesty's Government.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLasked if he was to understand that the undertaking given by the right hon. Gentleman had not been fulfilled and that there was no intention of fulfilling it.
  Sir EDWARD GREY: The special tribunal is not now in existence, and so long as it is not in existence the decree cannot be promulgated.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLasked whether the right hon. Gentleman could not call it into existence by a stroke of the pen.
  Sir EDWARD GREY: The undertaking I gave was that the tribunal should be called into existence when the reforms were introduced.

  Khedivial School of Law at Cairo.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the appointment of an Englishman to preside over the Khedivial School of Law at Cairo is due to the opinion that the students were, in large numbers, friendly to the Nationalist agitation, and had signed the recent petition for the pardon of the Denshawi prisoners.
  Sir EDWARD GREY: The Answer is the negative.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLasked if the right hon. Gentleman was aware that in the semi-native Press, which was under British control, the statement was made which appeared in his Question.
  Sir EDWARD GREYsaid he was not aware that the Press was under British control.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Then the right hon. Gentleman is the only Member of the House who is not aware of it.

  Post Office Savings Bank Finance
  MR. BOWLES:I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the balance sheet published by the Post Office Savings Bank shows that, on 31st December, 1906, it was liable to its depositors for £156,142,540, all payable at call or at a few days notice, that the securities representing its assets were worth at the price of that day no more than £143,058,808, and that the Savings Bank was therefore insolvent to the amount of £13,083,738; is he aware that on the 20th November, 1906, the liabilities of the Government to trustee savings banks exceeded on that day the value of the securities held by £3,142,593, that the liabilities to friendly societies exceeded the value of the securities held by £247,635, that the total excess of Government liability over the value of the securities held was, in those three cases, £16,473,966, and that the total cash balances hold towards meeting it were no more than £252,757, as shown by Parliamentary Papers, Nos. 73 and 214, of 1907; is he aware that, since those dates, the value of all the securities in question has fallen by from one to two per cent., thereby increasing the total deficiency of assets, and that a forced sale would still further reduce their value; and, in view of the fact that the Consolidated Fund is liable to make good all these and any other and greater deficiencies that may arise, and that these deficiencies are yearly increasing, why does he not take some measure to ensure the holding by the savings banks of an adequate gold reserve, such as bankers in similar cases are expected and accustomed to hold, why does he permit the cash balances to remain as low as they are, and why does he not take measures to reduce this total deficit of over £16,000,000 by charging a portion thereof from time to time upon, and paying it out of, the Consolidated Fund to the insolvent savings banks.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,): The figures quoted in the Question, so far as they are drawn from the published returns, are correct. I must remind the
  770
  hon. Member that a Select Committee of this House in 1902 condemned as misleading the practice of valuing the securities held for these funds at the current market price. The security of the Post Office Savings Bank depositors, of the trustee banks, and of the friendly societies who have invested with the National Debt Commissioners depends, not upon the assets held by those Commissioners, but upon the liability of the Consolidated Fund to satisfy their claims in case of need, as has been stated over and over again in this House by successive Ministers. The reasons which require commercial banks to have command of substantial gold reserves do not apply to the savings banks. The cash balances held on their account are such as experience shows to be necessary for the conduct of the business.

  Consolidated Fund Charges.
  MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been given to the fact that numerous small sums, aggregating £1,128 8s. 8d., transferred from the land revenues of the Crown, are yearly paid out of the Consolidated Fund to various persons and bodies, including the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge and certain precentors and ministers of Gaelic and other churches in Scotland; and in view of the perpetual character of universities and of Scottish precentors and ministers, will ho take steps to cummute these payments and so to relieve the Consolidated Fund.
  MR. ASQUITH: These allowances are the survivals of a longer list which has been reduced by commutation as opportunities occurred. There is no power to enforce commutation upon the recipients, but the Treasury is always willing to discuss terms with them.

  Dublin and Charles II.
  MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state why an allowance of £714 11s. 8d. is, and has been since 1801, paid annually out of the Consolidated Fund to the Lord Mayor and citizens of Dublin; what portion thereof, if any, reaches the citizens; and is this charge on the Consolidated Fund perpetual.
  MR. ASQUITH: The allowance is charged permanently on the Consolidated Fund by the Act 41, Geo. III., Cap. 32. It represents (1) a perpetual annuity of £500 (Irish currency) granted by Charles II. for services rendered by the city to himself and his father; and (2) another perpetual annuity of £300 (Irish) representing the pay of a captaincy of Foot which had been conferred on the Lord Mayor and his successors. The payments up to the time of the Union were charged on the Irish Civil List. The allowance is paid to the cashier of the Bank of Ireland as attorney for the Corporation. I have no information as to its subsequent application.
  MR. BOWLES: Seeing that this is a perpetual charge, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of commuting it?
  MR. ASQUITH: The Answer I have just given, I think, covers that.

  Friendly Society Officials and the Workmen's Compensation Act.
  *Captain FABER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether paid officials of the friendly societies are exempted from being insured under the Employers' Liability Bill; and, if not, whether he will consider the hardship that is indicted upon friendly societies in having to insure their officials, and so incurring loss.
  The SECRETARY OF STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,):No special provision is made in the Workmen's Compensation Act with regard to the officers of friendly societies, and I see no reason why such officers, if they come within the definition of "workman" in the Act, should not be entitled to compensation for accidents arising out of and in the course of their employment. I do not see that insurance involves any special hardship on friendly societies.

  Motor 'Bus Traffic in Piccadilly.
  CAPTAIN FABER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the noise and discomfort caused to residents in Piccadilly, and other streets where there are hills, by motor omnibuses changing their speeds on such
  772
  hills; and whether His Majesty's Government will confer such powers on the Chief Commissioner of Police as will enable him to deal drastically and on his own initiative with such nuisances.
  MR. GLADSTONE: My attention has not been specially called to this matter. All drivers of motor omnibuses are tested as to their capacity to change gear without undue noise, but at times they are careless. The general standard of skill in driving is being gradually raised.
  CAPTAIN FABER: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my Question?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I see no reason to take any steps at the present time.
  MR. LUPTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware there is a patent change gear which makes no noise at all?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Perhaps my hon. friend will give me details of it.

  Anti-Russian Demonstration in Trafalgar Square.
  MR. THORNE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the violence of the police against the people in Whitehall on 15th July, after they were leaving the demonstration that was held in Trafalgar Square to protest against the Government entering into any agreement with the Russian Government; if he is aware that the police on the day in question broke a number of the people's umbrellas, banner poles, tore some banners up which were being carried by the people, without warning or requesting the people to go away; if he is aware that a number of persons were beaten by constables with bamboo canes that had been broken up, and which had been used as banner poles; and whether he intends to take any action in the matter.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am informed that the intervention of the police on the occasion in question became necessary in consequence of an attempt being made to hold a meeting in Whitehall after the meeting in Trafalgar Square was concluded. The action taken by the police

  773
  to stop the obstruction which was caused to the traffic on the road and footways was resisted and some disorder ensued, but no more force than was necessary was used by the police to suppress it. The matter has already been under investigation at the Bow Street Police Court, where the solicitor for the defendants, Kaplinski and Novell, stated that he cast no reflection upon the way in which Inspector Jarvis, who was in charge of the police, carried out his duties. On the information in my possession and after full consideration I find no ground for intervention.

  Maintenance of Main Roads
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Government contemplates making the main roads a national charge.
  The PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): My right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exehequer has already stated that this matter shall be considered when the general question of local taxation comes to be dealt with I do not think I can add anything to that statement.

  Mortality Statistics.
  *MR. CHARLES ROBERTS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages intends to issue a Report on the mortality experienced in certain occupations, in continuation of the Supplement to the 55th Annual Report, Part II. (Cd. 8503 of 1897); and, if so, when such Report is likely to be issued.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: As stated in the Registrar-General's letter to me which is prefixed to Part I. of the Supplement to his 56th Annual Report, Part II. of that Supplement, which will contain particulars of the mortality in certain occupations, is already in an advanced state of preparation. It is hoped that it will be issued about the end of the present year.

  Croydon Vaccination Cases.
  MR. LUPTON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that the boy who died at Croydon on the 29th April last, and
  774
  whoso case was investigated by Dr. Cope-man, of the Local Government Board, only broke out into sores about a week or ten days after vaccination, and that it was in order to cure these sores that the public vaccinator prescribed bromide treatment; and, if this is so, will he refer the question of the safety or otherwise of calf lymph to a Committee of the House or a Royal Commission.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I do not understand that the facts are as my hon. friend supposes. I am informed that the child was unsuccessfully vaccinated on 4th January and successfully on the 11th of that month. The sores seem to have first appeared on the 24th January, whilst the bromide was first administered on the 7th January. It will be seen, therefore, that the administration of the bromide commenced before the sores made their appearance. I do not understand that it was proscribed in order to cure the sores. It seems to have been suggested as a remedy for fits from which the child suffered.
  MR. LUPTONasked the right hon. Gentleman to make further inquiry as to whether the public vaccinator did not advise the use of bromide to cure the sores.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I have made inquiries and my information is as I have stated in the Answer.

  Channel Islands and Joint Stock Companies.
  MR. H. H. MARKS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can say what was the result of the conference of representatives of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, which was held on the 4th of this month at the suggestion of the Board of Trade, with the object of ascertaining whether the law relating to joint stock companies in those islands could be made more uniform with that in force in this country?
  *The SECRETARY TO THE BOARD of TRADE (Mr. KEARLEY,): A very useful discussion took place at the conference referred to, and there was a general agreement that greater uniformity in the law relating to joint stock companies was desirable. It is hoped

  775
  that in course of time this general agreement may be followed by legislative results.

  Railway Tank Engines.
  MR. WARDLE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the tank engines of the precursor class running on the London and North Western Railway, in the neighbourhood of Stockport and Buxton; if he will inquire into the number of times these engines have left the rails during the past six months; and whether their construction is such as to render them dangerous to work upon this portion of he railway.
  *Mr. KEARLEY: The Board of Trade have communicated with the London and North Western Railway Company, and are informed that these engines, which were specially built to work passenger trains over the steep gradients between Manchester and Buxton, have proved a success, and that the company do not consider that their construction is such as to render their use upon this portion of the railway dangerous. It is added that in the last six months engines of this last class have been derailed on five occasions, of which four were in sidings and not on running lines, while the other i occurred when passing through a crossing which was being re-laid, the chairs being temporarily held by spikes.

  The Post Office and Ferry Maintenance.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether it is the practice of the Post Office to make any voluntary or other contribution to the upkeep of public ferries in respect of user of those ferries by servants of the Post of Office; and whether he is prepared to make such a contribution to the Knott End ferry, which is maintained at great expense by the Fleetwood Urban District Council.
  CAPTAIN NORTON (Newington, W.; for Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON): It is not the practice of the Post Office to make any contribution to the upkeep of ferries which Post Office servants are entitled to use free of charge, and I am unable to sanction such a contribution in respect of the use made of
  776
  the Knott End ferry by postmen or telegraph messengers on duty, who are expressly exempted from payment by the Fleetwood Improvement Act of 1893. Post Office servants not employed on the conveyance of mails or telegrams pay the usual fare.
  MR. ASHLEY: In view of the fact that the Treasury, although not legally liable, pay rates in respect of public buildings and Royal palaces, will the question of the ferries be reconsidered?
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I will lay it before the Postmaster-General.

  Magazine Rates to Canada.
  MR. BOULTON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if the new regulations allowing English papers and magazines to go to Canada at a reduced rate, provided they are carried by a packet sailing direct for a Canadian port, have led to any appreciable increase in the number of English papers and magazines sent under these new regulations.
  CAPTAIN NORTON:The reduction of the rate of postage on British newspapers, magazines, and trade journals sent to Canada has already resulted in a very considerable increase in the number of British periodicals sent by post from the United Kingdom to the Dominion. But the new rate has not yet been long enough in force to enable me to make more than a general statement.
  MR. BOULTON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he can see his way to allow the reduced postage on papers and magazines to Canada to apply to papers and magazines sent to Canada via New York.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I would point out that, under the arrangement with Canada, the Dominion Government bears the whole cost of the conveyance, etc., of the articles in question from Liverpool by vessels under contract with the Canadian Government. The concession is not therefore applicable to vessels going to New York.

  Education Grant.
  MR. GRETTON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education

  777
  if regulations, informing the local education authorities of the methods to be adopted for ascertaining the wishes of parents in single-school areas in view of providing a school, are to be issued; and if they will be laid upon the Table.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. MCKENNA,): If the hon. Member is referring to the grant of £100,000 for the provision of new Schools, I am not prepared to make any further statement beyond the Answer which was given to the hon. Member for the Ecclesall Division on the 22nd instant, to the effect that I have under consideration regulations, compliance with which will be necessary in order to obtain a grant. These regulations will in due course be laid upon the Table.
  SIR PHILIP MAGNUS: Will there be any opportunity of discussing these regulations?
  MR. McKENNA: I understand it will be taken on the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill.

  New Forest Commoners.
  Sir ROBERT HOBART: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that Captain Reynolds, a registered commoner of the New Forest, has been refused by the Crown authorities the right of common, of fuel wood, and of turbary, to which ho is entitled by virtue of the statutory register of the New Forest commoners; and what is the reason for such refusal.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. RUNCIMAN,): The Commissioner of Woods in charge of the New Forest is advised that the rights of fuelwood and common of turbary referred to in the Question have been lost owing to the pulling down and removal of the ancient messuage to which they were attached.
  Sir ROBERT HOBART: By whom has the Commissioner of Woods and Forests been advised? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that such questions as these arise entirely from the want of sympathy with the rights of the commoners and
  778
  the constant attempts to ride roughshod over them?
  MR. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir. The rights of these commoners are very clearly defined by law, and we have no power to grant common rights in regard to the messuage which has been pulled down and destroyed.

  Parliamentary Reports.
  Sir HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if a decision has yet been arrived at concerning the recommendation that Parliamentary Reports should be published, as in America, in handy octavo volumes by subjects, instead of the unwieldy tomes now in vogue; and if, having regard to the desirability of securing general study of the discussion on preferential trade in the Imperial Conference, a beginning can be made with its issue in cheap form instead of in the 56-ounce 5s. book with which it is now incorporated.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: I regret that I am unable at present to add anything to the reply which I made to a similar Question from the hon. Member on the 20th June. †
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: How much longer are we to wait? This has been going on a year or more.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid I cannot make any announcement. So many authorities have to be consulted.

  Wrexham Parochial Charities.
  Loud R. CECIL: I beg to ask the hon. Member for the Elland Division of Yorkshire, as representing the Charity Commissioners, when the scheme for the administration of the Wrexham Parochial Charities will be completed and published.
  MR. TREVELYAN:A draft scheme in this case was published on 19th April. Some suggestions were made by the Town Council and the Board of Education which necessitated correspondence with those bodies and the trustees from whom the Commissioners are now awaiting replies. I do not anticipate a long delay, and will do what
  See (4) Debates, clxxvi., 621–2.

  779
  I can to expedite the sealing of the scheme.

  "Daily Graphic" Irish Photographs.
  MR. HERBERT: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he has seen the statement of a correspondent in the Daily Graphic for Friday, 26th July, that a moonlighting outrage occurred, and that, owing to the light being bad, he induced the actual perpetrators to pose for a photograph at a more convenient time; whether he is aware that the photograph is so disposed that the faces of the perpetrators are concealed; and will he say whether the names of the perpetrators have been communicated to the police: and in these circumstances, seeing that this correspondent on his own confession is an accessory after the fact, will proceedings be taken in the interests of law and order.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,): I have read the statement referred to in the Question. The inspector-general of the Royal Irish Constabulary has no information in regard to the alleged photographing, nor have the names of the perpetrators of the alleged outrage been communicated to the police. In the inspector-general's opinion it is scarcely credible that a number of persons who had been engaged in a moonlighting outrage would voluntarily pose for a photograph in the presence of a possible witness against them, and I must say that I am of the same opinion. In the circumstances there is obviously no evidence upon which the newspaper correspondent could be prosecuted.
  MR. HERBERT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the meaning of his Answer is that the story of the correspondent as recorded in the Daily Graphic is a flight of imagination?
  MR. CHERRY: The hon. Member must take his own meaning out of it.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the result of their inquiries is that the Government do not believe that any such outrage took place at all?
  MR. CHERRY: Personally, I do not believe it did.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Can the right hon. Gentleman suggest any means by which newspapers can be prevented, not only from publishing false statements, but from actually reproducing pictorial representations of them?
  MR. CHERRY: I am afraid I. do not see any means by which we can proceed against newspapers.
  MR. FLYNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that photographs of imaginary scenes at Cork Assizes have also been produced?
  Sir HOWARD VINCENT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is only following the example of the Morning Leader in regard to the Chinese labour cartoon?
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Is it not the fact that the pictures to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman refers were sketches, and those referred to in the Question were photographs?
  Sir HOWARD VINCENT: What difference does that make?
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: A good deal of difference.
  MR. CHERRY: I have not seen the Morning Leader, and therefore I cannot say.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a case in the books in which a man was prosecuted for a libel on a whole people when Buonaparte was first Consul?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Deportation of Paupers to Ireland.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the intended deportation from Craiglockhart Workhouse, Edinburgh, to Newry Workhouse, of Edward Farrell, who had become chargeable to the Edinburgh rates; whether he is aware that Farrell left Newry when a boy, and spent about

  781
  sixty years of his life in Scotland; and whether he will communicate with the Local Government Board for Scotland with a view to securing that the country which has had the benefit of his labour or so many years will be responsible for his maintenance in his declining days.
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. BIRREL,): The Local Government Board for Ireland understand the facts to be substantially as stated in the Question. The Edinburgh Parish Council, however, say that Farrell has never acquired a settlement in any parish in Scotland. The Newry Board of Guardians are taking an appeal against Farrell's removal to their union. Under Section 5 of the Poor Law (Scotland) Act, 1898, the decision in such case rests entirely with the Local Government Board for Scotland, who will doubtless give full consideration to all the circum stances of the case.
  MR. FLYNNasked if it was not the fact that under the law as it stood paupers could be deported to, but not from Ireland?
  MR. BIRRELL: I think the law requires amendment.

  Roe Estate, Queen's County.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether negotiations for the sale of the Roe estate, Mountsalem, Queen's County, are pending before the Estates Commissioners; and if so, can he say what provision is being made for the evicted tenants' representative named Delany, who claims reinstatement on this property.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners are negotiating for the purchase of the estate mentioned in the Question. They have received from Joseph Delany an application for reinstatement in a holding on the estate, and will give full consideration to Delany's claim in the event of their acquiring the estate.

  Kings County Rents—Case of Mrs. Mary Connor.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Sub-Com-
  782
  missioners Tuckey and Hawkins, in fixing a second term rent recently on the holding of Mrs. Mary Connor, Bogtown, Cloneygowan, King's County, raised the first term rent of £21 10s., settled in 1890, to £25 4s., also depriving the tenant of turbary rights; and, considering that the old rent of the farm prior to 1890 was only £24, can he say what course he proposes to take with reference to those Sub-Commissioners.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Land Commission inform me that the facts are as stated in the Question, save that the first term judical rent was fixed on the basis that the tenant had no right of turbary. If either party is aggrieved by the order of the Sub-Commission fixing the judicial rent for a second term, he has a statutory right to have the case reheard in the prescribed manner.

  Legan Evicted Tenants.
  MR. JAMES O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Catherine Glancy, of Carrawreagh, P. Moran, of Belragh, and Michael Duffy, of Legan, have made application, as evicted tenants, for reinstatement; and that their cases were inquired into at Carrick-on-Shannon, in September of last year; and whether any decision has been arrived at with regard to the same.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have investigated the applications referred to, and, upon full considerations of the circumstances of each case, have decided that they can take no action.

  Ancketill Grove Demesne, County Monaghan.
  MR. LARDNER: I bog to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners are about to take over the Ancketill Grove demesne on the estate of C. K. Cordner, county Monaghan, for the purpose of dividing it into holdings; if so, will he see that steps are taken to give preference to evicted tenants who formerly held farms, sons of tenants, and tenant purchasers, under the early Purchase Acts, of small holdings on the Ancketill Grove estate, of which this demesne formed part; and will he further

  783
  state how it is proposed to deal with the residence in the demesne.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that their inspector is at present inquiring into the claims of all applicants for the untenanted land referred to in the Question. When the inspector's report has been received, the Commissioners will, before preparing a scheme for the division of the land, give full consideration to the claims of the several classes of persons mentioned in the Question. The Commissioners have not yet arrived at a decision as to the disposal of the residence on the estate.

  Irish Eating System.
  MR. LARDNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that on the 15th February last a representative deputation from urban districts in the counties of Antrim, Armagh, Cavan, Down, and Monaghan waited on the Local Government Board, and urged the assimilation of the law in Ireland as to the assessment and collection of poor rate and town rate in urban districts, and also the relief of tenants of houses in urban districts valued at under £5 from the payment of rates, and that the Vice-President of the Local Government Board informed the deputation that the matter would receive careful consideration; and if he will now state what action he proposes to take in this matter.
  MR. BIRRELL: I am aware that the deputation referred to waited on the Local Government Board. The question of introducing legislation with the object of facilitating the collection of rates and removing certain difficulties to which the deputation called attention, has received the consideration of the Government, but it has not been found possible to introduce a Bill this session.

  Civil Rights of Irish Teachers.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland have refused definitely to remove the restrictions placed by their rules on the teachers of Ireland in connection with their civil rights; and whether the Commissioners were unanimous in such refusal when the matter was last discussed.
  MR. BIRRELL: Yes, Sir; the Commissioners have definitely refused to make any further modification of their rules relating to the civil rights of teachers, but I have no information as to whether their decision was unanimous.
  MR. MURPHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman ascertain if the decision was unanimous?
  MR. BIRRELL: I will inquire.

  Irish Board of Works Accountant.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is intended to fill the post vacated by the present accountant in the Board of Works, Dublin; if so, what is the cause of the delay in so doing; whether the three officials next entitled by seniority and efficiency to the position are Catholics; and will steps be taken to secure that the qualifications of these officials will be considered before the Secretary, Mr. Williams, is allowed to prejudice their claims in the interest of a non-Catholic.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: I understand that this appointment was made more than a week ago and will be announced in due course. As regards the last part of the hon. Member's Question, I must refer him to my Answer of 23rd April last† which, though relating to the Treasury Remembrancer, is equally applicable to the present Question.
  MR. DELANY: Was the appointment made before my Question appeared on the Paper?
  MR. RUNCIMAN: Yes.
  MR. DELANY: Who has been appointed?
  MR. RUNCIMAN: The announcement will be made in due course.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Does the hon. Gentleman know who has been appointed?
  MR. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir.
  MR. DELANY: Is it a nominee of Mr. Williams?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order.
  †See (4) Debates., clxxii, 1576.

THE RADIO-TELEGRAPHIC CONVENTION.

  MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
  Sir EDWARD SASSOONasked the Prime Minister whether he was aware of the report in the public Press of the rumoured ratification of the Radio-Telegraphic Convention by His Majesty's Government, whether he would say how far it was correct, and whether, in view of the importance of the subject to the defence and commerce of the Empire, he was now in a position definitely to fix a sitting for the discussion of the bearing of the Report.
  The PRIME MINISTER and FIRST LORD of the TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): I have not seen the report referred to. The ratification has not taken place, and I can only repeat my previous statement that no further time will be given for the discussion of the matter.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: In consequence of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply I beg to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, the Report of the Select Committee on the Radio-Telegraphic Convention, and the declared intention of His Majesty's Government to proceed to ratification without affording the House an opportunity of discussion on the subject.
  And, the pleasure of the House being signified, the Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 10, until a quarter past eight this evening.

SMALL LANDHOLDERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.
Report to lie upon the Table and to be printed. [No. 278.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 278.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed.[Bill 294.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Sir BRAMPTON GURDONreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills the following Fifteen Members (in respect of the Land Values (Scotland) Bill):—Sir Edward Boyle, Mr. Hugh Barrie, Mr. Remnant, Mr. Charles Craig, Sir Samuel Scott, Mr. Nield, Mr. Staveley Hill, Sir Henry Kimber, Mr. Hills, Mr. Thomas Frederick Richards, Mr. John Ward, Sir Randall Cremer, Mr. Hugh Law, Mr. M'Killop, and Mr. Trevelyan.
Report to lie upon the Table.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS).
Report from the Select Committee brought up, and read.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 279.]

STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
MR. STUART-WORTLEYreported from the Chairmen's Panel; that they had discharged Mr. Eugene Wason from being Chairman of the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills; That they had discharged Sir William Holland from being Chairman of Standing Committee A, and had appointed him to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills in place of Mr. Eugene Wason; That they had discharged Mr. Stuart-Wortley from being Chairman of Standing Committee C, and had appointed Mr. John William Wilson to act as Chairman of the said Committee C, in his place, such discharge and appointment to take effect at the conclusion of the Proceedings on the Small Holdings and Allotments Bill.
Report to lie upon the Table.

FINANCE BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
Sir GILBERT PARKERsaid he wished to make his protest against the system of taxation prevailing in this country, and against the immutability of

787
free-trade principles so-called. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had spoken of Great Britain as the one free and untrammelled market of the world. That was perfectly correct, but in its free and untrammelled condition it gave great advantages to the workpeople and manufacturers of foreign nations. The right hon. Gentleman himself in his time had had his doubts, if not about the immutability of free trade, at least about the principle of it. He most certainly had had his doubts about the prophecies made in regard to free trade. In 1900 the right hon. Gentleman said that there was not the slightest doubt in the mind of anyone that in the international markets we were fighting for our trade with all our available strength He had also made another statement which might be commended to hon. Members opposite. In 1903, the right hon. Gentleman said that there were disquieting features with regard to the matter, and in industrial as in social conditions no honest observer, certainly no member of the party of progress, would be found to deny that they had seen industries in which we ought to have maintained our supremacy, falling behind, and in some cases entirely taken away from us by our competitors.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,): Hear, hear!
Sir GILBERT PARKER,continuing, said the right hon. Gentleman cried "Hear, hear!" to that. Yet in spite of this fact he could find no remedy for the position in which England found herself to-day with regard to the matter. The right hon. Gentleman was quite ready to say that the prophecies had come true. It was said that we were going to convert the world by our free trade policy, but no single country had been converted, and all our Colonies, whilst starting with free trade, had ended up by establishing a tariff. Despite this, the right hon. Gentleman was still perfectly satisfied. The fault he had to find with the right hon. Gentleman was that he was too Pharisaical. He believed him to be a Pharisee of finance. The right hon. Gentleman was so enamoured of the worship of his ancestors and of the past that, like the Scribes and Pharisees of old, he stood by the letter
788
of the law and would listen to no change whatsoever. He (Sir Gilbert) wished to make a protest against the system of taxation which compelled the people of this country to pay £64,000,000 a year for food, drink, and tobacco, £13,000,000 being taxation on food. He did not object to a tax upon food; that was to say, a tax upon sugar and coffee and tea, and those things which were considered the necessaries of life. A tax upon such articles was necessary in order to reach all the classes of the community, but he did object most strongly to the disproportion of the taxes levied upon those articles. They were too high, and when they had got too high a tax upon any one article of food its consumption diminished, trade was injured, and the people were prevented from getting a full supply. The view he took was that if they distributed their taxation over a wider area the consumption was not reduced, whilst the pressure of individual taxation was scarcely felt. The trouble with the right hon. Gentleman's system of taxation was that it was rigid and inflexible and left no opportunity for escape. If the system were distributed there would be a reasonable elasticity and a chance of retrenching individual expenditure and reducing the pressure of taxation. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that in order to meet demands, he must turn in the future either to the land, or to the income-tax, or to some hitherto unexplored region of which they were not aware. At the present time they had a sort of Chinese puzzle to deal with in the matter of raising money to meet demands, because the area of taxation was so narrow and the things upon which the right hon. Gentleman wished to put a tax so small. He would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should impose a tax upon silks, a source of revenue which he ventured to say would not be unsatisfactory to hon. Members below the gangway. At the present time we received from £11,000,000 to £12,000,000 worth of silk a year from abroad, chiefly from France. If that were taxed, say at 20 per cent., or even 10 per cent. the Exchequer would get anything from £l,500,000 to £2,500,000 additional revenue, very little of which would be paid by those people whom hon. Members below the gangway claimed, with such great emphasis, to

789
represent. He did not know what the right hon. Gentleman's reply would be to this suggestion; he expected it would be the old reply of the immutable principle of free trade. The right hon. Gentleman would doubtless prefer to put 65 per cent. on the poor man's tea and 30 per cent. on sugar. He declined, however, to put a tax upon corn, because, ho said, that would touch the food of the people, and bear heavily upon them.
MR. MYER: It will take ten years to undo the policy of the late Government.
Sir GILBERT PARKERsaid he did not see that the present Government had made much attempt to undo the policy of their predecessors. If ever there was a Chancellor of the Exchequer in the history of the country who had relied upon the principles laid down by his predecessors, it was the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He had done absolutely nothing to change the policy of his predecessors.
An HON. MEMBER: He has reduced the National Debt.
SIR GILBERT PARKER,said that that was not a change in policy. The predecessors of the right hon. Gentleman had also reduced the National Debt. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer was the most orthodox of orthodox Chancellors of the Exchequer, and if he could find no way out of his trouble he would do the same next year as he had done this, and would make no fundamental alteration in the existing heavy taxation. The right hon. Gentleman would not deal with corn. When his hon. friend behind him asked what the taxation of corn during the years 1902–3 had come to he was told £1,876,644. And that was paid by the foreigner.
MR. ASQUITH: The whole of that tax went into the Exchequer.
Sir GILBERT PARKERsaid he was glad of the right hon. Gentleman's interruption, because he wanted to say that the right hon. Gentleman was by no means certain that all that tax was paid by the people of this country. He would not get the shippers or the railway
790
people in the United States or any one who knew the conditions of transport to agree that the small tax of 2s. per quarter on corn meant that the price of bread would go up. He knew that it went up in a few instances. Lord St. Aldwyn in the course of a speech strongly advocated a corn tax and prophesied its success and that it would not interfere with the price of bread. Afterwards with his free trade prejudices he said that bread did go up in some parts of the country. In such a case he would say that it was well to watch the bakers. Unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer would take the tax off tea and sugar he had no right to say that he would not tax corn.
MR. BYLESmade a remark which was inaudible in the Gallery.
*Mr. SPEAKERsaid he understood that the hon. Member was not raising a question of order.
MR. BYLESsaid he did not wish to rise to a point of order, but to clear up what had been said by Lord St. Aldwyn.
Sir GILBERT PARKERsaid he would quote what Lord St. Aldwyn did say—
"In 1902 he foresaw a great deal of opposition to the proposed corn-tax; that it would arouse prejudice and lead to the cry of tax on food. But he was convinced that in no other form of indirect taxation could so much money be found creating so little an effect and injury to trade and commerce."
MR. BYLESsaid that it was Lord St. Aldwyn's second speech that contained the point to which he wished to direct the hon. Member's attention.
Sir. GILBERT PARKERsaid he had not Lord St. Aldwyn's second speech with him, but if he rightly interpreted Lord St. Aldwyn he said he thought the corn tax would not affect the price of food although in some, cases in some parts of the country the price of bread did go up.
MR. BYLESsaid that the price of bread did go up in Manchester.
Sir GILBERT PARKERsaid that he could not continue that particular form

791
of argument any further. If the present high tax on sugar was maintained it would be injurious to the country, because sugar formed such a large part of the raw material in the confectionery trade. He contended that the taxes on alcohol, sugar, and tobacco had somewhat restricted trade. The right hon. Gentleman relied too much on those orthodox taxes, and because he needed money refused to lighten their effect in any way. He was put in the position which he occupied in order to give relief to the taxpayer in two ways; by reducing taxation and by reducing expenditure. He however, had not reduced either expenditure or taxation to any effective extent. His pedantry carried him too far, and he clung to a system of taxation which would not meet the needs of the country and the expenditure which had increased and was bound to increase. Moderate direct taxation and indirect taxes on manufactured articles for the purposes of revenue, he (Sir Gilbert Parker) believed, would give an opportunity for greater ease of payment on the part of the consumer; and also, what was much more important, would make it possible to throw some of that taxation on the foreigner. He knew that some hon. Gentlemen did not believe that. He had lived in protectionist countries and he knew that they could not get a Minister in any protectionist country in the world who would not say that where they had a small tax on manufactured articles which were also manufactured in those countries where the competition was strong against the imported articles, in a vast number of cases the foreign importer paid the tax by lowering the price of his goods so as to cover the tax. That was the ease in Canada and in Australia. That was a logical and a reasonable proposition. That was what the Leader of the Opposition aimed at in the policy for which he had argued. A tariff tax for the purposes of revenue was a reasonable and logical policy. The policy which he advocated went a little further, and carried them into the Colonial field, and into the field of preference, into the Empire at large, where our greatest markets awaited us. It was not in the protective markets of the world that we were
792
to look for an increase in the sale of our goods. We must look to neutral and the Colonial markets. In the neutral markets we had great competition, although we held our own. But those neutral markets were not going to be increased. China and Japan were not going to be any longer the great field for exploration on behalf of our goods as they had been in the past. We had had the best out of China and Japan. Japan in fact was fast becoming an industrial country and a producer of manufactured goods. Japan and the United States were becoming more our competitors in the Far East. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Gentlemen opposite talked about the United States being feeble competitors of ours they forgot that the United States and Germany sent practically nothing to the Far East thirty years ago. The United States was only making a beginning because she had hitherto been satisfied with the markets within her own borders. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had truly said that we were fighting for our lives. The chance of increasing our position in neutral and in foreign markets was diminishing. There remained open to us great Colonial markets where, however, the foreigners were gaining ground every day because of our existing fiscal system. British trade alone in 1894 controlled 72 per cent. of the whole. In 1905 it controlled 57 per cent. of the whole. Foreign trade rose from 16 per cent. of the whole in 1894 to 30 per cent. in 1905. There was a field for the development of our trade the like of which was not offered to any other country in the world, and if we could do it without sacrificing ourselves that trade should be cultivated. The time was past when it could be said, as Mr. Gladstone once said, that the Colonies were not a source of strength to us — a doctrine of the dark middle ages. Time and opportunity and bad trade were helping us to prove that the ideal which tariff reformers had was good for us and good for the Colonies. We wanted not only to develop and create markets but to preserve the markets we had. When he was in Australia he realised that very soon the ships in Sydney Harbour would not

793
be all British. He did not say that we should have all the trade in the world, but he thought we should preserve that trade which naturally belonged to us, especially in view of the fact that Germany gave subsidies to the German steamships going out there. Bismarck's policy always was that they should send away goods and not men. When Germany and France had done so much to develop their trade with Australia and lower the trade which hitherto we had done with that Colony, he commended to the right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench their own precedent in a matter of this kind. They were subsidising the Canadian-Pacific Railway by a heavier contribution for the carrying of mails than was warranted for the purpose. They were promoting an "all red" route across Canada and Australia; that was a bounty, and a bounty was the most extreme form of protection. If right hon. Gentlemen meant what they said at the Colonial Conference, and he liked to believe that they did, in offering to preserve an "all red" route round the world, they were supporting an extreme form of protection which even some of them on that side of the House might hesitate to advocate. The Chancellor of the Exchequer at that Conference was in an extremely difficult position, and he had great sympathy with him. After what the right hon. Gentleman had said in 1903 he wondered that he was able to go to the Conference at all. At the recent Conference the real discussion was about preference and there was nothing which the Colonial Premiers considered so important. The right hon. Gentleman said the scheme which was evolved from the brain of a statesman whose absence they all deplored was fraught with mischief and dangers to fiscal union. Was that Conference anything else than one to discuss Colonial preference? The right hon. Gentleman realised that, and he was diplomatic.
MR. ASQUITHsaid he thought he was said to have "slammed the door."
Sir GILBERT PARKERsaid that that was after the Colonial Premiers had left London. Ministers showed profound
794
hospitality to the Colonial Premiers outside the Conference, but inside it they gave them "bitter bread."
MR. ASQUITHsaid that whatever he said was said in the face of the Colonial Premiers.
Sir GILBERT PARKER: replied that what the right hon. Gentleman had said was said before the Colonial Premiers came over. The right hon. Gentleman did not, in fact, believe in the Conference at all. The attitude of the Colonial Premiers showed that they were prepared to give reasonable consideration to the great question at issue, but it was impossible for the right hon. Gentleman with his hands tied to do anything. The complaint was that the Government decided the question without discussion. They were all agreed that raw material should be admitted free; that was admitted by tariff reformers as well as by right hon. Gentlemen opposite [Ministerial cries of "Why?"] He wished to keep to the point, and to explain his reason for advocating the admission of raw material. It gave that which was necessary to the worker to prevent his being handicapped. While they were all convinced that raw material should come in free, where they differed was as to the amount of work to be put into that raw material. There was what he might call the staircase of production, such as prevailed in Germany and America. There they said, "Admit your raw material as free as possible, and then work it up through the earlier stages of production until it becomes the highly-finished article." There was the question of hides from Argentina. There was a time when the harbour of Liverpool was, speaking figuratively, filled with ships which had carried hides from Argentina, but at the present time the United States took the raw hides from the Argentine from the lowest to the highest quality, and having manufactured them they got a return in the shape of wages. What was the manufactured material for one set of purchasers was the raw material for another. Some of our trades were disappearing because we had discarded the opportunity of working up raw material

795
from all sorts of forms to the highest state of perfection. While tariff reformers approved of the system of free imports of raw materials, they challenged the system of free imports of foreign manufactured goods on the ground that, by giving the foreigner a double free market, they had made for the increase of importation of raw materials in foreign countries and the decrease of importation of manufactured goods and a lessening percentage of increase in raw material in England with a constant increase of manufactured materials. He would take the test of the figures with regard to the comparative imports of raw material. In 1883 the imports into the United Kingdom were £165,000,000, and into Germany they were £64,000,000, whereas in 1902 the imports into the United Kingdom were £185,000,000 and into Germany £128,000,000, an increase of £20,000,000 in the case of the United Kingdom and of £64,000,000 in the case of Germany, or a difference between 13 per cent and 100 per cent. Let them take the figures in regard to the United States of America and France. In 1883 they were for the United States of America £40,000,000, and in 1902 £55,000,000, an increase of 37 per cent., while in France they rose from £96,000,000 in 1883, to £114,000,000 in 1902, an increase of 19 per cent. Germany and the United States had developed enormously since 1870, and if the increase was maintained we should become a third-rate power. In 1880 the United States produced 67,998,000 tons of coal and 7,120,000 tons of iron, whereas in 1905 she produced 328,102,000 tons of coal and 44,054,000 tons of iron. Germany, in 1880, produced 46,974,000 tons of coal and 7,239,000 tons of iron, while in 1905 she produced 121,298,000 tons of coal and 23,444,000 tons of iron. The United Kingdom, in 1880, produced 146,060,000 tons of coal and 14,591,000 tons of iron, tons of coal and produced 236,129,000 whereas, in 1905, 18,026,000 tons of iron. He wanted to know if hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite thought that exports were the test. [Cries of "No."] He agreed that they were not, but that would seem to be the view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because the right hon. Gentleman had pointed to the extraordinary character of our exports as
796
compared with those of Germany and the United States. Exports were not the final test of trade. Inside the circle of trade in this country we had a small circle representing the agricultural interest and a large circle representing the manufacturing interest. We had to go out into the world in order to secure our food, of which we did not produce sufficient quantities, and to get our raw material which also we did not produce in sufficient quantities. We were, therefore, bound to show immense exports or to show nothing. But the position was quite different in Germany and the United States, and when the right hon. Gentleman used the argument that the United States exports were smaller than ours he did not do credit to his knowledge, because the United States had within itself a huge circle for the production of raw material, and therefore her exports would be no test whatever of her wealth. If they were to judge the United States by her exports she would appear to be a poor country, but, as a matter of fact, employment and wastes there were high while our skilled workers were not increasing in number. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite were in the habit of saying that what we ought to do was to tax nothing, but according to the figures for 1904 it appeared that while the United States admitted free of duty £91,000,000 worth of goods, with a duty she let in £105,000,000 worth of goods, while she admitted in raw material £58,000,000. Roughly speaking, therefore, the United States under her system lot in between £200,000,000 and £300,000,000 worth of goods Coming to the figures with regard to emigration in the different countries, he found that in 1894, the amount of emigration was in Germany 26 per 10,000 of the population. In l903 it had fallen to 6 per 10,000. In England, however, in 1894, the figure was 9·7 per 10,000, but in 1903 it had increased to 34 per 10,000. [An HON. Member: It is not true.] The hon. Gentleman was not entitled to say that what he said was not true, as he had taken his figures from accurate sources, and he was illustrating what Bismark and Caprivi had said, that it was better to export goods than men. The Bluebook of the Board of Trade showed that our skilled workmen were not increasing,

797
but there had been an increase in those engaged in merchanting and in clerical work. But no country could live by merchanting, and unless we could keep up our manufacturing standard we were not in a satisfactory condition commercially.
MR. CURRANasked whether the hon. Gentleman could discuss the whole question of tariff reform on the Report stage of the Finance Bill?
*Mr. SPEAKERsaid that, as he understood it, the hon. Gentleman was challenging everything, or nearly everything, in the Finance Bill, and contending that our whole fiscal system was wrong. Therefore, he thought he was in order.
Sir GILBERT PARKERsaid that his contention was that our export system was not satisfactory, and before he passed on to other matters he would wish hon. Members to ask themselves whether they were satisfied with the conditions of our trade with Germany. Our total exports to Germany were about £40,000,000. Of this about £30,000,000 was represented by gold, £11,000,090; coal, £4,000,000; skins and hides, £1,740,000; silver raw and in bars, £1,000,000; sheep and goat skins, £775,000; fresh fish, £350,000; caoutchoue and gutta percha, £1,200,000; salted herrings, £800,000; sheeps' wool, £850,000; tin, raw, £600,000; iron, raw, £600,000; yarn, £6,500,000; cotton and woollen fabrics, £900,000; and machinery, £700,000. The President of the Board of Trade the other day stated in reply to a Question that the imports into the United Kingdom, consigned from Germany, of raw materials and articles mainly manufactured was, in 1905, £3,896,000, while the exports of the produce and manufactures of the United Kingdom to Germany was £4,458,000. The imports into the United Kingdom of articles from Germany wholly or mainly manufactured was £38,057,000, while the exports of this class of article from the United Kingdom to Germany was £21,635,000. The total German exports to this country were about £49,000,000, and his point was that that was not the kind of trade exchange with which we ought to be satisfied, especially when it was considered that
798
in addition millions of pounds worth of German goods reached us through Holland and Belgium. It was a fair trade exchange that tariff reformers were asking for and it was that fair trade exchange that the Colonies were prepared to give us, because for every pound of stuff that we bought from them they bought a pound of stuff from us. Hon. Gentlemen opposite suggested that the Colonies wanted to get something out of the Mother Country [Cries of "Hear, hear."] That was utterly untrue. Canada gave us a preference because she wanted to trade with us. She believed that it was better to send her ships to this country loaded with goods and bring them back full instead of having to charter other ships to go to Germany, both sets of ships coming back comparatively empty. All these considerations had moved him that afternoon to speak as strongly as he had done, and he hoped not inconsiderately, concerning the Finance Bill which the right hon. Gentleman had introduced. Tariff reformers did not want to build a ring fence round the Empire or restrict freedom of trade, but they wanted to secure freer markets for our goods. The Liberal Party had their ideals, which were evolutionary and social. They on that side, however, believed that their ideal of preference was nearer to the spirit of the time than the ideals of hon. Gentlemen opposite. They wanted a more ethical form of trade between this and other countries. Their ideal could not be assessed by Board of Trade returns and was in accordance with the utterances of the first Lord Elgin. He believed that if the first Lord Elgin had been at the Conference this year a different reply would have been given to the Premiers, who came here to ask for reciprocal advantages for the common good of the Empire. The answer was not the answer they desired. He believed the answer they desired would come.
*Mr. BYLESsaid he was not going to follow the hon. Gentleman in his tariff reform speech, but he desired that the exact facts should be elicited as to what Lord St. Aldwyn had stated in reference to the corn tax. He thought that Lord St. Aldwyn in his first speech had expressed his belief that the corn tax would not affect the price of bread, but

799
in a later speech which he (Mr. Byles) had had the advantage of hearing the noble Lord deliver at Manchester, he said he had made a mistake, he acknowledged that the corn-tax had raised the price of bread, and he withdrew from his position.
Sir GILBERT PARKER: In certain places.
*Mr. BYLESsaid that was his sole reason for interrupting the hon. Gentleman. He had risen, however, for the specific purpose of referring to the sugar tax, on which there had already been a formal debate and a division, and there had been a great deal of talk about pledge breakers. He believed that as many as 156 pledge breakers were, it was said, to be found on his side of the House, and the Chief Whip of the Conservative Party had thought fit further to expose the iniquities of these 156 members by writing a letter to The Times newspaper, which letter was replied to from the Ministerial side, as he thought very adequately. At any rate, his own withers were unwrung, and he fancied that many of his colleagues would say the same tiling. It was surely a stretch of rhetoric to call a person a pledge breaker because he had expressed a desire to repeal the sugar tax and then refused to assent to a specific Amendment to deal with a portion of the tax. It was well known that a mouse was fond of toasted cheese, but the mouse was a great fool to go into the trap to get it. The Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool was practically a trap set for supporters of the Government. Sugar was also used sometimes to bait a trap, but he, at any rate, was too old a Parliamentary bird to walk into the trap set for them by the ingenious young gentleman who represented the Walton Division. With regard to the Budget itself he would not offer more than one or two observations. He regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not seen his way to deal with the sugar tax, with indirect taxes, the breakfast duties, and so forth. They had to wait for another year before they could get a fulfilment of that object. He had said to his constituents, as doubt-
800
less had many other hon. Members to theirs, that he disapproved of these taxes. For his part he regarded indirect imposts as a tax upon the wealth makers of the country, a tax upon the rations of the people, and he held that something ought to be done to prevent money from being so obtained. They should take the necessary resources for carrying on the government of the country out of the wealth when it was produced. They lived in hope, and were looking forward to the next Budget. They had been told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this Budget was part of a triple Budget, and they must wait until the picture was complete before they judged it. He would endeavour to possess his mind in patience until next spring, but he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would lay to heart the warnings which he had got from Radicals on that side of the House, who did not believe in breakfast table duties or indirect taxation, but who did believe in taking all the resources of the country from the accumulated wealth, from the land revenues and the land values of the country, leaving the worker, especially the poor worker, free, or nearly free from taxation.
MR. PIKE PEASEsaid that the question of the taxation of sugar was a very important one to the country. He did not think that anyone would state that what his hon. friend had said in regard to the sugar tax was not justified. He had listened with great pleasure to the Budget statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He believed it to be the clearest statement he had ever heard during all the years he had been in that House, and if he might be allowed to say so, he thought the Budget which he had introduced and now actually passed was one of the boldest ever proposed by the Liberal Party. If a Unionist Government had brought in a Budget of this kind and passed it into law, he was sure that a good many strong things would have been said against those "wicked Tories." An hon. Gentleman below the gangway the other day had asserted that as far as relief of taxation was concerned, people with £40 a week would get relief under this Bill, while the man with £1 a week would get no relief whatever.

801
Why was this Budget passed when so many people represented by ton. Members opposite were not in favour of it? The reason was that the Liberal Members could boast of very strong Party feeling. In the last election the constituencies had to vote on very large issues, and among them there was hardly any of a larger character than that with regard to taxes on food. In his own constituency all the votes he had given on tea and sugar in the last one or two Parliaments were published, so that every constituent might have the opportunity of learning what a wicked man he was. When one heard the two cries: "Vote for so-and-so, and old-age pensions," and "Vote for so-and-so, and no taxes on food," one wondered how old-age pensions were to be granted without taxes on food. There must be a considerable amount of feeling in regard to the pledges which had been given. He could not say how definite those pledges were to a certain association, but it was said that a number of members had stated that they were willing to vote against the sugar tax. It was natural for an ordinary person to believe that when a Member said he would vote against taxation on sugar, he would vote against it on the first occasion, just as he would vote against any Bill on the first occasion if he had pledged himself to do so. The statements made in regard to the big and little loaf had a great effect at the last general election, but most of them realised now, and Liberal Members realised it more now than they did at the general election, that we were providing an enormous amount of our revenue out of the taxes on food, and drink, and tobacco. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in reply to a question the other day, said that the total revenue in the last financial year derived from the taxes on food and kindred articles was £64,839,260. Yet they heard at the general election that a small tax on corn, which could not possibly amount to a revenue of more than £2,500,000 to £3,000,000, would mean ruin to this country. He sincerely hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might be able to take the tax off sugar, but he did not think that the hon. Member for Bolton the other day had any right to say that the right hon. Gentleman was
802
going to do it, because they had heard no definite pledge from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to the question. There was no doubt that the taxes on food, drink, and tobacco were paid mainly by the masses of the people of the country; but it might be said that drink stood out of the category. That, of course, was perfectly true, but, so far as the actual cost to the workman was concerned, it did not matter very much whether he paid a small tax on a glass of beer or a small tax on his bread. Before the general election the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in reference to these different taxes that they offered a wide field for revision. The present Lord Chancellor had said that the tax on tea was the most cruel of taxes, because it fell on the poorest people of the community. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said the tea tax ought not to be resorted to except in great emergency. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said that these taxes were put on for the war, and ought to be taken off now the war was over. In trying to find some justification for the statement of hon. Gentlemen at the election, he thought it might be said that they had every reason to believe that an effort would be made to take off those taxes. With regard to old-age pensions, he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had shown the utmost wisdom in the action he had taken in reference to the Sinking Fund, and it would do something to uphold the credit of the British people. The Blue-books issued the other day showed more than ever the difficulty of dealing with the old-age pensions question, because many people did not realise that it was absolutely essential that any old-age pension scheme should be carried out upon strictly business principles. It had been stated by one of the members of the Labour Party that any pension of less than 10s. a week would be of little value. [A Labour Member: Who said that?] It was said by the hon. Member for Woolwich. The cost of the administration of the Poor Law of this country stood at £15,000,000 per annum. He regretted that they had not had an opportunity of discussing the Local Government Board Vote during the present year. It was rather difficult to

803
discover how far old-age pensions would increase or decrease Poor Law expenditure, but assuming that there were 3,250,000 old people entitled to a pension of 10s. per week, the amount of money required would be £84,500,000, whilst for a pension of 5s. per week, the sum of £42,250,000 would be required. Consequently the right hon. Gentleman could not possibly next year bring in a universal old-age pension scheme. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would find some means of getting over the difficulty, because he believed such a scheme would be in the interests of the country.
*Mr. EVERETTsaid that as one of the supporters of the present Government he could not look upon this Finance Bill with unmixed satisfaction. He was elected mainly by the votes of poor men, and he was sorry the Bill gave no direct relief of taxation for them. The relief it gave to possessors of incomes between £160 and £2,000 a year would be welcome to those classes. But not many of them dwelt in cottages where most of his constituents lived. He had hoped for the repeal of the sugar duty. That was the most hurtful to the poor of all the new taxes put on by their Tory predecessors. He was aware that it brought in £6,000,000, collected largely out of the sugar basins of the poor. That was a large sum, but he had hoped that it would have been possible to reduce by that amount the bloated military and naval expenditure imposed upon them by the late Government—the most reckless and prodigal Government which this generation had seen. The present Parliament would, he hoped, insist upon such or a larger reduction soon. In ten years of the late Government's administration, they actually added between £40,000,000 and £50,000,000 a year to our military and naval expenditure! And this, not to keep pace with other nations, but to force the pace on them! They added in those ten years nearly twice as much as Italy, France, Germany, and Russia put together, as was shown by Lord Avebury in the Nineteenth Century Magazine, of November, 1905. He hoped large reductions would be possible before
804
next year's Budget. He welcomed the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this was a foundation Budget upon which to build others, that it was only one of a series. He hoped it would be a long series. He appealed to the Government to make it so. This was the third Liberal Government he had helped to bring into power. The first muddled them into a dissolution in six short months, the second in three years, and since he had sat in the first of these Parliaments there had been three Tory Parliaments each lasting for six years. He asked the present Government to be as wise in this respect as their Tory predecessors had been, and not to throw office away. The people had given the present Liberal Government the largest majority any Government had ever had. He was sure that it was the wish of those who sent them to the House of Commons that they should use for the full six years allowed by the Constitution the power thus put into their hands. They wished and expected them to do it. Another place could not interfere with them in this matter. The House of Lords would be glad indeed if they could make them dissolve. Neither, happily, could they interfere with their finance. Never did the nation's finances more need remodelling. They — the Liberal Members — looked to their leaders to enable them to help those who sent them to Parliament not in three or four only, but in six Finance Bills. As one of a series, there were many good points in this Bill. It preserved and remodelled the income-tax. If fairly assessed, that was the best tax we had. Their incomes were the leal measure of the people's power to pay. If they adopted the plan outlined by the hon. Member for North Paddington of a graduated income-tax, as he showed ample Cleans were available for all social reforms, and without hurting anybody. The promise of old-age pensions to start next year was the feature of this year's Budget which he most welcomed. What joy, what comfort would the starting of them bring. In every hamlet, in every street, almost in every cottage the starting of them would put new songs into the mouths of the aged poor, and cause their hearts to sing for

805
joy. Let the pensions be immediate, unconditional, universal. Happy the Chancellor, and happy the Parliament which gave this great boon to the people. He hoped they would see it begun next year. In conclusion, he wished to congratulate the Chancellor on being in office at such a time as the present. They had entered on a period of great industrial activity. Coal, iron, cotton, wool, meat, all their great industries were prospering. Why? Rising prices had caused this great activity. And what had caused rising prices? No doubt mainly the wonderful inflow of new gold from mines in various parts of the earth. Great increases in the supply of the precious metals had always produced rising prices and great industrial prosperity. It was so after the discovery of America and the opening of the silver mines of Potosi. The gold discoveries in Cal fornia and Australia, which some of them could remember, as they proceeded brought prosperity to all the civilised nations, and not only the free trade nations, but the protectionist nations as well shared in the great prosperity which accompanied that until then unprecedented outflow of gold. In twenty years following 1849, when the discoveries in California and Australia began, the whole stock of gold in the possession of mankind was doubled. The highest production in any one year during these discoveries was £36,000,000. He was happy to know that the production of gold last year was no less than £82,000,000! These golden sovereigns fresh from the Mint had come rolling into all the avenues of industry of the nations of the earth, and as they had flowed in they had stimulated industry of every kind and caused a large increase in prices. What economists called the "index number," which was based on the wholesale prices of forty commodities, had risen 25 per cent. in the last ten years. A much greater rise in the coming ten was almost a certainty. The inflow of the fertilising streams of new money had lifted up the prices of different commodities so that the producers of them had been stirred into fresh activity, there had been increased employment, and wages had gone and were still going up. The finances of the country could not but share in the
806
beneficial effects of this great inflow of new gold. What Budgets Mr. Gladstone had in the fifties and sixties of last century while the gold production was proceeding He used to reduce taxes and take off taxes and still the revenue increased by leaps and bounds. That was a happy example of what we were now probably about again to see. The Californian and Australian stream was but a tiny rill in comparison with the river of gold that was flowing in now. The average of the twenty years during those discoveries was considerably under thirty millions a year, but last year no fewer than eighty-two millions of new gold flowed in to fertilise the nations. And there was every prospect, indeed almost the certainty, of the continuance and increase of this hug supply for many years yet to come. The world had never seen anything comparable to the golden prospect now opening before us. Happy was the Chancellor who was in office at such a time as this. Here, too, was a Parliament more eager for social reform than any that had ever before sat. And with the inflow of the new rivers of sovereigns here were the means coming in sight to enable these reforms to be carried out. The Chancellor and Parliament might rejoice together in the golden era now opening to bless mankind.
*Mr. LEVERTON HARRISthanked the hon. Member for Woodbridge for the compliment he had paid to the Conservative Party in the contrast which he had drawn between it and the Liberal Party. The hon. Member had made what could only be regarded as a startling statement when heard from the Liberal side of the House; he stated that rising prices were good for this country, and that they stimulated industry. He could hardly reconcile that statement with the arguments used by hon. Members opposite that the effect of tariff reform would be to raise prices and to cripple industry.
Mr, EVERETTsaid he spoke of rising prices flowing from the great increase of new money.
*Mr. LEVERTON HARRISsaid he always understood that those who

807
were interested in free trade maintained that rising prices, whether they came from an influx of gold or from import duties, were a burden on working men, and that they retarded rather than stimulated trade. Those who had followed the course of the debates on the Finance Bill must have observed that the criticisms so far as they had come from that side of the House, had been principally directed towards the narrowness of the basis of taxation—the limited sources from which the national revenue was derived, and the necessity for expanding these, and effecting what was commonly known as a broadening of the basis of taxation. On the Second Reading of the Bill his right hon. friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, moved an Amendment with the object of broadening the basis of taxation. If to-day he did not go far into the tariff reform and free trade controversy, it was not because he at all condoned the economic fallacies which this Bill contained, but because he believed there were other important and pressing considerations which were worthy of the attention of this House. He was inclined to say that no Chancellor of the Exchequer in modern times had presented to the House, and asked it to pass, so dangerous a Budget as the present. In the past it had been the tradition and the practice of Chancellors of the Exchequer in what were known as the piping times of peace, to allow some margin for the expansion of the revenue which could be drawn upon to meet any great crisis or national emergency which might occur and involve us in war, or preparation for war, or even the fear of war. In dealing with the income-tax, Chancellor of the Exchequer after Chancellor of the Exchequer had laid the greatest stress upon the importance of its being a tax that could be expanded to provide for rapid supplies, in order to initiate and carry to a successful conclusion any great or prolonged military or naval operations. He would respectfully commend any hon. Gentleman interested in the subject to those, portions of the Budget speeches of Mr. Gladstone in 1853 and 1864, which dealt with the subject of the income-tax. In both the Budgets—certainly in the second if his memory served him cor-
808
rectly—Mr. Gladstone went so far as to doubt whether the income-tax should be a permanent tax, and laid it down that it was a tax which ought to exist principally as one which could be drawn upon in emergency. There was no more unfortunate position for a country to be in than to know that it was impossible to defend its rights or shores without inflicting wholesale disaster or universal bankruptcy and ruin upon its finance, industry, and commerce. Not only was that a profoundly dangerous situation to be in, but it was a situation the mere knowledge of which invited from hostile and other nations aggression and attack. The mere knowledge that we were weak was a temptation to enforce claims and exact concessions. Were we not in this very situation to-day? What were the facts of the case? If we were suddenly involved in war there were only three ways in which sufficient sums of money could be obtained for the carrying of a large war to a successful conclusion. It might be done as was done by certain other great nations by having a war chest, which, associated with a large gold reserve, enabled the nation to draw money speedily and rapidly to carry on warlike operations. But we had not a war chest, and we had not a large gold reserve. Secondly, if we had well-established credit, we might borrow the money in the markets of the country, or the markets of the world. But could we borrow? He ventured to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would find it a difficult problem if he wanted to raise £20,000,000 in the London market. Thirdly, if we had an elastic and wide system of taxation, the taxes could be so increased as to obtain a considerable sum of money to start and carry on operations. Under our present system of free trade our sources of taxation were saturated. We could not increase the burden. The income-tax was at Is. That might be justifiable in time of war. He thought everyone would admit that it was an oppressive tax in time of peace. It was true that during the South. African War it reached Is. 3d., and that, he thought, was the highest point it had ever reached since its re-imposition in 1842, with the exception of a short period during the

809
Crimea, when it touched Is. 4d. If the tax was raised to-day to Is. 4d. the additional 4d. would only produce £10,000,000 more revenue in the year, but that amount in time of war was practically nothing. We had a higher taxation of food than had any other country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in answer to his hon. friend the Member for Darlington had stated that it amounted to £65,000,000 if tobacco and spirits were included. The tax on tea meant an annual contribution of between 2s. 6d. and 2s. 7d. from every man, woman, and child in the country; and he thought that this justified the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he told them the other day that tea had now become a luxury. It had been stated that 156 hon. Members had vigorously condemned the sugar tax in their private capacity, on the grounds that it was burdensome on trade and pressed very hardly on the poor consumers. But they had inconsistently supported it as a party machine. The party machine, however, would only work once in such cases. He thought they might take it for granted that next year a large part of the sugar tax would be remitted, if it was not abolished altogether. It had been said that the schedule of the death duties might be increased, but they could not control the death-rate of the millionaires of this country at will. In fact every tax which could be imposed under a free trade policy was to-day imposed, and pressed heavily on all classes. He had no doubt that some hon. Gentleman would entirely discredit that statement. Some would dissent because they might think that they had got the duties on wines, spirits, and beer to fall back upon, and that those duties could be increased in time of war. But experience had shown that if they relied on that source they relied on a broken reed. Then others said that land and mining royalties would prove a source of revenue beyond the dreams of avarice. But in time of war, when foreign supplies of food and iron ore were endangered, any tax on land or mining royalties would raise prices and contribute to and aggravate the actual crisis. The situation would not, to his mind, be so serious if our credit was unimpaired. But what was the condition of our credit?
810
Consols to-day stood at 82½—18 below par—he believed the lowest they had ever touched since 1812. He believed that if anyone connected with the City were asked he would say that if one went into the money market and tried to sell £1,000,000 of Consols, he either could not do it, or he would depress the price of Consols to such a point as to start a panic. But if the Government went into the market and tried to borrow £20,000,000 on Consols or any other Government security they would be imperilling the whole commercial fabric of the nation. [Cries of "Oh ! "] He asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself whether it would not be a very serious venture if he tried to borrow £20,000,000? That was a position which he regretted. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to be rather inclined to take matters very lightly. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that this was only a temporary phase which they need not trouble themselves very much about; that they need not write down their securities, with the favourable hope, that like Micawber, something better would turn up. At the opening of an insurance company's new buildings on 10th July, the light hon. Gentleman who was present gave some startling advice, but like most sanguine persons he did not prove to be an expert tipster. The right hon. Gentleman then said—
"He did not know if that insurance company were engaged in the gloomy proceedings of writing down—a practice which he thought was very much to be deprecated unless taken at comparatively long intervals, and with full consideration, not only of the past and the present, but of the probabilities and prospects of the future."
Such sentiments savoured of the Bankruptcy Court. Had this not been the excuse of every bankrupt and speculator? The right hon. Gentleman continued—
"A great deal of nonsense had been talked and still more nonsense had been written in the course of the last twelve months on the supposed depreciation of our national credit. He thought, and he spoke with some knowledge of the case, that they might fairly consider that in this matter we had touched bottom, and that the upward process had begun, and that it would continue."
On the 10th July Consols stood at 84⅛ to-day they were at 82½—a very considerable fall. The fact that our securities had depreciated was not

811
a myth. If examples were needed of the difficulty of borrowing money he might quote the East Indian Railway Company—which enjoyed the guarantee of the Indian Government both as regarded interest and capital. They recently asked for a loan, but failed to raise more than one-sixth from the public and had to go to the underwriters and place the balance at a discount. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had admitted that they dare not go to the market. No Irish Land Stock was to be publicly issued this year. The market would not take it. Then there was the Transvaal Loan of £5,000,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer knew perfectly well that if he tried to raise £5,000,000he would have difficulty in getting it except at a very low price, and he therefore proposed to issue it in driblets and on Treasury Bills. They were in a position of very great danger to the country. Where were they to obtain supplies should they be suddenly placed in the unfortunate position of supplies being absolutely necessary for the reorganisation and recreating of our attenuated Army and for mobilising our skeleton Fleet, and the provision of ammunition, food, and transport, which were necessary for vigorously pressing a long and arduous war? If they were to attempt to raise any very large sum of money by way of loan, he ventured to say that such a crisis would be produced as would imperil our position. They could not raise taxation without disturbing the free trade policy of the country to which they were so wedded. At the last general election the great policy of hon. Gentlemen opposite was that there was to be a large reduction of taxation. They had heard a good deal about a free breakfast table, although he did Dot understand what it was, for at present everything on the breakfast table was taxed except bread. That was hardly a definition which carried out the idea of a free breakfast table, which had been so freely promised by hon. Gentleman opposite. The free breakfast table had its sugar, coffee, and tea all taxed. In fact the tax on tea involved a contribution per head six times as high as the contribution paid on foreign wheat and flour during the time the corn tax was in operation.
MR. ASQUITHsaid that the hon. Gentleman did not observe that in the one case the whole of the added price went into the Exchequer and in the other it did not.
*Mr. LEVERTON HARRISsaid that that was a matter of dispute between the free traders and the tariff reformers into which there was not at present time to enter. As a matter of fact the Chancellor of the Exchequer assured the House that the penny he took off tea last year did not affect the consumer. The statement he had made was perfectly correct. He said the contribution per head of the population of this country to the taxation on tea was 2s. 6d. or 2s. 7d., and that the contribution on wheat and flour coming from foreign countries during the time that the corn tax was in force was 5½d. per annum. He admitted that something had been done since the opposite Party came into power to reduce taxation, and that there had been a reduction of £2,000,000, but having regard to the fact that it was only about one-sixtieth of the annual revenue collected by taxation it was after all a very paltry sum. Great efforts were being made, thousands of men were being dismissed from Woolwich and cast adrift, the Army had been reduced by several battalions and other retrenchments made. But in spite of this if the Government intended to fulfil their promise and to devise and erect a system of old-age pensions which was not a mere sham, if they wished to maintain our present Army and Navy even at the reduced status at which they now were, if they adhered to free trade doctrines, to what source were they going to turn to provide for large and immediate sums of money should they have to find them for the purpose of defending our rights and maintaining our prestige?
MR. CURRANsaid that as a new comer he was surprised to see hon. Members come here with carefully prepared platform orations, and speak at great length on the subject of tariff reform, and he was amazed at the waste of time. Unionist speakers had spoken of tariff reform as if it were in the interests of the workers as a class, and

813
they appeared to think that they knew the interests of the workers better than those who were sent to Parliament to re-present them. The reason the worker refused to countenance the taxation of imported commodities was that they realised that the organised workers of other countries where protective duties existed were strenuously resisting that form of taxation. They had realised through their visits and experiences in the United States and Germany that the taxation of imported commodities did not mean permanence of employment for the workers, but was simply the means of enabling the employers to increase the price of the commodities which the workers had manufactured. The industrial conflicts which took place in America between the workers and the employers were far more violent and more frequent than the industrial conflicts in this country, yet America was held up as a model by the tariff reformers. If the organised workers were not suspicious of tariff reform for other reasons the war chest of the Tariff Reform League would make them so. They did not regard the taxation of imported commodities as a cure for the social evils in this or any other country. They went on first principles and said that the transfer of a commodity across an ocean or a frontier did not enhance its value but, on the contrary, depreciated it. They stood for international reciprocity, and the discussion between the organised workers at the international conferences centred upon how to get rid of these tariffs. The working class movement in the United. States was against the tariff, because while they had higher wages and the climate demanded a higher standard of living, the worker found that he had to pay double the price for the commodity he manufactured than it could be obtained for in this country. In Germany they had protested against the tariff again and again because they were convinced that the taxation of imported commodities was absolutely pernicious. The Labour Party were not satisfied with the Finance Bill; they had expected much more from the strongest Government of modern times. They had expected the Government to put forward old-age pensions, and they believed that if the Chancellor of the
814
Exchequer had forced the problem through the difficulty would have been easily solved. Although it might be regarded as an extravagant proposal they believed that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer found it difficult to get new sources of taxation he should recognise the necessity of putting on landed property the tax which the industrial classes paid to-day; there should also be a tax on land values and upon unearned incomes. If he were Chancellor of the Exchequer he would be prepared to put a graduated income tax upon incomes over £1,000. If that were done the problem of old-age pensions could be solved in less than two years. He believed it would be to the advantage of the country if the breakfast table were emancipated not only by the repeal of the sugar tax, but also by the graduation of the tax on tea. The Labour Party were going to keep up the campaign for old-age pensions both in that House and outside it, and if they could rot convert the Cabinet they would endeavour to convert the constituencies that sent them to the House. That was a point on which they disagreed with the Government, but that disagreement would never lead them to tariff reform. The tariff reform they required was the removal of the railway tariff and the removal of the tariff on people living on their own land. If those two tariffs were removed we could compete successfully with any country in the world.
*Mr. ASHTONsaid that if the finances of the country were in such a lamentable condition as the hon. Member for Stepney suggested, the best thing to do was to reduce the indebtedness of the country, and he congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on the way he had dealt with that question. The right hon. Gentleman had last year reduced the debt by £13,750,000, which he had said was to be a permanent reduction. That was true, but it was not quite so good a reduction as it appeared at first sight, because the right hon. Gentleman had to make allowance for something like £4,000,000 net expended under Works Acts, which made the actual reduction of debt last year. £10,000,000. The point he desired to put to the House was the way in which

815
the right hon. Gentleman had dealt with the debt. Everybody agreed that it was absolutely necessary that the unfunded debt should be largely reduced; that the burden of the unfunded debt had been far too heavy. Five or six years ago it was something like £78,000,000, but he was glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman had since then reduced it to £52,000,000. That was an enormous and necessary improvement, because it not only released a large amount of "short money" which could be better employed in trade, but it also created a resource in times of emergency. The question now was whether the time was not opportune for buying up a large portion of the funded debt. The unfunded debt was not entirely a floating debt. It included the war loan, which was borrowed for ten years, but it was mainly made up of Exchequer Bonds and Treasury Bills. The former the right hon. Gentleman had reduced to £19,000,000, and the latter from £31,000,000 to £13,750,000. He had reduced them more than half. Now that the right hon. Gentleman had reduced the unfunded debt by so much, was not the time opportune for taking in hand the reduction of the funded debt? Treasury Bills ought only to be issued in order to finance the Chancellor of the Exchequer during the lean portion of the year. At the end of the financial year when the Exchequer was full, the right hon. Gentleman ought to pay off the whole of the Treasury Bills and start afresh with the new financial year. Of course in these matters regard must be had to the time through which the country was passing, and he suggested that under the present circumstances there was great advantage to be obtained in buying up Consols. He admitted that it might be cheaper at the moment to buy up some other loan, such as the war loan, but after all, the war loan could only rise to par, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer could only make a small amount by reducing that loan. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman should speculate in finance, but this was not speculating, it was taking a long view of the future. The effect of buying Consols would be to raise the price of Consols by several millions, and looking at the matter from that point
816
of view the right hon. Gentleman would improve the national credit, and if he raised the price of Consols, he would be able to float at a better price the new Transvaal Loan. The right hon. Gentleman would also be able to help the new Irish stock. He believed it would be a very great advantage to take Consols in hand, and leave the unfunded debt alone for a time. We were now on the top of a wave of prosperity, with the result that a great deal of money was wanted for all kinds of purposes, and that was one of the reasons for the low price of Consols at the present moment. They saw a great deal of money seeking employment in the trade of the country, which eventually would seek a resting place in high class securities. With the trade of the country not likely to continue in its present state of prosperity we were sure to see, as in the past, a considerable rise in the price of Consols, and the right hon. Gentleman would be wise to take this opportunity of redeeming a larger sum than £2,000,000 in Consols this year. He hoped they would hear from the right hon. Gentleman that he would invest more.
MR. HARMOOD-BANNERthought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer must acknowledge that where a man in the course of the year, in making up his accounts, could say that he had been defrauded by having paid a larger amount of income-tax than his profit showed he was liable to pay, there was a cause of complaint which should be remedied. He hoped that in his future Budgets the right hon. Gentleman would consider that question. Another point was as regarded the deductions from income-tax. Some years ago Lord Goschen pointed out that he could not accede to a demand for an allowance for depreciation of capital out of revenue, because depreciation of capital was just as much a point with the professional man as with the manufacturer; brains were the capital of the professional man, and no allowance was made for loss of brain power—the man went on until his brain failed in his old age. But he was glad now to note that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was making an allowance for depreciation of brains by giving the earners of income below £2,000

817
3d. in the £. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to put the depreciation of capital on the same basis in regard to individuals and limited companies. He thought he was right in saying that the question of the depreciation of capital had arisen entirely through a mistake or misconception of the description in the original Income-Tax Act. In some way or other the question of income and capital was so stated in the original Act that the Judges had founded their decisions upon it that they could not depreciate capital in dealing with income. Therefore it now arose that they paid income-tax on a set of profits which they could not consider as profits for any other purpose except income-tax. If the right hon. Gentleman would refer to what Sir Henry Primrose had said he would see that the whole foundation of the difference between income and profits arose from the way in which the original Act was framed. If a man were charged on his true profits, made on a proper basis of calculation—of course, paying the tax on reserves— they would do a great deal to make the income-tax more acceptable, while it would be a better reserve in time of war and for the purposes of the Government. He welcomed the depreciation made on behalf of the trader, and he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would see his way to extend it further so as to make the tax unexceptionable in every way. Then, as regarded the Local Taxation Account, he was very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for noting his views on that point, and he would particularly ask him, when he was considering the tax on motor cars, to keep that tax specifically for the purpose of improving the roads, laying the dust, and minimising the nuisances which motor cars created. In regard to the first part of Customs and Excise, he was not quite so well pleased with the way in which the taxation under the Bill arose. He had listened with considerable interest to the speech of the hon. Member below the gangway, who desired to apply to labour and wages a sort of tariff reform, or the very fullest protection. What he and those who thought with him urged was that the same thing should be applied to the industries of this country which, besides the high wages they paid,
818
had also to bear heavy rates and taxes He and many others had pleaded for relief as regards the tax on tea, coffee, sugar, and other articles of food, and he thought they had done a little better than many hon. Gentlemen opposite, for they had carried out their election pledges by their votes, while hon. Members opposite who had made promises of a similar kind had not carried them out when it came to a question of voting. His own view of the matter was this—he could not see why taxes should be placed on food when there were manufactured articles on which taxes could be levied. He instanced the case of cash registers, which came exclusively from America. He did not think there was a single one made in this country. Why should these things not be taxed? In Germany they had put a duty on these cash registers, with the result that the Americans had erected works in that country. Therefore he thought we might rightly assume that if we put a duty on cash registers an industry would also be created in this country, and we should have part of that duty, and part of the wages received from the employers. That was the position he had always taken up. He objected to taxation on food, which was the only basis of the present Budget so far as concerned Customs and Excise, when it was possible to tax manufactured goods which came into this country. Taxation for revenue purposes, when accompanied by the statement that they should have no taxation which would beneficially affect any industry of this country, would be injurious, and ought not to be carried out without some alteration. Of course, he was aware that this principle did not entirely apply. It did not apply to the cocoa trade, the Cadburys and the Rowntrees, who made great sums of money; it did not apply to the Wills's, in the tobacco trade. They had taxation for revenue purposes applied for the benefit of specific trades; and what they desired to have instead of taxes on food, was taxation for revenue purposes on articles which were bought almost exclusively by the rich. The adoption of this plan would largely relieve the taxation on food, and make the poor man's expenses lighter and his position better. He regretted

819
that in this particular Budget no effort was made in any way to relieve taxation on food, which amounted to £65,000,000 a year. Any suggestion to put a duty on manufactured articles brought to this country was jealously put aside, so that it should be impossible for any one industry to have an advantage over another. He thanked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on behalf of the traders and the manufacturers for the action he had taken, but as regards the taxation of food, he regretted that something more had not been done, especially as it would have led to the relief of the poor and unemployed.
*Mr. ASQUITH: The hon. Member is the only speaker who has condescended to make any reference to the Bill under discussion. In regard to the income-tax I am glad the hon. Member has recognised what I am sure will be increasingly recognised as the position becomes more generally known—the efforts that have been made for many years past, since it became a necessarily permanent part of our system, to adjust its incidence in such a way as to conform to the elementary canons of equity and justice. With regard to his lamentations over the continuance of the tax on food, I demur to the figure of £65,000,000 as the revenue derived from food taxes. A large proportion of that sum consists of the taxation of alcohol, and no less than £14,000,000 comes from tobacco, so that when those two considerable items are taken off the taxation on food the real proportion is nothing like so large as that which the hon. Member suggested. But I may assure the hon. Member for Jarrow, who made such an admirable and suggestive speech, that nothing would give me greater satisfaction than to be able to deal, as I hope to be able to deal, with the taxation on the remaining articles of food before the time comes when I shall have to lay down my stewardship. By remitting the coal tax and taking a penny off tea last year, and by the reduction and readjustment of the income-tax this year, the Government have done something, at any rate, to redeem whatever pledges they gave at the general election. Another criticism germane to the Budget has reference to the provision for the reduction of debt. I spoke with a glow
820
of optimism at a teetotal banquet the other day and expressed the hope that things are on the mend. I was not speaking of the trade of the country generally— I for no one suggests that that is bad—but of the market in public securities, and I took the precaution of hinting that I was not to be supposed to be uttering any prediction as to the immediate future of the market. So much use has been made of my very innocent and guarded expression that I shall be very careful hereafter not to say anything at all of the future course of our markets and trades. But all the same I cannot allow it to be said that during the last two years, or during many years past, the national credit of this country has been seriously impaired. I agree that we cannot borrow on the enormous scale on which this country borrowed during and after the war—we cannot largely increase the expenditure, without a necessary depreciation in the market prices of what are called gilt-edged securities. One follows upon the other just as any sequence in the order of nature. When we add the abnormal prosperity of trade which has continued for more than three years, and which has put exceptional demands not only upon the currency but upon the whole machinery of credit of this country and the world, it is inconceivable that these so-called gilt-edged securities should remain at the level which they attained under conditions less happy. That is the whole explanation of the matter. But let my critics go to Berlin. There they will enjoy the double blessing of a protective tariff and a paternal Government. Yet anybody acquainted with finance who will compare our credit with the credit of the German Empire or of Prussia, not only as regards the prices at which securities stand, but also with reference to the amount of depreciation, will say that we do not come badly out of the comparison. We ought to deprecate boldly the discrediting and disparaging of the credit of our country. So far as I am concerned, I have done my best, so far as my opportunities have allowed —though I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer should meddle more than he can help with the money market—to keep off the market, while conditions are unfavourable for the flotation of

821
new securities, such new ventures as it is in my power to control. Some of my City critics are under the mistaken idea that I can invest the Sinking Fund in Irish Land, which I can no more do than I can buy tram shares. The Sinking Fund is therefore out of the question. But what I have done is to allow the investment of savings banks' deposits in Irish Land stock. This, I think, is a right thing to do, and it has been most helpful that, instead of having a public issue of Land Stock this year, we should be authorising the National Debt Commissioners from time to time to apply such funds as are at their disposal to the purchase of stock. It will not go on the market at all. It will become one of their investments—and an excellent investment at the present range of prices—while the market will be relieved of an incubus which would have undoubtedly been most serious if there had been a public issue. I have done the same in regard to the proposed Transvaal loan. All the requirements of the Transvaal Government can be met during the next twelve months, by short-dated securities which I propose to provide. In both these respects I may fairly claim to have done what I can as Chancellor of the Exchequer to help over a very trying condition. As to the reduction of debt that has taken place, I have for the most part confined my operations to reducing the bulk of the floating debt. I feel that the outstanding Treasury Bills and Exchequer Bonds require to be reduced at the earliest opportunity. By having a great amount of floating obligations on the market the power of raising money in an emergency is crippled to a greater degree than in any other way. Therefore I think we were perfectly right to take the course we have taken. I speak cautiously in regard to matters of this kind, particularly in regard to the future, but I think I may go as far as to say that our floating obligations—I am not speaking of the War Loan, but of Treasury bills and Exchequer bonds—are just now reduced to a manageable sum. Certainly they ought to be further reduced, but I think they are now reduced substantially compared with what they were; and the alternative which lies before us will be between the War Loan,
822
on the one hand, and Consols on the other. These are the only two other securities to which the Sinking Fund can be properly applied. I am not going to say —it would be very wrong if I did—what action will be taken, beyond saying that the considerations which have been brought forward by my hon. friend are very present to my mind, and that in matters of this kind one is guided very largely by the opinions of experts. The Government have at their disposal the advice of some of the most eminent men in the City, and the House may rely upon it that, following the general lines I have indicated, the Government will be guided by the advice which will be at our disposal. I do not think any other specific criticisms have been made on the proposals in the Bill. The hon. Members for Gravesend and Stepney, who very appropriately sit side by side, will forgive me if I do not go into the large question they raised as to the foundations of our fiscal system. The hon. Member for Gravesend said one thing of which I desire to take notice, because coming from him it comes from one of the high priests in the temple of tariff reform. I have often, in the course of the controversy, ventured to urge that you cannot have a system of tariff reform without taxing both food and raw material—and let me point out to my hon. friend the Member for Liverpool that it is no good talking about taxing luxuries which do not affect the daily life of the working man. That is not tariff reform. Tariff reform is founded on Colonial preference, and the taxation of luxuries is merely the fringe of the question—the essence of tariff reform consists in giving a preferential duty to the Colonies with regard to commodities which come to us from them, and the only things that come to us from the Colonies are food and raw materials. I have often argued that if you are going to give preference to the Colonies you must give preference on food and raw materials.
Sir GILBERT PARKERindicated dissent.
*Mr. ASQUITH: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Food if you like, but raw materials never. The hon. Gentleman used the expression: "You place

823
every stiver of the tax on raw material on the consumer." What an extra-ordinary revelation this of the minds of tariff reformers! If food comes from abroad and it is taxed, the foreigner pays the tax; but if raw material comes from abroad and it is taxed, the consumer pays the tax.
Sir GILBERT PARKERsaid he qualified his statement by saying when raw material was not produced in this country and did not enter into competition.
*Mr. ASQUITH: Very well, have it so. Is it not the same with food? What is true of one is true of the other. Even after listening to the admirable speeches those two apostles of tariff reform, I am still unable, as I have always been, to see why it should be perfectly good finance, consistent with all the rules of equity and polity, to put a tax on food, while it should be an abomination or an iniquity to put an tax on raw material. Economically, there is not a shadow of a shade of difference between the two. I apologise for making this short digression into the tempting field opened by those two hon. Gentleman. I do not think it is any more relevant to the Budget than any attack on the foundations of our fiscal system, which, of course, the hon. Gentlemen are entitled to make; and I agree there is no more constitutional opportunity than the third reading of the Finance Bill. It is my business simply to defend the proposals of the Government in the Bill, and I do not want to digress beyond the four corners of the measure itself, and I ask the House to give us an opportunity as soon as may be of reading it a third time.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: As to the measures the right hon. Gentleman has taken or is going to take in regard to the country's indebtedness, I am glad to find myself in hearty agreement with him. I must make two observations of a personal character. I do not remember that the right hon. Gentleman, when in Opposition, viewed the depreciation of our national credit with the vehemenence and indignation he has applied to it in the present Parliament, and I
824
rather think that in defending himself he is necessarily drawn to defend the late Government from many of the strictures passed upon it by many ton. Gentlemen opposite. I entirely agree that in reducing the debt the first thing the right hon. Gentleman has to do is to reduce the dangerous, or at any rate the large, amount of the floating debt outstanding. I am not at all insensible to the arguments in favour of purchasing Consols at their present rate, with the possibility that they may at sometime or another have a considerable rise; but I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer was wise to resist that temptation, and, in the first place, to free his hands by reducing the amount if the floating debt, and to give himself a margin for any emergency that may arise. I am not quite certain that that process has gone so tar as it ought to go; but I recognise that the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke guardedly on the subject, and, in deciding what he would do with the sinking fund, told the House that he would be guided by the judgment he may form after taking the best expert advice he can obtain. The Chancellor of the Exchequer also recalled to the House what he had done to keep aft the market as a borrower during the currency of the present year. I have no word of criticism to offer as to the action he has taken in respect to Irish land stock or the Transvaal loan, except to express regret that his announcement in regard to the Transvaal loan came so late. If, when he first announced that it was the intention of the Government to guarantee the Transvaal loan, he had made the announcement he subsequently made, that the whole demand on the market this year would be a million of short-dated securities, I think he would have saved a great deal of disturbance and misunderstanding, and also some inconvenience and even loss.
MR. ASQUITH: I was most careful to state that I would not commit myself as to the time or manner of the issue.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman would not commit himself to anything. When people are in a state of uncertainty they are apt to

825
fear the worst. It is not because he did not state that he would not bring out the loan in a particular month this year that I complain, but because he did not state what he subsequently stated, that he would only make a small demand on the money market, and that in the shape of short-dated Bills. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken not merely of the effect which the large demands for national expenditure have made on the money market, but also the great effect produced by the large increase in local indebtedness. That stands for a great deal in the deterioration of the price of gilt-edged securities, and this House is not wholly free from blame in the matter. No doubt many of the municipalities have been severely pressed by the check placed on their borrowing powers. I think such a check is useful, but I think also that the House should remember that it has its share of responsibility for what the municipalities have done. We are constantly imposing new duties upon them, and giving them new powers of borrowing for fresh objects. As long as the House proceeds on those lines you cannot expect that there will be a real check on the amount of loans raised by local authorities. That is a consideration which we ought to bear in mind in discussing the Budget as a whole. I think the most remarkable fact in the discussion of the present Budget is that I cannot recall to mind a single speech in the course of these debates in which the Budget has been heartily and wholly approved. From every quarter of the House criticism —either expressions of condemnation or expressions or regret that the Budget was not other than it is—have been heard, and even the Chancellor of the Exchequer has never pretended to express any hearty approval of the scheme of taxation embodied in it. That is rather a serious situation. Of the taxes which are now in force the right hon. Gentleman considers that the income-tax is too high, that the sugar tax ought to be abolished, and that the tea tax ought to be either abolished or reduced. At the same time the right hon. Gentleman announces that he has to make preparations for a large amount of new expenditure and that he can hold out no hope of a substantial reduction in the
826
aggregate expenditure of the nation. What, then, is to be the future of our financial system? If we destroy the taxes which now exist, and if we refuse all opportunities which are offered for widening the basis of taxation by the introduction of new taxes, if new taxes are piled on while the present expenditure will be not only maintained but increased, the result will be that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to disappoint expectations. The right hon. Gentleman made a remarkable observation when he said that if we added to the taxation he had remitted the amount by which the expenditure had been reduced, it would be seen that he had done very well. But that is counting the money twice over. I think the right hon. Gentleman misapprehended what the hon. Member for Stepney had stated as to the amount of taxation by which he had relieved poor people. Surely my hon. friend was absolutely correct. It is true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has repealed the coal tax, but I think I could make out a very good case for an argument that whoever gets the benefit of the repeal of the coal tax, it is the foreigner who must have taken the coal, and who must have been obliged to pay the additional tax. But putting that aside, when one considers the relief given to the taxpayers of this country, it is not the tax which is repealed, but the amount of money collected from the people which the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to look to. When one looks at the amount of money which the taxpayers have to find, even giving credit for the repeal of the coal tax, the relief is no more than what my hon. friend has stated. In my opinion, often expressed, and which I am not going to elaborate now, we cannot safely go on in this fashion. I have listened with very great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Stepney. We welcome him as a tariff reformer, but my hon. friend's speech dealt with a subject which we ought to consider whether we are tariff reformers or not. Supposing a certain emergency were to arise involving increased expenditure, I do not think there is a Member of the House, whatever may be his opinion on tariff reform, who considers that within the limits of our existing taxation we have at present a

827
satisfactory reserve. If we became involved in a great war, we would have to put on new taxes, or resort to old taxes, in order to secure a satisfactory reserve. To insure such a reserve, we must have existing taxes with existing machinery which has a margin on which one can meet a new demand. That is impossible on the present narrow basis of taxation, and for that reason, if for no other, I would be a tariff reformer and in favour of widening our system of taxation. The right hon. Gentleman has said that the essence of tariff reform is Colonial preference. I am not likely to underrate the importance of the relation of Colonial preference to tariff reform, but Colonial preference is not the only object we have in view. I am here to say that if no Colonial preference can be obtained, it would still be wise to alter our fiscal system for pure fiscal reasons, and in order to obtain an instrument of negotiation to assist us in getting better terms in the protective markets of the world. The less chance we have of Colonial preference the more important become the great Continental markets to us. This is largely owing to the increasing difficulty of entering those markets, and the increasing competition from the same quarter in neutral markets. I attach growing importance to Colonial preference. I am not going to argue now the effect of Colonial preference on political considerations in our dominions beyond the seas. I do not want to delay the debate. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer's observations seemed to imply that we on this side of the House could see no reason for any change in our fiscal system were it not for Colonial preference. I frankly admit that since I first studied the question of Colonial preference, in which I am much interested, I think it is quite as important from the aspect I have just indicated that we should have a change in our fiscal system as for any reason connected with preference to our Colonial possessions. I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer can complain of the way in which his Budget has been received. He has given us not very much information as to the financial effect of the various changes he has proposed, and, so far as I am concerned, with that official shortage of information, I am quite unable to follow
828
his calculations or the basis on which he has framed them. I make this passing observation, that if the right hon. Gentleman is right as to the cost of the income-tax, then what he has appeared to give with one hand, he has largely withdrawn with the other; and I am surprised that more attention has not been paid to that point.
MR. STUARTsaid he had voted for the Finance Bill with some reluctance, because he thought the present Budget had not recognised that the burdens of the poor were too heavy in proportion to the burdens upon the rich. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had done well in increasing the death duties at the top and introducing some differentiation into the income-tax, although he regretted that he had not done so at the top rather than at the bottom. But on the whole the proportion of taxes upon the rich and poor had remained practically unchanged. He regretted that because the present House of Commons had been largely returned in order to see that the proportion of taxes on the poor was relatively lessened. He had supported the Government for two reasons. First, they must in giving a vote consider what would be the consequences if it helped to turn out a Government from which they expected so much and put in its place a Government whose policy they condemned. Secondly, he understood from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this Budget was not to be considered by itself, but that it must be taken in conjunction with future Budgets, which together would embrace the policy he desired. There were many in that House who agreed with him that before the present Government left office it was bound for the sake of the nation, for the well-being and prosperity of the people, to shift more burdens proportionately from the poor to the rich. The man upon whom their eyes should be fixed for the time was the man with 20S. a week and not the man with £2,000 a year, and it would be better for all in the House the sooner they recognised in legislative action that the very rich owed a very large debt to the very poor.
MR. HUNTsaid the hon. Gentleman who had just sat

829
down had done justice to himself, his Bill, and his Government, and he seemed to think that they had done a great deal for the working classes, although it appeared to him that they had done very little. The Government took a penny off the tea duty last year, but this year they said they could not take another penny off because it would not benefit the consumer. As to the tax on coal, the removal of the duty had made coal very much dearer and most things were dearer than when this wonderful Government came into office. In his opinion we taxed the wrong things. We allowed the luxuries of the rich to come in without any taxation, and how that could benefit the working classes he was unable to understand. In another way we injured our working people because we compelled our manufacturers to pay heavy rates and taxes which amounted to 12 per cent. on manufactured goods, and we allowed manufactured goods from foreign countries to come in without paying a single penny in the way of taxation. In fact we gave to foreigners a preference of 12 per cent. in our own market. We gave State aid to foreign manufactured goods to the extent of £12 in every £100; he did not think that could be disputed. To make up for that we had to put a heavy duty on tea and sugar, and things of that kind, and the poorer people had to pay for it. More than half the burden of the Budget was put upon the simple luxuries and necessities of the poor. Out of the vast sum which the Budget dealt with it was calculated that the working people paid more than £40,000,000 a year, and they paid over £20,000,000 a year in the way of import taxes. We allowed foreign nations to tax our manufactured goods to any extent they liked, and the result was, as far as he could see, that we made the poor pay more for their simple luxuries and necessities than did the poor in any other country in the world. This Budget taxed the tea and tobacco of the poor more than it taxed the tea and tobacco of the rich. That, he supposed, was another elaborate plan for benefiting the poor of the country. The system which the right hon. Gentleman called free trade, and which Liberals called a system of free
830
food, resulted in millions of pounds being paid on the food of the poor. Yet the Party opposite claimed to be the friend of the poor and to reduce their taxation, and it was because of "terminological inexactitudes" of that sort that they managed to get such a large majority at the last general election. They were still playing the same old game in North West Ham. He went down there the other day and saw the same old bills and the same old posters all over the place, talking about free food. Was it any wonder that the people were coming to know how unfounded was the theory that Great Britain was a free trade country? The taxation in Germany was very much less than it was in this country, and it was put cm things which were not the necessities and luxuries of the poor. In this country, however, the main portion of the taxes was put upon those luxuries and necessities. Surely that was against all the principles of the Liberal Party. It seemed to him that if we put a tax on manufactured goods other countries would have to pay us in raw material, which was exactly what we wanted. We were becoming more and more the consumers of raw materials and slightly manufactured goods than we were fifty or sixty years ago. In Germany a tax was put upon the importation of manufactured goods, and that was why they had money for wages which our poor people could not get. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had been obliged to tell the chambers of commerce that English trade carried on its operations under great and increasing difficulties, and that the burdens were clay by day getting heavier and heavier. On another occasion he said that it was a matter of lite and death to us to persuade other nations to rally to the free trade plan and come round to the "open door" We certainly had not persuaded them; we were being still further kept out of foreign markets, and he was sure the right hon. Gentleman would agree with him that we were dying now rather faster than we were before. People abroad were prevented from buying our goods and the foreigners were beating us in our own market, and this in spite of our being the greatest Empire in the world, and in spite of the fact that our people were in want and misery and hunger because they

831
could not get into the foreign markets. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil, in an article in the Industrial Review of 1901, said that the only reason he had for adhering to free trade was that he hoped by it to get rid of the landlords, and Socialists supported this ridiculous system now because they thought that the condition of the country would get so frightfully bad under it that they could engineer some social revolution and then carry their reforms afterwards. Under the present system we had no security of being able to retain any market except that of India for any length of time. We should retain the Indian market because we compelled India to adopt a system of taxation which was good for us. The Secretary of State for India would remember how in 1894 when a Liberal Government gave India a general tariff the Lancashire men came down and insisted upon an equal duty being put on Indian cotton, because otherwise the Lancashire people would have to pay the tax. Yet they were told that the consumer always paid the tax. It was the greatest humbug in the world. The only real employers of British labour were the people who bought British goods. After all was said and done, the manufacturers, dealers, and middlemen were only agents; they could not sell the goods if nobody would buy them. Under the present system of government foreign nations prevented their people from buying our goods, and that was simply because we had not the power to say, "If you play this game upon us we will do the same with you." The system did not benefit our poor people, it benefited only the middlemen and general dealers because they bought in the cheapest markets either the damaged goods of foreign white labour or the cheap product of African, Asiatic, and Indian labour. The poor of this country could only sell their labour in this country, while the dealers went to cheaper markets, and having sold their goods invested their money in foreign securities. That was the reason they did not want tariff reform. Hon. Members on the Ministerial Benches acknowledged they had no remedy for the present state of things. There were only two Parties in this country who had—
832
the Socialists and the Tariff Reformers So-called free trade was just about dead. It was on its last legs. The Budget showed that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite could not get any money, they had been knocking down expenses where they could, turning thousands of people out of employment at Woolwich and other places, and still they were in trouble, and next year their condition would be far worse. The trade unions had protected their members against the employers of this country, but they were powerless to protect them against the employers of other countries, and for that reason he was greatly surprised to find so many of them against the policy of his right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham. When the working classes of this country once became familiar with that policy they would no longer suffer the tribulation and the misery they now endured for the sake of allowing foreign manufacturers and workmen to grow fat upon their sufferings.
MR. SEDDON:expressed regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not left the income-tax alone and directed his attention to providing for old-age pensions. It was said that the Colonies were willing to give us a preference, but the fact was that the Colonies would only give us a preference which would enable our manufactures to sell in their markets on equal terms with the Colonial products. It was idle to say that the Colonies were giving a preference when all the time, as anybody was aware who knew anything about the fiscal policy of the country, they were anxious to put on such a preference as would enable their own manufacturers to sell in their markets to the detriment of the British manufacturers. He asked the hon. Gentleman to answer the question whether the Colonies were prepared to give such a preference as would enable British manufacturers to compete in the Colonies on equal terms with Colonial manufacturers? If they did not do that, then preference was a mere idle dream.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 232; Noes, 91. (Division List No. 349.,0

AYES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Findlay, Alexander

Massie, J.

Agnew, George William

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Masterman, C. F. G.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Menzies, Walter

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Armitage, R.

Fullerton, Hugh

Money, L. G. Chiozz.

Asquith,Rt.Hon HerbertHenry

Gardner, Col.Alan (Hereford,S.)

Montagu, E. S.

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Montgomery, H. G.

Baker, JosephA. (Finsbury,E.)

Gladstone,Rt. HnHerbertJohn

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Morgan,J.Lloyd(Carmarthen)

Baring,Godfrey(Isle of Wight)

Gooch, George Peabody

Morley, Rt. Hon. John

Barker, John

Grant, Corrie

Morse, L. L.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Murray, James

Barry,RedmondJ.(Tyrone,N.)

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Myer, Horatio

Beauchamp, E.

Gurdon,RtHn.SirW.Brampton

Napier, T. B.

Bell, Richard

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Nicholls, George

Benn,W.(T'w'rHamlets, S.Geo.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Bethell,SirJ.H.(Essex,Romf'rd

Harwood, George

Partington, Oswald

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Paulton, James Mellor

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Haworth, Arthur A.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Black, Arthur W.

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Boulton, A. C. F.

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe

Pearson,SirW.D.(Colchester)

Bramsdon, T. A.

Higham, John Sharp

Perks, Robert William

Branch, James

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Brigg, John

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Pirie, Duncan V.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh,Central)

Brunner,J.F.L.(Lancs.,Leigh)

Holt, Richard Durning

Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford,E.)

Brunner,RtHnSirJ.T (Cheshire

Hope,W.Bateman(Somerset,N.

Radford, G. H.

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Horniman, Emslie John

Raphael, Herbert H.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hyde, Clarendon

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Burns, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Idris, T. H. W.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Byles, William Pollard

Illingworth, Percy H.

Rees, J. D.

Cameron, Robert

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Rendall, Athelstan

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Richardson, A.

Causton,Rt.Hn.Richard Knight

Jardine, Sir J.

Rickett, J. Compton

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Cheetham, John Frederick

Jones,SirD.Brynmor (Swansea)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Cleland, J. W.

Kearley, Hudson E.

Robinson, S.

Clough, William

Kekewich, Sir George

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Runciman, Walter

Collins,SirWm.J.(S.Pancras,W.

Laidlaw, Robert

Russell, T. W.

Corbett,CH(Sussex, E. Grinst'd)

Lambert, George

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Cox, Harold

Lamont, Norman

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Cremer, Sir William Randal

Leese,SirJosephF. (Accrington)

Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

Crossley, William J.

Lehmann, R. C.

Sears, J. E.

Dalziel, James Henry

Levy, Sir Maurice

Seaverns, J. H.

Davies David (MontgomeryCo.

Lewis, John Herbert

Seely, Major J. B.

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Lough, Thomas

Sherwell, Arthur James

Dewar,Arthur(Edinburgh, S.)

Lupton, Arnold

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Dickinson, W.H.(St.Pancras,N.

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Lynch, H. B.

Soares, Ernest J.

Dobson, Thomas W.

Macdonald,J.M. (FalkirkB'ghs)

Stanger, H. Y.

Duckworth, James

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Steadman, W. C.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Elibank, Master of

M'Callum, John M.

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Erskine. David C.

M'Crae, George

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Essex, R. W.

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Esslemont, George Birnie

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Evans, Samuel T.

Maddison, Frederick

Sutherland, J. E.

Everett, R. Lacey

Mallet, Charles E.

Taylor,TheodoreC.(Radcliffe)

Ferens, T. R.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Tennant,SirEdward(Salisbury)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Marnham, F. J.

Thomas,SirA.(Glamorgan,E.)

834

835

Tillett, Louis John

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Wills, Arthur Walters

Tomkinson, James

Wason,Rt.Hn.E.(Clackmannan

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

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Wason,JohnCathcart(Orkney)

Wilson,J.W.(Worcestersh.N.).

Toulmin, George

Watt, Henry A.

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Winfrey, U.

Ure, Alexander

Weir, James Galloway

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Vivian, Henry

Whitehead, Rowland

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Walters, John Tudor

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Williams, J (Glamorgan)

Waring, Walter

Williams,Llewelyn(Carmarth'n

NOES.

Abraham,William (Cork, N.E.)

Gretton, John

Nolan, Joseph

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

O'Grady. J.

Ashley,W. W.

Halpin, J.

O'Kelly,James(Roscommon,N.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Harris, Frederick Leverton

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Barnes, G. N.

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Parker,SirGilbert(Gravesend)

Barrie,H.T. (Londonderry,N.)

Hayden, John Patrick

Parker, James (Halifax)

Beach,Hn.MichaelHughHicks

Healy, Timothy Michael

Pease, HerbertPike)Darlington

Boland, John

Hervey,F.W.F.(BuryS.Edm'ds

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hodge, John

Reddy, M.

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hogan, Michael

Redmond. John E. (Waterford)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Houston, Robert Paterson

Redmond. William (Clare)

Cave, George

Hudson, Walter

Richards,T.F.(Wolverh'mpt'n)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hunt, Rowland

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Clynes, J. R.

Jenkins, J.

Shackleton, David James

Coates,E.Feetham(Lewisham)

Jordan, Jeremiah

Snowden, P.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Jowett, F. W.

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

Courthope, G. Loyd

Joyce, Michael

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Crean, Eugene

Kimber, Sir Henry

Summerbell, T.

Crooks,William

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Curran, Peter Francis

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Thomson,W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Delany, William

Lea,HughCecil(St, Pancras,E.)

Vincent.Col. SirC. E. Howard

Du Cros, Harvey

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Walsh, Stephen

Duncan,C.(Barrow-in Furness)

Lundon, W.

Wardle, George J.

Duncan,Robert(Lanark,Govan

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Fell, Arthur

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Ffrench, Peter

Mac Veagh,Jeremiah(Down,S.)

Wilson. W. T. (Westhoughton)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Mac Veigh,Charles(Donegal,E.)

Wyndham. Rt. Hon. George

Forster, Henry William

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Seddon and Mr. George Roberts.

Gill, A. H.

Mooney, J. J.

Glover, Thomas

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Grayson, Albert Victor

Murnaghan, George

Bill read the third time, and passed.

SUPPLY.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
King's Message [24th July], read.
The PRIME MINISTER and FIRST LORD of the TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,)said: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I rise with perfect confidence to propose, (in response to the gracious Message from His Majesty) that a fitting recognition should be made of Lord Cromer's great services by a grant out of public funds. Hitherto, it is true, such grants have with, some exceptions, been confined to those who
836
have performed conspicuous services to the country in war; but I do not imagine that in the House of Commons there will be many who would wish to exclude from tangible acknowledgment the quieter and less resounding, but not less glorious and hardly-won triumphs of peaceful administration. It would not be too much to say, that of all our peaceful administrators throughout the Empire of the present day Lord Cromer is the foremost man—foremost in courage, in wisdom, in resource, in patience; foremost, also, from the difficulties which he has had to encounter, foremost by the splendid results he has achieved. It is not, indeed, in Egypt only that he has done great services to this nation. Before his career in Egypt began he had done work in India, the effect of which is felt to this day. But it

837
is to the last twenty-four years, which constitute the second half of his long public life, that our thoughts turn to-day. We all know how Lord Cromer's administration of the affairs of Egypt has been marked by striking material progress. That has been the case in every department of activity in the great province whose reconstruction he made the business of his life. Take the agricultural and other industries which he set himself to develop. The external trade of Egypt has doubled since he became Agent and Consul-General in 1883. The irrigation works carried out during his consulate have been the means of creating out of the desert fair and fertile tracts of vast extent. In the same period the population of Egypt has increased from 6,750,000 to 9,750,000. Egypt has suffered, and still suffers, from heavy taxation, but, notwithstanding the great outlay which all the improvements he effected in the public service entailed, Lord Cromer succeeded in reducing the burden of taxation per head by nearly 25 per cent., and the charge for interest on the debt was reduced by £890,000 a year. Beset as he was by demands for expenditure on every hand, he never lost sight of the paramount duty of economical administration, or forgot that the taxes were paid by the peasantry out of their poverty. That in itself is asplen did achievement. But the measure of Lord Cromer's success is not to be found or stated in any record of trade returns or financial statistics. The security and the liberty which his labours have secured for Egypt, the revival of justice, and the work he did for education—these are matters of which, I think, his countrymen are prouder than of the material results which he obtained. When we reflect upon the conditions under which this great labour was conducted and these results accomplished, when we remember that twenty-four years ago, when he began his task, Egypt was derelict and bankrupt, her people almost effaced under a burden of taxation and indebtedness, and that all his efforts for reform had to be carried out under a system surely the most cumbersome and grievous to be borne that ever hampered an administrator, it is difficult to find words in which to express the admiration we feel for the steadfastness
838
and courage which enabled him to attain the ends which he set before himself. In his last Report Lord Cromer speaks of "the benefits which, with a rapidity probably unparalleled in history, have been conferred on the country by the introduction of Western civilisation at the hands of an alien race;" and I think he attributed to this state of things the growth of the national spirit in Egypt. But I wish to point out that Lord Cromer belongs to the school of administrators who hold it wise to hasten slowly in superimposing the civilisation of one race upon another; and we must bear this in mind if we are to appreciate the methods he has employed and the spirit he brought to his work. Lord Cromer profoundly disbelieved in any attempt to force the Egyptian people into a Western mould. He sought to preserve what was vital and characteristic in their habits, laws, and customs, and, so far from approaching them as an alien and a superior, he made it his business to understand their character and to study their grievances and their needs as they presented themselves to the actual people. And so by working through mediums familiar to them, and employing, as far as possible, native agents, he hoped to enable them to develop along their own lines, and to meet the civilisation of the West, not as hybrids, but as self-respecting beings in full possession of their own qualities and characteristics. When I see, as I sometimes see, Lord Cromer criticised for his want of sympathy with the national spirit, I am disposed to ask whether his wise and patient and understanding administration, and the respect shown by him from the first to the Egyptian race, do not entitle him to be considered as a great nationalist administrator. If he had cared to dazzle the world with swift and sensational results, there were plenty of capitalists ready to develop Egypt on the lines of European finance, and Lord Cromer would have saved himself infinite trouble if he had yielded to pressure and let them in. But he saw that the regeneration of Egypt could only be effected through the Egyptians themselves, and in devising measures for emancipating the peasantry from the bondage of debt, and preserving them in their own holdings, he laid the foundation of an agrarian policy which

839
is equally the foundation of modern Egypt; and that policy, as I think, is not the least of his titles to the gratitude of the country he has served so well and to the admiration and respect of his countrymen. To a Ministry which has just lost Lord Cromer's services there are other considerations which come home with peculiar and poignant force. Indeed, I feel that I am speaking for succession of Ministries, which during the last twenty-five years have been preoccupied with the Egyptian question, when I say that in losing him we lose a public servant who in all the anxious and harassing events and complications associated with Egypt has been a tower of strength, whose courage, resource, wisdom, and loyalty never failed. The qualities which enabled Lord Cromer to surmount difficulties which seemed insoluble, and to maintain his serene outlook, and his firm grasp of affairs at times when other men would have been tempted to despair, were never obtruded on the public gaze, though, for all that, I think his countrymen have deduced from what they know of his personality and his labours a fair estimate of his services. Now that he has come home broken in health, having spent his strength and his fortune in the public service, I believe that, in showing him this mark of esteem, such as it is in the power of the House of Commons alone to accord, we shall be not only honouring, so far as it is in our power to honour, a great man who has greatly served his country, but enabling the country and the Empire through this House to recognise as they desire, the debt they owe to Lord Cromer.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £50,000, be granted to His Majesty, to be issued to the Earl of Cromer, O.M., G.C.B.. G.C.M.G., K.C.S.I., C.I.E., in recognition of his eminent services as Agent and Consul General in Egypt."—(Sir Henry Campbell Bannerman.)
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The rather unfortunate circumstances under which this Vote comes on for discussion compel me to confine my remarks into the space of a very few minutes. But those few minutes are enough to give me the opportunity of saying clearly and
840
explicitly that my friends and I are anxious to give the Government our whole-hearted support in the course they are now pursuing. We believe that that course is the right course; we believe it is consistent with the honour of this country, and with the traditions of this House, and we are glad the Government have determined on a policy of which the vote to be taken to-night is the expression. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the fact that this House has not been ungenerous in its recognition of the great services which distinguished generals in moments of national crises and difficulty have rendered the country.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: With other people's money.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Such interjections are regrettable, and I hope the hon. Member will restrain his feelings. But this, so far as I know, is the first time the House of Commons has been asked to vote to a civil servant any great mark of national gratitude, and while nobody doubts, or can doubt, that the labours of peace are as deserving of reward as the labours of war, still, undoubtedly, it is the fact that we do not recognise as part of our ordinary system the giving of special rewards to civil servants, however able and distinguished their services may be. The right hon. Gentleman did not expressly state, but he implied, the grounds upon which we may well differentiate the case of Lord Cromer from the cases of other civil servants, however able and distinguished, because we have before us in Egypt the fruits of the work of one great man, which stands out as isolated, as remarkable, as special, and. as signal a work of genius as the more sudden glories of some great military triumph. It is separated, not perhaps as clearly and distinctly as a great military triumph, but it is separated from the work of those great civil servants abroad who have done inestimable service to the Empire, by special characteristics which mark it off and render it a matter for differentiation, and amply justifies the course which the Government have taken. The right hon. Gentleman has told us in outline, and it could only be done in outline, all that Lord Cromer has accomplished for Egypt. Lord Cromer's services during the past quarter of a century have raised

841
Egypt from the lowest pitch of social and economic degradation until it now stands among Oriental nations, I believe, absolutely alone in its prosperity, financial and moral. There is no triumph of civilisation to which Lord Cromer has not contributed in the course of those twenty-five years, material, moral, and intellectual. Everything he has touched he has succeeded in, every cause he has taken in hand he has furthered, and he left Egypt able to look back upon an administration longer, more beneficent, more fruitful, the results of which are more obviously apparent to all who have eyes to see and ears to hear, than perhaps can be boasted of by any one of his great predecessors who have, whether in the case of this country or in the case of any other country, carried on a great civilising work among nations which for one reason or another cannot perhaps rise to the level of those whose lot it is to govern. The difficulty of governing nations under these conditions is great. It requires sympathy, courage, steadfastness. Lord Cromer has all these qualities. He has dealt with the difficulties inevitable in such a situation. He has dealt with other difficulties as well, difficulties arising out of the peculiar international position in which Egypt finds herself, difficulties arising out of inevitable jealousies, of the presence in Egypt of large numbers of highly qualified and highly civilised Europeans who did not look upon our position in Egypt with a wholly friendly eye. These difficulties, diplomatic and social, he has dealt with successfully. He has dealt with them in a manner which has earned the permanent gratitude of the Egyptian people and which has well deserved some distinguishing mark of the gratitude which this House and country owe to one of its greatest public servants.
And, it being a quarter past Eight of the clock, and leave having been given to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10, Further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

ADJOURNMENT (UNDER STANDING ORDER No. (O.) RADIOTELEGRAPHIC CONVENTION).
Sir EDWARD SASSOONrose to move the adjournment of the House in order
842
to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, the Report of the Select Committee on the Radio-Telegraphic Convention, and the declared intention of His Majesty's Government to proceed to ratification without affording the House an opportunity of discussing the subject. He desired to say in justice to those with whom he had the honour to act that no thoughts of possible Party advantage actuated them. The best proof of what he was advancing lay in the fact that it was by a Unionist vote that the brand of the Chairman's Report was plucked from the burning. It was with unaffected regret that he encroached upon the limited time of the House. He begged respectfully to assure the Prime Minister that it was with the utmost reluctance he had been brought to take; this step. After the handsome manner in which the right hon. Gentleman met him last autumn, the action he now took might appear churlish and ungrateful, but the evidence before the Select Committee revealed lines of cleavage, points of doubt and anxiety as to the prospective outcome of ratification, such as many ingenuous laymen did not suspect. He ventured to think that His Majesty's Government would have been better advised if, in view of the strength of the minority, the extraordinarily conflicting nature of the evidence, the fact that the Post Office Vote, the only avenue to debate, was closed, that the Committee of Defence had not, as far as they were able to gather deliberated upon the Convention in their collective capacity, they had seen their way spontaneously to offer the opportunity which he was now compelled to resort to under the forms of the House. He hoped he had disposed of any reproach of political ingratitude. He now came to the business in hand. The Convention was bound to affect, as any cursory student could see for himself, for weal or for woe, the defensive interests and commercial needs of this country. Let the House read the evidence of the eighteen witnesses who were examined and say if it was not such as to make it extremely doubtful whether the leap in the dark did not constitute a risk for which any counterbalancing advantage, if advantage did result, was likely to offer sufficient compensation. Experts

843
circumvented and contradicted experts beyond anything known in the unravelling even of scientific problems; no sort of common view appeared to animate them, while the divisions of opinion were sharp and irreconcilable. The question that the Committee had before them was whether adhesion at the present moment was or was not expedient. That was the plain issue, and it was on the merits of that issue entirely unencumbered by collateral or subsidiary considerations as to the susceptibility of this or that Power that they had to decide. Of the bearings of our foreign relations they had necessarily no cognisance. These lay within the purview of the authority and responsibility of the Government. If they were committed morally or actually then the reference to the Committee was superfluous. The official view appeared to have been that enforcement of general intercommunication was desirable, less for any tangible good it might do or any injury it might avert, but rather to develop unfledged and embryonic systems. Let them test the soundness of their contention by looking to the experience of the past. The Marconi system, which was the best and most efficient organisation in the world, was developed on lines of non-intercommunication, and now they only asked to be allowed to develop their business in their own way. We were first in the field, and the geographical position of our coast stations gave us an undoubted advantage. Captain Bethell, the chief Admiralty delegate, said that he was opposed to compulsory intercommunication, but he had hit on the idea of relieving certain stations from liability to intercommunicate. But if intercommunication carried with it no risk of disturbance, why exempt any stations? To seek to justify a Convention the first principle of which was compulsory intercommunication, and then in the same breath say that everything was being done to neutralise that principle, showed a confusion of mind. Our delegates had tried to show that our organisation would not suffer in the business of foreign ships; but, when pressed, they had to admit that all foreign ships would take away their Marconi instruments. It was perfectly clear that the wireless organisation as constituted at present, an organisation
844
which the Admiralty admitted to the Committee would give a great advantage to this country in an emergency, would be placed in this dilemma—either it would be ruined by accepting intercommunication, or it would be exposed to the loss of foreign business if the principle of exemption were admitted. The second ground on which the British delegates supported the Convention was that at present it was difficult for ships in British waters to communicate with the British coast. That was irrelevant. Every company and individual of any nationality was at perfect liberty to ask for a licence from the Post Office, and they had only to show that their system was workable on business lines. With regard to ships on the Atlantic seaboard, the delegates declared that, owing to the unwillingness of the Marconi stations to intercommunicate, many ships were unable to send messages. There were no less than thirty-one stations on the Canadian and Newfoundland coasts, and on the American coast there was no prohibition against any one setting up wireless installations. It was only necessary for ships to instal two systems—no very high price to pay to prevent the disturbance of our system here. It appeared, then, that the arguments urged by our official delegates at Berlin were based upon mere phantoms and chimeras. Another point was that if we adhered to this Convention, and it was desired that modifications should be made, Great Britain would have no more voice in the matter than Persia or Uruguay, countries which had no sort of connection with wireless telegraphy. That was a state of things which he felt sure the House would consider was perfectly intolerable. They were told that there ought to be free trade in wireless telegraphy, but he had yet to learn that compulsion in its most drastic form—such as obligatory intercommunication, standard wavelength, and all the rest of it—was consistent with any sort of freedom. He was sorry that the hon. Member for Preston was not present to direct his vigilant battery to this gross violation of all they had been accustomed to associate with the unhampered liberty of the individual. If our fiscal religion made it anathema to defend native industries, in the name of common sense let us not

845
injure them by going out of our way to defend and benefit the industries of the foreigner. If a reliable service on commercial lines existed it would be to the interests of the Marconi Company to accept freely intercommunication so that with the activity which would result more grist would be brought to their mill. But those services and systems to which the Convention looked to see spring up like mushrooms in the night were, judging from the fruitless efforts in the recent past, but vague and nebulous potentialities, on which no sound business concern would be justified in basing its future calculations. It would be time enough to say things were comparable with cables and telephones when wireless services with an acknowledged financial position, with uniform rules of working, with means of calculating charges and settling accounts, were set up. We should wait for the emergence of such conditions and not put the cart before the horse. That serious disturbances might ensue from the provisions of the Convention was never more graphically illustrated than by the very talented delegate, Mr. Babington Smith, as well as the Admiralty delegate, Captain Bethel. Mr. Babington Smith said—
"Moreover, we must remember that general intercommunication has yet to be carried out in practice. When the impatience of captains, the rivalries of telegraphists, above all when com petition between different systems, and the possible want of accord between apparatus are taken into account, can we be sure that all will go well? The risk of miscarriage is the greatest where the traffic is the most concentrated; and it is precisely at such points that there is the greatest necessity to maintain communication without impediment and without delay. In the case of Great Britain a well-organised service already exists. We wish to preserve the right to retain this service, if necessary, with its present organisation, while placing other stations at the disposal of all the world. In order to show the drawbacks of a General Exchange, let us take an analogy which will appeal, perhaps, to those familiar with ordinary telegraphy. Let us suppose that a region of 20,000 square kilometres is provided with thousands of telegraph wires radiating from a common centre, and that everyone passing, whoever he may be, can transmit telegraphic signals to the centre by attaching any transmitter whatever at any point to any of these wires. It seems to me that the operator at the centre would certainly have a good deal of trouble as regards the efficient working of the system."
He knew that an attempt had since been made to explain away these argu-
846
ments on the ground that they were mainly advanced in order to bring the other nations into line with us; but, none the less, anyone who read impartially Mr. Babington Smith's arguments could not but recognise that there was a very substantial basis of fact in them. We were told that if things went wrong all we had to do was to retire from the Convention by giving twelve months notice, but he would ask any hon. Gentleman opposite whether we could possibly expect to hark back, to revert to the old state of things, when such a delicately poised mechanism as the wireless installation was involved. He confessed the prospect filled him with dismay. Much as he hoped to be able to see eye to eye with the Post master-General at the earlier stage of the proceedings, subsequent reflection and a study of the evidence had convinced him that it would be premature and rash to bind our hands in any way. If non-adhesion was going to prove the evil the chairman so confidently predicted, he firmly believed that that evil would be far less so long as we retained unfettered liberty for the British organisation to evolve on the lines they had hitherto so successfully adopted in free and open competition. Why should the Admiralty allow other stations to be made the subject of experiment if they were going to exempt every Admiralty station? It was passing strange that a country occupying such a great maritime position as ours should have been susceptible to the instigation of a foreign Power in this matter. What advantages were we likely to gain by bartering a national asset for a mess of pottage? We, who owned more wireless stations than the rest of the nations of the world put together, need not have dreaded the development of the system. He thought it was a thousand pities that the Colonies should not have been asked for some agreement as to a basis of common action at the Colonial Conference, especially in view of the fact that Canada at any rate, was becoming the point of contact between the East and West. In his judgment the compulsory standardisation, so far from conducing, as had been put forward by one delegate, to scientific development was likely to retard it. Who was likely to set his mind to the

847
problem of inventing a new instrument if he knew that he had got to apply to a foreign Power before his instrument could come into general use? That was not the sort of incentive to make people work for the improvement of wireless telegraphy. There was another count in the indictment against the Marconi system, and that was that they refused to transmit signals of distress. That was perfectly untrue. Anyone who read the instructions which had been very carefully drawn up and issued to every operator, would see that they ought to receive signals of distress if they believed that they were really signals of distress. Then he should like to call attention to the question of the multiplication of dangers which would be caused by the multiplication of wireless telegraphy stations in foreign waters. He vainly endeavoured to persuade the Postmaster General upstairs to take his view of this danger, and it was not going to be diminished but intensified by the ratification of the Radio-telegraphic Convention. There was another point upon which he wished to lay very great stress, namely, that so far as he had been able to gather, the members of the Committee of Defence had not had their minds collectively drawn to the bearing of this Convention.
The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. HALDANE,)was understood to say that the subject had been considered by the Committee of Defence.
Sir EDWARD SASSOONsaid that in the Committee upstairs they could never get an answer to the inquiry whether the question had been deliberated upon by the Committee of Defence as a body, but, of course, he accepted at once the statement of the Secretary of State for War. He regretted the absence of the Postmaster-General and of the hon. Member for Falmouth who had drawn up the well-reasoned Report on this subject which at onetime struggled for mastery. He would, however, say nothing in regard to that, as if he did he would have a hornet's nest about his ears. Nor did he wish to lay stress on the fact that the wireless telegraphy business of England was transferred to a foreign country as he
848
understood it had been done. He thought anybody who had read the Report impartially must say that there seemed to be a great deal of doubt, hesitation, and misgiving. There was no question of trying to set up a monopoly, and if the Postmaster-General were there he thought he would bear him out in that statement. It seemed to him to be a case of misguided pressure. He hoped that the Government, as the master of many legions, would allow their supporters to vote as they thought fit. If that were done, he trusted they would be able to emancipate the Legislature from the thraldom of officialism. He begged to move.
*Mr. GWYNN, in seconding the Motion, said that the Irish people were exceedingly proud of the fact that Mr. Marconi was half-Irish, and they were grateful because the operations of his company were doing something for Connemara. The West of Ireland should play an important part as a jumping-off station for wireless telegraphy, but the Irish people saw their part in the industry endangered by the precipitate action of the Government. Having regularly attended the sittings of the Committee upstairs and carefully considered the bearing of the Convention, he was strongly opposed to the ratification of the Convention. The matter must be seriously considered by the Government. They had despaired of the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, but they hoped to convince the Secretary of State for War. He believed the one purpose of the Convention was to break up the Marconi Company and to destroy the regulations with which the company had surrounded their organisation. Of course, other objects had been officially suggested. For instance, it was suggested that the Convention would give freedom in this matter to the Navy. But to any one who had studied the subject it was evident that our Government could secure precisely the same freedom for the Navy as was secured by the Convention. Under it the use of wave lengths between 600 and 1,500 metres was restricted to the Navy. There was no reason in the world why the Post Office, when it issued a licence,

849
should not issue it on the condition that the user of the licence should not employ a wave length between 600 and 1,500 metres. That object could be gained without the Convention. So far as concerned the action of foreign ships, they had been told in Committee that, whatever they said in the matter, the Convention would be ratified, and, therefore, he took it for granted that it would bind all other countries except Great Britain. Great Britain could make precisely the same regulations for its own ships, and in that case he did not see why it was necessary to enter the Convention in order to secure the reservation of particular wave lengths for use in the Navy. There seemed to him to be no answer to that. They were told, again, that the object of the Convention was to avoid the confusion existing at the present time. It was impossible to limit the direction of wireless messages; an instrument could simply send out a message that would go all round the compass, and it stood to reason that the messages would tend to interfere with one another. The Convention proposed to avoid that interference by a series of artificial regulations saying that a ship should take a certain order of precedence, and that no two ships should signal the same station at the same time. He maintained that the only true way of avoiding interference was to leave every station absolute freedom as to the wave length used; that was to say, within reasonable limits—say from 600 metres downwards—which would give an ample margin of variation. But the Convention insisted that absolutely no ship and no shore station should use any wave length except one of 300 metres or 600 metres; so that if they had three stations signalling simultaneously within the same radius—and the radius of these dischages was admittedly very wide—it stood to reason that of these ships there must be two on 300 metres or two on 600 metres, and these two stations would be interfering with one another. It had been asserted to them by scientific-persons that with developed instruments it was absolutely possible to "tune" out interference; that was to say, that if a neighbouring station was
850
communicating with a wave length of 300 metres, to avoid disturbance and go on with their business they could "tune" out the interference. That was the natural resource for ships and shore stations to avoid interference, but it would be absolutely prohibited by the Convention, which would only allow of 300 metres and 600 metres. This substituted mechanical inefficiency and inconvenient regulations for the natural resources of the art. The question of confusion was in his opinion not avoided, but was stereotyped by the Convention's regulations; it was precisely these natural resources at their disposal which would be forbidden to them if they signed this Convention. He came now to the other argument. It was supposed by this Convention that they were going to give a fair chance to the other British companies. He thought it was perfectly fair and right that the other companies, whether British or not, should have a fair chance, and nobody proposed to stop them. The Marconi Company expressly said: "If you will only leave us alone, if you will not sign this Convention which forces us practically to intercommunicate, then you may issue licences so far as we are concerned to other stations or other companies which will be willing to intercommunicate, but the present position of the Marconi Company is that they have got the organisation and are able to use a particular instrument and keep control of the whole matter. We refuse absolutely to receive at our stations a message from any station which does not belong to our organisation." The effect of this Convention was to compel them to receive any message by whomsoever sent. The Marconi Company was perfectly willing that the Government should give licences to the rival companies which might be willing to intercommunicate, and which, because they were willing to intercommunicate, would naturally gain a certain amount of business. These rival companies, if rival companies there were, which he very much doubted, would get whatever business there was going. The Marconi Company said, "Very well, so long as you leave us alone, and do not force upon us regulations which are hostile to our system, we are content." In that sense they stood up in defence

851
of what was called their monopoly. He would like to lodge a protest against the use of the word "monopoly." A monopoly was an exclusive right to sell some particular thing, which was conferred by law; but the Marconi Company were only monopolists in this sense, that they were the only people who sold a particular article. If they wanted to send a wireless message by way of the Atlantic to Canada they must rely on the Marconi Company; there was nobody else to buy it from. In that sense they were monopolists if they liked. But why were they monopolists? He asked the House to consider for a moment the history of this company. He did not want to go into the scientific question nor into who first made the discovery of wireless telegraphy; he did not want to go into the question of invention or of who it was that first gave practical application to the principle, nor into the question of priority of commercial application, which was now a most important question in connection with the matter. When the matter was under discussion ten years ago, Mr. Marconi came to this country for the first time with his invention. He believed that if the Post Office had done its duty in times past they would have had none of this trouble now. Whether the Post Office made offers to Mr. Marconi he did not know, but at any rate they did not secure the patent rights. A company was formed and they set to work upon an enormously costly business, namely, the creation of a great commercial organisation with a capital of £750,000. A very large proportion of that £750,000 had been spent in creating the organisation, and up to 1903 the company had no privilege except the free use of the air. It was quite true that the Government could have said to the Marconi Company that the Post Office alone had a right to all telegraphs, that they would not use wireless telegraph themselves, and that they would give nobody else the right. The Department had not done that. The Marconi Company had established their organisation, and they were beholden to the Post Office for having been permitted to be the pioneers in this matter. From 1903 onwards the Post Office had not granted any licences for wireless telegraphy. The Marconi Com-
852
pany had created the great organisation which was called a monopoly. It covered a very great part of the world, and was in existence before 1903. The years which had elapsed since had consolidated that monopoly, because they were the only people who had been carrying on this particular business on a large scale. But he submitted that this monopoly was a most creditable thing, because it was a monopoly which rested not on privilege but upon efficiency. A monopoly which rested on efficiency was no more a monopoly than an artist's monopoly in his own talent. They were the only people in the field at the present time. But now there were other people who wanted to compete. Let them compete. Why could not the Government licence a station on the South Coast or anywhere they liked. There was ample expert evidence before the Committee that these stations need not interfere with the business of neighbouring stations so long as they left them free to use the natural resources at their command. If they were only to transact business with one wave length it was probable that they could not put up a station there at all; but if they were left free to use their own wave length then they could stud the coast with short distance stations. In that sense there was a good chance for rival British companies, and in that way they might make a move which would afford them the only possible chance of ultimate development. He had not the least doubt that when the thing developed they would have intercommunication, but he thought that would be arrived at through the mutual interests of competing organisations. At the present moment there was only one organisation carrying on the business of wireless telegraphy in a commercial sense. The others were merely manufacturers of telegraphic apparatus. What this Convention proposed to do was to allow a man who bought telegraphic apparatus to fix his apparatus and send telegrams to any of the Marconi stations. The Marconi Company said that was unfair; that one of the most important things in this matter was the discipline of the service, that it should be under the control of one company, and that that discipline of service would be sacrificed and destroyed if control was given to

853
several companies. This was a matter upon which he felt very strongly. The Marconi Company were first in the field, and they created their position with no thanks to the Government and no resources that were not equally open to everyone else. Before 1903 they had no privilege or advantage over any competitors, except that of superior enterprise, and they maintained with justice that, if the Convention were ratified now, the use of the organisation which they had created would be given to their rivals. There was evidence given before the Committee which showed that the most efficient and developed apparatus was developed away from the least common measure. That was to say that all the first instruments used in wireless telegraphy were inter-communicative, but it was admitted that one highly-developed instrument would not inter-communicate. That particular apparatus was far more perfect than any other, and if that was put into operation it would not receive signals from any other apparatus. It was highly probable that if inter-communication was enforced on all instruments the effect would be to stereotype an inferior instrument. One witness told them that all that could be got over in a short time, but others told them "nothing of the sort." His strongest objection to this Convention was the stereotyping of "wave lengths," the meaning of which was that if there were three ships all signalling within close proximity of each other and all signalling in the same wave length, that the three sets of signals would become confused when received at the station. If those ships were allowed to choose their own wave lengths it would be like having three separate wires instead of one. The Convention said that there should only be one, which showed that they were legislating for something which they had not studied and did not understand. To his mind the strongest objection to the Convention was the stereotyping of the wave lengths. He earnestly appealed to the Secretary of State for War to consider what we were doing before we went into this matter, and before we broke up rights which had been established, not as a matter of privilege, but by simple ability, commercial efficiency, and an extraordinary development of intellience by Mr.
854
Marconi and the company to which he belonged.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn." (Sir Edward Sassoon.)
MR. HALDANEsaid he shared the regret which the hon. Baronet opposite had expressed at the absence of the Postmaster-General, who had made a special study of this subject. It fell to him to send a representative to the Berlin Conference on behalf of the War Office, and, therefore, he had to familiarise himself to some extent with the topic of controversy. That was his excuse for rising to address the House on the policy of the Government in the matter. There was another ground of regret which he had at this Motion coming on at this time, and that was that, unfortunately for the House, the evidence which was taken before the Select Committee had not yet been printed. Notwithstanding these difficulties, he thought the point was a somewhat simple one. The hon. Member for Galway in his interesting speech spoke of this as championing the cause of an Irishman. He would have had more sympathy with that sentiment if it was really Mr. Marconi's cause he was championing. But Mr. Marconi, like other inventors, sold his rights to a powerful company, and it was with a company that controversy was at the present time maintained. That being so he thought questions of sentiment were a little out of place.
*Mr. GWYNNthought the right hon. Gentleman was not quite fairly representing the facts. Mr. Marconi was very closely identified with the Marconi Company, and he thought all recognised the fact that the scientific development of Mr. Marconi's work was only possible through the field of experiment which the existence of the company gave.
MR. HALDANEsaid that that, no doubt, was perfectly true, but they were dealing, not with an inventor, but with a company, with whom they must deal on commercial lines, and he hoped to put before the House what were the legal rights

855
and the commercial position of the company in relation to the Post Office. The real question before the House was whether the Government, following out the policy of the previous Government and carrying it to completion, had done right in entering into an international Convention, whereby each nation should put into its licences a clause compelling those who obtained those licences to accept messages from other systems. Surely it was more in the interests of humanity, to go no further, that there should be the utmost freedom of inter-communication than that there should be the restrictive system which existed at the present time. Supposing a ship were coming to this side of the Atlantic from the other, and a ship with a different set of instruments was passing, and anything happened, under the Marconi Company's system the shore stations would be prohibited from receiving their messages. It was not a question of bureaucratic pressure. What was the situation in regard to those who made use of wireless telegraphy? Under the law in this, and he should think of every civilised country, the matter was regulated by the State. In this country it was so under the Act of 1904, and it was perfectly reasonable because the Marconi Company from their station could not carry on business unless they could bring their messages up to London, and the Post Office had very properly the power of controlling and of imposing conditions in the licences issued for telegraphic purposes. That being so, the Marconi Company had negotiations with the Post Office some time ago as to the terms of a licence. The position of the Post Office was this. In 1903, he thought it was, various subjects in connection with wireless telegraphy were discussed at a conference held in Berlin, and, among others, this particular subject was reserved for a future Convention. The Post Office took the course of making provision for the possibility of this Convention's being signed. They were then passing the Act of 1904, which gives them control over the licences; at the same time they were negotiating with the Marconi Company for the terms upon which they should carry on the business, and they eventually, in August, 1904, came to an agreement which contained
856
a clause to which he invited the attention of the House, because it disposed once and for ever of the contention that the Marconi Company had a monopoly right which was now being unjustly taken away. The situation was that the Marconi Company were bargaining for what was essential to them, the consent of the Post Office and a licence, and the Post Office had in view the possibility of an international system, and the obligation of communication between different systems. Clause 10 of the agreement of 1904 stated that in the event of His Majesty's Government adhering for the United Kingdom to a Convention, the company undertook to observe in the United Kingdom and on British ships the provisions of Article 6 of the Convention and any detailed regulations there under, and among the regulations was one by which the company undertook to accept the obligation of interchange and communication without assistance or reservation, but without prejudice to their patent rights. But these patent rights were not affected; the broad ground of the agreement was that, notwithstanding the Marconi Company had made stipulations with other people, they bound themselves to give up their rights if the Post Office entered into such a Convention as was now entered into. That removed any contention that any hardship was imposed on the Marconi Company, and the Government were justified in making the agreement in the public advantage. But now the controversy was carried on upon another ground that deserved a few words. The Convention was confined to communication between shore stations and ships, not between ship and ship, or between land station and land station: that communication was untouched. The Admiralty was kept outside, for they did not wish their instruments to be hampered by the obligation to receive other messages; the purpose of the Convention was to make sure that any ship, whatever the system, should be able to communicate with the shore station she was approaching. Was it expedient that that provision should be adopted? In favour of that they had the Admiralty, the Army, the Post Office, the Committee of Imperial Defence, and Lloyd's, all approving of it. They

857
had all the men of science, with the exception of the distinguished gentleman who was the adviser of the Marconi Company and Mr. Marconi himself.
Sir GILBERT PARKER: Has the decision of the Defence Committee been come to since the sittings of the Committee upstairs were completed?
MR. HALDANEsaid that as far as he knew the decision was previous to the sittings of the Committee.
MR. GWYNNsaid there was only one scientific witness before the Committee who was not attached somehow or other to some company.
MR. HALDANEsaid Sir Oliver Lodge was surely a witness of authority on such a matter. So far as he knew, the whole body of science was with the Government. It was the Marconi Company, like Athanasius, contra mundum.
MR. GWYNNsaid there was no witness on the abstract question of science. The evidence of the scientific witnesses, except in the one case of Charles Bright, was for some company interested.
MR. HALDANEsaid he would not put it higher than that there was a considerable body of science in favour of carrying out the Convention as proposed by the Government. Mr. Babington Smith, whose evidence had been referred to, pressed for the expediency of exempting the Admiralty stations in time of war. He was arguing in favour of the Convention. The Canadian standard form of licence was exactly that for which the Government were contending. The Colonial Premiers also took, so far as he knew, exactly the same view as the Imperial Government. To dispose of the matter very shortly, the Government thought it expedient in the interests not only of public convenience, not only of international amenities, but of business, and, for that matter of, humanity, that there should be the freest possible interchange of messages between ships and the stations they came near. They were not asking the House that other nations should control us in this matter. They proposed entering into a Convention which left
858
the control in their own hands. Certain rules, they were all agreed, were workable. The Convention was one from which they could withdraw. All they were aiming at was to get other nations to agree on a system which they might all adopt. The Admiralty were satisfied that this plan would be useful in case of war. The War Office was satisfied that there were great advantages in the system from a military point of view. The Post Office were satisfied, and also the commercial world. And the contrary view was only held by those who claimed for themselves some sort of monopoly right. There was, however, no question of monopoly right here, for he maintained that the Marconi Company contracted themselves out of any monopoly right. The Government had thought this matter out carefully, and had entered into a Convention which they believed to be a good one, and, unless the House carried the Motion, they proposed to proceed forth with to ratify it. It would be interesting to see whether the monopolists would test their strength against the case he had put before the House.
Question put, and negatived.

SUPPLY.
Postponed Proceeding on Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £50,000, be granted to His Majesty, to be issued to the Earl of Cromer, O.M., G.C.B., G.C.M.G., K.C.S.I., C.I.E., in recognition of his eminent services as Agent and Consul-General in Egypt," resumed.
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid that, in accordance with the notice he had already given, he rose to object to the Vote. He did not think it was necessary to say that in the action he was taking he was not in the slightest degree actuated by any personal motive or feeling against Lord Cromer. Personally, he had no acquaintance with Lord Cromer, and he shared the feeling which was generally aroused by the statement of the Prime Minister that Lord Cromer had returned from Egypt in a shattered condition of health. His action was inspired entirely by the view he took of the matter from the point of view of the public. He submitted that Lord Cromer was not entitled

859
to this unprecedented and enormous sum of money. The Prime Minister had frankly admitted that it was an unprecedented demand upon Parliament. He had told them that while it was true that great military leaders, such as Lord Roberts and Lord Kitchener, had been granted large sums of money for services rendered over and above the pay to which they were ordinarily entitled, there was no precedent for granting a sum of money of this kind to a civil servant. He asked the right hon. Gentleman at Question time one day to refer him to the case of any civil servant in the position of Lord Cromer receiving a large Parliamentary grant, but the only precedent the right hon. Gentleman had given him was that of Sir Rowland Hill, who received a special grant of £25,000 in addition to a pension of the full amount of his salary. He noticed to-night with some interest that the Prime Minister did not refer to the precedent of the grant to Sir Rowland Hill; he entirely refrained from referring to any other so-called precedent. He himself maintained that there was really no precedent for the Vote which the Prime Minister now asked Parliament to give. The case of Sir Rowland Hill was not a precedent. Sir Rowland Hill was the author of a great and far-reaching reform, which carried with it immense benefit to all classes of the community. His services were entirely exceptional, and they had been of immense benefit to the Irish people. Therefore, there was in his case some reason why, having acted greatly to the advantage of the British taxpayer, he should be shown some special consideration. But he submitted that Lord Cromer had rendered no such advantageous services to the taxpayer, and. in his opinion, in these times when so many demands were made on Parliament for money for the benefit of large sections of the people who were in dire distress, to ask for this money for Lord Cromer, distinguished though his services might have been, was to do something entirely inconsistent with the spirit of Liberal principles and would be extremely disappointing to large masses of the supporters of the Government. He might be told that Lord Cromer had rendered great services to the Egyptian people. The Prime Minister in his very earnest speech recommending this Vote had reminded the
860
House of the immense services Lord Cromer had rendered to the finances of Egypt; they were told that Lord Cromer found Egypt practically on the verge of bankruptcy. He believed it was perfectly true that Lord Cromer had rendered considerable services to the finances of Egypt, but if he was to be rewarded, surely the reward should come from Egyptian finance, and not from the taxpayers of this country who, after all, had not derived any financial advantage from the reforms effected by Lord Cromer in Egypt. If it was desirable that he should receive this money, then it should be paid to him from Egyptian sources. It was not fair or just that the taxpayers of this country should be asked to pay this enormous sum to Lord Cromer at the very time when, as they knew, they could not leave the House and walk the streets to their homes without seeing on every hand signs of the existence of a large class of deserving unemployed people. He asked the House to consider what Lord Cromer's position in Egypt had been for twenty-four years. During all that time he had been in receipt of a large and adequate salary. He knew that the salary had not at all times been the same, but it had been a considerable salary at all times. Recently it had been over £6,500 a year. Lord Cromer, moreover, was entitled to a pension at the present time of £900 a year. He held that no matter how much they might admire the services of Lord Cromer, they were not entitled to set up a new precedent by voting £50,000 of the people's money to a public servant who had received an adequate salary all the time he had been in Egypt. If Lord Cromer was entitled to this, what about other noblemen who in the opinion of some people had equally deserved the country's favour and bounty? He had never heard of anybody else receiving a grant of this kind. Why was it not proposed for Lord Milner, for instance? He had never heard the most ardent admirers of Lord Cromer speak of him in terms of higher praise and glorification than had been used of Lord Milner. An hon. Member objected; he would sit down to give him an opportunity of explaining to what he objected.
Sir GILBERT PARKER: My objection was to speeches which were made

861
from the Treasury Bench concerning Lord Milner in debate last session.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: To what statements does the hon. Gentleman refer?
Sir GILBERT PARKER: Uncomplimentary statements.
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he was anxious to deal with the matter in a spirit of fairness and without extravagance of language. If the hon. Gentleman challenged him, however, he could assure him that there were people in this country and in Egypt who were prepared to refer to Lord Cromer in terms quite as strong as those which had been used of Lord Milner. What had been particularly the services of Lord Cromer? Had they been in any way political? Was any Member of the Government prepared to get up now and give some information as to the instructions which Lord Cromer received when he was sent to Egypt? He was sent to Egypt, to do what? To carry out the policy of the Government of that day in Cairo. And what was that policy? Acting in co-operation with the Sultan of Turkey, Lord Cromer was to see that the power and authority of the Khedive were re-established with a view to enabling the British Army of occupation to evacuate Egypt. The present Duke of Devonshire, the Marquess of Hartington in those days, declared that the limit for the continued occupation of Egypt might be set at six months. Instead of that, the British Army of occupation had been twenty-four years in Egypt, and there was not the slightest talk or mention of evacuating that country. [Cheers.] Yes, and he asked the hon. Gentlemen who cheered, was Lord Cromer to receive £50,000 because, instead of carrying out the policy of evacuation which he was ordered to do, he had made Egypt into a British province, occupied by an Army which could not for a moment be withdrawn? If Lord Cromer was to be rewarded in this way because he had not carried out the policy of evacuation, but because he had made Egypt into a British province, that could only be characterised as false and fraudulent in the face of the civilised world. [Cries of "Oh, shame," and "With-
862
draw."] He was perfectly ready at any moment to withdraw any statement which he could not substantiate, but he reiterated that if it were true that Lord Cromer's instructions, when he was sent to Egypt twenty-four years ago, were to carry out the policy of restoring the authority and privileges of the Khedive with the view to evacuation; and if it were true that the present Duke of Devonshire desired to set a limit of six months to that evacuation being carried out; and if it were true that Lord Cromer had strengthened the hold of England on Egypt—then something was done which undoubtedly was fraudulent in the eyes of the civilised world. He noticed that the Prime Minister in his eulogy of Lord Cromer had spoken of the manifold benefits which he had conferred on the Egyptian people in every direction. He quite admitted that Lord Cromer had certainly regulated and put upon a sound basis the finances of the country. [An Hon. Member on the Opposition Benches: And everything else.] The hon. Gentleman above the gangway said, "Everything else." He challenged that statement in every way. Apart from public works and finance, Lord Cromer's work in Egypt had been singularly unsuccessful and unfortunate. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Well, that was his opinion, and it seemed to him that there must be something in what he was saying, since it roused such strong opposition from hon. Gentlemen above the gangway. They would have plenty of opportunity later on of proving that he was wrong. They were told that Lord Cromer had so reorganised the Egyptian Army that it was in a very highly satisfactory condition at the present moment. He denied that. If he were asked on what he based his denial he replied that it was on the almost unanimous opinion of the Egyptian people themselves; and if there were any hon. Gentlemen in the House who with that spirit of insular superiority which was sometimes manifested imagined that the Egyptian people did not count, he contended that they were extremely mistaken. The Prime Minister had talked of imposing the ways and methods of civilisation on the Egyptian people. He maintained that educated Egyptian people were quite as civilised and as well

863
entitled to form a sound view in regard to their country as Englishmen were in regard to their country. He insisted again that Lord Cromer's policy in regard to the Egyptian Army had been a total failure. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] With very few exceptions every command was held by Englishmen, and the greatest possible irritation and indignation was felt in Egypt in consequence. Last year, when there was some probability of a quarrel with Turkey, the British garrison in Egypt was reinforced because not the smallest attempt could be made to trust the Egyptian Army as reorganised by Lord Cromer. The position in Egypt was much the same as in Ireland, where every position of honour and emolument was in the hands of Englishmen, and the Egyptian people were made to feel that they were but hewers of wood and drawers of water in their own country. Let them take the Department of the Interior and Public Works. That Department was filled by Englishmen who were ignorant entirely of the circumstances of the case. Lord Cromer himself admitted that crime in Egypt had recently increased to an extraordinary extent, and the only explanation given was that that crime was the result of increased prosperity. Then as to the question of education, he asked any hon. Gentleman who took an interest in education what he thought of the position in Egypt. The almost unanimous opinion of the people of Egypt was that the educational policy had been that of checking education so as to keep the mass of the Egyptian people in such a state of ignorance that there should be no political advancement. That was a policy that could not succeed. The Department of Justice was almost entirely under English directionl There were one or two native Judges it was true, but with very few exceptions justice was administered by English persons who were entirely ignorant of the language of the people of the country. When he was told that Lord Cromer had placed the Department of Justice in Egypt on a satisfactory basis he denied it absolutely. If he were asked for an instance where justice had not gone straight- forward in Egypt, he was compelled to refer to what took place at Denshawi
864
last year. The Prime Minister in hi-strong and able appeal for Lord Cromer had spoken of him as a great man of peace and as a man who had exercised humane methods, and had said that if a reward was given to men for success in war, whose success had been the success of rapine and devastation, should not there also be a reward for a man of peace like Lord Cromer? But Lord Cromer had not always been a man of peace nor had he always acted humanely; and things had been done in Egypt under his administration and with his sanction at which civilisation stood shocked to-day. A more savage and ruthless miscarriage of justice never took place in the name of civilisation in any part of the world than that which took place at Denshawi, and it made the matter worse to know that that miscarriage of justice was still going on. In the prisons of Egypt at the present time men were suffering under absolutely unjust sentences. What took place at Denshawi? It was a gruesome story, well known to many Members of' the House, but better known and hoarded in the hearts of the Egyptian people from one end of the country to the other. Five British officers went for a pigeon-shooting expedition to an Egyptian village. The Government knew perfectly well, as was admitted by the Foreign Secretary last year, that these pigeon-shooting expeditions we re repugnant to the people of the villages. These five officers when they arrived were asked by the people to desist from shooting the pigeons and not to offend or outrage the well known sentiments of the people. They refused. A scuffle ensued, and one woman standing by was shot. Two men were also shot but were not killed, but the indignation of the people was none the less. The officers were mobbed. Supposing the conditions had been reversed, and instead of five officers going into an Egyptian village with arms in their hands, five foreigners entered an English village under like conditions, and a woman was shot while her husband was standing by and two men were shot, what then would have been the nature of the scuffle? The officers were mobbed. Two ran away, and one after running a great distance died of sunstroke. That was the evidence of the medical man.

865
As a justification for what afterwards took place they were told in the journals of this country that that officer was cruelly beaten to death. He absolutely denied it; the treatment that that officer received was not such as to cause death. He died of sunstroke after running so far in the great heat. What should have been the result in such a case? Ought not at any rate the practice of these shooting expeditions at once to have been denounced and the officers reprimanded for their conduct? What should have been the punishment, if any punishment was considered necessary so far as the people who had attacked these officers were concerned? He knew what punishment would have been meted out by public opinion in this country; but how did Lord Cromer deal with the case? How was it dealt with by this great humane gentleman, to whom they were asked to give a fortune while our streets were filled with men, aye, and women too, who had not the price of a bed? A special tribunal was summoned, consisting of Englishmen with one native Judge who was to be relied upon—a man of that class who could always be found in every subject land—and on the report of a secret inquiry which took place four days before the trial began it was decided that these villagers should be punished with death, on the sole testimony of the officers, without cross-examination, and that half an hour should be allowed for the defence of the fifty-seven prisoners. Four of these men were condemned to be hanged, eight to be scourged in public, nine to various terms of imprisonment with hard labour and to be lashed, and by an act of special brutality the husband of the woman who was shot was sentenced to penal servitude for life, when his only crime was that his hot blood rose when he saw his wife killed and he endeavoured to avenge her. If there was any Englishman who believed in what was right he would not give a farthing of this money at any rate before a statement had been made that this man should be set at liberty and an end put to a thing which was a shame and a disgrace to England. How was this savage sentence carried out? The four natives who were condemned to death for the murder of the man who died from sunstroke and for attacking other British
866
officers were hanged, and six others who were convicted of complicity were flogged. The prisoners were conveyed in carts to Denshawi, guarded by a detachment of infantry. The gallows and the flogging-post followed. The cavalcade arrived at Denshawi early. A space of 60 yards wide was roped off close to where the attack had been made, and the gallows and the whipping-post placed in the centre. Then a man was hanged, and left hanging while two of the other men were flogged, and then another man was hanged and two more flogged, then the remaining two were hanged and the other culprits flogged. The men and women of the villages who were grouped at some distance off wailed dismally as their relatives and friends suffered and the condemned men met their death with calm. Was there a Member present who could say there was any measure of proportion between the crime committed and the sentence inflicted? There was no proportion whatever; and further, this single incident of Denshawi, if it stood alone, made it impossible for any man who loved fair play to vote for the grant under discussion. He appealed to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to say that he considered the punishment excessive, and to release the men who were still incarcerated. He did not grudge Lord Cromer the honours and titles he had received, but he did draw the line at asking for the money of Irish as well as English taxpayers to make a presentation to a gentleman whose name would for ever be connected with what was a blot and a disgrace on the name of the British Empire.
*Mr. H. BEAUMONT: Rot.
*The CHAIRMAN: I must ask hon. Members not to interrupt with expressions of that kind.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: It is a truly worthy sentiment from an English gentleman, and it is not at all surprising when we look across the floor and see that the hon. Gentleman is a relative of a noble peer named Lord Clanricarde.
*Mr. H. BEAUMONT: The expression which I used, and which I am quite ready

867
to withdraw, did not refer to the state of affairs in Egypt, but to what the hon. Member said about Lord Cromer.
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid it was really a matter of indifference what the hon. Gentleman thought. What they were now discussing was a matter of serious importance to this country and for the people of Egypt as well, and the grimness of the tragedy could not be removed by any such interruption as that of the hon. Gentleman. Was Lord Cromer to be rewarded on the proposition of the Liberal Party because of his sacrifices in the cause of freedom, liberty, nationalism, Home Rule, self-government—call it what they would? Why, it was notorious that almost the last words of Lord Cromer, on leaving Egypt, were in bitter hostility to the national sentiment of the Egyptian people. He declared against Egyptian self-government, and that was one of the reasons why he was to be rewarded. At any rate it was a reason which an Irishman could not accede to. Apart from any other consideration, the hostility of Lord Cromer to the strong spirit of Egyptian nationality was a reason why there were men who would vote against the grant. Lord Cromer had done well for the finance of Egypt, and he had come home from that point of view personally above reproach. But be that as it might, he objected to the proposed Vote from the point of view that Lord Cromer was an opponent of national sentiment, and because he believed that it was an outrageous proposition to ask for large sums of money in this way when they knew, and the Chief Secretary knew perfectly well, that there was not a Department in Ireland which was not almost starved for want of money. Ireland, unless he was greatly mistaken, certainly could have no part in this transaction, and he opposed the grant just as he had opposed the grants to Lord Kitchener and Lord Roberts.
MR. KETTLEsaid that he, as an inexperienced Member, with considerable diffidence, also ventured to oppose this Motion for a grant to Lord Cromer; but he remembered the humane traditions of the Nationalist Party, and how they had always taken the side
868
of the oppressed and outraged. But, inexperienced as he was, he was not going to be diverted from his purpose by the clamour of hon. Gentlemen above the gangway, who were so accustomed to plundering the public funds, and some of whose pensioners, if he mistook not, at that moment sat on the Front Opposition Bench, who had such a tradition of plunder behind them. The £50,000 to be voted was to be taken from the miserable and destitute population of this country and of Ireland, and a proposition such as that would receive the support of hon. Members above the gangway as a matter of course. Really he did not remember to have seen the Opposition united before in support of the Government. When they heard statements of principle on matters of social reform made from the Liberal benches they were not accustomed to see such cordial support given by the Opposition as they now saw being given in regard to this grant. Anyone who professed to adhere to Radical principles must feel extreme moral discomfort upon going into the division lobby in support of the proposed Vote. What was the explanation? It was that the present Liberal Government had no foreign policy at all; they took over the foreign policy of their predecessors. The result was that, encouraged by their traditions and by the advice tendered in such organs as the Daily Mail, the Government had come forward with this proposal to-night. In India they had proclamations of coercion; in Egypt donations to retired despots. He had listened with interest to the Prime Minister's eloquent statement in which he mentioned everything that would probably have been taken for granted, but he did not say a word about Denshawi. When he heard the almost complete silence with which this proposal was greeted, he wondered whether the right hon. Gentleman was enjoying his task. What was the case against the grant? There was the general argument against such donations to retired civil servants. It had been in the past customary with savage communities to honour the victors in war, and the bloodier the war the bigger the honour. That custom still survived in some communities which laid claim to

869
civilisation. In the past they had opposed such grants to Lord Kitchener and Lord Roberts, and they were going to oppose the grant to Lord Cromer. Why did the Government not organise the Civil Service upon a proper basis? Either they had been paying Lord Cromer a sufficient salary or they had not. What was the justification, as a matter of mere common sense and scientific argument, of this exceptional grant? He made no attack upon the personal character of Lord Cromer, although he felt bound to say that the personal vices of despots had always seemed to him to be the most attractive thing about them, because, in the practice of those vices at any rate, they used up a certain amount of energy that might otherwise have been spent in the oppression of their fellow beings. They made no personal attack upon Lord Cromer. It had been said that he was a poor man. That might be so and it might not be so. If it were true it was very creditable to Lord Cromer; but that was a very poor argument for taking £50,000 from people who were infinitely poorer. He did not deny that under Lord Cromer's association with Egyptian affairs there had been a considerable advance in the material prosperity of that country. If they examined Egyptian Budgets they would find that Lord Cromer had always been much more willing to provide money for material advancement than for the work of education. The explanation of that was that the more educated the people became the more restive they were likely to grow under such a state of affairs as existed in Egypt. The opposition to this Vote was in the nature of a protest against the whole spirit and temper of Lord Cromer's administration. They protested against the manner in which Lord Cromer had gone beyond the terms of his original appointment, and had broken —in obedience, he supposed, to orders from home—the definite undertakings given by the responsible Government of this country. They protested against the fashion in which he had treated the Egyptians as an inferior race. They protested against the way in which he had outraged Egyptian public opinion and refused to allow it to play any part in the shaping of Egyptian policy. The
870
indiscretions of 1906, which brought this country to the verge of war with the entire Moslem world, established a sufficient case against Lord Cromer. When they placed beside that the infamy of Denshawi, how could anybody holding Liberal principles vote for a Motion of this character? His hon. friend the Member for East Clare had spoken in detail about the Denshawi incident. The importance of that question was not so much its savage details of which his hon. friend had given such a graphic description, but the fact that it demolished at one blow the entire Cromer myth. It showed that after twenty-five years of English administration they had once more been obliged to have recourse to the gibbet and the lash in order to terrorise the Egyptians into an acceptance of our rule. A retired Anglo-Indian bureaucrat was thought to be extremely suitable for Egypt. He remembered listening to the Foreign Secretary last year when this question was under discussion, and on that occasion the right hon. Baronet said that the machinery of Government in Egypt was so confused and complicated that nobody except Lord Cromer could keep it going. Since then the Government had appointed Sir Eldon Gorst as Lord Cromer's successor. He was amazed to hear Lord Cromer spoken of as a man who had resisted the temptations of European financiers in Egypt, because the entire history of that country for the last quarter of a century had been a constant struggle between Egyptian freedom and European finance. Lord Cromer went to Egypt as the chosen darling and protector of European finance. In the year 1881 the announcement was made that there was going to be a development of representative institutions in Egypt. Lord Cromer was in Egypt as a book-keeper, an official receiver for a sort of bankrupt concern. He went there for six months twenty-four years ago, and now the Government was sending somebody else to continue the temporary occupation. He agreed with his hon. friend that if Lord Cromer was to be rewarded, he should be rewarded out of Egyptian funds. Lord Cromer ought to be very popular on the Stock Exchange, if it were possible to associate feelings of gratitude with that assembly. He had stated what was the legal and proper

871
position of Lord Cromer in Egypt, but during the whole tenure of his office his labours had been devoted to pressing his influence in entirely illegitimate spheres. He had got a dominant influence over the administration of Egypt. He had devoted his energies to an attempt to Anglicise the administration of Egypt, and especially education. He had devoted himself to undermining the influence of the native responsible rulers. The Prime Minister had referred to the introduction into Egypt of ideas drawn from Western civilisation. Was it really suggested that nobody could keep a set of books properly and observe ordinary commercial honesty, unless he had the advantage of serving under an English administrator? Lord Cromer had not shown the slightest originality in anything he had done in Egypt. Every idea with which his name was associated was laid before Egypt by the old Egyptian National Assemby. The emancipation of the fellaheen, the abolition of forced labour, the rehabilitation of finance, and the purification of justice—every single item in Lord Cromer's programme of reforms would have been carried out by Egyptian Ministers, but, as things stood, they had been partially fulfilled by a foreign administrator. He would not keep the Committee much longer. [Cheers.] He had no doubt that hon. Members above the gangway would much prefer this Motion to pass without any opportunity for discussion. The more that was said upon it the blacker their case would be found. He thought something more should be said on certain aspects of the Denshawi incident. That incident had resulted in four hangings, two life sentences, and a number i of long terms of imprisonment. There had been 400 lashes given to innocent Egyptian villagers. They were asked to give Lord Cromer £50,000, which was a little more than £100 per lash. It had been stated that the trial took place before a special tribunal. He maintained that it was a tribunal tainted through and through with illegality. It was stated in newspaper reports at the time that before Lord Cromer left Egypt for England he had instructed the Minister of the Interior to send a gallows to Denshawi before the trial began. Before this Motion went to a division the House was entitled to
872
some explanation from the Foreign Secretary. He thought the right hon. Gentleman's attitude towards this incident last July was profoundly unsatisfactory. He did not in the least suggest that the right hon. Gentleman had any personal responsibility for the infamous outrage at Denshawi. He believed the Foreign Secretary was a humane man, and that if he had had time to consider the matter the capital sentences would probably not have been carried out. But the right hon. Gentleman stood behind the action of the Judges and officials who ordered these executions, and he had refused to grant the smallest concession of justice to the men still in prison. At first when the incident occurred it was said that Egypt was torn asunder by religious fanaticism, but as soon as responsible people went to investigate the matter, it was found that there was not a shred of foundation for the statement and that contention was given up. Then it was stated that there was profound political unrest, and when that was found to be equally baseless, it was given up. The next report that came to the notice of the House was from a gentleman called Finlay, who stated that this was a brutal and premeditated murder, and that was the evidence on which the House went in supporting the Foreign Secretary. The judicial Report of the special Court abandoned that position completely. He asked the Foreign Secretary to hold out some hope of release for the men still in prison. What was the Government going to do with Egypt in future? The suggestion had been made that it should be annexed and treated as a Crown Colony. [Cheers.] He noticed that suggestion was received with great applause by hon. Members above the gangway. The debate would be followed with more intense interest in Egypt than perhaps hon. Gentlemen above the gangway appreciated. The House was now asked to set the seal of its approval on the policy of Lord Cromer in Egypt. During the first three years Lord Cromer was in Egypt he was under Liberal influence, and they were honourable years. He was afterwards under Tory influence. There was now in Egypt a national movement of respectable character and dimensions. What answer was the House going to make to the

873
reasonable proposal of that national movement? The House had tried else where to subordinate national movements to Imperial sentiment; and he did not suppose that the answer would be very generous or favourable one. He would always rejoice in two things: that they had failed in Egypt in crushing the national movement, as they had failed in Ireland, and that as an Irish Member he had had the opportunity of voting and speaking against this subordination, and against this donation and dole to a retired despot.
MR. GRAYSONsaid that the condition of the House presented to him a very interesting and curious spectacle. He saw all the benches packed with enthusiastic politicians, and the Government beaming with the consciousness of their splendid majority. When one heard speeches of a very similar character from both sides of the House one wondered at first what question was being discussed. Had someone discovered the solution of the poverty problem; were they introducing a measure of old-age pensions for incapacitated workmen; or had a rumour slipped out that the new Member was going to make his maiden speech? He perceived what before he came to the House he found it necessary to tell his constituents—that on certain questions both the Government and the Opposition would be found standing together, while on ordinary superficial political questions they would be found in whole-hearted opposition to each other. He did not intend to traverse Lord Cromer's administration in Egypt, but while it gave him gratification that the question of grants for civil political services was at last entertained, as distinguished from grants exclusively for military services, he opposed the Motion, feeling that the Government had no mandate to vote away a large amount of public money for this purpose, whereas it had a mandate to use every cent at its disposal to solve some of the most ghastly social problems. He remembered when the Liberal candidates were fighting at the last General Election it was such promises as they then made in regard to old-age pensions for worn out and incapacitated working men and
874
women that gained for them so great a majority of votes. When he looked around him he realised that the present Government had the most magnificent and glorious opportunity that any Government had ever had; yet enthusiasm could be evoked from those crowded benches, with the united support of the Opposition, on the question of giving a grant to an Egyptian official, while outside the walls of that House people were dying of starvation—men and women who had given good and substantial service to the State were tottering to paupers' graves. He felt that the attitude displayed by even Radical Members of the Government was eloquent of the position which was causing such a revolution in the country at the present time. The Chancellor of the Exchequer found extreme difficulty in finding money for old-age pensions, though he explained pathetically that his heart was right, but that he had not the ability to find money to satisfy the demands of the necessitous poor. The right hon. Gentleman had put aside a half-hearted nucleus to be the basis of a possible scheme of old-age pensions in the future—a nucleus of such small dimensions that it seemed the most futile attempt that could be made by a responsible Minister. Yet, when some great official, who had all his life received a large salary for the services he had rendered, and a pension in addition, was in want of a fortune of £50,000, the result of the labour of the people of this country, the Government had absolutely no difficulty in getting the money. He felt that there must be some underlying reason for the attitude which the Government had adopted that night. Much surprise had been evinced on all sides of the House when a large industrial constituency had left behind it its traditions and clung to some new political doctrine. Was it any wonder to find that the Government was being discredited in the country? The attitude adopted by the Government could not have been better devised if the object had been to help the most revolutionary schemes that had been propounded in the country. Granting that Lord Cromer's services had been resplendent and had conferred everlasting benefit on Egypt, a Government such as that

875
which was now in office might have placed on record their gratitude in some more transcendental manner than by voting £50,000 of public money. What was taking place among the people who were to subscribe the money to be granted to Lord Cromer? The unemployed were walking the streets, men and women able and willing to work were denied that elementary right by the Government now in power. All our constitutional politics were a mockery and a sham while they made no serious attempt to grapple with this problem. He warned hon. Gentlemen opposite that if this policy was persisted in there would not be only one electoral change, but they might look forward to the day when all the front bench would be occupied by Socialists. [Laughter.] That was not a subject for mirth for those who wanted the status quo, because under their eyes the most energetic propaganda was being carried on for Socialism, not by the Socialist propaganda, but by the impotent statesmen and the impotent Government who deserted the pledges they gave to the people at the election and entered upon the course of helping its friends. In this his first speech in the House he felt the privilege of having such a night on which to deliver it, and to state the issue clearly and explicitly as it was to be presented to the country. On the one side there was organised capital and organised capitalistic instincts; on the other side organised labour determined to work out its own destiny.
The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): This House, I am sure, has listened to the hon. Member with the interest and attention which I have never know it fail to give, and which I hope it will never cease to give, to one who addresses it for the first time. If I do not follow the hon. Member in his argument, I trust the hon. Member will believe that it is not because I underrate the sincerity of his feeling, or doubt it, or depreciate the importance of the large problems touched upon. It is because I find it to be difficult to deal with those large problems on this particular Vote in such a way as to advance by practical suggestions or discussion the remedy for the great evils which we
876
all know to exist at home and for which we desire to find remedies in measures of social reform. My intention is rather to bring the debate back to the ground on which it has been placed by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. I think that with one exception the arguments brought against the Vote by the hon. Member for Clare are really answered and anticipated by the speeches of the Prime Minister and the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The one exception is the Denshawi incident. I admit that it is a grave incident, and I do not intend to dismiss it without comment. The hon. Member said that there is no precedent for the Vote. There has been a precedent, but, while admitting that precedents for a grant of this kind and for services of this kind are rare, they are not more rare than Lord Cromer's services in Egypt. This grant is associated with peace and economy. Lord Cromer's services in Egypt would have been remarkable if Egypt was a British Colony in which we had a fair start and a free hand. But instead of having a fair start Lord Cromer had as bad a start as he could possibly have had. He found Egypt overwhelmed with debt, sunk in poverty, its Government corrupt, neither order nor justice known in it. He could get no financial help from the outside. He had to build up a system of good government and progress in the country out of the country's ruined resources. Nor had Lord Cromer a free hand. He was not the Governor of the country. He was charged not to destroy or impair the existing forms of government, and he had to work through the Khedive and native Ministries. It is true that he had behind him the British Army of occupation, and could in any moment of crisis make the British will prevail. But force is not the means by which good government can be built up in any country. It can only be built up by the personal qualities through which Lord Cromer secured his ascendency in Egypt. Time, and a long time, is also necessary for it, and surely what was necessary to a man in Lord Cromer's position was the assurance that our occupation of Egypt, with a force behind him, would be permanent. But that was entirely wanting. He himself did

877
not know, the British Government did not know, how long that occupation was to be continued. A situation of that kind was enough to discourage any ordinary man from putting his hand to the great task to which Lord Cromer put his. It is true that as time went on British Parliaments and Governments extended to Lord Cromer a confidence rarely before extended to any civil servant. But that was not the case at first. He won confidence step by step, and himself created that prestige which is one of the greatest evidences of his success. If to-day the British occupation be accepted at home and abroad, it is not because of the original intention, or the deliberate policy of the British Government; it is mainly due to regard for Lord Cromer's work and the reluctance to imperil it which has confirmed that occupation. It has been suggested that this grant should come from Egyptian funds. I trust that no British representative in Egypt will ever in any way whatever be a burden on Egyptian funds. The work Lord Cromer has done has been admitted at home and abroad, and has created British prestige; and it is the part of the British Government to recompense the valuable work he has done. Gratitude is due to him not only for what he has done in Egypt. The British taxpayer is indebted to him, not only for what he has done, but also for what he has avoided. Few know all the dangers and difficulties from which he has saved this country, and his retirement has exposed this country to risks, which as long as he was in Egypt, were hardly realised. The situation in Egypt was closely connected with foreign policy as a whole, but no one ever interfered less with the general direction of foreign policy than Lord Cromer, who took care to subordinate his own work in Egypt to whatever might be the exigencies of the British Government's policy at home. It is almost impossible to estimate what the burden on the British taxpayer would have been had we had in Egypt in those early years a man less steadfast, less patient, and less sure than Lord Cromer. He had to address himself to the difficult task of reforming Egypt, he had to carry a load of uncertainty with regard to the occupation,
878
he had all the time to do his utmost to avoid foreign complications, and if he has succeeded it has been only by the highest and rarest qualities—wisdom, unfailing courage, and most sovereign faith. And now, to-night, surely what we wish to do is to review his work as a whole. Is it really fair or just to him to take any particular instance of Egyptian administration, to dwell upon it, enlarge upon it, and say that that is a reason why the House of Commons should refuse to recognise the value of his services? The very essence of his position was that he should work steadily for reform in Egypt, and should not attempt to make himself responsible for administrative details. The situation in Egypt was always complicated by the mixture of European and Egyptian officials, the most difficult to work with. Lord Cromer did his utmost to maintain a large proportion of Egyptian officials in order that they might be trained to a sense of public spirit and responsibility, though in earlier years it involved a risk of the miscarriage of administrative details. Lord Cromer has devoted himself to general policy, and it would be most unfair to make him responsible for every detail of Egyptian administration. But now that one detail of Egyptian administration has been singled out, the Denshawi incident, it is very remarkable that it should be one that took place when Lord Cromer was out of the country.
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid Lord Cromer had entirely approved what had been done.
Sir EDWARD GREY: I am coming to that. The hon. Member for East Tyrone used language which, I think, implied that the sentences had all been arranged by Lord Cromer before he left Egypt. That is absolutely untrue. Lord Cromer did not know what the sentences were till he arrived in this country. But he held, as I myself hold, that the Judges acted with every desire, to secure justice; that their motives were pure, and that we ought to abide by their sentence, and he expressed his opinion in a despatch which was laid before the House. The hon. Member for East Clare, if he had read the whole of it,

879
would have done a little more justice to what Lord Cromer's view of the subject is. He upheld the conduct and action of the Judges, and expressed his opinion that some reform should be introduced into the special tribunal. He abolished flogging in Egypt; and this is the only instance for many years where flogging has taken place. This special tribunal was brought into existence ten years before or more.
MR. GWYNN: Is it right to say that Lord Cromer abolished flogging in Egypt? In his despatch he blamed Lord Dufferin for having done so.
Sir EDWARD GREY: Perhaps the hon. Member is correct, that Lord Dufferin abolished flogging; but during Lord Cromer's time in Egypt flogging was not in the penal code; and if the hon. Member says that Lord Dufferin was the first to abolish it, I am quite willing to accept that. There had been no flogging in Egypt, except under this special tribunal, for many years. As to the Denshawi incident itself, I really think that it is not relevant to this particular Vote. It is most unfair to take a single isolated incident, of which the knowledge reached Lord Cromer later than it reached us, and to make that a peg on which to hang a depreciation of the whole of his work in Egypt. This case, however, has been dealt with, and I wish to say that I do not think the hon. Member for East Clare gave a fair account of it to the House. The sentences on the Denshawi offenders were passed after a public trial, in which no restrictions were placed upon the counsel for the defence. What were the actual circumstances? Some British officers went to shoot pigeons at the village of Denshawi. The rule is that they are not to shoot pigeons in any village without previously obtaining permission from the head of the village. In the previous year permission had been given, and on this occasion the officers were led to believe that permission had again been given, and that the shooting had been sanctioned by the village authorities. The hon. Member for East Clare said these officers ignored the wishes of the people. If so they did it unwittingly, and directly objection was taken they desisted. Even when they were mobbed they did not
880
attempt to defend themselves and gave up their guns. I think it is most unfair for the hon. Member for East Clare to bring any charge against the conduct of the officers. The hon. Member said the officers should have been punished. That was most unfair, because they were given to understand that they had permission from the head of the village to shoot the pigeons and they began to shoot, but directly they were told that they were wrong they desisted shooting, and gave up their guns. The guns were taken from the officers, who did not fire them. What is the state of things at the present moment? Several men are now in prison under very long sentences, some for fifteen years and some for life. The men who are now in prison are all persons who took part in the violent and brutal attack upon these officers. One officer lost his life, and another was so injured that he did not recover for a very long time, if he has yet recovered, and he had to be invalided home. For that attack the men actually in prison have been there for one year. I do not think anybody can say that one year is too long a time for anyone to be kept in prison for participating in an attack persisted in with great brutality against men who were unarmed at the time they were attacked. The number of prisoners is no doubt large, and I can well conceive that it may be urged that the real people who planned the attack and were responsible for it have been executed, and that some of those now in prison were led away by the feeling of excitement at the moment to do more than they fully realised at the time. But men must be held responsible for the consequences of their acts, and although I do not for one moment say on the part of the British Government that there would be any opposition to a reconsideration of these sentences at the proper time, a year after the event is too soon to make any promise of that kind, and if the sentences are revised it must be done by the deliberate and calm opinion of the Egyptian Government at a time when the exercise of clemency is likely to have a good effect.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I am sure that the right hon. Baronet does not wish to treat me unfairly in this matter. Does he say that before the

881
assault on these officers took place a woman and two men had not been shot?
Sir EDWARD GREY: Oh, yes, Sir, I do. An officer began to shoot pigeons. He was then mobbed. He stopped shooting pigeons directly he found that there was any objection. He was mobbed the people took his gun from him, and after he had been mobbed and the gun taken from him the gun went off. [Nationalist cries of "Oh, oh!"] All the Papers have been laid before the House. What I object to is any imputation upon the conduct of the officers who did all they could in the matter. That is fully borne out by the evidence at the trial which has been laid before the House. When I come to review Egyptian administration and consider the various questions which are asked me with regard to it, one thing which strikes me is that those questions are based upon the assumption that the administration of Egypt is being judged by the high standard of government which we apply to ourselves at home. It is Lord Cromer's work alone which has made that possible, and if you judge his work by the standard which existed before he went there—take the Egyptian Army or any department of government you like—there is no criticism you can make. The work has been carried out by British advisers and British and European officials, but Lord Cromer has proved that native material and native administration is not only workable but is also a great instrument of progress. Nothing is more untrue than to say that ho has treated the Egyptians as an inferior race. He has constantly enjoined on British officials that they are to treat the natives with respect, sympathy, tact, and discretion. It has been his object constantly to draw the Egyptians more and more to bear their share in the Government of their country. No fair-minded man can fail to have been struck by the fact that that is the governing note which he has persistently followed in his policy. As to the actual amount of the grant, the Government do not, of course, propose it to the House as an adequate measure of Lord Cromer's services. It is impossible to measure by a cash payment services such as he has rendered over a large number of years. It would be invidious to attempt it.
MR. J. MACVEAGH: Why make the attempt then?
Sir EDWARD GREY: The circumstances of the post in Egypt have been exceptional. The salary of £6,500 has been in later years much too small for the expenses of the post, which have grown very largely with the prosperity of Egypt. The expenses of the post having grown, it is at the present moment impossible to hold it without spending a considerable private income. That is really spent on the public service, and that is what Lord Cromer has had to do. The pension he gets from the Government is £900 a year. The pension of an ambassador after thirteen years service would be £1,700. Lord Cromer, with twenty-four years service, which is at least equal to that of any ambassador both in results and importance, receives £900 because he has been a consul-general and not an ambassador. I think it is absolutely wrong that there should be this difference. The post in Egypt is at least equal to any embassy. That is the state of things at the present time. It was always understood that when Lord Cromer retired from his post he would receive a larger pension. But the Government have preferred that there should be special recognition on a very special occasion, and, instead of coining to the House for any special provision in the way of pension, they decided to propose a grant to Lord Cromer, and to limit the sum to £50,000. Surely, of all men, it may be said that he has created wealth for others. [An HON. Member: "Let them pay him."] He has created wealth for others, being careful all the time that the wealth he created in Egypt should be distributed among the people of Egypt. Somebody has mentioned the Stock Exchange in connection with Lord Cromer's work in Egypt. No man has been more careful that Stock Exchange speculators should not get the benefit, and anyone who reads page 100 of the last Report will realise how strenuous Lord Cromer has been to ensure that, in the development of the wealth of Egypt, it will not be the speculator or the promoter, or the Stock Exchange, but the fellaheen, who will reap the benefit. It has always been the ambition of this House as a whole to

883
deal with great services in a generous spirit. The House as a whole has never been narrow or grudging in recognising real merit, and, though there has been opposition from some quarters to this Vote, I would appeal to the House to pass the Vote in a really generous spirit recognising thereby what has been the most distinguished and honourable public service abroad which has come before the House of Commons in our time.
*Mr. J. M. ROBERTSONsaid the right hon. Gentleman had advanced some very weighty arguments in support of the grant, and he had also, like some previous speakers, created some difficulty for those who wished to hold the balance evenly between the two sides. It was a little unfortunate, at least from his point of view, that Lord Cromer had been referred to by the supporters of the grant in language of such unstinted panegyric. One was not surprised that the Prime Minister in moving such a Vote should have used language of panegyric, and that he should be seconded in similar terms from the front Opposition bench. The fact remained that the language used in these panegyrics could not possibly be the ultimate verdict of history. They often heard expressions used in debate as to what the verdict of history would be. History was not ultimately written by front benchers, nor were the estimates of what constituted great men, which were so freely proffered in the House, the estimates by which they would be regarded in the future. [Interruption and cries of "Order!"]
MR. J. MACVEAGH: Order among the bondholders.
*Mr. J. M. ROBERTSONsaid he had not risen to make an attack on Lord Cromer. His special purpose in rising was to indicate the reasons for not making an attack on Lord Cromer. He simply wished to state that a difficulty had been put in the way of those who were not going to oppose the grant, by the panegyrics which had been passed on Lord Cromer. The Foreign Secretary had made a speech by way of general answer to a number of particular questions, but he was bound to say that the right hon.
884
Gentleman seemed to proceed on the assumption that we had a right to ask in regard to Egypt as high a standard of good government as we exacted in our own affairs. That seemed to be an explicit admission, and he was glad to recognise the reasonable tone of it. Egypt was clearly not getting the standard of good government which we exacted in this country. For instance, there was the strongest disposition on the part of hon. Members on the Opposition benches to resent any questions in regard to Egyptian matters. Hon. Members seemed to form their opinions without the smallest possible knowledge of Egyptian affairs. They applauded the right hon. Gentleman when he said that penny postage was impossible on account of the coinage. But penny stamps did exist. But on the other hand the right hon. Gentleman had alleged that in every department of Egyptian administration there was a vast improvement. He ventured to think that the right hon. Gentleman did not look with sufficient minuteness into some departments of Egyptian administration. He did not go so far as hon. Gentlemen opposite. [Cries of "Divide!"] He had listened to a great deal of irrelevant eloquence on the other side of the House, and he did not propose to abandon his opportunity of stating his views on this subject. [Renewed cries of "Divide!"] He would not say with hon. Members opposite that there was any deliberate suppression of education in Egypt; but he did say that there had been in Egypt a failure to maintain higher education at the level which Lord Cromer found there. He did not wish to press further the line of criticism of the administration. The right hon. Gentleman urged that the Denshawi episode was not strictly relevant to the discussion, but notwithstanding that he went on to defend it at such length as to carry the balance the other way. The Denshawi incident lay at the door of this nation and Government, and it there were any censuring to be done it would have to include the Foreign Secretary himself, who practically endorsed the episode. The right hon. Gentleman had bestowed on him his censure for saying a few plain truths with regard to the affair, and even announced that one of the officials concerned

885
would be promoted. That official had been promoted. If this Vote was to be made an occasion for something in the nature of a retribution of Lord Cromer the censure should include the Home Government. And, what was more, this House had made itself party to an absolutely autocratic, system of government, of which the natural result was such an abuse of justice as that afforded by the Denshawi affair. To denounce the grant in face of such a position was to strain at a gnat and to swallow a camel. No matter what a man's abilities were—and those of Lord Cromer had been on some grounds over-estimated—no man could act as an autocrat without suffering deterioration in several respects. [Continued cries of "Divide!" during which the hon. Member's remarks were inaudible.]
MR. CORRIE GRANT, on a point of order, wished to ask whether hon. Members opposite were justified in persisting in their remarks to the extent that had been indulged in while another Member was speaking.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid he could not say it was out of order to call "Divide!" for the practice had been indulged in for many years past. He did not think,
however, that it often tended to the shortening of the proceedings.
*MR. J. M. ROBERTSONsaid he had never used the expression "Divide," although he had had sometimes at least as much cause as hon. Members had against him at present. He really wished to say a word which he thought was not opposed to the line they had taken that night. In so far as it had been suggested that this grant should be withheld from Lord Cromer because of the miserable misdeed at Denshawi, he ventured to say that such a retribution was ill-calculated and did not represent a policy of which the House should be proud. The Denshawi event should be a warning against all attempts of retribution. It arose out of a moderate attempt at retribution, which ended in a tragedy and was succeeded by an abominable revenge. This nation, having created an autocracy in Egypt, having sent Lord Cromer to occupy the post so created, and having backed up the system of which Lord Cromer was the representative, was not entitled to haggle at the business of giving a grant.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 254; Noes, 107. (Division List No.350.)

AYES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Branch, James

Corbett,CH(Sussex,E.Grinst'd)

Acland-Hood, Rt Hn.SirAlex. F.

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Agnew, George William

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Brunner, J.F.L.(Lancs., Leigh)

Cory, Clifford John

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Brunner, Rt Hn Sir J.T.(Cheshire

Courthope, G. Loyd

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Craik, Sir Henry

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Crombie, John William

Armitage, R.

Bull, Sir William James

Crosfield, A. H.

Ashley, W. W

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Crossley, William J.

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Dalmeny, Lord

Astbury, John.Meir

Carlile, E. Hildred

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

Balcarres, Lord

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Balfour, Rt Hn. A.J.(City Lond.)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Cavendish, Rt. Hon. VictorC. W.

Dewar, Sir J.A.(Inverness-sh.)

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Dickinson, W.H.(St. Pancras, N.

Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Barker, John

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Doughty, Sir George

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

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

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Chance, Frederick William

Duckworth, James

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsal1

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Cheetham, John Frederick

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Beauchamp, E.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Elibank, Master of

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Erskine, David C.

Bellairs, Carlyon

Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

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

Everett, R. Lacey

Bowles, G. Stewart

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Faber, George Denison (York)

Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Fardell, Sir T. George

M'Callum, John M.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Fell, Arthur

M'Crae, George

Sears, J. E.

Ferens, T. R.

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Severns, J. H.

Ferguson, K. C. Munro

M'Micking, Major G.

Seely, Major J. B.

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick, B.)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Menzies, Walter

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Fletcher, J. S.

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Simon, John Allsebrook

Forster, Henry William

Micklem, Nathaniel

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Molteno, Percy Alport

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Smith, F. E.(Lverpool, Walton)

Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford, S.)

Montagu, E. S.

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

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Montgomery, H. G.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Stanger, H. Y.

Gooch, George Peabody

Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)

Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

Grant, Corrie

Morley, Rt. Hon. John

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Morpeth, Viscount

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Morse, L. L.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Gretton, John

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Murray, James

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Napier, T. B.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Harmsworth, R.L.(Caithn'ss-sh

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Harwood, George

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Nield, Herbert

Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Thornton, Percy M.

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Tomkinson, James

Hervey, F.W.F.(Bury S. Edm'ds

Parker,Sir Gilbert(Gravesend)

Toulmin, George

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Paulton, James Mellor

Turnour, Viscount

Holland, Sir William Henry

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Valentia, Viscount

Holt, Richard Durning

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Verney, F. W.

Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N

Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

Houston, Robert Paterson

Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington)

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

Waring, Walter

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Idris, T. H. W.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

Illingworth. Percy H.

Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford,E.)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Pullar, Sir Robert

Waterlow, D. S.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Radford, G. H.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Kearley, Hudson E.

Rainy, A. Rolland

Whitbread, Howard

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Raphael, Herbert H.

Whitehead, Rowland

Kimber, Sir Henry

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Rees, J. D.

Williams Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

Lambert, George

Rendall, Athelstan

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Renton, Major Leslie

Wills, Arthur Walters

Lamont, Norman

Rickett, J. Compton

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

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Ridsdale, E. A.

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Roberts,.Charles H. (Lincoln)

Wilson. P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Wodehouse, Lord

Lewis, John Herbert

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Roe, Sir Thomas

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Younger, George

Lough, Thomas

Rose, Charles Day

Lupton, Arnold

Runciman, Walter

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Russell, T. W.

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Cleland, J. W.

Dobson, Thomas W.

Alden, Percy

Clough, William

Donelan, Captain A.

Barnes, G. N.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Duffy, William J.

Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)

Bell, Richard

Cooper, G. J.

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Bennett, E. N.

Crean, Eugene

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Black, Arthur W.

Crooks, William

Esslemont, George Birnie

Boland, John

Curran, Peter Francis

Ffrench, Peter

Bowerman, C. W.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Byles, William Pollard

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Flynn, James Christopher

888

889

Fullerton, Hugh

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Gill, A. H.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Robinson, S.

Glover, Thomas

Macdonald, J. M. (FalkirkB'ghs)

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Grayson, Albert Victor

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Macpherson, J. T.

Seddon, J.

Halpin, J.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down S.)

Shackleton, David James

Hayden, John Patrick

Mac Veigh, Charles (Donega1,E.)

Snowden, P.

Hazleton, Richard

Maddison, Frederick

Summerbell, T.

Healy, Timothy Michael

Masterman, C F. G.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Higham, John Sharp

Meagher, Michael

Thorne, William

Hodge, John

Murnaghan, George

Vivian, Henry

Hogan, Michael

Murphy, John

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Myer, Horatio

Walsh, Stephen

Hudson, Walter

Nolan, Joseph

Walters, John Tudor

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Jenkins, J.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Ward, John(Stoke upon Trent)

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

O'Grady, J.

Wardle, George J.

Jordan, Jeremiah

O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.

Weir, James Galloway

Jowett, F. W.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

White, George (Norfolk)

Joyce, Michael

Parker, James (Halifax)

White, Patrick (Heath, North)

Kekewich, Sir George

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Wilkie, Alexander

Kettle, Thomas Michael

Pollard, Dr.

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

Kilbride, Denis

Power, Patrick Joseph

Wilson, W. T (Westhoughton)

Laidlaw, Robert

Reddy, M.

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Mr. William Redmond and Mr. Arthur Henderson.

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St.Pancras, E.)

Richards, T.F.(Wolverh'mpt'n)

Lundon, W.

Richardson, A.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported upon Thursday; Committee to sit again To-morrow (Wednesday).

TERRITORIAL AND RESERVE FORCES BILL.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Lords' Amendments be hot considered."
*SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid it would not be necessary that he should actually make the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper,†because those of them who had considered the Amendments did not propose to take more than one division, and it had been decided, he believed, to divide on one of the other Amendments. Therefore he would make the observations which he proposed to make on the Amendments generally on the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman that the Amendments be considered. Personally he was hostile to the Bill, as his right hon. friend knew, but it would be out of order to discuss the Bill as a whole on that occasion, and if not no one would wish to undertake to do so at that period of the session. The House of Lords was a chamber of revision, so it was claimed by hon. Gentlemen opposite, but it must
† "That the Lords' Amendments be considered upon this day three months."
890
be a little perplexing to its friends when considered as a revising body, because of the extraordinary loose nature of its proceedings when amending Bills. In the case of all important Bills Amendments were made not only on the stages familiar to the House of Commons, but also after the Third Reading of the Bills. No report came to them in the Commons of the precise form in which the Amendments were made, and the newspapers only gave brief reports. Therefore they had to do the best they could under most difficult circumstances. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill considered that the Amendments which had been made were, on the whole, an improvement or not on his Bill, or would affect his scheme, which was, of course not in the Bill, but was to be found only in his speeches. To his own mind these Amendments were partly ungrammatical partly contradictory, partly meaningless, and in some cases they had the exactly opposite effect to that which was intended by their authors. Some of the Amendments were improvements, but on the whole he thought they left the Bill very much in the position where it stood before. They were not. important Amendments; they did not change the fabric of the Bill; but he would like the candid opinion of the Financial Secretary to the War Office as to the financial side

891
of them. He would deal now only with the principal Amendments; and hey did not appear to him to proceed upon any well-considered plan. There were three which he wished to mention to the House, the first of which was the result of certainly two, and he believed three, changes in another place. On the Committee stage of the Bill, Lord Haversham moved an Amendment, which was immediately accepted as an improvement. It was an Amendment which introduced election by the local authority of the Territorial Army as against appointment by the War Office. But on the Report stage Lord Erroll rose and moved, without explanation, an Amendment to the Amendment, which partly reversed the Amendment previously accepted by the Government. Immediately on that Motion being made, without a single word of explanation, Lord Portsmouth, on behalf of the Government, accepted it. The result was that a very small Amendment in the Bill appeared before the House of Commons, representing this curious double change. On the second Amendment being accepted Lord Haversham got up and denounced the Government for their sudden change of front, and he (Sir C. Dilke) hoped that now or later on, when the Amendment was reached, they would have an explanation from the Government as to what the change meant. He would not attempt to anticipate the debate on the Amendment with regard to which notice had been given by the hon. Member for Leicester. But to that proposition in regard to military education in schools, he personally had always had objections, on the military grounds which were so well stated in a former debate by the hon. and gallant Member for the Abercromby Division of Liverpool. But there was an additional objection to it in the form in which it had now been placed in the Bill which concerned a matter raised in that House by three hon. Members opposite and by himself. They had some fear that the intention of the Army Council under this Bill was to get rid of all expenditure from Army Votes for the Volunteers, and to spend all the money obtained from Army Votes on the Regular Army. That contention was never allowed there, and when they pressed their right hon. friend as to
892
whether it was the intention to "send round the hat," as it was called, on behalf of the county association, he repudiated that suggestion. The only other Amendment which he thought it necessary to name in this connection concerned the Territorial cavalry. The authors attached great importance to this Amendment, although the change was a very slight one—as it raised the optional maximum of cavalry training by a term of three days. It appeared from the debate that the noble Lords who made that proposal thought they were affecting the efficiency of the divisional cavalry. One thing they had hoped that the Lords, if ineffective as a revising chamber, would have accomplished in their debates was to have obtained the exact nature of the divisional cavalry proposals. But they were still in ignorance as to those proposals. But although the debate in the other House turned entirely on that point, the Amendment before them could not possibly affect it, for the words used did not affect the divisional cavalry at all. They were outside the ordinary constitution of the Yeomanry and the cavalry of the Territorial Army, and the Amendment was so worded that it referred only to the cavalry of the Territorial Army. He would name one other subject, though he did not know whether he would be in order, for it was not any Amendment that had been made, but the fact that a large portion of the Bill had been passed without Amendment, that hp wished to draw attention to. It had been passed entirely without Amendment, though an Amendment had been proposed and hotly debated. He was referring to the vexed controverted question, how far the Bill, through the clauses headed "Civil Rights," applied any new form of military law in time of peace to the Volunteers. That was a legal question of great difficulty, and a wholly different view was taken of it in another place, while a different view of it was taken in another place by the spokesman of the Government from that of the Government in the House of Commons. The question was, however, not covered by any Amendment, so they would not be in order in debating it that night. He would ask leave to address questions to

893
his right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War on certain Amendments.
SIR HOWARD VINCENTsaid he wished to express his agreement with the right hon. Baronet when he said he disagreed with the Bill and that it was an entirely unnecessary measure. He had said that repeatedly when the B11 was passing through the House, and he still adhered to that opinion, though he considered that the Bill had been greatly improved as a result of its consideration in another place. He would have been glad if the Bill had been more altered and if the changes had been more drastic. In another place the constitution of the County Associations had been discussed. In the House of Commons it was not possible to discuss them, for. the closure was applied when only the first few Amendments had been dealt with. The closure was most ruthlessly applied, and they were indebted to the fact that there was another place where the procedure was different, and where the closure was not applied in the form in which it was applied in that House. Several explanations were given by the Government as to the constitution and working of the County Associations, and some must have been suggested by the Lords Amendments. There was one matter on which he would like to express his gratitude to the Secretary of State for War, and that was for the great courtesy he had shown as regarded the transfer of the property of the Volunteer corps, a matter which had agitated many corps who were possessed of considerable property. He thought they would have no difficulty on that score. He earnestly hoped that when they came to the clause which the right hon. Baronet had indicated there would be a serious debate. He hoped the Secretary of State for War would stick to his guns. The right hon. Gentleman had appealed to the country, he had appealed to a nation in arms, and he had done all that he could to encourage the spirit of military discipline among the more youthful of the population. He earnestly hoped that, if any opposition was attempted to the Amendments made in another place, the right hon. Gentleman would not run away from his own
894
opinions, as he did when the measure was introduced. It seemed absurd to take a measure which was of such immense importance, altering the whole constitution of the Auxiliary Forces and of the National defence, at that late hour of the night. Ministers were jaded, as they could all see, after sitting through the previous night. To propose seriously to consider a matter of that importance at half-past twelve in the morning was scandalous, and he protested against it in the strongest possible terms. He earnestly hoped the Secretary of State for War would not give way on any Amendment because of the lateness, or the earliness, of the hour, and that he would adhere to the Amendments accepted by the Government in another place, particularly that with regard to the training of boys in military discipline.
MR. WYNDHAMsaid that if the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean was serious, it appeared that the main debate would take place on the amount of assistance which was or was not to be given to the training of boys of a certain age in schools of a certain character. They would have another opportunity of discussing it, so he would say no more on the point then. About one of the observations of the right hon. Baronet he would, however, like to say something. The right hon. Gentleman had adverted to the Amendment which extended the presumptive period of maximum training. If he rightly followed the right hon. Gentleman, he said he could not understand the differentiation because it had no relation to the matter which they had discussed in the House, or to any conclusion they had arrived at. The real question was whether the Yeomanry forces were to be altogether outside the Yeomanry of the Special Reserves or not. They had debated that point very well but had never arrived at any conclusion. The Secretary of State had left the impression that he might change his mind in regard to the matter. He thought that if the right hon. Gentleman would address himself to that point before considering the other special matters he would go far to satisfy them on a matter which was of great

895
public interest. Whatever decision they might reach in regard to the matter, his opinion was that it would be a great pity to make the presumptive period sixteen days instead of eighteen days. Eighteen days would not be too much.
Lords Amendments considered.
Lords' Amendment—
"In page 1, line 8, after the word 'Regulars, to insert the words ' and their Reserves'"—
read a second time.
*SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that was a very loose phrase. Was it a Government phrase? It meant the Reserve of the Regulars and was not the usual wording.
MR. HALDANE'Sreply was inaudible.
LORD R. CECILasked the right hon. Gentleman to let the House know what his reply was.
Lords' Amendment—
"In page 2, line 1, after the word 'or,' to insert the words 'failing him' "—
read a second time.
MR. WYNDHAMasked the right hon. Gentleman to reply now to the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean. As he understood the Amendment, it did make a change. Were they to understand that it was only when the Lord-Lieutenant was considered to be unfit that they were to look elsewhere? Or were they to understand that the Lord-Lieutenant and any other person were on an equal plane? He took it to mean that the Lord-Lieutenant was the proper person, and wished to know if that was the Government view.
MR. HALDANEsaid the Amendment was inserted as a result of discussion. As far as he, observing from an outside position, could appreciate the debate in the House of Lords they wanted some words to make the precise meaning clear and chose these words so that if the lord-lieutenant was not available some-
896
body else should be made president of the association.
Lords' Amendment agreed to.
Subsequent Lords' Amendment agreed to.
Lords' Amendment—
"In line 18, after the word 'appointment' to insert the words ' by the Army Council during the first three years after the passing of this Act and subsequently for the election' "—read a second time.
MR. HALDANEsaid about that line 18 he would explain what the situation was, as there seemed to be an inaccurate impression as to what had taken place in another place. An Amendment was moved to make the position elective, but the Government could not agree, as they felt that there would be so much difficulty and confusion if the Army Council were not to make the selection. The House of Lords thought otherwise, and pressed that view, but later the House of Lords reflected and found that there was a great deal more in what the Government said than they had at first thought, and the clause was modified so as to leave the first election to the Army Council and subsequent elections to the County Associations. The Army Council would not interfere.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: The right hon. Gentleman says "on reflection." Lord Portsmouth got up at once and said he accepted it. Then Lord Haversham, Lord Donoughmore, Lord Newton, and Lord Landsdowne attacked it. I do not think there was much reflection.
MR. WYNDHAMsaid it seemed to him that the Army Council to all intents would be the people who appointed the chairman and the vice-chairman. They would draw up the scheme. In another place a scheme was put forward by which provision was made for appointment by the Army Council for three years and then by election of the association.
Lords' Amendment agreed to.
Subsequent Lords' Amendments agreed to.
Lords' Amendment—
"In page 4, line 19, after the word 'assistance,' to insert the words ' out of money voted by Parliament.' "—read a second time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said:Amendment." —(Mr. Haldane,)
*MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALDmoved: "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment." In doing so he drew attention to the way in which the clause was settled by that House. The right hon. Gentleman would remember that various Amendments were put on the Paper to the clause as originally drafted, but that owing to the operation of the guillotine it was impossible to discuss any one of them. The right hon. Gentleman would also remember that they entered into negotiations with him, and that as the result of those negotiations the clause as it left the House was drafted. He would submit to the right hon. Gentleman that a clause formed after negotiation of that character ought not to have been the subject of negotiation in another place. An agreement was come to between the right hon. Gentleman and certain Members in the House of Commons, and by virtue of that agreement certain things happened. The clause was passed by a bargain and not by a majority. No sooner, however, did the Bill go to the other House than the right hon. Gentleman entered into negotiations with opponents of the Bill, and now an Amendment was produced which certainly he and his friends did not accept, and which did not carry out the original arrangement come to. He would like to say that if they were going to have cadet corps it was very much less objectionable that they should be paid for by public money than by the scheme of the Amendment. He was opposed to cadet corps. He was not going to raise the question at that hour, but he would say that underlying their objection to that particular Amendment was the general objection to cadet corps. There were two bodies of expert opinion opposed to cadet corps. The first body of such expert opinion was expert military
898
opinion, because it was becoming more and more apparent, and the French experiments showed it, that to teach children under the age of sixteen military drill was to damage their military possibilities rather than improve them. The second body of expert opinion opposed to military drill was expert educational opinion. It had been shown—and he was glad to say that up-to-date educational authorities were now withdrawing military drill from their schools because it was not suited to the physical development of the children—that such drill put a certain strain upon certain parts of the physique of a child and that, so far from aiding physical development, it retarded and destroyed it. The good soldier and the, good educationist were ranging themselves more, and more completely and emphatically against the proposal of cadet corps. But the clause as amended was a definite invitation to the County Association to enter over the heads of the educational authority and practically compel educational authorities to allow the establishment of cadet corps in the school. They knew quite well what influence would be brought to bear upon these educational authorities. Such a clause in an Act of Parliament had got to be taken into account in connection with all the social circumstances of the Bill. The Amendment would be practically a mandate on every educational authority to allow the County Associations to step in and establish cadet corps in connection with every elementary school in the country. They knew pretty well the sort of propaganda that would be carried on. They saw it in the case of the Navy League. The Navy League maps came into every elementary school. Advertisements of the League stared one in the face from the walls. Leaflets were spread from one end of the country to the other, and school books were being written for the special purpose of carrying on that propaganda. The Amendment would augment that propaganda by one more insidious still, a propaganda of cadet corps. Of course, there was a distinction. The Liberal Government was a Government of class distinction. It gave special privileges for the son of the rich parent attending a private preparatory or public school. The

899
children of rich parents were to have their military drill paid from funds supplied by the State. The children of poor parents were to have their military drill paid for from charitable funds supplied by touting associations going round the rich county magnates appealing to them to supply money and to supply toy muskets to the children of poor parents attending public elementary schools for which no fees had to be paid. Had there been no guillotine in operation, he and his friends would have challenged this matter at the time, and the clause would have been modified. The effect of the Amendment was to establish military drill, and. to establish it under the patronage of the private rich people, instead of under the patronage of the State. Was the cadet corps movement good or was it bad? If it was good the Secretary for War should make it part and parcel of military training. He should pay for it from military funds; he should, put it under the control of the County Associations; he should say to the County Associations, "This is part and parcel of the Territorial Force; this is a great recruiting ground; this is a reservoir to feed the Army with." Its expenses ought to be allocated from precisely the same sources as those of other sections of the Territorial Force. If, on the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman wished them to believe that cadet corps were of no military value, let him keep them out of the Bill. Let him not run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. Let him not meet the National Service League with one hand and the opponents of this proposal with the other. Let him not tell the National Service League, "I will secure military training," and then tell the Labour Party, "Military training will be secured, but not at the public expense," If the work of the cadet corps was national let the country pay for it; if it was of the least use let Parliament pay for it from public money. If it was not national and not of the least use, let them have nothing to do with it. This, he supposed, was what was called a compromise upon reflection. The other place changed its Amendment. The other place, he supposed on reflection, considered that Mr. Speaker might have something to say to the first Amendment.
900
It might have been suggested to Mr. Speaker that the first Amendment was a breach of the privileges of the House of Commons. He supposed that the other place came to the decision that the right hon. Gentleman was more squeezable than Mr. Speaker, and so the second Amendment was put on the Paper. That Amendment meant that everything they wanted was going to be secured under a most objectionable form. The Labour Party objected to it root and branch, and they would press their opposition to a division. He was glad to be assured of the support of hon. Members above the gangway on that side of the House. On 29th May this question was raised by two or three hon. Members above the gangway. The Member for Maidstone made a most forcible speech opposing the idea of the hat going round in order to find funds for the work of the County Associations. The hon. Member for the Newport Division pointed out that it was unfair that one association should be placed in opposition to another in rival subscribing adventures, in order to be more efficient to carry on their work. The junior Member for the City of London thought it was a most extra-ordinary thing to introduce in a national Army Bill a clause whereby permission was given to send round the hat asking for subscriptions to the Army as though it were a hospital or a voluntary school. The hon. Member for Oswestry raised precisely this point, because he said he wanted to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether if he left a legacy to encourage cadet battalions attached to public schools, a County Association would be able to accept it and spend it for that purpose. The right hon. Gentleman rather eluded the point, he would talk about anything but the proposed cadet corps. The right hon. Gentleman's position, however, was perfectly clear. He told them in words which would only bear constructively one meaning that he was opposed to the hat going round in any shape or form. But now this most important part of military training was going to be founded on and supported by the passing of the hat. It after being passed round the hat was found to be empty there was going to be no cadet corps at all attached to public schools. What an absurd position this was for a Minister

901
who said he was opposed to the hat going round, and was opposed to degrading County Associations by asking them to appeal for subscriptions. Though they could not knock the cadet corps out the Labour Party would certainly make an attempt to knock the hat out. The right hon. Gentleman got his clause through the House before as the result of an amicable arrangement which the Labour Party thought would be kept to, and under the circumstances he would have no hesitation in pressing the matter to a division.
MR. HALDANEsaid that the hon. Member for Leicester had indulged in some flights of imagination into which he would not attempt to follow him. He was of a less romantic disposition than the hon. Member and would come to the ground speedily if he tried to follow his example In the first place the hon. Member said that he as Secretary of State for War had made an arrangement with regard to this matter. He had, however, made no arrangement of the kind suggested with the hon. Member for Leicester or his friends. What did happen was this. He had had negotiations with certain hon. friends of his own in the House about the form which that clause should take. The Bill passed with the clause in that form, but when it got to the other place the majority there struck out the words which had been put in and restored the clause to its original form. He took council with his hon. friends with whom he had consulted before, and after discussing the matter they agreed that if they could induce the House of Lords by such arguments as they were able to bring forward to put the clause back into the form in which it was now, that was to restrict the use of public money for the purpose, they would do very well. None of them thought that the question of the contribution of private money was very serious, and none of them thought that the clause was open to the imaginary evils sketched by the hon. Member for Leicester in such vivid tints. The clause authorised County Associations to co-operate in establishing and assisting cadet battalions and other corps. There was no power of any sort or kind to go into board schools against the will of the school. The association became merely the porters of any gift, so that anything like what the hon. Member for
902
Liecester had been painting to the House in such vivid colours was impossible. They had a stiff' debate in the House of Lords, and in the end they had the opportunity of settling the matter. The Government were prepared to press for the clause which he had settled upon with his hon. friends at the previous negotiations, but in the end the majority in the House of Lords, though not until after a good deal of discussion, agreed to give them the clause in the form in which it now appeared, provided that they stuck to the bargain when the Bill came back to the House of Commons. The Earl of Crewe, on behalf of the Government and with the consent of the Prime Minister, gave the undertaking which was asked for by Lord Lansdowne. That undertaking having been given, the Government meant to carry it out loyally on the present occasion. He stated with every confidence that the Government had done the best thing for the clause and for the Bill as a whole.
MR. WYNDHAMrather wished that the right hon. Gentleman had postponed his intervention in the debate for a few minutes. This clause, in common with almost every other clause in the Bill, was not obviously intelligible at first sight. Now that it had received its final emendation at the hands of His Majesty's Government, or at any rate with their consent, he need hardly say that the Opposition would support the Government in their resolve to accept the Amendment made in the other place. In the view of the Opposition that Amendment went some way to express, however clumsily, their wish that Parliament should make some declaration in favour of cadet corps in the schools of the country. The Amendment made in another place, and its acceptance by His Majesty's Government, would be understood outside the House of Commons as a declaration that the Government had gone part of the way back to the position they originally occupied. Ho could not, however, hide his agreement with much that fell from the hon. Member for Leicester. He thought they were entitled to know definitely from the Government what their policy was. Here was a large question of vast public interest. Was it or was it not a good thing that children below the age of sixteen years should have some military training? The

903
Opposition believed that the bulk of the opinion in the country was in agreement with them in thinking that it was a good thing. The hon. Gentleman had not got to the bottom of all the ambiguities which were characteristic of the Bill. The hon. Member for Leicester raised three questions in his speech. The last was that the Bill in its present shape proposed an invidious distinction between the schools to which the children of the poorer of their fellow-subjects went and the schools to which the children of the richer classes went. The Opposition noticed that when the Bill was under discussion in the House of Commons, and they thought it most unfortunate that in a Bill dealing with such a vital matter as our national defence such class distinctions should be drawn. That was a fatal blot on the Bill, and the hon. Member for Leicester was right when he said that the Government were drawing an invidious distinction. Was it not an invidious distinction to contribute out of public funds for one type of school and not for another? The hon. Member for Leicester raised another question. He stated that they ought to have a clear issue before them, and that those of them who thought this training was good should have an opportunity of saying so, and that those who thought it was bad should also have an opportunity of saying so. That opportunity had been denied to them by the right hon. Gentleman, as it had been denied on every previous occasion. The hon. Member for Leicester had not got to the bottom of the elusiveness of the right hon. Gentleman. The Bill as it stood asserted that these associations were to establish and assist cadet corps in every school. That was still the policy of the Government, and therefore the Government had not in the Bill, even as it now stood, made any concession, in his opinion, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government it was the duty of these associations to establish and assist cadet corps and rifle corps. The only limitations were in respect of persons under sixteen years of age in schools of a certain type. Any person over sixteen in a school receiving a Parliamentary grant might be assisted out of public funds. Any person under sixteen in another school of another type might be assisted out of public funds. To call that a compromise was a somewhat strange use of the term. It was a
904
mere muddle. The Government intended that the military education of the young should be part and parcel of their plan for making a national Army, but their views met with considerable hostility in the quarter from which the hon. Member for Leicester spoke, and they put in a kind of limitation which really gave the hon. Member for Leicester. nothing. He did not think the hon. Member had lost by it. All that had happened on this clause, as on so many others, was that the Government set out with one intention, and while pursuing it they endeavoured to persuade some of their supporters that they had abandoned it.
MAJOR SEELYsaid that as he had taken some interest in this question, and had spoken strongly on the subject the last time it was before the House, he trusted the House would forgive him if he said a word now. He was quite impenitent as to the view he had expressed of the total absence of military advantage in training young people to either military drill or rifle shooting. He was not alone in that opinion. Instances given by the hon. Member for Leicester showed that an extremely military nation like France held the same view. He did not think attention had been called to a remarkable book by Colonel Maude, whom one might call a Jingo of the Jingoes, an enthusiast for military matters beside whom all hon. Members opposite were comparatively tame. Colonel Maude strongly took the view which he had endeavoured to put before the House on previous occasions. He (Major Seely) was strongly opposed to the training of youths in either drill or military exercises as being of no military advantage. He would not weary the House by giving reasons again. Let it suffice to say he did not believe it tended to make people more patriotic or more earnest in their endeavours to receive military training if practically forced to it when young. But the situation that had arisen was an interesting one. He agreed that it was inadvisable to send round the hat, but he did not agree with the hon. Member for Leicester that they should take objection to the Lords' Amendments and jeopardise the Bill, because he did not think the hon. Gentleman had lost anything by the change. First of all, the hat had to go

905
round and to be filled, and, secondly, the education authority had to desire that the children should be taught this drill.
MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Not necessarily.
MAJOR SEELY: As it stands at present. I appeal to the Secretary to the Board of Education if that is not so. You must get their consent.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. McKENNA,): That is so.
MAJOR SEELYsaid he thought they must get the consent of the Board of Education. Simultaneously the hat had to go round and be filled. Supposing the House rejected this, how much better off would be the position of the hon. Member for Leicester? The hat would still go round and the boys would be taught drill and rifle shooting by the consent of the Board of Education, only instead of the hat being sent round by the County Association it would be sent round by the Lord-Lieutenant and the other enthusiasts acting as private individuals. In regard to the funds, if they could not be collected and distributed by the County Association they could be collected and distributed equally well by the individual members who would be appointed for that purpose. If there really was enthusiasm for this military movement, which he hoped there was not, as it would be of no military value, although he agreed that the spirit it evoked was excellent, it would be perfectly impossible to check cadet corps by this Amendment, or the sending round of the hat. What, then, was the purpose of jeopardising the Bill on which they had spent so much time? If the hon. Member would propose an Amendment at any time which raised the whole issue he would go into the division lobby with him. He objected to spending public money in this matter, but he did not think cadet corps were bad in themselves, and to throw out the possibility of the solution offered would be most unwise.
SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid that in common with those who had spoken he joined with the hon. Member for Leicester in the view that no particular gratitude
906
was due to the Secretary for War for his very grudging concession, which he fancied the right hon. Gentleman had largely arranged in another place. He was responsible for an Amendment that was moved on the only occasion it was possible to raise it, and which attempted to bring back the Bill into the region of that clear-thinking of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke so much when he introduced the Bill. Unfortunately, by those subterranean negotiations the process of clear-thinking was abandoned by the right hon. Gentleman, and as a concession to a small band of extremists who seemed to think that any sort of training or discipline at once turned our youth into swashbucklers, the right hon. Gentle-man put a clause into his Bill which very distinctly changed the whole position. They had been told that expert military opinion was against cadet corps. He would appeal to one expert military opinion which the hon. and gallant Member would not deny. About five years ago ho was a member of a Royal Commission before which the hon. and gallant Member for the Abercromby Division appeared, and the hon. and gallant Member gave the strongest evidence in favour of rifle shooting and corps for the young, tolling them of the successful results of his own experiments. He would go to oven more expert military opinion than the lion, and gallant Member. The Secretary of State for War as late as this spring appointed a military committee in the War Office to deal with the question of cadet corps, and he actually allowed boys of fifteen to gain certificates, and as recently as the month of May last the right hon. Gentleman issued a circular to all the schools of England, in which he offered certain advantages in the event of boys qualifying for such certificate. He called together the teachers in these schools no later than about a couple of months ago. His proposals were accepted with gratitude on every side; the heads of those schools distinctly informed him that they thought they could do much to realise the object which ho had so much at heart—a nation trained in arms. Less than six weeks later, in obedience to that small band of members, and to its subterranean communications, he withdrew the offer he had made to these teachers. The hon. Member for Leicester had stated that educational experts were

907
against them, but he would like to know where they were to be found 1 In the vast majority of the schools something of this military training had been introduced. It was spreading rapidly, and in scarcely a single instance—he could speak from his own knowledge—had they anything but the most favourable reports from the teachers as to the results of the cadet corps. It was not merely a question of training the boys; it was for its educational advantages, as much as anything else, that it was an object to be pursued. All the most eminent educational experts told them that the greatest waste in the youth of our country, the greatest loss in all that we were paying for, the greatest casting away of all the results of the time, and trouble and money spent on education, occurred precisely in the years between fourteen and sixteen. They could get hold of the youths in no other way except by organising them into something like these cadet corps. By that means they could get hold of these boys during the most dangerous period of their lives. But they were told by the hon. Member for Leicester, "You are introducing an invidious social distinction." That was very true, but who were to blame for that? The Secretary of State for War and the hon. Member for Leicester and his friends, who were responsible for this change. There was plenty of money in the larger public schools in England, and there they would have no difficulty with the cadet corps, for the upper and the wealthier classes sent their children there. But they would lose the advantage of this training in military discipline for the humbler schools, where they were closing the door against it and making it possible only at the hands of charity. Did the right hon. Gentleman really think that this clause excluded only elementary schools? Did he not know that there were hundreds of middle class schools— not elementary schools at all—who nevertheless did share in the Parliamentary grants? The right hon. Gentleman thought he was only excluding elementary schools—he personally thought he was wrong in excluding elementary schools—but as a matter of fact he was excluding a very great number beyond. The right hon. Gentleman knew that the teachers who
908
came together to meet the military experts of the War Office only two months ago were not teachers in elementary schools, but in those humbler classes of the middle class secondary schools where the cadet corps chiefly arose. It was these teachers whose hopes the right hon. Gentleman had raised, and which he had now cast down, and he had no doubt that he had in the War Office documentary evidence in regard to the expectations-and hopes which were raised, and the disappointment afterwards caused. The Opposition would support the Amendment, weakened as it was through the Government having abandoned the stronger position they occupied before. They would go into the division lobby with the the Government, but they owed no thanks to the right hon. Gentleman. They believed he had done what he would repent of hereafter; that he had struck a blow at that scheme of a nation in arms which he had at heart, in making this surrender to the extreme section of his Party.
MR. WEDGWOODsaid he was not particularly interested in the military opinions on this matter, nor in the educational opinions on it, as they depended largely on what the cadet corps did and what their actual drills were. But he was interested in what they did with their own children. They allowed their own children to join these cadet corps, and they enjoyed it very much. They liked all that sort of play and half drill which went on; but he could not understand why hon. Members opposite should suggest what they should prevent the children of other classes doing the same sort of thing.
*SIR SAMUEL SCOTTsaid there was a broad principle between the hon. Member for Leicester and the Opposition. He did not believe in cadet corps in schools or in military training, whilst they on that side of the House, and many Members on the other side of the House, did believe in them. But they entirely agreed with him on this, that if this principle of cadet corps in schools were carried out, the money should be obtained from public funds, and not out of private individuals. The hon. Member for Leicester would correct

909
him if ho misunderstood him in stating that experience had shown that the drill of the cadet corps deteriorated the children; but ho thought he was wrong. The hon. and gallant Member for the Abercromby Division of Liverpool would bear him out when he said that the experience of Switzerland was entirely different, and that recently in the schools there they had introduced an absolutely compulsory form of military training. He might point out to the hon. Member for Leicester that a new development had recently taken place in the physical training of our own soldiers. In the old days, and until a short time ago, they were trained in one manner—
*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (MR. CALDWELL)said that the question before the House was limited to the consideration of the Lords' Amendment as to whether payment should be made "out of money voted by Parliament."
*SIR SAMUEL SCOTT, on a point of order, submitted that the question of training had been brought up by the hon. Member for Leicester.
*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. CALDWELL)said it had no doubt been mentioned incidentally, but the Amendment before the House did not raise the wider question of the merits or demerits of cadet drill involved in the clause, but only the matter of by whom a certain payment should be made.
*SIR.SAMUEL SCOTT: submitted, with all deference, that it covered the whole question of the cadet corps. He was trying to reply to an assertion made by the hon. Member for Leicester, that the training had a derogatory effect on the children. He submitted that he was in order in so doing.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he entirely agreed with the Chairman that this Amendment did not cover the whole question of cadet corps to the full extent, but every speaker up to the present time, ho thought, had raised the question of the cadet corps. They were dealing with an Amendment which involved expenditure on cadet corps, and therefore cadet corps could incidentally be referred to by speakers.
*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. CALDWELL)said that there was no objection to an incidental reference to cadet corps, but it would be going out-side of the particular Amendment to discuss the general question of the merits or demerits of military drill, or to compare the present with the past physical training of our own soldiers.
*SIR SAMUEL SCOTTsaid all that he was trying to do was to point out to the hon. Member for Leicester that it was a question of the manner in which the cadet corps or soldiers were trained, and they were not necessarily bound by hard and fast rules to a certain drill. There were different drills which had been perfected lately, and it was therefore possible, in reference to what had been mentioned as to the drill of children, that they might find some drill of a kind which would give them great benefit.
*MR. MADDISONsaid his hon. friend the Member for Staffordshire had talked about an unholy alliance. He would venture to remark to the hon. Member for Salford that he did not frequently address the House, and that he, who was supposed to be an exponent of free speech, should not interrupt him. Why he rose was because the hon. Member for Leicester had set out to recite the history of certain negotiations and constantly used the plural. The hon. Member even went so far as to say that there were two sorts of Parties who negotiated, and that one had gone behind the back of the other. The fact was there was a number of hon. Members on that side of the House with whom he acted who from the first took a keen interest in the question of cadet corps as it appeared in the Bill.
MR. EVELYN CECILasked if the hon. Member was in order and whether he must not confine himself to the expenditure mentioned in the Bill.
*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. CALDWELL)said the hon. Member must know that a certain amount of latitude had just been claimed by his own side.
*MR. MADDISONsaid that in the negotiations to which he had referred the hon. Member for Leicester did not appear at all and therefore could hardly know what really went on. He simply wanted in a word to say that while altogether and entirely agreeing with the hon. Member for Leicester in his dislike of those cadet corps so long as they were associated in the Bill with public schools, it was impossible for him honourably to vote against the Amendment. When they first approached the Secretary of State for War in respect to the Amendment of which that was the outcome, they came to a certain arrangement which appeared in the Bill. When that arrangement was upset by the House of Lords the same people were asked by the Secretary of State to meet him again, and it was at that meeting that the words "public money" were suggested. What appeared in the Bill that night was what the Minister for War offered them and what they accepted. He felt bound, having regard to what had taken place, to keep what ho considered to be a pledge. A pledge was none the less binding if the bargain which it represented did not happen to be as good as they wished. He was surprised that the hon. Member for Leicester, in his desire to oppose the Lords' Amendments, should say that if these cadet corps had to be there should be public money voted for them. He ventured to say that in that opinion the hon. Member would not carry with him the majority of those who agreed with him that military training of the young was, bad and pernicious. He was surprised that the hon. Member was prepared to be so free with public money, for he and his friends had opposed the Cromer Grant on the ground that public money was so precious, that there were so many poor people, and that they ought to be so careful. But the hon. Member for Leicester was prepared to vote public money for causes he objected to altogether. Without this Bill there was nothing to prevent private subscriptions being devoted to cadet corps. The Bill did not alter the situation as to class distinction, but the class distinction was in favour of the working classes. Practically speaking, as the Bill stood the working classes would be immune from the blight of militarism. He deeply regretted that the War Minister had touched the unholy thing at all
912
in his Bill, and, as a matter of fact, he could have got what he wanted without introducing it into the Bill. However, it had been a compromise from the first, and they must make the best of it. He was unable to vote against the Amendment on account of the compact with the War-Minister, and he believed that by voting for it they would at least prevent public money being spent on the schools to which the children of the working classes went.
*MR. SHACKLETONsaid ho wished to say a word on that matter, for it was only right that they should make the situation perfectly clear. It was true they had no part in the negotiations, but they knew that they were going on, and that acceptance of the original compromise caused them not to press their objections. He understood when the Amendment which was negotiated in the first instance was accepted they were expected to withdraw their opposition to the clause. A change had now been made that power should be given to establish cadet corps, provided no financial assistance was given, in certain schools. Under that Amendment, made in another place, they could give it provided it was not out of Parliamentary grants. Anybody could get behind that, and the only safeguard they had now was the President of the Board of Education. They were putting power into the hands of the County Associations, and when there was a President of the Board of Education who had no sympathy with them the thing could be done by a stroke of the pen. They could not have any financial assistance from the County Associations, but they could have an arrangement between the persons finding the money and the Board of Education. In reply to the hon. Member who talked about losing the Bill, he wished to say that he had been too long in that House for that argument to weigh with him. The Bill would not be lost if the Government refused the Amendment. The hon. Member for New-castle-under-Lyme had asked, had they the right to refuse the working man the opportunity of having his children trained Surely when the working men who sat in that House got up and applied for it it would be plenty of time to give it them. Did the hon. Member want his children to have it? He certainly would

913
not have any of his children trained to be soldiers. That was not only his own feeling, but the feeling of many Members of the House, and of thousands of working men outside, who did not believe in that Army policy. They would vote against the Amendment.
VISCOUNT TURNOURsaid he had listened with great interest to the speech of the Member for Leicester. Whatever views they might hold on that side of the House as to the line he advocated, no one could doubt the sincerity and the straightforwardness which characterised his remarks. They had now heard the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues make a good many speeches on this subject of rifle-shooting and cadet corps. He did not know if the hon. Gentleman imagined that the granting of this money to cadet corps would encourage conscription. Had the hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the statement of the Secretary of State that there was unrest in the public mind, and that if it were not allayed matters would tend in that direction? The hon. Member for Leicester had given it as his reason for voting against the Amendment that military and educational expert opinion was against it. He tried to follow the hon. Gentleman's line as to military opinion being against it. So far as he understood, the hon. Gentleman said that military opinion was against cadet corps because boys were being drilled to be soldiers and the military spirit
would not thereby be encouraged. The hon. Gentleman went on to speak of educational opinion being against these corps. When asked to give some evidence of what this educational opinion was ho was unable to do so. Throughout his speech, at least that part of it which dealt with cadet corps, he dealt with them in the abstract, and confusion remained in their minds as to what the hon. Gentleman meant. A much more damaging thing was the charge he made against the Secretary of State of hunting with the hounds and running with the hare. The right hon. Gentleman looked rather less complacent than usual during his remarks on that subject. Personally, he thought there were overwhelming reasons why money should be given out of public funds to these corps, and he was bound to say it would have been much more straight forward if that course had been taken by the right hon. Gentleman. The debate had been, as he said, of much interest, not only because of the subject, but also because it showed the trouble the Government were constantly making for themselves by the chronic state of fear which induced them, whenever they put forward an opinion, to drop it if requested to do so by the noisiest section of the House.
Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The House divided: Ayes, 152; Noes, 66. (Division List No. 351.)

AYES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex.

Bull, Sir William James

Craik, Sir Henry

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Burns, lit. Hon. John

Crosfield, A. H.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Crossley, William J.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

Armitage, R.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.

Astbury, John Meir

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Balcarres, Lord

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

Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.

Balfour, Rt, Hn. A. J. (City Lond.

Chance, Frederick William

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Cheetham, John Frederick

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Duckworth, James

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Churchill, Rt, Hon. Winston S

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Cleland, J. W.

Elibank, Master of

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Coates. E. Feetham (Lewisham)

Erskine, David C.

Benn, W.(T'w'r Hamlets,S.Geo.

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

Esslemont, George Birnie

Branch, James

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Father, George Denison (York)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Corbett, C.H.(Sussex, E. Gr'st'd

Faber, Capt. W. Y. (Hants, W.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Ferguson, R. C Munro

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Courthope, G. Loyd

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Maddison, Frederick

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Fuller, John Michael F.

Mallet, Charles E.

Stanger, H. Y.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

Gretton, John

Menzies, Walter

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Harmsworth, R.L. (Caithn'ss-sh

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Montagu, E. S.

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

Harwood, George

Montgomery, H. G.

Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Thornton, Percy M.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Morpeth, Viscount

Tomkinson, James

Henry, Charles S.

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

Toulmin, George

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Turnour, Viscount

Hervey, F. W.F.(BuryS. Edm'd.

Paulton, James Mellor

Valentia, Viscount

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

Hunt, Rowland

Priestley, W.E.B. (Bradford. E.

Waring, Walter

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Rainy, A. Rolland

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Raphael, Herbert H.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Kearley, Hudson E.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Waterlow, D. S.

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Laidlaw, Robert

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Whitbread, Howard

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Robinson, S.

Whitehead, Rowland

Lamont, Norman

Rose, Charles Day

Whitley, JohnHenry (Halifax

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral

Runciman, Walter

Wills, Arthur Walters

Levy, Sir Maurice

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

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

Lewis, John Herbert

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Seely, Major J. B.

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin,S.

Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick B.)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Lough, Thomas

Silcock, Thomas Ball

M'Crae, George

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

TELLERS FOB THE AYES— Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford. East)

M'Micking, Major G.

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

NOES.

Alden, Percy

Hayden, John Patrick

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Higham, John Sharp

Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

Barnes, G. N.

Hodge, John

Seddon, J.

Bennett, E. N.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Shackleton, David James

Black, Arthur W.

Hudson, Walter

Sherwell. Arthur James

Bowerman, C. W.

Idris, T. H. W.

Simon, John Allsebrook

Byles, William Pollard

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Summerbell, T.

Clough, William

Jowett, F. W.

Sutherland, J. E.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Kilbride, Denis

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Cooper, G. J.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.

Crean, Eugene

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras. E.

Thorne, William

Cremer, Sir William Randal

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Crooks, William

Macpherson, J. T.

Walsh, Stephen

Curran, Peter Francis

Mac Veagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

Dilke, Rt, Hon. Sir Charles

M'Callum, John M.

Watt, Henry A.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Nicholls, George

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

O'Grady, J.

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Everett, R. Lacey

Parker, James (Halifax)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Fullerton, Hugh

Pollard, Dr.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Mr. Arthur Henderson and Mr. George Roberts.

Gill. A. H.

Radford, G. H.

Glover, Thomas

Rendall, Athelstan

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Richards, T.F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

Gulland, John W.

Richardson, A.

Question put, and agreed to

Subsequent Lords' Amendment agreed to.
Lords' Amendment—
"In line 20, after 'locally' to insert the words ' such requirements where practicable to be embodied in regulations which shall be issued to County Associations from time to time, and on the first occasion not later than the first day of January one thousand nine hundred and nine' "—
Read a second time.
*SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that in the case of this Amendment what he had to complain of was not had grammar, but unintelligibility. He would appeal to any hon. Member to say whether, after reading the Amendment, he was not totally unable to grasp its meaning. The Amendment brought out the general want of intelligibility in the clause more. Clause II. hung entirely

917
on Subsection 2 which dealt with the powers assigned by the Army Council to the County Associations. These were arranged in the most extraordinary fashion, and they contained the most extraordinary variety of subjects. The Amendment on which he was speaking brought out, as he had said, the absurdity of the whole drafting of the clause. One of the subjects on which the powers and duties of the Secretary of State were to be transferred was the supply of the requirements on mobilisation of the units of the Territorial Force within the county in so far as those requirements were directed by the Army Council to be met locally. Then came the whole of the Lords' Amendment which they were now considering, namely, that such requirements where practicable were to be embodied in regulations which should be issued to County Associations from time to time, and on the first occasion not later than the first day of June, 1909. He asked any Member to read the clause for himself and then to say whether the Amendment was of the least importance. It appeared to be couched in terms which showed a misapprehension of the whole meaning of the first part of the clause.
MR. HALDANEsaid that the subsection merely provided that the supply of requirements on mobilisation should be one of the things which was to be dealt with by the County Association. The Amendment which followed, and which was, he thought, on the whole an improvement to the clause, provided that the requirements were to be stated in regulations, and these regulations were to be published from time to time to the County Associations.
Lords' Amendment agreed to.
Subsequent Lords' Amendments agreed to.
Lords' Amendment—
"In line 31, after the word 'reservists, to insert the words ' and a Special Reservist may be re-engaged, and when re-engaged shall continue, subject to the terms of service applic-
918
able to Special Reservists,' "—Read a second time.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that though this Amendment was not ridiculous, as some of the Amendments were, the wording was not very clear. He supposed it was a Government Amendment.
MR. HALDANEsaid that the words had been put in to make the clause clear. The draughtsman advised the Amendment.
Lords' Amendment agreed to.
Subsequent Lords' Amendments agreed to.
Lords' Amendment: —
"In line 33 at the beginning of the clause to insert: —'(1) Every Order in Council or scheme required by this Act to be made before each house of Parliament shall be so laid before forty days next after it is made, if Parliament is then sitting, or if not, within forty days after the commencement of the then next ensiling session; and, if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent forty days, praying that any such order or scheme may be annulled, His Majesty may thereupon by order in Council annul the same, and the order or scheme so annulled shall thenceforth become void and of no effect, but without prejudice to the validity of any proceedings which may in the meantime have been taken under the same'."—Read a second time.
*SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that when this matter was under discussion in the House of Commons several attempts were made to obtain the effective control of the House over the provisions which those words gave to both Houses of Parliament. Those attempts on the part of Members of the House of Commons were continually resisted from the Treasury Bench, and the House was not given that control for which they asked. The result of this Amendment was that they were giving to the House of Lords for the first time a voice in many military matters which it had never previously possessed. During the debate on the question, the right hon. Member for Dover said that the

919
Constitution of this country gave almost unlimited powers for dealing with the Army to the House of Commons, and excluded the House of Lords. There were in his own opinion none of the provisions of this Bill which could not have been effected by votes of Parliament and by Treasury Minutes. For the first time, however, all that they were providing for in this Bill was made the subject of the assent of the House of Lords. They had received on the one hand the control of the House of Commons by those words—which were refused to them when they asked for their insertion—but that control was accompanied by a kind of control of the other House, which was now introduced for the first time.
MR. HALDANEsaid the most careful consideration had been given to the framing of this and similar clauses. All that this clause provided was that the schemes and orders were to be laid on the Tables of both Houses of Parliament, and either House might move an Address. It was then in the power of the King, if advised by his Ministers so to do, to annul the scheme. Obviously if the House of Commons carried such a Resolution the Ministers would advise the King.
Lords' Amendment agreed to.
Subsequent Lords' Amendments agreed to.

SHERIFFS COURTS (SCOTLAND) [REMUNERATION.]
Resolution reported, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the remuneration of any interim sheriff-substitute appointed in pursuance of any Act of the present session to regulate and amend the laws and practice relating
920
to the civil procedure in Sheriff Courts in Scotland."

SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES BILL [LORDS.]
Read a second time. Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for tomorrow (Wednesday.) —(Mr. Whiteley.)
PUBLIC HEALTH BILL.
As amended (in the Standing Committee and on re-committal), considered; read the third time, and passed.

NAVY AND ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1905–6
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
I. Whereas it appears by the Navy Appropriation Account for the year ending the 31st day of March, 1906, and the statement appended thereto, that the aggregate expenditure on Navy Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services, but that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the total differences between the Exchequer Grants for Navy Services and the net expenditure arc as follows, viz.: —

£

s.

d.

Total Surpluses

455,264

18

4

Total Deficits

217,505

19

2

Net Surplus

£237,758

19

2

And whereas it is expedient that the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Navy Services as is necessary to cover the said total deficits on other Grants for Navy Services be sanctioned.
1. Resolved, "That the application of such sums be sanctioned." —(Mr. Runciman.)

SCHEDULE.

Number of Vote.

Navy Services, 1905–6. Votes.

Differences between Exchequer Grants and Net Expenditure.

Surpluses.

Deficits.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

1

Wages, etc., of Officers, Seamen, and Boys, Coast Guard, and Royal Marines

—

163,909

1

8

2

Victualling and Clothing for the Navy

18,072

14

10

—

3

Medical Establishments and Services

12,042

10

4

—

4

Martial Law

720

19

6

—

5

Educational Services

10,824

8

0

—

6

Scientific Services

—

3,782

10

4

7

Royal Naval Reserves

35,539

13

0

—

8

Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &c.:

I. Personnel

63,015

9

2

—

II. Matériel

11,824

16

1

—

III. Contract Work

46,417

6

4

—

9

Naval Armaments

127,868

17

7

—

10

Works, Buildings, and Repairs, at Home and Abroad

106,664

13

1

—

11

Miscellaneous Effective Services

17,471

4

2

—

12

Admiralty Office

—

5,800

14

1

13

Half Pay, Reserved and Retired Pay

—

31,897

17

8

14

Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, and Compassionate Allowances

4,802

6

3

—

15

Civil Pensions and Gratuities

—

9,550

10

4

—

Amount written off as irrecoverable

—

2,565

5

1

Total

455,264

18

4

217,505

19

2

Net Surplus

£237,758 19 2

II. Whereas it appears by the Army Appropriation Account for the year ending 31st March, 1906, and the statement appended thereto, that the aggregate expenditure on Army Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those services, but that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the total differences between the Exchequer Grants for Army Services and the net expenditure are as follows, viz:—

£

s.

d.

Total Surpluses

1,396,005

1

10

Total Deficits

61,868

4

0

Net Surplus

£1,334,136

17

10

And whereas it is expedient that the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Army Services as is necessary to cover the said total deficits on other Grants for Army Services be sanctioned.
2. Resolved, "That the application of such sums be sanctioned.—(Mr. Runciman.)

SCHEDULE.

Number of Vote.

Army Services, 1905–6. Votes.

Differences between Exchequer Grants and Net Expenditure.

Surpluses.

Deficits.

£

s.

d

£

s.

d.

1

Pay, &c., of Army

250,166

18

10

—

2

Medical Establishment: Pay, &c.

25,504

11

11

—

3

Militia: Pay, Bounty, &c.

66,162

14

8

—

4

Imperial Yeomanry: Pay and Allowances

40,604

8

11

—

5

Volunteer Corps: Pay and Allowances

—

613

19

1

6

Quarterings, Transport, and Remounts

187,279

4

7

—

7

Supplies and Clothing

415,222

14

10

—

8

Ordnance Department Establishments and General Stores

122,089

1

7

—

9

Armaments and Engineer Stores

100,865

18

11

—

10

Works and Buildings

155,563

4

9

—

11

Establishments for Military Education

7,038

12

9

—

12

Miscellaneous Effective Services

7.910

10

0

—

13

War Office and Army Accounts Department

—

3,936

14

1

14

Non-effective Charges for Officers, &c.

11,597

0

8

—

15

Non-effective Charges for Mon, &c.

—

41,452

12

3

16

Civil Superannuation, Compensation, Compassionate Allowances, &c. Gratuities

—

6,428

3

9

—

Balances irrecoverable

—

9,436

14

10

Total

1,396,005

1

10

61,868

4

0

Net Surplus

£1,334,136 17 10

MR. VICTOR CAVENDISHsaid he might remind the House that this appeared for the first time in a new form, and he thought the house should have an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon it at a more convenient time. He hoped, therefore, the Government would see their way to put down the report Stage for a more convenient time.
MR. WHITELEY: It must be taken to-day.
MR. VICTOR CAVENDISHasked if the hon. Gentleman would put it down as the first order in Supply.
MR. ASQUITH: Could it not be discussed on the Report of the Public Accounts Committee?
MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: It could.
MR. ASQUITH: That would be a more convenient time.
Resolution to be reported to-morrow (Wednesday.)
Whereupon Mr. Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 26th day of this instant July, adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at twenty minutes before Three o'clock.