Commons Sitting of 28 July 1908

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

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Holderness Water Bill, London United Tramways Bill, Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways (No. 2) Bill, Sligo and Arigna Railway Bill.—Lords Amendments, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 23rd July, considered, and agreed to.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 3) Bill.—As amended, considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.
Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Cornwall, etc.) Bill [Lords].—Read a second time, and committed.
Commons Regulation (Towyn Trewan) Provisional Order Bill.—Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
Crystal Palace Company Bill [Lords].—Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time.
River Wandle Protection Bill [Lords].—Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Bill to be read the third time.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to, Tobacco Growing (Scotland) Bill, Wild Birds Bill, without Amendment.
Public Offices Sites (Extension) Bill, London County Council (General Powers) Bill, Gosport Gas Bill, Central Ireland Electric Power Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to Honourable Artillery Company Bill [Lords], Leith Burgh Bill [Lords], London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
Amendments to Ravensthorpe Urban District Council Bill [Lords], with an Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill intituled, "An Act to Confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Edinburgh and District Water." [Edinburgh and District Water Order Confirmation Bill [Lords].
Edinburgh and District Water Order Confirmation Bill [Lords].—Read the first time; and ordered (under Section 9 of The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 344.]

PETITIONS.
  HOUSING, TOWN PLANNING, ETC., BILL.
  Petition from Lewisham, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Gillingham; and Rochester (two); to lie upon the Table.
  POOR LAW AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Cambusnethan; and Ferry-Port-on-Craig; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  LOSS OF LIFE AT SEA.
  Copy presented, of Return showing the lives lost by Wreck, Drowning, or other Accident in British sea-going Merchant Ships registered in the United Kingdom during the years 1891 to 1907, inclusive [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  LOCAL TAXATION ACCOUNT, 1907–8.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 22nd July; Mr. Masterman];

  1169
  to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 263.]

  LOCAL TAXATION LICENCES, ETC., 1907–8.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 22nd July; Mr. Masterman]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 264.]
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Commissioners for the period from 1st April, 1907, to 31st March, 1908 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Annual Report of the Local Government Board for Ireland, for the year ended 31st March, 1908 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUEZ CANAL (COMMERCIAL, No. 5, 1908).
  Copy presented, of Returns of Shipping and Tonnage passing through the Suez Canal, 1905, 1906, and 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 22nd July; Sir Frederick Banbury]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 265.]

  PACIFIC CABLE ACT, 1901.
  Account presented, showing the Money issued from the Consolidated Fund under the provisions of the Pacific Cable Act, 1901, and of the Money received, expended, and borrowed, and Securities created under the said Act, to the 31st March, 1908, together with a Copy of the Report of the Chairman of the Pacific

  District.

  Total Number of Offences.

  Cases of Drunkenness.

  Minor Offences not Drunkenness.

  Serious Offences.

  Newry

  Bessbrook

  Camlough, exclusive of Bessbrook

  Mullaghan and Tullyhaggy

  —(Mr. Sloan.)

  Cable Board [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 266.]

  DEATHS FROM STARVATION OR ACCELERATED BY PRIVATION (LONDON).
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 19th February; Mr. Talbot]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 267.]

  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT.
  Order [23rd June] for an Address for a Return relative thereto, read and discharged; and, instead thereof:—
  Address for "Return of the names of every Member returned to serve in the Twenty-seventh Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland appointed to meet 3rd December, 1900, and dissolved 8th January, 1906, specifying the names of the county, city, university, or place for which each Member was returned (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 365, of Session 1901)."—(Sir William Bull.)

  OFFENCES IN COUNTY ARMAGH (IRELAND).
  Return ordered, "showing the number of convictions for indictable and non-indictable Offences committed in the following districts in Ireland in the three years ending the 30th day of April 1906, 1907, and 1908, repectively: (1) the town of Newry; (2) the village of Bessbrook; (3) the electoral division of Camlough, excluding Bessbrook, and (4) the electoral division of Mullaghan and Tullyhaggy, in the following form:—
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS. CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Addition to Phœnix Park.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the cost of the removal of the old railings and the supply of new ones around the powder magazine in the Phœnix Park has been done at the expense of the War Office, or is to be a charge on the Vote for the Irish Board of Works; what is the cost of the work; what was the necessity for the expense; at whose request was the expense incurred; is it the fact that the only use to which the estate lately added to the Phœnix Park has been put is for War Office manœuvres; and when will the general public be allowed to participate in the enjoyment of the area added to the park.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) As regards the railings the work has been done at the expense of the War Office, and the cost is estimated to reach the sum of £560. The old wooden fence was worn out and required replacement by a better and unclimable fence. As regards the new estate, I am informed that only three acres of a total 200 acres have been let by the Board of Works to the War Office to facilitate bridging practice by the troops. The rest of the land, with some insignificant exception, is let on grazing tenancies or under agreements existing at the time of purchase. One of the tenants allows the War Office to use his land for signalling and a little horse training. The property was acquired to prevent its being built over and to preserve the amenities of the Phœnix Park. There is no intention at present to throw it open to the public, and a large expenditure would be necessary before doing so.

  Matchem and Company and the Fair Wages Clause.
  MR. W. THORNE: To ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that a firm of contractors named Matcham and Company are doing work at the Plymouth Post Office, and are only paying the bricklayers' labourers 4d. and 4½d. per hour instead of the recognised standard rate, viz., 5d.; and whether he intends taking any action in the matter.
  1172
  (Answered by Mr. Harcourt.) I have made careful inquiries, and find there is no foundation for the allegation in the Question.

  Sub-letting of Messrs. Lester & Perkin's Contract.
  MR. W. T. WILSON: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the firm of Lester and Perkins, who have the contract for fitting up the steamship "Rohilla" for conveying troops to India, have sub-let a part of the work to Mr. G. Peacock, of Wandsworth Road, and that he is paying from 2½d. to 3½d. per hour less than the standard rate to his workmen; whether this work was sub-let with his sanction and approval; and whether he will take steps to enforce the terms of the Fair Wages Clause in connection with this sub-contract.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The work referred to was such as could scarcely be considered as involving a sub-letting of a portion of the contract, but the matter has been inquired into, and my information is that the rate paid to the workmen works out in excess of the standard rate accepted as current in the district.

  Cost of Living in Welsh Provincial Towns
  MR. REES: To ask the Postmaster-General what are the respective units and cost of living at Welshpool, Newtown, Montgomery, Llanidloes, Lllanfyllin, and Machynlleth; and whether their classification is the same as that of other towns in Welsh counties.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The information asked for as regards Welshpool, Newtown, and Machynlleth, so far as it is available, will be found on Pages 62, 64, and 65 of the Parliamentary Paper, Post Office (Changes in Wages, etc.), issued on the 11th instant. Montgomery, Llanidloes, and Llanfyllin are sub-offices, and their classification has not yet been definitely decided. The principles governing the new classification are explained on Pages 54 et seq. of the Parliamentary Paper referred to, and the list on Pages 57 to 65 of the same paper contains the classification of all head offices throughout the kingdom.

  Sunday Duty in the Post Office.
  MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: To ask the Postmaster-General whether the Post Office Department obliges post office assistants to work on Sunday without remuneration; and, if so, when will the practice be discontinued and these officials placed on the same footing as those in other grades of the service.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) Assistants are not required to undertake Sunday duty without remuneration. Such duty is taken into account in fixing the weekly wages.

  Promotion in the Customs—Mr. Clarke's Change.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that Mr. C. Clarke, employed in the Statistical Office, Customs, was informed by Treasury letter, dated 4th June, 1907, that no application for his exceptional promotion would be considered until he had withdrawn certain charges which he had made; what was the date on which Mr. Clarke formally withdrew his charges, and how long after that date was he nominated for exceptional promotion; whether Mr. Clarke was induced to send in his withdrawal by promises made to him by his superior officers that if he took that course his name would be submitted for nomination for exceptional promotion; what was the nature of the charges made by Mr. Clarke and against whom were they directed; whether he is aware that Mr. Clarke has been unable to take up the superior post to which he has been nominated owing to the refusal of the Civil Service Commissioners to grant him the necessary certificate, and will he say how many times have they refused and on what grounds; whether it is intended to continue to present Mr. Clarke to the Commissioners until he succeeds in obtaining their certificate; to what class of officers in the Statistical Office does Mr. Clarke belong; is it the practice to select a number of specially meritorious men in that class for the discharge of superior duties, such as checking, for which certain monetary allowances are granted, and have all previous promotions from the class to superior appointments been made exclusively from the
  1174
  ranks of these selected men; and whether, in view of the distrust in the system of selection for promotion shared by all classes in the Statistical Office, he will cause an independent investigation to be made into the circumstances of the nomination of Mr. Clarke for promotion over the heads of officers who are his seniors and of whom a number are specially entrusted with duties recognised by grants of monetary allowances as being officially superior to those performed by Mr. Clarke.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) The officer referred to is one of 121 assistant clerks who signed a Memorial addressed to the Treasury in which an unfounded allegation of breach of faith as regards promotion was made against His Majesty's Government. It is not the case that an intimation was made to this officer individually as is suggested, but a general reply was sent to the memorialists to the effect stated in the Question. Mr. Clarke withdrew his signature to the Memorial on 13th September last, but it is not true that he was induced to do so on any promise whatever. He was nominated for the position of port clerk on 3rd December following, and has been examined twice by the Civil Service Commissioners, but on both occasions has failed to qualify. It is the ordinary practice of the Civil Service Commissioners to allow two trials and it is not proposed to allow him a third. The monetary (i.e., checking) allowances in the Statistical Office are assigned in strict order of seniority to those assistant clerks who are certified to be efficient and of good character, but the possession of a checking allowance does not imply that the holder is of such exceptional merit as will justify the Board in recommending him for promotion to a superior appointment. No clerk with an allowance was qualified for such advancement when Mr. Clarke was nominated.

  Colonial Audit Branch.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, seeing that the old system of recruiting the Colonial Audit Branch by nomination without any actual educational test examination has now broken

  1175
  down, he will explain why Volunteers for that branch were not heretofore called for, except in one or two cases, from amongst the trained auditors of the main establishment of the Exchequer and Audit Department.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether two chief examiners and a senior clerk in the Exchequer and Audit Department now serving in London, who owe their present superior position to the fact that they were members of the Old Colonial Audit Branch, are liable to further periods of service abroad, and, if so, will he explain why the Comptroller and Auditor-General has recently threatened to bring outsiders into the Department if Volunteers are not forthcoming for foreign service.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) These Questions relate to matters that, under Section 9 of 29 and 30 Vict., c. 39, are entirely within the discretion and authority of the Comptroller and Auditor General, and I have no power of interference.

  Education Problem.
  MR. YOXALL: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether under Article 14 of the Code of Regulations for public elementary schools in England, the phrase—The number of scholars under the instruction of any one teacher—means the number of scholars on the class register who may be under the instruction of one teacher, or the number ordinarily present under instruction; and, if the latter, is this regarded as in effect a material enlargement of the average attendance for which under Article 12 a teacher is counted as sufficient.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The number of scholars under this instruction of any one teacher means in this article the greatest number of scholars actually taught by that teacher at any one time. Article 12 supplies, subject to Article 10, a subordinate test of the sufficiency of the staff of a school or department as a whole. It is obviously necessary, in view of the difference in size of the
  1176
  various classes in a school, that some elasticity should be allowed in the number of children who may be taught by each individual teacher. Article 14 lays down the limits of that elasticity, and inasmuch as it imposes a limit upon the size of each class it is not an extension but a curtailment of the latitude allowed by Article 12, which is applicable only to the staff of the school as a whole.

  Dismissal of Married Teachers at Aberdare.
  MR. YOXALL: To ask the President of the Board of Education if His Majesty's inspector of schools for the district has reported concerning the dismissal of several teachers at Aberdare who are married women, some of whom are nearing the pensionable age, and will, therefore, be unable to complete the maximum service entitling to a pension; whether he has been informed that some of the vacancies thus created are to be filled by the appointment of teachers who are related to a member of the Aberdare Education Committee; and if so, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I have not received a Report upon this Question; but, in view of Section 35 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, it is within the power of a local education authority to terminate the engagements of teachers in their employment, and the Act gives the Board no power to intervene. I have no information as to the last part of the Question.

  College-Trained Teachers in Elementary Schools.
  MR. YOXALL: To ask the President of the Board of Education if he can state for what reason the Board of Education have abandoned the footnote to Article 10 in the Code of 1906, indicating that, after July, 1909, the Board may require the employment of a certain proportion of college-trained teachers upon the staff of the public elementary schools; and whether, in view of the number of qualified teachers unable to get appointments and the number of unqualified teachers at present employed, the Board will take steps to

  1177
  re-issue this notice, and to announce some definite provision to secure the reform indicated.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The withdrawal of the footnote was due mainly to the fact that a deputation from the National Union of Teachers represented to my predecessor that the new provision would, in their view, inflict grave hardship on a large number of their colleagues unless all teachers certificated prior to 1908 were to be regarded as "trained," irrespective of whether or not they had in fact "completed a course of training in a training college."

  Coastguard and the Naval Manœuvres.
  MR. GRETTON: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what number of coastguards was mobilised for the Fleet during the recent manœuvres; if all the coastguard stations on the coasts of Great Britain and Ireland were fully manned at war strength during the manœuvres; and, if not, in what part of the coast was there a deficiency.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) 1,300 coastguard men were embarked for manœuvres, being about half the number that would embark in war time. The war complement of the coastguard was maintained complete during the manœuvres, the men embarking for manœuvres being taken only from those stations that would be vacated in war time.

  Independent Order of Foresters—Funds in Toronto.
  MR. J. DEVLIN: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state what amount of funds, if any, the Independent Order of Foresters, whose head office is at Toronto, has deposited with his Board as security for their liabilities in this country; and if he will take steps to prevent the withdrawal of such deposit from this country, lest, in the event of any of their member proceeding against them for a recovery of premiums paid, they should have no realisable assets here.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The Independent Older of Foresters (Toronto) in November, 1892, made the deposit of
  1178
  £20,000 with the Postmaster-General of the Supreme Court of Judicature, as required by Section 3 of the Life Assurance Companies Act, 1870. This deposit was withdrawn on 29th December, 1904, pursuant to an Order of Court dated 5th December, 1904. Under the provisions of Section 35 (1) of the Companies Act, 1907, this company is required to file with the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies the names and addresses of some one or more persons resident in the United Kingdom authorised to accept on behalf of the company service of process.

  Tullaghan Evicted Tenant.
  MR. F. MEEHAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether an application has been received by the Estates Commissioners from Michael Felly, of Cragh, Tullaghan, County Leitrim, for reinstatement in the farm from which he has been evicted on the Folliott estate; and, if so, what steps, if any, they purpose taking to have him reinstated.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Commissioners proposed to allot Michael Feely, a holding on the estate of Miss Dickson, but they now find that they cannot acquire this land compulsorily. The applicant's name has been retained on the Commissioners' list, and it is intended to provide him with a farm if the Commissioners should acquire any untenanted land in the neighbourhood.

  Naval Court Martial.
  MR. NIELD: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will say what is the number and percentage of the men composing the crews of the Altantic, Channel, Home (Nore Division), and Mediterranean Fleets respectively, who, during the past twelve months have been tried by court martial for offences against discipline.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The number of men tried by court martial n the various fleets is given in a quarterly Return, a copy of the latest issue of which I have sent to the hon. Member It is not clear from the Question on what

  1179
  basis the hon. Member desires the percentage calculation to be made, but on any basis they would involve an amount of labour out of proportion to any advantage which it would seem could be gained from the result.

  Creech Grange Post Office.
  MR. O'GRADY: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the postmistress in charge of the Creech Grange Office near Ware-ham, has to work excessive hours, week days 7 a.m. to 8 p.m., Sundays 7 a.m. to 12 noon, without relief, unless she pays for help out of her own stipend; whether he is aware that such stipend is £24 a year, out of which she has also to provide lamp, oil, coal, and blotting paper for use in the office; if so, will steps be taken to staff and equip this office as the need requires, and to see that adequate wages are paid such staff.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The circumstances are approximately as stated, and, although the attendances are not quite so arduous as they may appear, I am inquiring into the question of reducing them. The remuneration will probably be somewhat increased as soon as the new scale of pay is brought in force. The sub-postmistress is remunerated on the usual basis applicable to small post offices maintained in connection with a private business, and of course she does not depend for her livelihood on her emoluments from Post Office work. The amount of business transacted falls far below the standard which would justify me in maintaining and staffing a salaried post office.

  Sligo Post Office—Night Duties.
  MR. McHUGH: To ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that in Sligo Post Office officers who perform a considerable amount of night duty, from 1.45 a.m. to 9 a.m., are required to return on overtime, on Mondays, from 2.30 p.m. to 4 p.m.; is he aware that for a considerable time past, even when the overtime attendance in this office was abnormal, the officers performing the night attendance were exempted from this overtime; and will he give instructions that this practice will be again introduced, or that a suffi-
  1180
  cient period for rest be given to officers on completion of their duty at 9 a.m.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I regret there should be any necessity for working overtime at Sligo, but it arises from the difficulty experienced at this time of the year, more especially in the North of Ireland, in providing substitutes for officers absent on leave. In the case of the particular officers in question the duty commences at 3.45 a.m., 1.45 a.m. on Mondays only, so that they enjoy an interval for rest of eleven and three-quarter hours after 4 p.m. No better alternative is feasible. The duties will be restored to their usual limits as soon as possible.

  Thames Steamers and the Conveyance of the Mails.
  MR. CARR-GOMM: To ask the Postmaster-General whether any attempt was made by the Post Office to utilise the London County Council Steamboat Service for the purpose of the conveyance of mails, in accordance with Clause 36 of the Thames River Steamboat Service Act, 1904.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The steamboats on the Thames have not been used for the conveyance of mails, as it did not at any time appear that an improvement in the service could have been affected by their use.

  Small Pox among Post Office Employees.
  MR. LUPTON: To ask the Postmaster-General what was the number of cases of small, pox and the number of deaths, if any, from small-pox among the employees of the Post Office in each of the ten years ending with 1907.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton. The following statement gives the number of cases in each year:—

  1898

  no cases.

  1899

  one case.

  1900

  no cases.

  1901

  three cases.

  These three were years of epedemic.

  1902

  sixteen cases.

  1903

  six cases.

  1904

  four cases.

  1905

  two cases.

  1906

  no cases.

  1907

  no cases.

  There were three deaths in 1902, and none in any of the other years. The approximate number of persons to whom this Return applies was 82,000 in 1898, rising to 132,000 in 1907.

  Shetland Cable Breakdown.
  MR. PIRIE: To ask the Postmaster-General if his attention has been drawn to the renewed breakdown of the Shetland cable between Aberdeen and Lerwick which ceased working over a week ago; if he is aware that this cable was laid down by a private company over forty years ago; and whether, seeing that these constant breakdowns are inflicting losses on the herring-fishing industry in the North of Scotland, the business transactions of which are necessarily largely carried on through cablegrams and which is at its height at the present moment, he will see to the immediate repair of this cable, and also take steps to provide him with a little delay as possible for a new cable with a larger number of wires than the existing one.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) My attention has been drawn to this unfortunate occurrence. The cable was laid by the Post Office twenty-three years ago. A ship has been sent to repair the cable, and in the meantime I am glad to say that my engineers have been able to arrange for more rapid working on the remaining cable. The question of laying a new cable or of establishing a wireless service is under consideration.

  Bristol Post Office.
  MR. HOWELL DAVIES: To ask the Postmaster-General if his attention has been called to a notice posted on the new Post Office works at Bristol by the contractors to the Government, stating that any workman inquiring of another workman engaged on the works if he belonged to a trade organisation would be subject to summary dismissal; and whether he will ask the contractors to so modify their notice to their workmen as to bring it within the spirit of the fair wage and condition clause which they, the contractors, signed before receiving the contract.
  (Answered by Mr. Harcourt.) The hon. Member will find my Answer to a
  1182
  similar Question yesterday to the Postmaster-General which is circulated with Votes this morning.

  Willesden Education Committee.
  MR. MACPHERSON: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that Willesden Education Committee have introduced an area scheme against the wishes of the parents, and also a scheme which imposes hardships upon the scholars, as, under the said scheme, children are being removed from the schools in which they have received all their education, and are being sent to other schools, in some instances further from their homes; and will steps be taken to see that the scheme is vetoed and the wishes of the parents recognised.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) It is understood that the Willesden Local Education Authority desire to assign a particular area to each of their council schools and to confine or give a preference in admission to each school to the children resident in that area. The arguments advanced by the local education authority in support of this arrangement are by no means trivial, and the Board agree with them in thinking that it offers substantial advantages from the point of view of organisation and would, on the whole and in the long run, be quite as convenient to the parents as to the local education authority. On general grounds, therefore, the Board are reluctant to interfere with the discretion of the local education authority. On the other hand, the introduction of such an arrangement may give rise to personal grievances in some cases, and although the local education authority are willing to make large exceptions to their rules and to allow the elder children (and the younger of the same family as elder children) to continue in attendance at the schools which they now attend, it is possible that still further provision should be made to meet the views of parents who object to their children's removal to a new school. The whole question is receiving careful consideration.

  Certified Training Colleges.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: To ask the President of the Board of

  1183
  Education whether he will state the names of the training colleges which fulfil the conditions set forth in Sections 7 (g), 7 (h), and 8 of the Training College Regulations, 1908; and also the names of those colleges which are known as certified training colleges, under Chapter 11 of the same Regulations.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I will send the hon. Member a list of the training colleges recognised by the Board. As I have already stated, the Board have no reason to believe that any of those colleges fail to comply with the Regulations. No occasion has yet arisen for certifying a training college as efficient but not as recognised for grants.

  Sheep Dipping in North Wales.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the objections of farmers in North Wales to the double dipping of sheep enforced by the recent Sheep-scab Order have been considered; and whether he is in a position to make a statement with reference to any modifications which can be made in the said Order in response to the representations made by those concerned.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The reply to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. The Board are prepared to alter the dates of dipping provided by the Sheep-dipping Order to meet, so far as it is possible, local convenience; but, in view of the prevalence of sheep-scab in North Wales, they are unable to relax the requirement for two dippings until a very considerable diminution in the amount of disease has been effected.

  Small Holdings Act—Tonbridge Eviction Case.
  MR. GEORGE ROBERTS: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether his attention has been directed to the case of Mr. David Nicholls, against whom an eviction warrant was made by a bench of magistrates sitting at Tonbridge on the 20th instant, upon the application
  1184
  of Nicholls' landlord, the reason alleged being that Nicholls has applied for land under the Small Holdings Act; and whether he proposes taking any action in the matter; and, if so, what.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The attention of the President of the Board has been drawn to the case to which my hon. friend refers. It is a matter of very great regret to him that he has no power to take any action in the matter.

  Horse Breeding.
  MR. GRETTON: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, to whom the inspection and approval of stallions and mares in connection with the horse-breeding scheme is to be entrusted; and if any stops have yet been taken to organise the proposal.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The proposals put forward have not been approved, and it would be therefore premature for me to enter into the details of the scheme.

  Scottish Sheriffs and Insurance Company Directorships.
  MR. WATT: To ask the Lord-Advocate if his attention has been called to the fact that sheriffs and sheriffs' substitute in Scotland frequently act as ordinary directors of insurance companies, for which they receive remuneration, and that these companies are often engaged in litigation in the Law Courts, in many cases as defenders against workmen's compensation claims; and if, in future appointments to Sheriffships, he will make it a condition that active work in connection with trade shall not be entered on.
  (Answered by Mr. Thomas Shaw.) My attention has not been called to this, and there is no information to support the suggestion that sheriffs and sheriffs' substitute frequently act as described. The disqualifications and disabilities of sheriffs and sheriffs' substitute are set forth in Section 21 of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act, 1907, and to this I cannot

  1185
  doubt that they conform. As to the sheriffs' substitute, they are prohibited from inter alia engaging in "legal banking, or other private practice or business," and this would seem to include the directorships referred to. If any cases were found to exist in which directorships are hold by sheriffs which have produced, or are likely to produce, indirect relations with litigants or a conflict with judicial duty it would be for consideration whether the section mentioned should not be amended. As to future appointments there is, of course, no power to impose conditions not warranted by the law as it stands.

  British Museum Extension.
  SIR WILLIAM BULL: To ask the First Commissioner of Works why the building operations for the extension of the British Museum in Montague Place have been suspended for nearly a year, and when they are likely to be renewed.
  (Answered by Mr. Harcourt.) The delay has arisen in connection with the settlement of internal details and the preparation of the drawings for the superstructure. It is anticipated that the works will be recommenced early in October.

  Officers on Retired Pay.
  MR. W. NICHOLSON: To ask the Paymaster-General if he can state by what authority a form has been issued to officers on retired pay demanding full particulars of their incomes from all sources, private and official, to be forwarded without delay to the Paymaster-General.
  (Answered by Mr. Causton.) Under the Finance Acts the officers of His Majesty's Paymaster-General are assessors of income-tax and act with regard to the collection of income-tax under the authority of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.

  East London and the Pension Scheme.
  MR. FELL: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he proposes to make special arrangements to assist the pension officers in the East End of London, where large numbers of
  1186
  claims for pensions from naturalised foreigners are to be expected, and where the double difficulty will arise of proving not only the births of these claimants in foreign countries, but also the dates of their arrival in this country and of their naturalisation.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The arrangements necessary for meeting the requirements of the district referred to will be duly considered at the proper time.

  Dromard Evicted Tenant.
  MR. McHUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners wrote to an evicted tenant named Edward Gillmore, of Brockagh, Dromard, County Sligo, on 17th January last, informing him that he had been noted as a person whom the Commissioners deemed suitable to be provided with a new holding in place of the holding, from which he had been evicted on the estate of Mrs. Ramsay, Ballintogher, County Sligo, and which is occupied by a planter; and can he state what steps have been taken to provide Gillmore with a holding, and with what result.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners wrote the letter of 17th January referred to in the Question, but they have since further considered the matter and have decided to take no action. The applicant lives with his mother on a holding of about twelve acres.

  Knocklong Evicted Tenants.
  MR. LUNDON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will ascertain from the Estates Commissioners whether they have at any time been in communication with Mr. Sanders, of Charleville, County Cork, agent to the Cooper estate in Knocklong, County Limerick, over the reinstatement to their evicted farms of John McGrath and Thomas Barry on the same estate, or are the Estate Commissioners aware that William Hatte, the alleged tenant on the farms of McGrath and Barry, is not even a planter nor a farmer, as he does not reside on the lands but in Blackrock, County Dublin, and has never farmed an acre of land, but has been chief clerk in Mr. Sanders'

  1187
  office, and latterly a partner in the firm; are the Estates Commissioners aware, or can they say, that the farms have been worked by a caretaker; and will the Estates Commissioners resume with Mr. Sanders negotiations for the reinstatement of those tenants.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have inquired into the cases of the evicted tenants in question, and intend to provide holdings for them if possible. The Commissioners have ascertained that the evicted holdings are occupied by Mr. Hatte, who lives at Blackrock, Dublin, and is partner of Mr. Sanders, the agent of the estate. Mr. Hatte has signed an agreement to purchase the holdings. The Commissioners will consider all the circumstances before making an advance to him. The case of the evicted tenants has been placed in the hands of an inspector with the object of procuring their restoration or of providing other holdings for them.

  Land Purchase in County Limerick.
  MR. LUNDON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland can he ascertain from the Estates Commissioners whether negotiations have been carried on for sale to the tenants on the part of Lord Massey on his Galbally property in the County Limerick, Mr. Lowe and his tenants around Galbally in Lowestown, Earl Dunraven and his tenants around Croom, County Limerick, Mr. Duncan and his tenants around Ballylander, County Limerick and, if the rural tenants have signed the agreements for purchase, will the Estates Commissioners endeavour to effect arrangements for sale and purchase between those several landlords and their town tenants; and will the Estates Commissioners open negotations for sale and purchase as between landlord and town tenants on the estate of Lord Clonmel around Down, the representatives of the Reptons around Cappamore, the Earl of Limerick around Bruff, Mr. Brazier in Kilmallock, and the agent of the Erasmus Smith property in Pallasgrean, all in County Limerick.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Proceedings have been instituted before the Estates Commissioners for the sale of the estates
  1188
  of Lord Massey, Mr. Lowe, the Earl of Clonmel, the Earl of Limerick, and Erasmus Smith, but no proceedings are pending before them in connection with the Earl of Dunraven's Croom property or the estates of Mr. Duncan, Mr. Repton, or Mr. Brazier. The Commissioners will consider any application which may be made to them in reference to any of these estates, but cannot undertake themselves to open negotiations between the landlords and tenants.

  Fermoy Urban Council Meetings.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state whether the Lord-Lieutenant has yet considered the petition of the urban council of Fermoy respecting their right to hold meetings of the council in the Court-house, conferred by the Fermoy Act of 1808 and renewed by the Towns Improvement Act of 1854, and if this right, exercised and enjoyed for over 100 years, will be confirmed; whether he is aware that, while the memorial of the urban council was under the consideration of the Lord-Lieutenant, Mr. Carroll, Crown Solicitor, who had been duly notified thereof, proceeded to peremptorily demand from the council the surrender of their right, under threat of eviction; if he is cognisant of the fact that Mr. Carroll, who held the position of legal adviser to the urban council, was deprived of that office a month ago by the council acting within their discretion; and whether he will take any steps to restrain the action of the Crown Solicitor in this matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The petition referred to is still under the consideration of the Lord-Lieutenant, who will cause a reply to be sent to the Fermoy Urban District Council as soon as possible. As the hon. Member has already been informed, Mr. Carroll, is not acting in the matter as Crown Solicitor, but as the private solicitor of the High Sheriff, in whose custody and control the Courthouse is vested by statute. I am not aware that Mr. Carroll has been deprived of the office of legal adviser to the urban council. The Government cannot restrain Mr. Carroll from acting as solicitor to the High Sheriff.

  Irish Assistant Teachers.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the character of the salary and prospects of promotion of assistant teachers in Irish National Schools, provision will be made in the new grant for giving those teachers greater consideration for their services; what are the proposals of the Government for the future payment of those men; and is it proposed to enable them to enter the second grade.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I would refer the hon. Member to the revised Supplementary Estimate for Public Education, Ireland, which is now before the House.

  Shoeburyness Foreshore.
  ME. DUNDAS WHITE: To ask the Secretary of State for War what is the character of the estate of about 890 acres of foreshore at Shoeburyness, recently purchased by the War Office for £5,500; whether it is part of the Maplin Sands; what is its position; whether, and, if so, to what extent, it is covered at high water; what use, if any, has been made of it by the vendors; and whether the War Office has acquired it in order to acquire the right of firing over it, or for what, if any, other purpose.
  (Answered, by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) This estate is part of the Maplin Sands and lies almost three miles north-east of Shoeburyness. It is entirely covered at high water. So far as the War Department is aware, no use of this foreshore was made by the vendors, but the War Department fired over it and have acquired it for the purpose of firing over it.

  Territorial Uniform Contracts.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that uniforms for the Territorial Reserve Forces are being made in the homes of employees in the East End of London, and that some of the contractors are working their employees in their factories seven days per week and whether, in view
  1190
  of the Fair Wages Resolution of this House, it is his intention to take any action in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) I am not aware of the matters alluded to in the Question. The attention of the associations has been drawn to the Fair Wages Clause, but, as I have already informed the hon. Member, it is not practicable to interfere with their discretion.

  Bermuda Engineer Stores.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether any officer has been held responsible for the incompetency in connection with the Bermuda engineer stores; and, if so, what was his name and what notice has been taken of his incompetency.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) I must refer my hon. friend to the evidence taken before the Public Accounts Committee which will shortly be in the hands of hon. Members.

  Territorials at Brecon Public Meeting.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a Mr. Thomas Davies, whilst wearing the Territorial uniform, disturbed a public meeting at Brecon on 12th June, 1908, assisted by others also attired in uniform, this meeting being addressed by a Mr. Pattison, of Ruskin College, Oxford, and not by a lady, as the right hon. Gentleman has been informed; whether he is aware that a second meeting held on 16th June, with the Territorials absent, was conducted without any disturbance; whether he is aware that a third meeting was held on 19th June, 1908, and addressed by a Mrs. Keating Hill, of Cardiff, was again interrupted by Territorials led on by Mr. Thomas Davies as before-mentioned, and, although this gentleman was allowed five minutes, during which he addressed the meeting, he afterwards continued to upset the meeting; and what action does he intend to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) I have no information regarding the

  1191
  meetings of 12th and 16th June, and I am awaiting a full Report. The meeting of 19th June was dealt with in my previous Answer to the hon. Member, to which I have nothing to add.

  Orissa.
  MR. REES: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the operations of keeping up-to-date the record of rights involved in the last resettlement of the temporarily settled districts of Orissa is being conducted without causing any vexatious interference to the parties concerned.
  (Answered by Mr. Buchanan.) It is presumed that the Question has reference to the operations set on foot by the Bengal Government for revising, as the first step in the scheme for their annual maintenance, the village records prepared some twelve years ago at the last land revenue settlement of Orissa. According to the latest Reports the operations are proceeding satisfactorily. The local Government has made the procedure as simple and expeditious as possible, and has confined the work to what is absolutely necessary for bringing the records up-to-date. The settlement officer reports that the revision is welcomed by the ryots and the better class of landlords, as it clears up disputes and gives effect to changes which have occurred since the records were first prepared.

  Registration of Titles in Scotland.
  MR. C. E. PRICE: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is now able to state when the Report will be issued of the Royal Commission on the Registration of Titles in Scotland which was appointed on 23rd May, 1906.
  (Answered, by Mr. Sinclair.) I am informed that the Royal Commission hope to conclude the evidence during the ensuing autumn, when they will proceed to consider their Report.

  Rates in the Island of Lewis.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland in view of the fact that the chief contributor to the rates in the island of Lewis has failed to meet the demand for payment made on him, and seeing that there is no pros-
  1192
  pect of the difficulty being overcome in the near future, will he state whether the local authority has applied to the Local Government Board for Scotland for guidance and assistance; and, if so, will he state the nature of the advice given by the Board.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) I am informed by the Local Government Board that, in reply to communications from the parishes of Barvas, Lochs, and Uig, they telegraphed that the parish councils should take immediate proceedings to recover the outstanding rates.

  Syre Settlers.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland, in view of the statement contained on page 9 of the last Report of the Congested Districts Board, will he state on what ground settlers in Syre have expressed their desire to become tenants instead of purchasers.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The grounds are financial; but, under the circumstances at Syre, I think the settlers are mistaken in their view.

  Post Office Surveyors—Subsistence Allowances.
  MR. A. ROCHE: To ask the Postmaster-General whether the subsistence allowance to surveyors of the Post Office when absent from head-quarters is intended as a source of profit; is he aware that the subsistence allowance of the head surveyor of the Southern District in Ireland, when absent from his head-quarters in Dublin, is not less than 21s. per diem, while his actual expenses do not exceed 50 per cent, of this amount; and, in these circumstances, will he explain why sorting clerks and telegraphists compelled to perform relief duties in country districts are expected to exist on a subsistence of 3s. per diem.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) It is a well-established Treasury principle that subsistence allowance is not intended as a source of profit, but rather as a repayment of necessary additional expenses involved by travelling. Obviously a different scale of expenses is warranted in the case of a high officer such as a surveyor and one occupying the position of a sorting clerk and telegraphist. I have

  1193
  no information as to the sums actually spent by surveyors. Their subsistence allowance is that commonly granted to all officers of similar standing in the Civil Service.

  Revenue Statistics
  MR. BOWLES: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury

  Revenue raised by Taxes, 1907–8.

  (Net Receipt.)

  Revenue raised.

  Temporary Duties.

  By Permanent Enactment.

  By Temporal Enactment.

  Total.

  £

  £

  £

  Customs

  26,355,715

  6,226,279

  32,581,994

  The whole of the 5d. the pound

  4d. per pound on unmanufactured tobacco, with proportionate increases on cigars and manufactured tobacco

  From 1st April to 30th June 1907

  1s. per barrel on beer

  6d. per gallon on spirits

  Excise

  35,104,582

  620,003

  35,724,585

  1s. per barrel on beer

  6d. per gallon on spirits

  Estate, &c., Duties

  19,108,256

  —

  19,108,256

  —

  Stamps

  7,930,584

  —

  7,930,584

  —

  Land Tax

  710,003

  —

  710,003

  —

  House Duty

  1,939,865

  —

  1,939,865

  —

  Income Tax

  —

  31,860,380

  31,860,380

  The whole of the tax, 1s. in the pound on unearned incomes and 9d. in the pound on earned incomes to 5th April 1908.

  91,149,005

  38,706,662

  129,855,667

  whether he can state, for each of the years 1907–8 and 1908–9, as estimated the amount of revenue raised by taxes, distinguishing the revenue raised by permanent enactment from the revenue raised by temporary enactment, with the totals of each.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.)—

  Amount of Revenue estimated to be raised by Taxes in 1908–9.

  Amount of Revenue estimated to be raised.

  Temporary Duties.

  By Permanent Enactment.

  By Temporary Enactment.

  Total.

  £

  £

  £

  Customs

  23,400,000

  5,800,000

  29,200,000

  The whole of the tea duty 5d. the pound.

  Excise

  35,500,000

  —

  35,500,000

  —

  Estate, &c., Duties

  19,500,000

  —

  19,500,000

  —

  Stamps

  8,080,000

  —

  8,080,000

  —

  Land Tax

  700,000

  —

  700,000

  —

  House Duty

  1,900,000

  —

  1,900,000

  —

  Income Tax

  —

  33,000,000

  33,000,000

  The whole of the tax 1s. in the pound on unearned incomes and 9d. in the pound on earned incomes to 5th April, 1909.

  89,080,000

  38,800,000

  127,880,000

  American Cattle.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if, in view of the agitation being fomented on both sides of the Atlantic for the unrestricted importation of American cattle without any quarantine regulations, he will issue a leaflet specifying such diseases as are existent there.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The Board do not see their way to adopt my hon. friend's suggestion.

  Scotch Smokeless Coal.
  MR. WATT: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether Scotch smokeless coal was used by the Fleet on its last visit to the Forth; if not, will he say what was the freight per ton for bringing
  1196
  the coal used to the Forth; how does the original cost plus this carriage compare with the price of Scotch coal purchased on the spot; and will he use the cheaper coal on future prolonged visits to Scottish waters.
  (Answered, by Mr. McKenna.) Welsh coal was used by the Fleet on its last visit to the Forth. "Scotch smokeless coal" is presumably a trade term, as no Scotch coals which have been tried by the Fleet have proved "smokeless," except when burnt at low powers. The Admiralty after making many trials of all descriptions of coals, have adopted Welsh steam coal as that which, taking into account all considerations, is the best coal for use in His Majesty's ships.

  Naval Paymasters.
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether,

  1197
  on a survey of the paymaster's branch of the Navy, together with the few prospective retirements on account of age before 1920, and allowing a reasonable margin for deaths and voluntary retirements, there is reason to believe that the seniority of assistant paymasters will by 1920 have increased to a grave extent, thus arresting the equal and steady flow of pro motion which Mr. Childer's Order in Council of 22nd February, 1870, was designed to promote; and what steps the Board intends to take to improve the prospects of these officers.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The seniority of assistant paymasters on promotion is at the present time under nine years, which is less than it was a few years ago. It will be time enough to consider what steps should be taken when the necessity arises; but it may be remarked that the twelve officers at the top of the list did not obtain their promotion to paymaster's rank under about sixteen years seniority.

  Regent's Canal.
  SIR W. J. COLLINS: To ask the First Commissioner of Works whether his attention has been called to the defective condition of the paling separating a portion of the Regent's Park from the towing-path of the Regent's Canal, permitting an easy access of children from the park on to the towing-path; and whether, in view of the danger incurred by children thus trespassing on the tow-path, he will direct that the paling in question be kept in proper repair.
  (Answered by Mr. Harcourt.) The Regent's Canal Company is responsible for the repair of this fence, and this complaint as to its condition will be brought to the notice of the company.

  Income-Tax.
  MR. DUNDAS WHITE: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the forms for claiming a reduction of income-tax from the 1s. rate to the 9d. rate in respect of earned income, there is any reference to the need for claiming such reduction before 30th September of the year for which the tax is charged; and, if not, whether he will consider the
  1198
  desirability of having such a reference inserted.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The necessity for claiming the relief granted by the Finance Act, 1907, within the period prescribed by the Act, is clearly indicated on the forms referred to.

  Ballymahon Evicted Tenant.
  MR. J. PHILLIPS: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Estates Commissioners will reinstate Gerald Daly, of Ballymahon, county Longford, in a farm from which he was evicted off, the property of W. Molyneux Shouldham, now in the possession of the Commissioners, or about to be purchased by them for the tenants of this estate, and if not, why will they not do so.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The reply is in the negative. The holding in which Gerald Daly claims reinstatement consisted of a house, yard, and out-offices, and was, therefore, not one to which the Land Law Acts applied. The applicant is not eligible for reinstatement under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act of 1903.

  Clonrellick Lands.
  SIR WALTER NUGENT: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the lands of Clonrellick, near Monte, county Westmeath, have been purchased by the Commissioners; and, if so, when they will be in a position to allot the same to intending purchasers.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners are unable to identify the estate referred to, but if furnished with the name of the owner or late owner they will be in a position to answer the Question.

  Claremorris National School.
  MR. CONOR O'KELLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will inquire if the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland are aware that in the recent local government elections in Ireland the Claremorris National School, which was built by the people of Claremorris, was placed at the disposal of one

  1199
  of the two parties nominating candidates for the county and district councils, and, as the result of the elections showed, placed at the disposal of the party supported by a minority of the electors; whether the Commissioners are aware that the great majority of the parents of the children attending the Claremorris school voted against the candidates to whom the school-house was lent for electioneering purposes; whether the Commissioners are aware that demonstrations were organised in the school by the supporters of the candidates of the minority, which led to regrettable scenes in the streets of Claremorris, culminating on one occasion in a baton charge which the constabulary were compelled to make in the interests of public order and tranquillity; whether any damage to school furniture, windows, maps, slates, or papers was done during these meetings, and, if so, by whom will the expense of making good the damage be borne; whether the Commissioners of Education will say if it is recognised as an essential principle in the management of Irish national schools that schools should not be made available for ore particular religious or political section in any district for the purpose of antagonising the views of another section in the same district; and whether the Commissioners propose to take any steps to prevent in future the use of school buildings for objects in connection with which differences of opinion exist amongst the parents whose children attend such schools.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that, under their rules, no political meeting can be held in any school-house, nor can any political business whatever be transacted therein, and further that school-houses are not permitted to be used for meetings called to support or discuss the claims of candidates for the office of district or county councillor. The Commissioners have no information that the Claremorris National School-house has been used in contravention of the rules in question, but they have directed inquiries to be made into the matter.

  Rathdowney Disturbance.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the
  1200
  Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of the attack made by the police upon the people of Rathdowney on 20th June last; whether he is aware that peaceable inhabitants were assaulted returning from their work, inside their own houses and the houses of their employers, and that amongst those assaulted by the police on the occasion was their own officer. District Inspector Irwin, acting county inspector, who was in coloured clothes; and will he say what steps he proposes taking in connection with this matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) As I informed the hon. Member yesterday, a charge of riot is pending against a number of urn in this case, and while the matter is subjudice it is undesirable that I should make any statement as to the details.

  Sir George Colthurst's Estate.
  MR. SHEEHAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any decision has yet been arrived at by the Estates Commissioners on the claims of the three tenants excluded from the purchase on the estate of Sir George Colthurst, viz., Messrs. Forrest, Henderson, and Byrne, on the alleged ground that they were demesne tenants; have the Commissioners received a copy of a valuation made in the case of Mr. Henderson in 1890 by Mr. Richard Martin, valuer for the landlord; was this valuation at the instance of the landlord and on the assumption that Mr. Henderson's holding was a purely agricultural one; is it a fact that Mr. Henderson has been paying rent since 1890 on the basis of Mr. Martin's valuation; and, having regard to the fact that these three tenants and their predecessors have been paying rent for generations for the farms held by them and used by them as agricultural tenancies, will he urge upon the Estates Commissioners the desirability of having them admitted to purchase on the same terms as the other tenants.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have made inquiries into the cases of Messrs. Forrest, Henderson, and Byrne, who occupy, as yearly tenants, certain land in the Ardrum demesne of Sir George Colthurst. The vendor has

  1201
  intimated his intention of renovating the buildings and settling his eldest son in what was for many years the residence of the Colthurst family. He is, therefore, unwilling to sell to these three tenants, and the Commissioners do not propose to refuse to declare the other holdings, some hundreds in number, to be a separate estate because the vendor is unwilling, on what would appear to be reasonable grounds, to sell these three holdings in his demesne to yearly tenants. The Commissioners have received from the hon. Member a copy of the valuation of Mr. Martin referred to, but they have no information as to the circumstances in which it was made.

  Irish School Teachers' Grievance.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to complaints of teachers of national schools in Ireland of their treatment by the two chief inspectors of the National Education Board and to the fact that complaints of such ill-treatment are rarely brought before the Commissioners, or, if so brought, are seldom properly represented by the officials in question; and whether, as foreshadowed a year or so since, he will hold an inquiry into the general working of the office, in view of the dissatisfaction therewith that prevails throughout Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that they have received no complaint from teachers regarding their treatment by the chief inspectors, and the Commissioners have no reason to believe that there is any general dissatisfaction with the manner in which the chief inspectors discharge their duties.

  New Forest Military Camps.
  SIR ROBERT HOBART: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state the date when the sites of the camps for the military manœuvres in the New Forest were finally settled; whether, in accordance with his promise, instructions have been given to the military authorities to purchase supplies for the troops from persons residing in the immediate localities; and whether any contracts have
  1202
  been entered into with persons not residing in the New Forest previous to the date in question; and, if so, will he give instructions to cause his promise to be carried out.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Holmesley and Ashley Walk Camps were fixed on 17th June, and Rochford Common on 16th July. As regards the rest of the Question there appears to be some misunderstanding. I told my hon. friend on 1st June that I hoped the military would find it possible to obtain butter, eggs, and milk locally, but I gave no promise that all contracts should be placed locally or that I would give instructions to units to make their canteen purchases locally. Some of the contracts for bread and meat, forage and fuel, have been placed locally, Canteen purchases are always left entirely to the units to arrange.

  Colonial Auditors.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, seeing that special terms are now given by the Comptroller and Auditor-General to local auditors and assistant auditors in the Crown Colonies and Protectorates who have volunteered to come home from unhealthy climates, he will explain why it was necessary to give these special terms to these officials serving in such climates in addition to granting them the privilege of returning to the United Kingdom.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will explain why the ex-Second Division clerks in the Exchequer and Audit Department, who have voluntarily accepted liability to serve abroad, and some of whom are serving abroad, are not put on the same scale of salary as the nominated members who entered the old Colonial Audit Branch without any actual educational test examination.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will explain how, seeing that members of the Colonial Audit Branch now serving abroad are offered special terms on coming home on condition that they remain liable for a further term of service abroad, this liability applies in the case of a man who

  1203
  returns on, account of a breakdown in health, and who under the old system would have returned under similar circumstances to a scale of salary only equal to that of the old Second Division clerks.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will explain, why, seeing that those members of the Colonial Audit Branch who, prior to amalgamation, returned to headquarters after service abroad, either on account of ill-health or unfitness, were placed on a scale of salary similar to that of the old Second Division and remained liable for service abroad, a salary based on an initial salary of £100 per annum is now offered to those who return under similar conditions, while it was denied to those former members of the Second Division who became examiners at the reorganisation in 1905.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will explain why in the Exchequer and Audit Department two bodies of men are employed on identical work with identical periods of service to their credit, the one, however, receiving from £65 to £115 per annum more salary in consequence of service performed on petty accounts abroad for which they were liable on entry and had been already adequately recompensed financially.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will explain why, seeing that members of the Colonial Audit Branch who entered by the system which has now broken down, and who were sent abroad in many cases with insufficient training, are offered with the sanction of the Treasury special terms if they elect to come home and enter the main office, a considerable body of men who entered under the Order in Council of 21st March, 1890, who became examiners at the reorganisation of 1905, and from whose ranks men have been chosen for the examination of accounts in the Colonial Audit Branch, and volunteers have been called for to serve abroad, are compelled to remain for periods varying from twelve to nineteen years at a considerable financial disadvantage as compared with contemporaries in other offices with inferior certificates who have
  1204
  benefited under the Order in Council of December, 1907.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will explain why, seeing that members of the Colonial Audit Branch of the Exchequer and Audit Department who joined that branch before the amalgamation did so for the express purpose of a career abroad, and that the Department now finds great difficulty in filling vacancies which occur in the Colonies and Protectorates, it was considered necessary to offer them exceptional terms as an inducement to return home.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will explain why the six nominated members of the old Colonial Audit Branch of the Exchequer and Audit Department, who were serving at headquarters at the time of the amalgamation on a scale of salary, £70, £5, £100, being unfit for service abroad consequent on lack of training or health, were immediately advanced to a salary of £100 per annum, whereas certain Second Division clerks who were transferred to the Colonial Audit Branch, consequent on the breakdown of the system till then in force, were compelled to continue on the scale that the Colonial Audit Branch men had been receiving.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) I have nothing to add to the previous replies in connection with these points.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  British-built Warships
  MR. HERBERT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will make it a condition of the retention of firms upon the list of contractors to the Admiralty that they will undertake to insert in all contracts for the construction of ships of war for any foreign Power a provision that in the event of such Power desiring to sell any such warship it shall be first offered to His Majesty's Government.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MCKENNA,): It is not proposed to insist on the

  1205
  insertion of a condition in the terms suggested. As my hon. friend will observe, once a ship built in this country has been delivered to the foreign country to which it belongs, the contractor would have no means of enforcing against such foreign Power the provision which he suggests.
  MR. HERBERT: Would not His Majesty's Government be able to enforce it?
  MR. McKENNA: The contract would not be between the Government and a foreign Power. It would be between the contractor and a foreign Power, and the contractor would have no power to enforce it.
  MR. HERBERT: Might not the Government be given the right under the contract?
  MR. McKENNA: I do not think any contract made between a contractor and a foreign Government could give the British Government such a right.
  MR. HERBERT: Are the right hon. Gentleman's advisers unable to settle any form of contract which would give such a right?
  MR. McKENNA: I do not think it is conceivable that any form of contract between a contractor and a foreign Government would give it.
  MR. HERBERT: Will the right hon. Gentleman give me an opportunity of submitting such a form of contract?
  MR. YOUNGER: Might not the right hon. Gentleman insert a clause giving the right of pre-emption?
  MR. McKENNA: The British Government cannot impose on a contractor a condition that they shall have a right of pre-emption on his ship.

  Apprentices on Naval Contract Work.
  MR. CURRAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the firm of Messrs. Hawthorn and Leslie, Wallsend, have drafted a number of
  1206
  apprentices to Devonport to take the place of men withdrawn from work on H.M.S. "Temeraire" on account of a dispute as to wages; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.
  MR. McKENNA: The question as to what action I should propose to take in the circumstances alleged by the hon. Member does not arise, as there appears to be no foundation for the statements made.
  MR. CURRAN: From what source did the right hon. Gentleman get that information?
  MR. McKENNA: From the Dockyard at Devonport. I got it by telegraph this afternoon.

  Wallsend Slipway Company's Employees.
  MR. CURRAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the Wallsend Slipway Company have compelled about a dozen draughtsmen, under threat of instant dismissal, to perform fitters' work on H.M.S. "Superb," at Elswick; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.
  MR. McKENNA: We have no knowledge of the circumstances set out in the hon. Member's Question; but assuming the facts to be as stated, there does not appear to be any ground for action by the Admiralty.
  MR. CURRAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a breach of the Fair Wages Clause?
  MR. McKENNA: I have examined the question and am unable to discover that the alleged circumstances constitute a breach of the clause. It does not deal with fair wages at all.
  MR. CURRAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the firm of Leslie's have Government contracts overdue, and are asking for an extension of time on the ground of labour disputes?
  MR. McKENNA: I should like notice of that Question.

  Admiralty Payments to Quantity Surveyors.
  Mr. GUINNESS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what sums have been paid by the Admiralty in each of the last five

  Fees paid to Quantity Surveyors from 1903 to 1908.

  Naval Works Acts and Vote 10 Works.

  Name.

  1903–4.

  1904–5.

  1905–6.

  1906–7.

  1907–8.

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Corderoy, G., & Co.

  32,842

  30,739

  28,411

  19,894

  13,671

  Deacon, T. M.

  —

  809

  315

  —

  137

  Franklin & Andrews

  —

  128

  73

  29

  —

  Gardiner & Theobald

  —

  122

  67

  —

  —

  Hitchen, T.

  —

  —

  264

  —

  —

  Hodgson, H. M.

  —

  —

  —

  —

  153

  Hunt & Steward

  —

  —

  46

  —

  —

  Lawrence, B., & Co.

  —

  59

  —

  —

  94

  Leaming, J., & Sons

  —

  457

  124

  145

  —

  Lorrimer, Fairbairn & Lightbody

  —

  53

  63

  18

  18

  Mann, C. J., & Sons

  711

  1,222

  1,015

  1,562

  1,615

  Moreham & Gardiner

  —

  53

  123

  —

  —

  Rualt & Young

  —

  280

  21

  —

  —

  Strudwick, W. H. & P. B.

  622

  212

  —

  —

  —

  Welch & Atkinson

  83

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Widnell & Trollope

  1,442

  1,609

  5,142

  597

  509

  Totals

  35,700

  35,743

  35,664

  22,245

  16,197

  Defence of Sea Trade Routes.
  MR. STAVELEY-HILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the Report of the Treasury Committee upon the subject of national insurance for merchant ships, and of its conclusion
  years to firms of quantity surveyors; how many firms have been employed, and what amounts have been paid to each.
  MR. McKENNA:
  that the latter must depend for protection exclusively upon the Navy, and in view of the fact that the Navy list shows that we have but sixty-seven unarmoured cruisers, most, if not all, of which would be required for service with our battle fleets, with which our armoured cruisers

  1209
  are also mainly intended to serve, the Government are prepared to guarantee the security of our trade routes in time of war.
  MR. McKENNA: While we do not commit ourselves to the accuracy of the statements made in the preamble to the Question, the reply is in the affirmative.

  German Naval Policy.
  MR. STAVELEY-HILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, having regard to the fact that Germany has laid down thirty-six destroyers in the last three years, he will consider the advisability of increasing the number of those to be laid down during a similar period by this country from seven to a figure corresponding with that of Germany.
  MR. McKENNA: I am unable to verify the figures on which the hon. Member has based his statement that during the last three years seven British destroyers were laid down. As to the number to be laid down, the hon. Member will observe that in the present year it is proposed to lay down sixteen.
  MR. STAVELEY-HILL: Is it not the fact that the German destroyers for this year are already laid down?
  MR. McKENNA: The German year differs from the British year, and that makes it impossible to draw a comparison.
  MR. ASHLEY: Is it not a fact that the German destroyers for this year are already laid down?
  MR. McKENNA: It is impossible to make a comparison, as the year's programmes do not cover the same period.
  MR. ASHLEY: Are we really to understand that the Government do not know what has been the German programme in regard to destroyers for the last three years?
  MR. McKENNA: The Admiralty are perfectly aware, but that does not arise out of the Question.

  H.M.S. "Invincible"—Fair Wage Clause.
  MR. HUDSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the
  1210
  Admiralty if he can now say why Messrs. Armstrong, Whitworth, and Company, Elswick, have not carried out the Fair Wage Clause in their contract on H.M.S. "Invincible," at the Elswick Works, with regard to the wages paid to the electrical wire-workers.
  MR. McKENNA: The contractors state that they pay the wages generally accepted as current for competent workmen in their trade, and the evidence which so far has been put before the Admiralty is not inconsistent with that statement.
  *MR. HUDSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this question has been pending since March last, and as late as last week thirty-five of the men were paid at a figure below the standard rate which obtains in the district?
  MR. McKENNA: We have examined the evidence we have been able to obtain, and are not satisfied that wages below the current rate are being paid.
  *MR. HUDSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman place himself in communication with the trade union of the electrical workers and obtain from them a statement as to the wages current in the district?
  MR. McKENNA: We have had a communication, but I am not sure if it came from the trade union. I rather think it did.

  German Naval Expenditure.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can state by how much the naval expenditure of Germany was above or below the Estimates in the years 1903 to 1907, inclusive; and whether any reports have been submitted to the Admiralty as to the assistance rendered to German naval administration and expenditure by the State ownership of canals and railways.
  MR. McKENNA: The difference between the naval expenditure of Germany and the money voted is as follows—In 1903–4 there was £149,162 more expenditure than was voted. In 1904–5 there was £464,600 loss; in 1905–6 there was £123,477 less; in 1906–7 there was £341,507 less; for

  1211
  1907–8 the total naval expenditure is not yet available. We have no official information as regards the latter part of the Question.
  MR. BELLAIRS: What is the authority for these figures? They do not agree with the Berlin Imperial Gazette figures?
  MR. McKENNA: They are official figures. I will inquire as to the divergence.

  The Admiralty and the Press.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions forbid naval officers holding any communications with the Press and so prevent them from contradicting statements of a defamatory character; and whether in the absence of any guidance in the King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions, he can state if they are free to take proceedings for libel when a newspaper of repute submits them to malicious and defamatory attacks.
  MR. McKENNA: As regards the first part of the Question, the existing rule, as laid down in circular letter of 21st November last, is that all persons belonging to the Fleet are forbidden to write for publication or to publish or cause to be published, either directly or indirectly, any matter or information relating to the naval service unless the permission of the Admiralty has been first obtained. With regard to the second part of the Question, an officer on half-pay or on the retired list would be free to act, should he so elect, without formal reference to the Admiralty, subject to the paramount interests of the naval service. An officer on full pay or serving under the Admiralty on salary would, as a matter of discipline, apply to the Admiralty for sanction of his proposed proceedings.
  MR. BELLAIRS: In the event of its being against the paramount interest of the Navy for an officer on full pay to bring a libel action, do the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues recognise their special obligation to defend an officer whose reputation is assailed by falsehoods circulated in a paper of repute?
  MR. McKENNA: I have no case before me in which it is alleged that it is not in the interests of the service that any officer on full pay should bring an action for libel. I cannot consider the question unless I have a specific case before me.
  MR. BELLAIRS: Is any statement going to be made in regard to the alleged occurrence in the Channel Fleet under Lord Charles Beresford?
  MR. McKENNA: That is an entirely different question. It has nothing to do with the Question on the Paper.
  MR. GRETTON: Does the regulation quoted apply to naval officers employed at the Admiralty or on the staff of the Admiralty?
  MR. McKENNA: The regulations would apply universally through the service.

  Chain Cable Contracts.
  MR. J. JOHNSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Government has extended the period of a contract for chain cables and mooring chains entered into with several firms of chain-makers, under which arrangement other employers have been debarred from tendering; if so, will he say on what grounds such preference is justified; and whether, in future, he will see that equal opportunity is given to all firms to tender for such contracts.
  MR. McKENNA: Pending the preparation of certain technical details for a new contract, the existing arrangements have been temporarily continued to meet current requirements. As soon as the necessary particulars are available the usual opportunity will be afforded to all firms.

  Land Trade between Persia and British India.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the disturbed condition of Persia has adversely affected the traffic to and from India by the Quetta-Nushki route.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BUCHANAN,): The figures of the land trade

  1213
  between Persia and British India via Sind and British Baluchistan, the bulk of which, presumably, went by the Nushki route, show an increase for 1907–8 as compared with the two preceding years. The value of the total trade by the Nushki route for 1907–8 was the biggest on record.

  Sylhet Bomb Factory.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether a branch of the Manicktollah bomb factory has been discovered in Sylhet?
  MR. BUCHANAN: The Secretary of State has no official information on this subject, but he gathers from the newspapers that arrests have been made at a place in the Sylhet district of persons who admit being engaged in the manufacture of bombs for revolutionary purposes.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: Was this information obtained through Reuter's agency?
  MR. BUCHANAN: I cannot say.

  Gun Running on the Afghan Frontier.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the India Office has information to the effect that another large caravan of arms is in transit through Persian Baluchistan to the Afghan frontier; and whether it is proposed, by strengthening our patrol in the Persian Gulf, or by representation to the Sultan of Muscat, to deal with a state of affairs which is a menace to the North-West frontier.
  MR. BUCHANAN: The Answer to the first Question is in the negative; the last caravan of which the Secretary of State has information must have reached its destination some weeks ago. Every possible means is taken by action on the coast and otherwise to stop the traffic, and, as was stated by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on the 30th June, the question of the traffic at Muscat is engaging the attention of the Conference now sitting at Brussels.
  *MR. REES: It seems there is a regular gun-running season for three months in the year.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say from what country the arms conveyed by this caravan came?
  MR. BUCHANAN: I am unable to say.
  AN HON. MEMBERsuggested that the Government should send the hon. Member for Montgomery Boroughs out to patrol the Persian Gulf, or to act as Minister Plenipotentiary to the Sultan of Muscat.

  Sedition in Northern India.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Muslim community of Madras, in public meeting assembled, has expressed its condemnation of the growing sedition of Northern India, and assured the Government of its own staunch loyalty to British rule.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I have seen in the Press a notice of the meeting referred to, and my hon friend is no doubt aware that meetings of a similar character have been held in other parts of India.

  Indian Civil Service.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the local Governments and high judicial authorities consulted, condemned the proposed separation of executive and judicial functions in the Indian Civil Service; and, if so, whether the opinions of such Governments and authorities will be made public.
  MR. BUCHANAN: The opinions of the local Governments and other authorities consulted on this subject have not yet reached the Secretary of State: it is not possible, therefore, to say whether they are papers which could suitably be made public.

  Indian Excise Administration.
  SIR HERBERT ROBERTS: I bog to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the reply of the Government of India to the statement relative to Excise administration, submitted to him on the 17th October last and forwarded for consideration and report to the Government

  1215
  of India, has now been received; and whether he will lay Papers upon the Table before the end of the present session.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I regret to say that the reply has not yet been received.

  Calcutta Liquor Shops—Hour of Closing.
  SIR HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Indian Excise Commission recommended that liquor shops in India should be closed at 9 p.m., and that this recommendation was approved-by the Government of India; and whether any special reasons exist for the extension of the hour of closing to 10 p.m. in the case of liquor shops situated in the neighbourhood of mills in Calcutta.
  MR. BUCHANAN: The Indian Excise Commission recommended that as a general rule the closing hour should be 9 o'clock, but that this limit should be relaxed in special cases, when a special fee should be levied. The Government of Bengal has been advised by the Calcutta Licensing Committee that extension is necessary in the case of particular shops in certain localities where owing to late shifts at mills, docks, etc., the workers do not leave work until a late hour. Such cases are dealt with on their merits by the Board of Revenue, under power given to it by the Excise Act.

  Calcutta Country and Foreign Liquor Licences.
  SIR HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Indian Excise Commission recommended the entire separation of the country liquor and foreign liquor licences in Calcutta, with such a redistribution of facilities as would not increase the number of sites; whether this proposal was provisionally approved by the Government of India; and whether effect has been given to the proposal under the resolution of the Government of Bengal recently issued upon this subject.
  MR. BUCHANAN: The Answer to the first two Questions is in the affirmative. With regard to the last Question the Government of Bengal has not given complete effect to the recommendation, as separation cannot, in their opinion, be effected in Calcutta without an undesir-
  1216
  able increase in the number of liquor shops. But it has issued instructions which will reduce considerably the number of cases in which licences for the two classes of liquor are held conjointly

  The Sentence on Mr. Tilak.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State for India will recommend His Majesty the King to extend his clemency to Mr. Tilak, in view of the position he holds in the Indian national movement, and remit a portion of his sentence, with a view to allaying to some extent the present unrest in India."
  *MR. REESasked if the right hon. Gentleman thought that expressions of sympathy in the House with notorious enemies of British rule were likely to have the effect of "allaying to some extent the present unrest in India."
  MR. BUCHANAN: I think the Answer I have to make will cover both Questions. It is impossible for the Secretary of State to take the action suggested in the Question. My hon. friend hardly realises the nature of the charge on which Mr. Tilak was convicted and the circumstances of the trial. The trial lasted ten days before a judge of the Bombay High Court with a special jury. Mr. Tilak was convicted by seven out of nine jurymen of offences under Section 124 a and 153 a of the Indian Penal Code. At the beginning of the trial he exercised his full rights of challenge, objecting to six Europeans, one Jew, and one Hindu. He spoke for several days in his own defence. In passing sentence the judge said—"The articles are seething with sedition; they preach violence; they speak of murder with approval; and the Cowardly and atrocious act of committing murder with bombs not only seems to meet with the prisoner's approval, but he hails the advent of the bomb in India as if something had come to India for its good." I think the hon. Member will agree with me that writings of such a character cannot fairly be held to fall under the exception made by the Penal Code in favour of "comments expressing disapprobation of the measures or action of the Government with a view to obtaining their alteration by lawful means." The Government deliberately

  1217
  instituted these proceedings in a Court of Law, and in a case of this kind for them immediately to traverse the verdict of the Court or precipitately to set aside its sentence, would be to stultify themselves.
  MR. KEIR HARDIEasked if the article could now be published as a Parliamentary Paper to give the House and the country the opportunity for learning what foundation there was for the language used by the Judge.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid he could make no promise of the kind.
  SIR H. COTTON: Can a copy be placed in the Library?
  MR. BUCHANAN: I can give no pledge.
  *MR. REESasked if the right hon. Gentleman was aware that copies could be obtained at the office of the paper called India.
  SIR H. COTTONasked if the substance of the article published in The Times was correct.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I cannot say.
  MR. LUPTONasked if the proportion of seven Europeans to two natives was the usual proportion on special juries in Bombay.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I cannot say. Thore wore on the jury seven Europeans and two Parsees, and the Judge was a Parsee gentleman.
  MR. LUPTON: And then there was a division of opinion on the jury?
  MR. BUCHANAN: Yes; I have already stated so.
  MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the sentence of six years' transportation recently passed upon Mr. Tilak can be made the subject of appeal; whether a sentence of transportation involves the removal of the prisoner to a penal settlement; and, if so, what is the nature
  1218
  of the punishment to which he is there subject.
  MR. BUCHANAN: No appeal lies to the High Court from any order or sentence passed by a Judge exercising the original jurisdiction of the Court, but points of law may be reserved for consideration. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council may give special leave to appeal in cases where grave and substantial injustice appears to have been done. The appeal, in such cases, lies to the Judicial Committee. A sentence of transportation may involve the removal of a prisoner to a penal settlement, but does not necessarily do so; the prisoner may be sent instead to a Central Jail appointed for the purpose. A prisoner sentenced to transportation is subject for a time to solitary confinement: he is then put to some form of work with the other prisoners, and may obtain various privileges by good conduct.

  Bombay Factory Workers' Disturbances.
  MR. HARWOOD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether there have been disturbances amongst the factory workers of Bombay; and, if so, whether he has any information showing that these are largely attributable to the excessive hours of work; and whether the Government proposes to take any steps in the matter.
  MR. BUCHANAN: The Secretary of State understands that the disturbances which have occurred in the factory quarter of Bombay are not exclusively connected with labour questions, although, as my hon. friend is aware, the subject of the hours of labour has recently been investigated by the Factory Commission, whose Report is now under consideration. He is informed that they are connected with political agitation, by which pressure has been exercised on the Hindu mill hands to come out on strike, and, in some cases, to attack Europeans. The Mahomedan factory workers have not joined in the rioting, and resent the enforced loss of wages.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: Had the Factory Inspector to be afforded police protection?
  MR. BUCHANAN: I have seen a statement to that effect.

  Law of Transportation in India.
  SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India if he can state what is the law in regard to transportation in India; and whether there is any authority or precedent for sending a convicted offender to the Andamans for a period of less than seven years.
  MR. BUCHANAN: The law in regard to transportation in India is contained in Sections 53, 55, 57–59 of the Indian Penal Code, and the sections of that code prescribing transportation as the penalty for particular offences. Section 124 a enables the person convicted under that section to be "punished with transportation for life or any other shorter term." There is, therefore, no reason to doubt the legality of a sentence of transportation for less than seven years.
  SIR H. COTTON: Is there not a statutory rule which limits transportation to cases of seven years punishment and does not permit it in the case of persons over forty-five years of age?
  MR. BUCHANAN: I am not aware of that, but I would refer my hon. friend to the various sections of the Penal Code which govern the law relating to transportation.

  Prosecutions for Sedition in India.
  SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the "Under-Secretary of State for India whether he will grant a Return of prosecutions for seditious speeches and writings which have been instituted in India since 1st January, 1907, showing the names of the persons charged, the courts which tried them, the precise character of the charge, and the decision in each case.
  MR. BUCHANAN: If the hon. Member will move for a Return the Secretary of State will instruct the Government of India to prepare it.

  Sentences for Treason at Tinnevelly.
  SIR H. COTTON: I bog to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether Chidambaram Pillay and Subramania Siva, who were lately convicted of treason and were sentenced to transportation for life and for ten years respectively by the district judge of
  1220
  Tinnevelly, have appealed against the sentence; and, if so, what has been the result of the appeal.
  MR. BUCHANAN: The Secretary of State has no information as to whether an appeal has been filed.

  Treatment of Prisoners in India.
  SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the character of the sentences which are being passed in India on persons who are accused of seditious utterances; and whether the Government will consider the propriety of issuing instructions which will prohibit the herding of political offenders with common criminals.
  MR. BUCHANAN: The Secretary of State does not consider it necessary to take action in the manner suggested by the hon. Member. The punishment for offences under Section 124 a Indian Penal Code varies over a wide range, from fine without any imprisonment through simple imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment up to transportation for life. As regards simple imprisonment, Inspectors-General of Gaols already have authority to order the provision of separate accommodation for prisoners in certain cases.
  LORD R. CECIL: Is there anything in Indian legislation which makes incitement to murder a political offence?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Indian Relief Works.
  MR. R. HARCOURT: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether it is proposed to lay before Parliament papers giving an account of the relief works recently carried out in India, particularly in the United Provinces, in continuation of Famine Commission Reports already issued.
  MR. BUCHANAN: On the conclusion of the present relief operations full reports regarding them will be submitted by the several local Governments, and the Secretary of State will then be glad to consider whether any, and, if any, what Papers might with advantage be presented.

  Bombay Factories Commission.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the India Office has information that the factory workers in Bombay have deprecated interference with the system under which they work; and whether the Factory Commission has reported that the hours of work in Bombay factories are not excessive.
  MR. BUCHANAN: The Commission's Report, which will be presented shortly, will show the hon. Member that he is under a misapprehension in respect of both points of his Question.

  Carib Canal, St. Vincent.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the original cost of the Carib Canal in St. Vincent, and by whom was it borne.
  THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Colonel SEELY, Liverpool, Abercromby): I cannot supply the information, but the Governor will be asked to do so, if my hon. friend wishes.
  *MR. LAMONT: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the disuse of the Carib freshwater Canal in the island of St. Vincent has prejudicially affected the districts which it formerly served; and whether its reopening is stated by the Governor of the Colony to be an essential preliminary to their development.
  COLONEL SEELY: Yes, Sir, and recognising these considerations, the Secretary of State has agreed to a loan to Mr. Porter, in addition to the free grant of £1,600 already sanctioned, though not a loan from the invested portion of the Eruption Fund.

  St. Vincent Eruption Relief Fund.
  MR. LAMONT: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will state the total amount subscribed for the St. Vincent Eruption Relief Fund, and the amount of the unexpended balance of that fund.
  COLONEL SEELY: The amount subscribed was £73,340. The unexpended
  1222
  balance consists of the £25,000 invested. The rest or practically all the rest has now been expended or definitely allocated for expenditure.

  Carib Canal Loan.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state when the despatches from the Governor of the Windwards, recommending that the Secretary of State should assent to a loan from the Eruption Fund for the purpose of reopening the Carib Canal, will be laid upon the Table.
  COLONEL SEELY: It is not proposed to lay the despatches. The chief despatches recommending a loan are marked "Confidential," except one, and that deals with the business and family affairs of private individuals, and could not properly be published.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will lay upon the Table a copy of the Memorandum from the Governor of the Windwards with regard to the Carib Canal question which was read by the Administrator of St. Vincent at the meeting of the Legislative Council on 30th May.
  COLONEL SEELY: The Secretary of State has just received a copy of the Memorandum referred to. He does not consider it necessary to lay it.

  Parsee Indian in Natal.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Mr. Shapurji, a Parsee Indian resident of Charlestown, Natal, who has been arrested and ordered to leave the Transvaal as a prohibited immigrant although he was able to fulfil all the educational requirements of the Immigration Laws of that Colony; and whether, in assenting to this law, His Majesty's Government understood the test of desirability to be one of race or of education.
  COLONEL SEELY: The Secretary of State has made telegraphic inquiry with regard to this case and other British Indian complaints, but no reply has yet been received and, pending the Governor's

  1223
  Report, I am not in a position to make any statement.

  Island of St. Vincent Revenue.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the floating balance of revenue of the Island of St. Vincent at the end of the last financial year.
  COLONEL SEELY: On the 31st of March last the surplus of assets was £6,258 3s. 4d. Against this, however, there is a sum of £700 due to the Treasury at home, in refund of an overpayment from Parliamentary Grants in Aid.

  St. Vincent Belief Fund—The Carib Canal.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what were the purposes for which the St. Vincent Relief Fund was collected; and what was the cause of the disuse of the Carib Canal.
  COLONEL SEELY: The relief fund was subscribed for the relief of distress. The disuse of the canal was caused by the eruptions.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies when he will lay Papers upon the Table with regard to his refusal of the request from the Government of St. Vincent for authority to make a loan from the Eruption Fund.
  COLONEL SEELY: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the Answer to the hon. Member for Blackpool. It is not proposed to lay Papers on this subject.

  South African Compensation Fund.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the loss of £41,420 7s. 11d. entailed on the Exchequer through the failure of the Colonial Office to reply to the High Commissioner of South Africa as to the allocation of the charge for the administration of the Compensations Fund between Great Britain and the Transvaal; whether the responsibility for this loss has been brought home to any particular official; and what action has been taken in the matter.
  COLONEL SEELY: I would refer my hon. friend to my reply to a similar Question yesterday.

  Crown Colonists Stranded in England.
  MR. OWEN PHILIPPS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there is any public fund to defray the cost of return to their native land of inhabitants of the Crown Colonies who may be unfortunately stranded in England: and, if not, whether the Government will favourably consider the question of providing a fund for this purpose.
  COLONEL SEELY: There is no public fund which could be ear-marked to the purposes which my hon. friend mentions. The matter is one of great difficulty, but the Secretary of State proposes to take it into early consideration.

  Kingston Wharves and Railways.
  MR. OWEN PHILIPPS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Governor of Jamaica, since his return to the island, has been able to advise him of any progress in the scheme for connecting the Government railways with all the wharves of Kingston; and whether he is aware that in the neighbouring island of Cuba the ports are being rapidly developed in connection with the railways.
  COLONEL SEELY: The Governor has not yet reported as to the progress of the scheme referred to by my hon. friend, but I have no doubt that he will do so as soon as he can. I am sorry that I have no official information as to what is being done in Cuba.

  King's House, Jamaica.
  MR. OWEN PHILLIPS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the damage to the King's House at Jamaica, caused by the earthquake in January, 1907, has yet been repaired; and, if not, will he ascertain when the King's House will be again fit for habitation by the Governor of the Colony.
  COLONEL SEELY: The money for rebuilding King's House in St. Andrew has been voted by the Legislative Council,

  1225
  and the Vote has been approved by the Secretary of State. The Governor's recent visit to this country was chiefly concerned with the arrangements for this and other public building work, and I understand that the question of the acceptance of a tender for the restoration of King's House is now under the Governor's consideration. The Governor will be asked when he anticipates being able to re-occupy the house.

  The Sultanate of Bruni.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government, when establishing a British residency in the Sultanate of Bruni, has also assumed any responsibility other than advisory to that State, and, if so, what are the limitations of any such authority prescribed by His Majesty's Government; will he say from what source year by year since such recent residency was established the expenditure connected therewith, either directly or indirectly, has been defrayed: and if any, how much, of the money applied as above-mentioned has been borrowed or granted from the purse of either the Federated Malay States or from that of the Straits Settlements; will he state the amounts given or lent by either or both, the rate of interest charged on such loans, and what prospect there is of repayment.
  COLONEL SEELY: The treaty with the Sultan of Brunei, which was signed in 1905, provides that the advice of the British Resident must be taken and acted upon in all questions in Brunei other than those affecting the Mohammedan religion in order that a similar system may be established to that existing in other Malay States now under British protection. His Majesty's Government, therefore, through the Resident, control the whole administration of the State, except where religious matters are concerned. The Resident of Brunei is also Resident of Labuan, which is now part of the Straits Settlements, and in view of that fact he draws a salary from Straits Settlements funds, a sum of £600 a year being paid from Imperial funds to the Straits Settlements in consideration of the Consular work performed by this officer. The other expenses of the Residential system are borne by Brunei funds. To enable the Government of the State
  1226
  to buy up a number of monopolies and concessions, and to put the new system into working order, the Federated Malay States advanced to Brunei the sum of $200,000, without interest. I cannot say when this sum is likely to be repaid. No grant or loan has been made by the Straits Settlements.

  Trade of Brunei.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies the value of the export and import trade of Brunei for the last year for which figures can be obtained; whether a poll tax of $2 per head has been imposed on the Kadayans in the Muara district, and, if so, by whose authority; whether such an imposition is not directly in contravention of Clause 3 in the Farms lease held by His Highness the Rajah of Sarawak from the late Sultan of Brunei; whether it was proposed to exact a similar tax from the Brunei Malays; and whether the cause of remitting, or of not imposing, such tax in such quarters was the expressed or the anticipated intention of those Malays to emigrate from Brunei.
  COLONEL SEELY: I am unable to furnish any reliable figures as to the Trade of Bruni. In 1906 the dutiable imports were valued at $60,878 and the dutiable exports at $1,560, but no record was taken of the value of articles on which no duty was levied. The Secretary of State has no information with regard to the other points raised by the hon. Member, but the High Commissioner will be asked for a Report.

  West Indian Banana Trade.
  MR. LAMONT: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that an annual subsidy, at first of £10,000 and latterly of £20,000, has been paid out of the Treasury since July, 1899, to the Imperial Direct West India Mail Service, principally in order to encourage a trade in bananas between Jamaica and England; whether during the financial year 1907–8 a total of 15,847,590 bunches of bananas were exported from Jamaica, of which 14,505,911 bunches were shipped to the United States and only 1,239,500 to England; and whether he will give notice to terminate this contract at its expiry on 15th January, 1911, seeing that £20,000 paid by the taxpayers of

  1227
  the United Kingdom for the advantage of receiving 1,239,500 bunches of bananas is equivalent to the bounty of fourpence per bunch, and that a sufficient supply of this fruit can be obtained, without subsidy, from other West Indian Colonies, from the Canary Islands, and from other parts of the globe.
  COLONEL SEELY: I am aware generally of the conditions of the service referred to. The question as to the renewal or termination of the service is one which will no doubt receive very careful consideration, but, as the contract does not expire for some years, it would be premature to consider it now.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if this subsidy was not granted in order to assist in developing the banana trade generally, and whether this proportion of 14,000,000 bunches and 1,000,000 bunches to the United States and England respectively does not represent the purest principles of free trade?
  COLONEL SEELY: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by the "purest principles of free trade." I should hardly think he is a good judge. I would only add that my hon. friend is quite right in supposing that there are other considerations involved besides the encouragement of the trade between Jamaica and England.
  *MR. BYLES: Was not this contract made in the reign of the protectionist Party?
  COLONEL SEELY: I do not know what the particular views of the Party were at the time this contract was entered into.

  Dominica Light Railway.
  *MR. LAMONT: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether proposals have recently been made to the Government of the Leeward Islands regarding the formation of a company to build, on the land-grant system, a light railway into the interior of the island of Dominica, with a view to the development of its resources; whether negotiations are in progress; and, if so, whether the Colonial Office regards the project with a favourable eye.
  COLONEL SEELY: Yes, Sir, a syndicate has been in negotiation with the Government of Dominica since about a year ago with regard to the construction of a light railway up the Layou valley. The Secretary of State regards the project favourably.

  Imports of Live Cattle.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state what countries have made representations to His Majesty's Government with reference to unrestricted importation of live cattle, and the nature of such representations; and whether, in view of the fact that all foreign countries impose quarantine restrictions of a severe nature, he can state if any have made any suggestions for reciprocal arrangements for free trade and abandon of quarantine restrictions imposed by them.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY, Northumberland, Berwick): Since the present Government have been in office representations have been made by the Governments of Norway and Sweden asking that the regulations prohibiting the importation of live cattle from those countries might be revoked. The Answer to the last part of the Question is in the negative.

  Cancellation of Venezuelan Concessions.
  MR. H. GOOCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the cancellation by the Venezuelan Government of certain concessions held by British subjects; and, if so, what steps he has taken or proposes to take in the matter.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I am aware that the Venezuelan Government have cancelled two concessions, the one for the manufacture and the sale of matches, originally granted to a Venezuelan citizen and subsequently transferred to a Venezuelan company, and the other for working the salt deposits of Venezuela, originally granted to a British subject and subsequently transferred to a Venezuelan company, the shares of both enterprises being now, it is understood, controlled by two British companies respectively. The matter is at present

  1229
  under consideration; it presents many difficulties owing to local peculiarities which operate adversely to the interests of all countries.

  Franco-Canadian Treaty.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to lay Papers upon the Table relating to the Franco-Canadian negotiations in respect of the most-favoured nation clause.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: For the present I am not in a position to add to the Answer which I returned to the hon. Member's Question on 30th ultimo.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: Are there any means of expediting the negotiations?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: As far as I understand, the subject of the treaty is still under consideration in Paris.

  The Release of Mr. Clark Kennedy.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the rapid release of Mr. Clark Kennedy from the brigands in Morocco was owing to the fact that the Government announced that no ransom would he paid; and if this resolution will be strictly adhered to in the future.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The Answer to the first part of the Question is that I do not know. If British subjects, in pursuit of their own pleasure or business, and in no public character, are captured by brigands in Morocco, there will certainly not be any advance from the British Exchequer for the purposes of ransom, and anyone who counts upon it under any circumstances is likely to be disappointed.
  MR. FELL: Will that also apply to captures by Smyrna and other brigands?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: We have issued a warning to the effect that in no case must people expect the Government to advance money for their ransom.
  MR. ASHLEY: Has the right hon. Gentleman made an exception in the case of Raisuli?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: He is not a British subject. He is under British protection, which is not the same thing.

  The Czar of Russia.
  MR. W. THORNE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official information showing that it is the intention of the Czar of Russia to pay a visit to this countrv before the end of September: and, if so, whether it is the intention of the Government to associate themselves in any way with such a visit?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: No intention has been expressed by the Czar of visiting this country during the present year.

  The Scots College at Rome.
  MR. SUTHERLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the cause of the delay in bringing to trial the assailants of the students of the Scots College at Rome; and whether he can state if and when the trial is likely to take place.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The trial was to have taken place this month, the delay being accounted for by the necessity of collecting additional evidence and of ascertaining how far the injuries of the victims were likely to be permanent, with a view to the proper assessment of the I penalties. It now appears, however, that the accused have appealed against the I judgment of the Court of First Instance, committing them for trial by the Court of Assize, and it is to be feared that the case will not be heard before November. His Majesty's Ambassador will continue to do all in his power to secure an early hearing, and I may add that the legal adviser to His Majesty's Consulate has been instructed to watch the proceedings.

  The Russo Japanese War—British Claims.
  MR. GRETTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many outstanding claims for damage to British shipping and property during the late war in the Far East remain unsettled; and what steps are being taken to obtain a settlement.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The position as it stood last year was stated generally in an Answer I gave to the hon. Member

  1231
  for the Cockermouth Division of Cumberland on the 23rd of May of last year. I have stated the present position of specific cases in answers I have given in the course of the present and last month to various hon. Members, and particularly in the replies I made yesterday to the hon. Member for the St. Austell Division of Cornwall. No later developments have occurred.

  The Imprisoned Suffragists.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in view of the statement that the imprisoned suffragettes are more or less associated with criminals, and that their methods have been encouraged by references to former riots and breaking park railings by a Cabinet Minister, he will see that the ladies shall not associate with or be treated as ordinary criminals.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): None of these prisoners are allowed to associate with ordinary criminals.

  Medical Officers' Reports.
  MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the apparent lack of uniformity in the reports of medical officers of health, he has considered the advisability of issuing a Circular to local authorities informing them that they must include in the Annual Report of the medical officers of health to the Home Office all premises visited in connection with infectious disease, provided home work is found to be carried on.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have no authority to issue the instructions suggested in the Question, nor would they meet the case, as Sections 109 and 110 of the Factory Act do not apply to all kinds of home work. The Home Office has done what it could to secure uniformity in the Reports of the medical officers of health by issuing forms of tables, but the use of the forms is not compulsory.

  Out-workers Returns.
  MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the
  1232
  Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the continued and increasing discrepancy between the total number of addresses of out-workers reported by medical officers of health as forwarded to other councils, and that returned having been received by other councils; whether, according to the Home Office Return [Cd. 3986], those reported as received were only 34,377, whilst 50,579 had been forwarded; and, if so, whether he will confer with the Postmaster General as to where the 16,202 missing lists have gone.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am aware that the discrepancy between the number of addresses respectively forwarded and received by local authorities rose from 7,350 in 1904, and 5,300 in 1905 to over 16,000 in 1906. It will be seen on examination of the Return that the increase is chiefly a London increase, and probably the key to the problem lies here. I am not prepared to say positively what is the reason for it, but the increase, which cannot, I think, be accounted for as merely an increase in the fringe of out-workers outside London working for London employers, probably indicates an increasing thoroughness on the part of London authorities in enforcing the Act, both in forwarding lists themselves and in searching the lists sent to them for duplicates of names already on their lists. It may be noticed especially that the City of London forwarded 14,376 addresses in 1906, as against only 3,334 in 1904. I will consider the point further when the figures for 1907 are available.
  MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to Table 6 in Part 2, in the Summary of Reports of Medical Officers of Health for 1906, to the Home Office, wherein it is shown that the number of names of out-workers received are greatly in excess of the number of inspections made in Stepney, Worcester, West Ham, Gloucestershire, and other places; whether representations were made last year about the places named; what steps he proposes to take in the case of these and others, such as Leeds, to bring the local inspection up to an efficient standard; and whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that Ipswich, about which similar representations were

  1233
  made regarding its neglect in 1905, has made no Return at all for 1906; and what steps he proposes to take with that town.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am aware of the figures in the Return which has been issued by my directions. I would remind the hon. Member that in October of 190G the Home Office issued a circular to local authorities (printed in the Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories for that year) urging a more thorough enforcement of the Home Work provisions of the Factory Act, and the figures in the Return in question relate to a period before the issue of that Circular. The above question will come up for consideration in connection with the Report of the Homo Work Committee just issued.
  MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Can nothing be done in cases like that of Ipswich, which seems to be particularly bad?
  MR. GLADSTONE: There is much that may be done, and I will see what I can do.

  Tramcar Speeds in London.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of the speed of tramcars in such places as the Vauxhall Road, and the risk of life and limb by motors passing the rapidly-driven trams on the offside, any vehicle or pedestrian passing in front of a tram being liable to be run into or run over; and if he will give necessary instructions to the police to protect the public.
  MR. GLADSTONE: In the Vauxhall Bridge Road, to which I presume my hon. friends refers, the Board of Trade regulations permit tramcars to proceed at a speed of twelve miles an hour, except when they are passing the end of Rochester Row. There is no rule of law with respect to traffic passing tramcars, and any general rule must be subject to exceptions according to the circumstances; but the common practice of passing a tramcar on the near side is usually the safest course. The police do their utmost to protect pedestrians crossing the road.
  MR. MYER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that tramcars
  1234
  in London frequently run at a speed of over twenty miles an hour? Will he not consider the advisability of making a rule that the drivers shall be supplied with an instrument which will show them the speed at which they are proceeding?
  MR. GLADSTONE: That is a matter for the Board of Trade.
  *MR. WATT: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of publishing anew the rules of the road, as it is not clearly understood on which side a vehicle should pass a tramcar going the same way.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I will see if anything can be done.

  Disabled Motor-Buses.
  MR. S. COLLINS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a recent speech of the Mayor of West Ham, in which he stated that every day in the main roads of that district there was an average of twenty-two disabled motor omnibuses; and whether, as similar breakdowns are constantly occurring in other parts of the metropolis, he will demand that greater care be exercised in the licensing of these vehicles so as to prevent the dislocation of traffic and the inconvenience of the public.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have not seen the speech referred to. Perhaps the figure quoted includes cases where the driver gets down to make temporary adjustment. The police have no knowledge of so many omnibuses breaking down, and if these vehicles had been disabled on the scale indicated, it must have come under their notice. Great care is taken in licensing motor omnibuses; but in working them the strain on the machinery is very great, and it is inevitable that a certain number, however good when licensed, should get out of order from time to time.
  EARL WINTERTON: When a motor bus breaks down, do the police take note of it?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir.

  Isle of Man Excursion Steamers.
  MR. McLAREN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that on the 15th instant the boats "Ben Machree" and "La Marguerite," carrying large numbers of passengers from the Isle of Man to Liverpool, began to race on approaching port and came within a few feet of one another; and whether, in view of the fact that a collision was narrowly averted, he will take steps to put a stop to this dangerous practice.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. CHURCHILL,): Yes, Sir. My attention has been called to the matter to which my hon friend refers, and I have communicated with the owners of both vessels concerned. I trust that no further ground for complaint will arise, but any instance of improper navigation which infringes the collision regulations will be severely dealt with.

  Port of London Inquiry.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the cost to date of the inquiry into the Port of London Bill before the Committee, and how much more will it probably cost; from what source this sum will be paid, and if the capital of the dock trust is to be inflated or watered by the amount of these expenses; and how much the port dues will have to be increased to pay the additional interest charge involved.
  MR. CHURCHILL: It is not possible to state at present the cost of the proceedings before the Joint Committee on the Port of London Bill. It is provided by the Bill that all costs incurred by the Board of Trade in connection with the preparing, applying for, obtaining and passing of the Act shall be repaid to the Board by the port authority. This is in accordance with the usual practice. It is not anticipated that the payment of these sums will have any appreciable effect on the amount of port dues, or that they will amount to anything approaching the cost that would have been incurred had the docks been purchased by arbitration.
  MR. FELL: Does not the cost exceed £100,000?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I can add nothing to my Answer.

  London Traffic Commission Report.
  SIR HENRY KIMBER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether there is any intention on the part of the Government to take any action on the recommendations of the Royal Commission on London traffic, appointed five years ago.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Board of Trade have constituted a special branch to deal with matters relating to London traffic. This branch is at present engaged in preparing a Report on the whole subject, bringing up to date, so far as far as possible the information collected by the Royal Commission on London traffic This report will shortly be completed and His Majesty's Government will then be in a better position to determine what further action if any it is expedient and practicable to take.

  Meat Trade Inquiry.
  MR. WATT: I bog to ask the President of the Board of Trade with reference to the appointment of a Departmental Committee to inquire into the prices of meat in this Country, whether he will have a representative from Scotland on that Committee.
  MR. CHURCHILL: As I have already stated in reply to questions on this subject, I am reluctant to add to the numbers of the Committee by the appointment of representatives of special interests or views. In those circumstances, especially as the reference to the Committee does not extend to recommendations affecting the conditions of the Importation of Cattle, I do not, as at present advised, think it necessary to include a representative of Scotland among the Members.
  *MR. WATT: How many business men are there on the Committee, and if none will he see his way to appoint one?
  MR. CHURCHILL: Mr. Weddell, a very distinguished gentleman connected with the meat trade but having no personal interest, has already been appointed.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade in

  1237
  reference to the constitution of the Committee appointed to inquire into the general supply, distribution, and price of meat in the United Kingdom, whether he has taken into consideration the views of the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone on the subject, when asking him to act as chairman of the proposed Committee; and whether he will consider the advisability of appointing representatives of agricultural constituencies on the Committee.
  MR. CHURCHILL: In answer to the first part of the hon. Member's Question I have to say that I have considered to the best of my ability all the qualifications of the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone to preside over an inquiry of this character. With regard to the second part of the hon. Member's question, the reference to the Committee does not include inquiry into matters relating to diseases of animals in the United Kingdom or into the conditions of the importation of live cattle from abroad and I do not under the circumstances think it necessary to include in its numbers representatives of agricultural constituencies.

  The All-Red Route.
  MR. McHUGH: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been drawn to a resolution recently adopted by the Canadian Government endorsing the resolution of the Colonial Conference in reference to an All-Red Route; has His Majesty's Government concluded its negotiations with the Governments of Canada, New Zealand, and Australia as to subsidising the proposed All-Red Route; is he aware that all sections of Irish Parliamentary representatives are in favour of including Ireland in the proposed scheme, and will lie state what is the present position in regard to negotiations with Colonial Governments; and what are the intentions of His Majesty's Government in reference to this matter.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I have been asked by my right hon. friend to reply to this Question. My attention has been called to reports of the resolution referred to, but I am not in a position to add anything to the statements which have been already made to the House by the Prime
  1238
  Minister and other Members of His Majesty's Government.

  Severn Foreshore.
  MR. DUNDAS WHITE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, in view of the decision in the case of Lord Fitzhardinge v. Purcell, 1908, 2 Ch. 139, that a private title had been proved to part of the foreshore of the Severn and that the public have no rights in respect of that foreshore except such as are incident to navigation, whether that foreshore is taken account of in the valuation list for rating purposes; if so, whether it is valued separately or is included with the adjacent property, and at what amount it is valued or what proportion of the valuation of the property as a whole is attributable to it.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): I have made inquiry on this subject, and am informed that the foreshore affected by the decision in Lord Fitzhardinge v. Purcell is mostly situate in the Unions of Dursley and Wheatenhurst. According to the information I have at present received, it is not assessed for rating purposes in either union.
  MR. DUNDAS WHITE: Was it assessed at all for rating purposes?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I cannot say. I may say that the hon. Member for Cambridge has presented me with a handsomely bound volume containing a report of the case, and I hope to read it in the holidays.

  Shoeburyness Foreshore.
  MR. DUNDAS WHITE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, with reference to the estate of about 890 acres of foreshore at Shoeburyness, recently purchased by the War Office for £5,500, what was taken as the annual value of that estate for rating purposes at the time of the purchase; or, if that estate formed part of a larger subject, by how much the annual value for rating of that larger subject has been reduced in consequence of the severance of that part.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I am informed that up to the present time the foreshore in

  1239
  question has not been assessed for rating purposes. I understand, however, that the valuer of the Guardians of the Rochford Union, in which it is situate, is in communication with the Treasury valuer as to the assessment of this and other parts of the foreshore belonging to the War Department.

  Motor Competitions on Public Roads.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the conviction for dangerous driving through Croydon of one of the competitors in a motor-cycle race from London to Edinburgh; and whether, in the interests of the public safety and to relieve the pressure on the police, he is prepared to take steps to make all such competitions on public roads illegal.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: Probably my hon. friend refers to the conviction at Chester-le-Street of one of the competitors in a motor car run from London to Edinburgh. He came from Croydon. Some information about the case has been supplied to me since the Question appeared on the Paper. I think these competitions on public roads are much to be deprecated, and I will bear in mind the suggestion which my hon. friend makes with regard to them.

  Driffield Guardians Vaccination Contract.
  MR. FERENS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been directed to the recent action of the guardians of the Driffield Union in determining their vaccination contract with Dr. Brand, solely in consequence of his resignation of his office as district medical officer; and if he has sanctioned the utilising of emoluments, arising from the office of public vaccinator, as an inducement to Poor Law medical officers to accept low salaries and allowances for supplies of medicines, surgical appliances, and dressings, visits, and consultations in their treatment of sick poor parish patients.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: My attention has been called to this matter. I have not expressed any approval of the principle referred to in the last part of the Question. It was, however, competent for the guardians to determine the vaccination contract if they thought
  1240
  fit to do so, without any sanction on my part.

  Motor Car Dust Nuisance.
  MR. HERBERT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will consider the advisability of making regulations, under Section 6 of The Locomotives on Highways Act, 1896, prescribing a minimum height from the ground for the bodies of motor cars, with a view to abating the dust nuisance.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: The suggestion is generally similar to that which was made in the Question put to me by my hon. friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland on the 13th instant. As I then stated, I will take note of it, but I am not sanguine that it will be possible to adopt it.

  Disclosure of Official Information.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he is aware that recently an extract from a Treasury Minute of 1875, against the divulging of official information, was circulated amongst the officials of the Department; and whether this was done by his authority; and, if so, will he say to what cause the revival of this Minute was due.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (MR. CHERRY,for Mr. T. W. RUSSELL): The Minute referred to was circulated by my right hon. friend's special directions for reasons which appeared to him to render that course desirable. In my right hon. friend's opinion, the present Question, illustrates the necessity for the adoption of that course.
  MR. DELANY: Does the right hon. Gentleman hold that an M.P. should not hare access to a Department which spends so much of the taxpayer's money?
  MR. CHERRY: The objection is to the start' of the Department giving confidential information.

  Irish Department of Agriculture Official Salaries.
  MR DELANY: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of

  1241
  Agriculture (Ireland) whether, since the money for the payment of the officials of his Department is voted by this House, he can state the grounds which commended themselves to the Treasury and the Department for increasing the salaries of the three chief officials of the Department's veterinary branch, by a sum amounting in the aggregate to £350; whether he can also state how many of the assistant clerks of the veterinary branch are eligible for promotion to the Second Division, and why they are denied the right of entrance thereto; and whether he will see that no further promotions of the higher officials of the veterinary branch will be made till the claims of the subordinate gentlemen are duly dealt with.
  MR. CHERRY: My right hon. friend has nothing to add to the Answers which he has given to the hon. Member's previous Questions on this subject.

  Canadian Cattle Imports.
  MR CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if his attention has been directed to the fact that, since the last Colonial Conference, when the question of the unrestricted importation of Canadian cattle was discussed at no great length, no representations have been made by the Canadian Government to His Majesty's Government with reference to the subject; and if, in view of the dangerous infectious diseases existent in America, he will not propose any modification of the existing law unless such modification is accompanied by the stringent quarantine regulations in force in America and Europe.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH,): There is no present intention of proposing any legislation in regard to this matter.

  Illegal Trawling in the Moray Firth.
  MR. SUTHERLAND: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the dissatisfaction along the East Coast of Scotland in connection with existing conditions regarding fishing in the Moray Firth, the Government would consider the advisability of urging negotiations with foreign Powers with the object of bringing the present unsatisfactory state of affairs to an end.
  MR. ASQUITH: The Secretary for Scotland will, before the House adjourns for the recess, introduce a Bill to prohibit in English and Irish ports what is already prohibited in Scottish ports—namely, the landing or sale of fish caught by trawling in prohibited areas of the sea adjacent to the coast of Scotland. It is hoped that this measure may provide an effectual remedy for the difficulty which exists in relation to these waters.

  Natal Act of Indemnity.
  MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that martial law was proclaimed and has been maintained in Zululand in opposition to the views of His Majesty's Government, and considering the purposes for which it has been used in connection especially with the arrest, imprisonment, and trial of Dinizulu, it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to advise that the sanction of the Crown be given to the Act of Indemnity recently passed by the Legislature of Natal.
  MR. ASQUITH: My hon. friend will state the views of His Majesty's Government in the course of the debate on the Colonial Vote this afternoon.

  Land Law (Ireland) Acts.
  MR. McHUGH: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the promise conveyed in the King's Speech at the opening of the present session that a measure would be introduced to amend the Land Law (Ireland) Acts, and of the dissatisfaction prevailing in Ireland at the failure of the Government to carry out its promise in this regard, he will, with a view to preventing unrest and disturbance in Ireland, state what are the present intentions of His Majesty's Government on this matter.
  MR. ASQUITH: My right hon. friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland has more than once stated that it is the intention of the Government to introduce in the coming autumn a measure dealing with congestion in Ireland—that is still our intention. The Report of the Royal Commission is at present under consideration with that object. My right hon. friend has not had sufficient time,

  1243
  since the Report was received, to formulate the necessary legislation for dealing with a matter of so much importance.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: Will the Bill deal generally with the question of land purchase?
  MR. ASQUITH: I prefer to reserve my reply to that till the autumn.

  Government Army Policy.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Prime Minister, in view of the changes in the Government, whether they adhere to the statement of policy of the Secretary of State for War in the city of London on 4th January 1906, prior to the general election, when he announced that the Prime Minister and the Cabinet as a whole had given him a free hand in reference to the Army, and that Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman laid such stress on efficiency that, if necessary, the Government was prepared to find more men and more money for the Army.
  MR. ASQUITH: If my hon. friend will refer to the speech of the Secretary of State for War on the occasion in question, he will find that he said that while the policy was as stated in the Question, he was not at all sure that it would necessitate the finding of either more money or more men. My right hon. friend is of opinion that in this respect his anticipations have been well founded.

THE SPEAKER AND MR. SWIFT MACNEILL.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL, referring to the action of Mr. Speaker in stopping him putting a Question in which he applied the term "illegal" to certain proceedings on the part of the Natal Government, asked Mr. Speaker if he would lay down how far the term was to be barred. Did it imply or infer a rule that the term was not to be used in reference to the administration of Colonies having responsible Government?
MR. SPEAKER: When I stopped the hon. Member yesterday he had not completed his Question; but, when he had reached a point imputing illegality to the Natal Government, I thought it was time
1244
to intervene. It seems to me that it is undesirable, by moans of a supplementary question, to make observations of that kind which are very much resented by the Government to whom they apply.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I want to guard against any restriction on absolute freedom of discussion in ordinary debates in this House in reference to the internal administration of Natal.

SUMMARY JURISDICTION (IRELAND) BILL.
Lords' Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 345.]
PUBLIC OFFICES SITES (EXTENSION) BILL.
Lords' Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 346.]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY).
Ordered, "That on this day, not with standing anything in Standing Order No. 15, Business other than Business of Supply may be taken before Eleven of the Clock."—(Mr. Secretary Haldane).

SUPPLY [19TH ALLOTED DAY].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee).
[Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]

SUPPLY [19TH ALLOTED DAY].
  CIVIL SERVICES ESTIMATES, 1908–9.

    CLASS II.
    1. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £31,450, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1909, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including a grant in aid of certain expenses connected with emigration."
    *MR. LYTTELTONsaid that South Africa was the centre of interest in Colonial matters;

    1245
    but, while his remarks would be devoted chiefly to South African subjects, he had a word or two to say in the first Instance on a matter relating to the opium traffic, which, unless it was cautiously handled by the Government, might bring us trouble in our great Eastern Dependencies. In discussing the Resolution of the House for the discouragement of the opium traffic, it was presumed by everyone who took part in that debate that any action taken by the Government would be deliberate and cautious, and in particular that they would seek to enlist the co-operation of the authorities of the various Colonies concerned. Unless he was misinformed, there had be n a grievous departure from that wholesome rule in Hong kong, and a similar disposition seemed to be likely in regard to the Straits Settlements. The Legislative Council in Crown Colonies consisted of official and unofficial members. The latter were a kind of advisory council in a permanent minority, but their advice was extremely valuable. It was axiomatic at the Colonial Office that the utmost consideration should be shown to those gentlemen, and that they should be consulted on every occasion of importance. Such an attitude was preeminently desirable in the case of the question of opium. The opium habit had boon an engraved habit in the East for centuries, and a large portion of the revenue of these Colonies was raised from opium. In a matter so delicate, therefore, as that, he would have thought it hardly credible that the Government should not have consulted the Legislative Council of Hong-kong before taking any specific action in regard to the matter. He was informed that, a peremptory telegram was sent by the Secretary of State on 6th May saying to the Colony of Hong-kong that His Majesty's Government had decided to close the opium establishments in Hong-kong. That telegram reached Hong-kong three hours before the statement was made public in the House of Commons, and therefore before any information was vouchsafed to the Colony on the matter. Absolutely no previous consultation had taken place, so far as he was informed, and no opinion taken of the members of the Legislative Council Naturally this excited a great deal of feeling amongst the members of that body. They moved and voted for a
    1246
    resolution of censure on the Government for that very high-handed proceeding. He hoped there would be some explanation given of this proceeding, because, in his opinion, it was calculated rather to hinder than advance the object—the reduction in the consumption of opium. There was another matter which he thought would interest the late Under-Secretary more than the present, because it referred to some sarcastic comments which he made with regard to a certain concession that had been made in the pearl fisheries of Ceylon. The late Under-Secretary, who, if he might say so, was the youngest and most inexperienced of any official who had had any dealing with this subject at all, selected and identified himself as the only person among the officials to condemn that particular concession. His ground was—and he was good enough to absolve him (Mr. Lyttelton) from any fraud in the matter—but his ground of condemnation was that this was not a speculative but a very valuable and stable undertaking, and that therefore the Ceylon Government had acted very wrongly in parting for twenty years with the pearl fisheries. For 100 years the profits had averaged £10,000 a year. There had boon sometimes years without a pearl being taken at all; on other occasions the profits had been very large. The Government did not like to spend their revenue upon so unstable a product, and accordingly they thought it desirable to put the matter upon a proper footing. The fisheries wore therefore leased to a company for twenty years at a rental of £20,000 a year, and there was an obligation on the part of the concessionaires to spend 3,000,000 rupees on the development of the fisheries during the period of the concession. At the end of that time the Government were to resume possession. If, therefore, the large expenditure was successful the Government would have the results of that success, and if it was a failure the company would have to boar the expense. It might be thought that that was not altogether a bad arrangement, but the late Under-Secretary, cheered by the reflection that the company had an extremely good first year, spoke in very opprobrious terms of the wisdom of the grant, but unfortunately he forgot that time sometimes brought correction even to the

    1247
    youngest of them. This year the company was in the position of having to pay the Government £20,000 to execute 150,000 rupees worth of development work, while they had not been able to recover a single pearl. He thought that was worth mentioning.
    Passing to the position of affairs in the Transvaal, he said that the minority there had borne themselves like men in the last two years. There had been no unmanly laments as to the consequences of the action that had been taken; they had courageously and toughly accepted that which was inevitable. He admitted that after self-government was granted they were bound not to indulge in any factious criticism nor to embitter feeling by any partisan comment. At the same time he utterly repudiated the indolent and pusillanimous counsel that, in the circumstances which existed in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony, they were entitled to absolve themselves from all criticism, to shut their eyes, and to say lazily after all the sacrifices which our fellow-subjects had made and the immense financial aid this country had given them, that these Colonies were immune from all criticism because they had self-government. On the contrary, the condition of these Colonies and the financial obligations we had undertaken not only entitled Parliament to exercise, but demanded from them, an unceasing vigilance and also criticism where it could be honestly made and where it was sincerely felt. There were some features of the situation in the Transvaal to which he thought they were all entitled to look with satisfaction. The great fabric that had been erected by the labours and genius of Lord Milner and his colleagues after the war in the main stood. That fabric included the railways, the roads, the bridges, public works, schools, municipal self-government, a system of education which needed only wise and tolerant administration, a system of law remodelled so as to bring the Colony fully up to every modern need, a judiciary equal to any in the Empire over seas, a scientific system of agriculture which, by the assent of the Dutch and the British, had done great good in bringing classes together, in improving agriculture
    1248
    in the Colony, and in increasing its productiveness. There was also a progress towards unification of the Colony, a, progress which had been recognised by General Botha as being largely due to the results of the war. That unification was furthered by the Progressive Party in South Africa. He thought they were entitled to congratulate them, and to congratulate the country upon the progress that had been made towards it. Let those who had denounced the war from the beginning permit him to read a passage from a speech by General Botha. He said—
    "If we go back into the history of South Africa we find that there were not only Colonies here, but also republics, and as long as there was more than one flag, it was impossible to think of a united South Africa. The dissension which has existed in the past has led to serious difficulties. We know that it has led to difficulties between the Colonies and the republics, and has led to one of the most bloody wars that South Africa has ever seen. … Before the war was over it was impossible to think of a united South Africa."
    They might congratulate Lord Milner and those who supported the war at the tune on the fact that such an authority should have uttered so striking a statement. He might say parenthetically that the main source of difficulty which he anticipated in the future in respect of the problem of unification was one about which he had warned the Government two years ago. It was the lowering of manhood suffrage in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony, contrary to all South African precedent, with the result that when the position of the natives came to be discussed in connection with the entire subject the only argument left for those opposed to a native suffrage was "your skin is black and the white man's skin is white." That was a position of which the Government were warned at the time, and he was sorry that the warning had come only too true. Having pointed out some of those matters, which were matters of legitimate congratulation, he was bound to say that there were three main sources of irritation and bitterness which still existed in South Africa, and which he thought the influence of the Government ought to be enlisted to allay. First, he was glad to recognise that since there had been a change

    1249
    in the personnel of the Government the same abuse of the British minority which they used to have from the hon. Member's predecessor had been absent. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Withdraw."] He was speaking in the recollection of the House when he declared that on almost every occasion when South African matters were discussed they were prefaced or concluded by the late Under-Secretary by whoops of invective and sarcasm more fitted for other assemblies than the House of Commons. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No."] Then there had been—he knew some hon. Gentlemen did not like it, but he was going to say it—repeated and injurious comments made on the system of labour which had prevailed in the Transvaal for a number of years; and lastly, and most conspicuously, there had been a failure, as he read the difficult and obscure facts, to carry out towards the Civil servants employed in the country the honourable understandings which they owed to all those who served the King in any department. He maintained that the minority in South Africa endured the chiefest burden of the war. They also endured at the present moment the heavy taxation which was necessary. Seven-eighths of the taxation was borne by them. He did not think that any candid opponent would deny that a heavy strain had been placed upon them when, contrary to the policy of the last Government, to the treaty, and to the expressed intentions of many authorities, responsible government was granted to the Colony. He did not go back upon that, but he did not think that any candid opponent would deny that a serious strain was imposed on their cheerful loyalty and their temper by the handing over to the custody of a great majority of their political opponents the actual government of the country. He would have thought that every chivalrous adversary and every lover of concord would have thought them worthy of respectful treatment. But so far from receiving respectful treatment these Colonies had received in the House of Commons jeers and insults. The late Under-Secretary had delivered speeches containing many injurious attacks and he had caused them to be circulated in South Africa in official telegrams. It
    1250
    was one of those lucubrations which poured suspicion on the voters list, and the consequential alteration of the voters' list caused the minority to be a good deal smaller than it would have been. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] That, at any rate, was the opinion of those on the spot. What could be more odious to men of great industry and ability doing this work than an imputation cast on their good faith? That imputation had never been frankly withdrawn by the former Under-Secretary, notwithstanding the fact that Lord Selborne had absolutely denied that there was any grounds for suspicion, and that the present Under-Secretary was good enough to say the Government did not associate itself with the imputation. There were other matters tending to cause exasperation, imputations on the good faith of those who managed the recruiting of native labour, and reflections made, not here, but in South Africa, upon the financial administration of the Crown. Colony Government. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman would give some information in regard to this matter. It was reported that the Treasurer last year had condemned the extravagence and incompetency of the Crown Colony Government, by alleging that there was a large deficit, but it had been pointed out by the official auditor that the deficit had been created by putting a sum of £67,000 in the accounts of the following instead of the current year. He would not say that an apology was due, but a retractation should be made of the statement, because the honour of the Crown Colony Government ought to be dear to no one more than to the hon. and gallant Gentleman who represented that Government in this House, and who was bound, when an accusation of that kind was made, if it were true, to call attention to it. He knew that offensive imputations of that kind had provoked the bitterest feelings in South Africa, and had done much to weaken the spirit of conciliation which they all desired to see in the Colonies. No one on the Unionist side ever doubted that there were mischiefs attendant upon indentured labour in South Africa. What were the facts about native labour at the present moment? What was the difference between indentured native labour and Chinese labour, about the

    1251
    abolition of which hon. Gentlemen opposite congratulated themselves so much, and asked the country to congratulate them? He would tell the House what the condition was now with respect to Portuguese natives, say, 50 per cent. of the native labour employed in the Transvaal mines. It was foreign alien labour. It was indentured foreign labour. It was brought thousands of miles, and from a climate which made those who came a great deal more susceptible to illness than Chinamen. These labourers were brought without their wives or their families, and the arrangements were such that there could be no holding of land and no holding of property by those who came.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Colonel SEELY, Liverpool, Abercromby): Why?
    *MR. LYTTELTONsaid he would tell the hon. Gentleman in a moment. The arrangement provided also for the repatriation of the labourer immediately his in denture was terminated. The disability from holding land arose from the fact that the person who was subject to the indenture was bound under penalties to work in the mines for the whole period of his indenture, and he was obliged to return to his own country at the end of it. The recruiter was bound to effect and defray the cost of repatriation in accordance with the obligations undertaken by him. The native was under an obligation to return to Portuguese territory immediately the period of his contract was ended unless; he effected a re-engagement. He quite agreed that, in the absence of an Ordinance, there was no opportunity compulsorily to exercise the provisions of that contract. But Lord Selborne had stated explicitly that the Government were bound in honour not to countenance the settling of Portuguese natives in the Transvaal. What occurred was this. The Foreign Office had made an arrangement with the Portuguese authorities by which the system of indenture was permitted on condition that the Portuguese natives should spend the money they had earned in Portuguese territory. Not merely were we bound in honour
    1252
    to fulfil that obligation; but, if it were not fulfilled, the arrangement would be at once terminated.
    COLONEL SEELY: It is not fulfilled.
    *MR. LYTTELTONsaid it might not be fulfilled in every case. But the Government had bound themselves to fulfil it, and if they did not, the Portuguese Government had a grievance against them, not merely because of an obligation of honour unfulfilled, but because of an actual injury done. If the Under-secretary did not value his opinion in regard to the character of this indentured native labour let him listen to the opinion of his great friend Mr. Cresswell, whose sincerity had never been controverted. That gentleman in a Report on the subject of native labour in the mines, after giving figures in regard to the natives imported into the Transvaal, said—
    "It is clear from these Inures that so far as the Transvaal is concerned the supply of indigenous cheap coloured labour is wholly insufficient for the carrying on of the mining industry, and that the great mass of coloured labour employed upon the mines has to be obtained from outside its borders. The supply is, therefore, not a natural supply, indigenous to the Colony; it is not even a natural supply indigenous to British South Africa. So far as the natives imported from outside British South Africa are concerned, constituting a further 41 per cent. of the coloured labour force, these consist for the most part of East Coast natives, whose importation is dependent on arrangements between this country and the Portuguese authorities. The continuance of these arrangements on our side depends, among other things, upon the view being upheld, that while it is undesirable, and has been made unlawful, to import indentured alien coloured labour—from China—it is beneficial and deserving of State help to do so overland—from adjacent territories in Africa. In the opinion of the Commission, the imported Portuguese East African offers no advantages to the country, from a social or economic point of view, more than the imported Chinese coolie did. Both fill the place of, and do work which would otherwise be done by white, men. Both take out of the country a large proportion of the wages fund which ought to be spent in the country by a resident industrial population, thereby stimulating the prosperity and development of the country. There remains the 17 per cent. of the coloured labour force recruited in British South Africa, and the 5 per cent. recruited in the Transvaal."
    There they had the opinion of the greatest opponent of Chinese labour, given after months of investigation, that the difference between Chinese labour and the

    1253
    native labour, upon which, hon. Gentlemen opposite were always congratulating themselves, was the difference between bringing indentured alien coloured labour overseas and bringing black labour over land. Perhaps the subtlety of hon. Gentlemen opposite might be able to see some essential difference; he confessed he was unable to do so. The mischiefs such as they were attendant upon indentured labour arose from the settled determination of every white man's community in the world, in which there was a great preponderance of native labour, not to take any part in the work done by the lowest class of coloured labour. If they looked into the matter with a candid mind they would find that the mischief existed with regard to natives who were brought thousands of miles overland as well as with regard to those brought from China; and the one serious and lamentable difference was that the death-rate in the case of the former was two or three times what it was in the case of the latter. He came now to the third cause of exasperation, the retrenched Transvaal officials who had been employed when the Transvaal was a Crown Colony. He admitted that the facts were very difficult to get at, but many of those to whom notice of retrenchment had been given believed themselves to be dependent, first on His Majesty's Government and, perhaps, in a second degree on the Transvaal Government, for standing between them and absolute ruin. Naturally enough they were timid as to giving information. He did not wish to, and he did not believe that anyone would for a moment, impute to the present Government that they would bear hardly against any man whose name was mentioned in a debate like this, or who made any complaint as to the wrongs he believed that he had suffered. The position was this. Nobody denied that there was and had been a need of retrenchment; but the Civil servants in the Transvaal were given to understand that when they took that position—of course at that time the rule was that of a Crown Colony—that at any rate the rule of Great Britain in South Africa was going to last much longer than it actually did. They were assured by Sir Arthur Lawley on 1st December, 1905, that—
    "Many of them had acquired vested rights, that the country was under obligation to them,
    1254
    and that he had sufficient confidence in his countrymen that these obligations would be fulfilled."
    Lord Selborne, at a meeting of the Intercolonial Council on 30th May, 1906, said of the constabulary—
    "It would be quite impossible to ask the existing officers and men to accept reductions in their pay and allowances and not, at the same time, to fulfil those hopes which had always been admitted and encouraged, that the South African constabulary would one day be a permanent police force and their services pensionable."
    Sir Richard Solomon, acting Lieuten-ant-Governor of the Transvaal, at the Legislative Council on 25th May, 1906, said in no less strong terms—
    "This session gives the present Government its last opportunity of redeeming its pledges to the Civil servants, and of that opportunity it intends to avail itself. An ordinance regulating the pensions of officers of the service will, therefore, be introduced, substantially based on the recommendations of the Public Service Commission, to which I believe no possible objection will be take a by any section of the people of this Colony. I wish it clearly to be understood that the Government firmly believes that the new Parliament of the Transvaal under responsible Government would deal fairly with the Civil servants of this Colony, and it would with the greatest confidence leave any legislation relating to the status and pensions of Civil servants to such Parliament; but it feels that it cannot honourably leave the pledges it gave to these Civil servants any longer unfulfilled, especially in view of the fact that the principles on which the legislation will be based will have been decided by an independent Commission, whose personnel has been approved by the people of this country."
    The opportunity was not taken and there were now scores of Civil servants who were being retrenched without pensions. He inferred—of course, he had never seen the report—from a letter that Sir West Ridgeway had written and which appeared in The Times that he had reported so as jealously to safeguard the rights of the Civil servants. If that were so, it would only be candid if the Government would tell the Committee what the facts were, what they had done in order to fulfil the three separate promises which had been given, afterwards confirmed by the West Ridgeway Commission. He did not intend to weary the Committee with a long list of names, but those who had acquainted themselves with this subject of retrenchment knew that many British officers and, officials in the Transvaal had been retrenched and replaced by Dutchmen.

    1255
    He might mention the cases of Colonel Curtis and Colonel O'Brien, the heads of both police forces who had had eight years of honourable service. These distinguished men were replaced by a gentleman by the name of Papenfus who had had no active service in the police, and the outcry against whose appointment out there as well as here was so acute that he learned a day or two ago that that gentleman had resigned.
    COLONEL SEELY: He was only appointed temporarily.
    *MR. LYTTELTONsaid he was quite aware that he had been replaced, but he was not aware that his appointment I was temporary. Then there was the case of Dr. Sansome, a gentleman who had rendered eminent services in the Medical Department of the mines, and during the course of whose service in Lord Milner's time and afterwards had been able to reduce the death-rate amongst the natives by at least 50 per cent. Two persons had been appointed in his place, but he did not gather that there had been any reduction in the cost of the Department. Then there was the case of Mr. Thornton, the General Superintendent to the Victoria Hospital, whose dismissal could not be looked upon with other than grave indignation by those who valued the honour of this country; and the cases of the three magistrates, Major Bolton, who had filled his office of resident magistrate at Pietersburg for five years with conspicuous success, and who had given up the prospect of commanding his regiment to join the service; Major McInerney, the resident magistrate at Barberton, Mr. Rolleston, resident magistrate at Lichtenburg, and others. He did not wish to assume that all the facts in favour of the case which he was putting before the Committee were absolutely correct in every detail. He frankly admitted that he had found it impossible accurately to inform himself, except in a few instances, of all the details. He did not think he would be justified in asking the Committee to draw the inference which he had drawn if it were not for the fact that new circumstances had occurred since the time that he and the hon. Member for
    1256
    Gravesend had brought this subject before the House of Commons on a previous occasion. The position then taken up by the Government in regard to it seemed a very strong one. It was said that Lord Milner himself had pointed out the necessity for considerable retrenchment, and that many of the retrenchments had been made under the advice of a distinguished Indian Civil servant, Mr. Marriss, who had been appointed by the late Crown Colony to superintend the reconstruction of the Transvaal Civil Service. But these pleas were no longer open, for on 15th May, 1908, Mr. Marriss wrote to the Transvaal Government in these terms—
    "I have decided with reluctance to ask your Government to relieve me from my present appointment under it, in connection with the public service reorganisation. I do not feel that retrenchments and appointments are being made in such a way that I can remain associated with them. I will send you a further memorandum on the subject, and need not go into details now. I place myself in your hands as regards the actual date of my departure. It may be convenient that I should wait a few days to finish half-completed proposals, and to give the Government time to decide what arrangements, if any, it will make to carry on the work. But I do not propose to undertake any fresh work, and should be glad to leave as soon as it is convenient."
    A valuable authority speaking with respect to the manner in which the grievances were to be redressed, said that a Bill was before the Transvaal Parliament to enable the Government of the colony to make the appointments to the Civil Service exactly as they pleased. There was no provision for entrance examinations, and it was truly affirmed that if that policy was carried out it might be said with perfect accuracy that there would be no test at all of the ability of the men to be appointed to the Civil Service in the Transvaal; and that the Government would not be able to resist the pressure put upon them by their supporters for appointments. Two years ago, it was pointed out in the frankest possible manner that the spoils should be given to the victors. He thought he had shown the Government the facts of the case, but he appealed with all the earnestness in his power to hon. Gentlemen opposite not to assume the facts as he had stated them, but to influence the Government

    1257
    to have an inquiry by three men of Impartiality from this country, who "would go into the facts, and who would say whether the case, which rested on the very strong prima facie grounds put before the House, was one which did not mark the action which should be taken by His Majesty's Government. He was extremely sorry to detain the House so long, but there had been no opportunity of discussing these matters at all this session. The only discussion of the affairs of Natal in which they had engaged in that House was afforded of what he thought, was the most exasperating form of controversy, namely, by Questions put to the Government by zealots below the gangway. In this controversy it should be remembered that our policy had added to the work of the Natal Government the very formidable problem of Zululand as well as the very formidable problem with respect to natives in their own territory. Natal was a small Colony with honourable traditions, and in the humanity of whose rulers he had the most implicit confidence. This controversy, so far as he was able to judge, had gathered round four principal points. One was the arrest by a strong force of the Chief Dinizulu; the second was the proclamation of martial law; the third was the question of the prolongation of the, preliminary examination of Dinizulu; and the fourth was the question of Dinizulu's salary. Speaking entirely for himself, he thought we were in this difficulty. We were bound to believe that the Natal Government were acting with reasonable cause. At the same time we were bound by all our honourable traditions to presume the innocence of a man until he was found guilty. These two positions were extremely difficult to reconcile in discussing this matter, and the House would bear with him if he might seem not always satisfactorily to recognise them. He was bound to assume that the Natal Government had good cause for arresting Dinizulu; he was glad to assume it, and he could assure them he would not do so unless he thought that they had good cause. He thought that the Natal Government were absolutely right, if they undertook that step, to use a force to effect the arrest which would make resistance impossible. That was both
    1258
    a humane and an expedient thing to do. They had also acted legally in putting Dinizulu through a long preliminary examination. A Statute had been passed by the House authorising them to do it. He spoke with diffidence, for there were lawyers present who would correct him if he was wrong, but he thought that even in this country there had been occasions in which two or three months had been spent in preliminary investigations in important cases.
    MR. MACKARNESS: Without formulating a definite charge?
    *MR. LYTTELTONsaid he did not think that was quite the point. The arrest took place under a warrant or under an information in this country, but frequently the result of a preliminary investigation was an indictment to be made of entirely different character from the cause of the original warrant. Now the length of time required for the purposes of the law was about double what was needed in this country. The distances in Zululand were enormous. The difficulty of finding the witnesses was exceedingly great, as was also the amount of time occupied in bringing them up to Court. The Attorney-General had also distinctly stated that he regarded it as in the interests of the prisoner, that every fact to be relied upon at the trial should be given notice of to him and his advisers in the preliminary examination. It was stated that the view which the Attorney-General had taken had met with the approbation of those who defended Dinizulu. Although it was natural that comment should have been made on the length of time occupied, yet on reviewing the circumstances in comparison with our own system, which, of course, possessed facilities infinitely greater for ensuring speed, he doubted whether any just condemnation could be cast on the Natal Government in respect of this delay. He did not pass any opinion in regard to the circumstances in which martial law was proclaimed, but he was entitled to say that martial law never had been administered in a more lenient way than by the Natal Government. Not a single

    1259
    execution had taken place under it, and it would be unjust and ungenerous in them at this distance from the scene to pronounce a hasty opinion against the proclamation until they were fully acquainted with the circumstances under which it was made. In regard to the payment of Dinizulu's salary, he thought that His Majesty's Government were right in having paid it to him. He thought that the documents showed that there was a primary obligation on His Majesty's Government to pay that salary, unless the circumstances could be established affording not technical but real and convincing reasons why they should not do so. He did not attach much importance to the question, but for what his own personal opinion was worth, he thought that His Majesty's Government were right, having regard to the length of the proceedings that were taking place and to the poverty and unjust needs of the Chief Dinizulu, in recognising that the obligation to pay the salary to him, even if their view did not coincide with that of the Natal Government. He did not believe that there would be much difficulty for anyone in whom they had confidence to persuade reasonable men in Natal on this point, and he did not think that he should have any difficulty now. He was afraid that he had detained the House longer than he had intended, and he knew that he had tried the good-will of the hon. Gentleman opposite once or twice. He had endeavoured, as he should always endeavour, to speak on these matters in no partisan spirit. He thought that that which had taken place with reference to questions in the East was of very serious importance. Unless the House was satisfied that the Government were really going to consult and pay some deference to the views of legislative councils in the Crown Colonies, an infinite amount of trouble would come upon us. He admitted that the problem of South Africa was more vital than even those other questions in the East to which he had referred. How could we expect to retain the confidence and allegiance of our fellow-subjects in South Africa if His Majesty's Government stood by and allowed Civil servants to return ruined from the country to which they had
    1260
    rendered good service? No country, however great, could afford to lose such allegiance, and he appealed to hon. Gentlemen opposite, who he knew felt as strongly as he did upon this subject, whether this was not a problem which closely touched the honour and reputation of our own country. He had made no reflection on the Transvaal Government, and he would be unwilling to do so, unless the facts were more fully known. He had asked that an inquiry should take place in order to satisfy the people of this country. The honour and reputation of the country ought not to suffer at their hands, and he made this demand for an inquiry in terms which he had striven to make moderate in tone, and he commended it with the utmost earnestness to the consideration both of the House and the country.
    COLONEL SEELYsaid he had listened with much pleasure to the right hon. Gentleman, and although he had said that it was a long speech, it had not proved too long for those who had heard it. He would endeavour to answer all the points which the right hon. Gentleman had raised. He might say that he welcomed the moderation with which he had spoken, as he always did, with the exception of an allusion which he had made to his right hon. friend, to which he would revert later. On the last point to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred he thought that he had a complete answer—so complete that he made an appeal to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in that House, and to all persons outside, especially those who had a knowledge of or were connected with our Civil Service, to take note of the official figures, which were an absolute refutation of the charges made against the Transvaal Government. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the opium traffic, and said that they had taken action without consulting the authorities at Hong Kong. It was impossible fully to consult the authorities. It was not certain until a short time before the debate that that particular debate would take place. Although they did their best to ascertain the views of those cognisant of the matter, it was quite impossible to get anything like a reasoned opinion from the inhabitants of Hong

    1261
    Kong. He reasserted what he had said in a previous discussion, that it was the policy of the Government to close the opium dens in Hong Kong. That remained the policy of the Government, and as regarded that policy itself the right hon. Gentleman would forgive him if he quoted some words of his. The right hon. Gentleman said on a former occasion—
    "I congratulate the Government and the Under-Secretary on having taken steps which are entirely reasonable in the circumstauces."
    *MR. LYTTELTON: Of course, I agreed with, that policy, but what I said was that every person of sense presumed that the ordinary steps had been taken that would make the policy palatable.
    COLONEL SEELYsaid the ordinary steps could not be taken for reasons that he had given. The ordinary steps were now being taken, and the Government would act throughout on the advice they had recently obtained, and would obtain, from the Governor. He believed he would be able to satisfy the House that the best public opinion in Hong Kong, and the opinion of the Governor himself, coincided with the policy of the Government as to the measure they proposed to take. With regard to Ceylon pearls, the right hon. Gentleman opposite was extraordinarily persistent on that point, which he would have thought anyone in his position would have desired to forget. In a public career which had been distinguished by almost uniform success, in the opinion of the man in the street, there were two matters on which the right hon. Gentleman had come croppers. One was the question of Ceylon pearls and the other Chinese labour. But the right hon. Gentleman would return to them. The right hon. Gentleman said that his right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade had used some sarcastic language on the subject; but that language seemed to him to be well justified, and, speaking on behalf of the Colonial Office, he said they still thought that the right hon. Gentleman made an uncommonly bad bargain, for he thought he was right in saying that the company that got the concession, greatly to the right hon. Gentleman's surprise, made a profit of
    1262
    something over 60 per cent. That was a I fairly large percentage. When a man made a bargain with another man to exploit something which he had in his possession, and that person made a profit approaching even remotely 60 per cent., the man in the street would say that he had made a bad bargain. That the profits in this particular year had not been so great was exceedingly likely, but, of course, this was rather a barren controversy, because they would not know for many years, with certainty, who was right. But if they took the contract as far as it had gone and the profits made, the right hon. Gentleman had made a very bad bargain. Now he left these two points, and came to the question of Natal, which had occupied the House at Question-time very fully for many days past. He would say that the matter was critical and important, for at this moment the Natal Parliament was discussing it. The Natal Government had not seen fit to pay Dinizulu's salary. He did not wish to go over the ground again, but it would be remembered that their reason was that Dinizulu was in the position of an ordinary civil servant, and that, therefore, they were entitled to withhold his salary. To this the Government had replied that whatever their view might be, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham made the bargain he said that the salary should not be withdrawn without the consent of the Secretary of State. The Government were convinced that if the right hon. Gentleman were present—and he need hardly say that every one in the House wished ardently that he were—he would agree with the Government that to take away a man's salary just at the moment when he wanted it most, just at the moment when by the operation of martial law he was debarred from getting resources from his own countrymen, was action they could not take and action to which they could not and would not give their consent. The Government had said they would wait until the Natal Supreme Court had decided whether the Natal Government were liable or not—because the Natal Government said they wished to submit the question to the tribunal—but they were not able to wait, first, because the action did not come on,

    1263
    and also for two other reasons which were conclusive to them and he understood to hon. Gentlemen opposite. The first was that they had found out that Dinizulu had got no more money, and that those who supported him had no money either. He did not know what the expenses of the defence of this native chief were, but he was told they amounted to £100 a month, and if they amounted to anything like that it was apparent that there had been a strain on his resources, and it was not surprising that he and his friends should be denuded of resources. Convinced that what they were told was correct and that he had no more money, the Government decided that that was an added reason why they should themselves pay in accordance with the statement made by the Attorney-General. The third reason why they considered that they must take action was that they were threatened with legal proceedings as a Government, based on the statement of the Attorney-General, for the payment of the salary from Imperial funds. So far as the payment of the salary was concerned, they would have been most willing litigants, for they wanted to pay the salary, and nothing would have pleased them better than to have been ordered to do so by the Court; but they foresaw; that were a case brought, either by petition of right or by some other method, against the Government in the Courts here the pleadings and the speeches of counsel would have contained violent indictments of the Government of the Colony of Natal for their action in not paying. They were anxious, and especially in view of the effect it might have on natives in Natal, that no such state of affairs should arise. A public controversy between the Government of this country and the Government of Natal on a matter of honourable obligation, would have been so injurious to all concerned that it was their bounden duty to put an end to it at once by paying the salary; and in taking that action he felt confident that the Government had the assent of all their friends on their own side of the House. And he must add that all on his side of the House would welcome the statement of the right hon. Gentleman opposite that he was convinced that in this case the Government had acted rightly; but even
    1264
    more were they grateful to the hon. Member for Darlington, who, yesterday, knowing the views of the Opposition, and that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman would come too late to be brought to the notice of the Natal Parliament, who would wish to know the opinion of the Members of the House of Commons, with characteristic courage and straightforwardness, stated in the form of a supplementary question the view to which he had referred. He thanked the hon. Member for his courage and assistance in the matter. With regard to the Special Court, hon. Members wished to know how it would be constituted. It would be constituted on similar lines, though not precisely the same, to the Special Court which tried what were called the rebels in Natal. He wished at once to explain that, of course, the forming of a Special Court of Judges was greatly to the interest of the prisoner. No one would wish to suggest that a jury of white men in Natal would not wish to come to an absolutely fair conclusion, but it was also true that when even the most honourable men were asked to try a prisoner whom they had lately been mobilised to capture they would find it a matter of almost superhuman difficulty to arrive at an unprejudiced conclusion.
    EARL WINTERTON: Oh, Oh!
    COLONEL SEELY: Perhaps the noble Lord has an excess of superhuman virtue.
    EARL WINTERTON: My interruption was directed against the amazing assertion of the hon. Gentleman that because a man was sent out to capture this unfortunate chief he would not be able to form an unbiassed opinion on his case.
    COLONEL SEELYsaid he had stated that it would be more difficult for such a man than it would be for the Judges who would be appointed under this Act. He knew the noble Lord was a soldier, but he was sure he would agree with him that were he to mobilise his Yeomanry in order to capture somebody with whom he disagreed in some portion of his constituency his judgment would possibly not be quite so sound as that of a man

    1265
    who had had nothing to do with the capture. But in order that the noble Lord might set his mind at rest, he wished to read from a despatch sent to the Government by Sir Matthew Nathan. Speaking on behalf of his Government, he said—
    "Mr. Carter gave me various instances, some of which, I know, are recorded in your lordship's office, in which trial by jury, owing to racial feeling, had proved most unsatisfactory, and he told me that it had been generally recognised that, the special tribunal above referred to had served its purpose excellently."
    The noble Lord and every one in the House would see that by the appointment to this special tribunal, which was recommended by the Attorney-General in Natal, it was more certain that they could ensure an absolutely unprejudiced trial for this chief; and for that, he thought, all in the House would be grateful to the Natal Government. It might be supposed that pressure from home had induced them to take this step. So far as he was aware, that was not the case. Of their own motion the Natal Government proposed this Special Court in order to secure the most unprejudiced trial possible for this native chief. He had been asked what the constitution of the Court was to be. He could not say definitely, but he thought it was very likely that Sir William Smith, a puisnc Judge of the Transvaal, would serve, and every one who knew anything of South African Judges would agree that a more admirable and impartial appointment as President of the Court could not be made. The other representatives would be also judicial functionaries, and there would be at least one with a special knowledge of native affairs. Mr. Schreiner who, he thought, might be said to be the greatest lawyer in South Africa, had been retained for the defence of Dinizulu, and by the generosity of those who were anxious to see complete and unprejudiced justice done, the funds would be forthcoming for the defence. Much of the funds had been provided from Natal, and some by members of that House and others, irrespective of their general views, simply because they were anxious to see full justice done to the prisoner in the matter of legal assistance. Dinuzulu had been in prison seven months. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had very properly made the best
    1266
    case he could for the Natal Ministry, but the fact remained that to keep a man in gaol seven months without a definite charge was unprecedented, at any rate in recent times. It was impossible to expedite the matter from here, but he was sure the House would be glad to hear that Dinuzulu was not suffering in health from his confinement. The following telegram had been received from the Governor of Natal that morning in reply to a telegram sent by his noble friend the day before—
    "Have spoken to Dr. Ward, medical officer in charge of Central Gaol, Maritzburg, in whoso sympathetic treatment of prisoners I have full confidence. He informs me that Dinizulu's general health considerably better than when he arrived in December, and that chief recently told Governor of gaol he had not been so well for years. He is less puffy, and unsatisfactory kidney symptoms are less pronounced. He has all exercise he wants and such dietary and medical treatment as suited to his state of health."
    He was sure the House would be glad to know that Dinizulu was not suffering from ill-health. The prosecution would be brought to an end very soon indeed. He understood that the extraordinary idea had gained ground in Natal that there was some intention on the part, of His Majesty's Government, as a consequence of undertaking the obligation of paying Dinizulu's salary, to take an active part in this matter and send him away from the legal proceedings which I were now going on and return him to Zululand. Such a statement was absolutely absurd. The Government had neither the power nor the wish to interfere in any direction of that kind and to attempt to send Dinizulu back to Zululand before any Court had pronounced judgment on a charge definitely brought against him was absolutely out of the question. With regard to the Indemnity Act, the point that had excited most; interest was whether, if His Majesty were advised not to disallow it, the Home Government would not be assenting to a proclamation made deposing Dinizulu from his position as chief—a position which was assured t o him by the Member for West Birmingham. It had been stated that a pronouncement had been made by a military officer that the sanctioning of the Indemnity Act by the Home Government would for ever deprive the supreme chief of his position as such

    1267
    in Zululand. They were informed by the Governor that he did not think that was the case, but he had induced his noble friend to send a further telegram with a view to making quite sure on the point, because he believed that irrespective of party the House would hesitate to assent to this Bill if the result of it was likely to be as stated by Miss Colenso and others. In reply to inquiries, the Governor of Natal had telegraphed—
    "I have reason to believe that McKenzie did make statement imputed to him, but that he was not authorised by Governor Natal. I certainly gave no authority to exercise powers of supreme chief, nor was I advised by Ministry to do so."
    It would thus be seen that whatever pronouncement had been made by Colonel McKenzie was of no effect in law. The Indemnity Act would not legalise the action which he had taken, which was illegal from the start. The House, therefore, need have no fear that the Indemnity Act would prejudice the status of Dinizulu. In the view of the Home Government to take the step of hesitating to pass the Indemnity Act would be most unwise. The Act was the only means by which they could get rid of martial law, and to refuse to pass it would be quite contrary to precedent, and would have a most prejudicial effect. The Home Government were so convinced that to hesitate in this matter would be prejudicial to the interest not only of good relations between ourselves and the Government of Natal, but especially to the natives in that territory, that they would ask the House to raise no question as to recommending His Majesty not to disallow the measure which was shortly to be presented to them. He came to the question of the Transvaal, and Lord Milner's judiciary and agricultural proposals. He agreed that the judiciary and many other things set up by Lord Milner did admirable work; but they were set up on an altogether extravagant scale, and when the right hon. Gentleman asked them to say that all the retrenchments and reductions were due to the policy of General Botha's Government, he must remind him that the greatest retrenchment and reductions were made under Crown Colony government.
    SIR GILBERT PARKERasked how many of those reductions
    1268
    were made during Lord Milner's administration.
    COLONEL SEELYsaid he could not say how many. With, regard to manhood suffrage, the whole question was whether we ought to have granted it, and in so doing indirectly set up a colour bar. He could not say more than that the thing was done. He remembered very well his right hon. friend below the gangway raising this point when the Constitution was first granted. He did not then fully apprehend the dangers which might follow from that course. He was not there to criticise in any way the conclusion which was come to, but he declared that the Government fully realised the difficulties which were created by this situation. It might be said that had they taken the other course, the difficulties would have been as great, in some respects even greater. That was all he now had, to say on this matter. The thing had been done and could not be undone. To deprive white people of the vote they had enjoyed was a thing which it seemed to him they could not seriously propose. With regard to federation or unification, he could only repeat that the Government would welcome proposals from the South African Governments to that end. They were fully aware that the unification or federation of the South African Governments in whatever form it came, must tend to make things easier in almost every respect, and especially in regard to the relations between this Government and the Governments out there. But the Home Government did not propose to make any proposition themselves; they thought it would be unwise to do so. They awaited confidently and with great interest the conference shortly to meet at Durban, and would take every step to render it due dignity. The right hon. Gentleman had said that they ought to remove the causes of irritation and bitterness which now existed in South Africa. He mentioned four, but before doing so he poured what he could hardly describe as less than vitriol on the head of the President of the Board of Trade. He admired the right hon. Gentleman's adroitness in choosing for the purpose a moment when the President of the Board of Trade was out of the House. Besides

    1269
    that his right hon. friend had left that Department and, therefore, could not speak for himself.
    MR. LYTTELTONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman meant that they were to abstain from criticism of Ministers bemuse they were absent from the House when important questions were being discussed, in regard to which their presence was required.
    COLONEL SEELYsaid that when any Member criticised another in far more violent terms during his absence than during his presence, it might naturally be imputed to him that he was using a wise discretion.
    MR. LYTTELTONsaid he himself gave the hon. and gallant Gentleman notice of the general line of his argument and, therefore, he ought to have acquainted his right hon. friend.
    COLONEL SEELYsaid he thought his right hon. friend was fully justified in the statements to which the right hon. Gentleman took exception. Those statements were almost always directed against persons who introduced a particular form of labour in South Africa. That form was regarded on the opposite benches with favour; on the Ministerial side with disfavour. As to the voters' list, he did not wish to reopen the controversy. He must repeat that, whilst the Government did not disagree with or demur to Lord Selborne's statement that he was satisfied that the list was accurate, it could not be surprising that people in South Africa did demur to it when they found that several thousand more persons were on the register than they believed there were adult males in the country. There was great reason for people calling in question a roll of this kind with so remarkable a discrepancy. He himself was of the opinion that there had been an extraordinary influx into the Rand, and he should think there was no proof of any kind that the roll was not accurate. He submitted that it was most unwise to reopen a controversy which could only have the effect of reviving certain class and race bitterness in South Africa now happily passing away. With regard
    1270
    to Chinese labour, the right hon. Gentleman said there was no difference between Chinese labour and black labour imported from Portuguese East Africa. To that he listened with amazement, thinking such a statement could not be made by any reasonable man. What did the Liberal Party say about Chinese labour? They said first of all that it was introduced against the will of the people. They went to an election and by a majority of two to one they said the Liberal Party was right.
    MR. STUART WORTLEYhere interjected a remark across the Table which was not heard in the Press gallery.
    COLONEL SEELY: I trust that remark will not be recorded in the journals of the House. A more disgraceful and unworthy suggestion—[Loud MINISTERIAL cheers.]
    MR. STUART WORTLEYrose, but Colonel SEELY refused to give way.
    The CHAIRMANalso rose amid cries of "Name" and "Withdraw."
    MR. STUART WORTLEY: I rise to order.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: I think hon. Members on the front benches ought to know that it is not in order to remain standing when I rise. If the right hon. Gentleman rises to a point of order I will hear him.
    MR. STUART WORTLEY: I wish to ask whether the expression of the hon. Gentleman is Parliamentary—the word "disgraceful."
    COLONEL SEELY: On that point of order may I ask whether the original statement of the right hon. Gentleman in Parliamentary? [SEVERAL MEMBERS: What was it?]
    *THE CHAIRMAN: I did not hear what the original statement was.
    MR. STUART WORTLEY: I said the people of the Transvaal arrived no such vote as the hon. Gentleman said

    1271
    they did, and I added, not till the loan of five millions was offered, and not even then did the people of the Transvaal arrive at such a vote.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think, whatever opinion hon. Members may form of what the right hon. Gentleman said, that he said anything unparliamentary. Then I am asked whether the word "disgraceful" is unparliamentary. I do not consider the word s essentially an unparliamentary expression.
    COLONEL SEELY: I remained standing, Sir, only because I thought it was the custom in this House that the hon. Member speaking should give way or not at his option, and I did not wish to give way until I had concluded my sentence. I apologise to you, Sir, for the mistake I made.
    MR. STUART WORTLEY: In remaining standing, Sir, while you were standing I was undoubtedly guilty of a mistake, but I thought you were securing to me the right to raise my point of order.
    COLONEL SEELYsaid he was saying when he was interrupted, that such a statement commenting in such language upon a Government friendly to this country, which had rendered us such signal service, or under any circumstances, seemed to him absolutely contrary to the best traditions of this House, and he ventured to hope that the right hon. Gentleman would withdraw it. [Cheers and cries of "Withdraw."] The suggestion was one which he could not characterise in Parliamentary language. Reverting to the retrenchments the hon. Member said that, although he did not consider there was any blame to be attached to the Transvaal Government in this matter, the Colonial Office had done their best to find places for those who were retrenched. The total number of these retrenched candidates since the beginning of 1907 was 164, and the committee of the Colonial Office had found room for thirty-nine and twenty-one and eight, making 56 per cent. of the vacancies. There were persons outside who had made the I extraordinary allegation against General
    1272
    Botha's Government to the effect that they were making wholesale displacement of British officials and replacing them by Dutch, that no Englishmen need apply, and other wild statements of that kind. It was admitted there was a larger Dutch population than an English in the Transvaal. It was almost certain that the adult males of South African descent were larger ' in number than the adult males of English descent. If there were any word of truth ' in the allegations made, one would expect to find that there were about 60 or 70 Dutchmen to 20 or 30 or 40 Englishmen in every 100. What were the facts? In the whole Transvaal Civil Service, including the police and prison department, but excluding the railways, instead of there being about 70 Dutchmen and only 30 Englishmen in a country where the Dutch preponderated, out of every 100 there were 84 Englishmen and 16 Dutchmen. He asked the House to realise the significance of those figures. He asked that the campaign of misrepresentation against General Botha's Government should come to an end. It was absolutely unjustified. What about the new appointments? He would not have been surprised if, in that case, there had been a preponderance of Dutch to redress the balance, though he would have deplored it. Yet, instead of 70 or 80 Dutchmen being appointed to 30 or 20 Englishmen, since General Botha took office the number of new appointments made were 59 English, 41 Dutch. Well, they had now scotched and killed that calumny, and he was glad they had. Looking at those figures which had just come to him, and certified officially to be correct, it would be observed that General Botha and his Government had treated the minority politically with extraordinary generosity. He did not himself admit that the cleavage was on racial lines. Then there were the railways. In 1907 there were employed of South Africa, born (English and Dutch descent) 2,195; English born, 3,629; other nationalities, 329, the percentages being 35 per cent., 58 per cent., and other nationalities 7 per cent. He could not add, therefore, to the statement he had made, and directly the figures were presented he thought that the whole argument fell to the ground. One could not help being

    1273
    sorry for the gentlemen whose appointments had been brought to a close. He had seen nearly all of them personally, and in several cases the Department had managed to get them suitable appointments. He had received an announcement, indeed, to the effect that on the previous day an important appointment had been secured for one gentleman, and he would make an appeal to the other Departments of the Government to see whether they could not give help in a similar direction. He thought, however, that he had disposed of the allegation that had been made. The right hon. Gentleman said it still stood on record that the Opposition protested against the grant of self-government to the Transvaal. He was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman continued to make that statement. It was a, great experiment, but its success had been most surprising. Of that there could be no question, for, whereas a few years ago we had there a hostile population, it was now true to say that in matters of great difficulty and delicacy during the last eighteen months no man had been so loyal a friend to the British Government as General Botha. That opinion was not confined to Englishmen in this country. He, did not know whether hon. Members had read the speech which had recently been delivered by Sir H. de Villiers during the celebrations at Quebec, but it was so interesting that he would quote it—
    "South Africa in recent years has passed through a terrible ordeal, but she is slowly recovering from the effects of an injurious war. Only those who have lived there and had friends and relatives fighting on both sides can fully realise what that war meant to us. It was undertaken for the purpose of obtaining equal rights for all, but for some time after peace was established it looked as if political rights were to be withheld for an indefinite period from the new subjects of the King. At length, however, different counsels prevailed. A policy of trust was adopted, with the novel result that a, sullen and discontented people were, as if by, magic, changed into law-abiding, loyal subjects. From that quarter no danger need be apprehended for the future. On the contrary, if ever any foreign Power should attempt to wrest South Africa from the Empire, you may be quite sure that history will repeat itself, and, just as the French-Canadians were foremost in defending their country against attacks from without, so the Dutch inhabitants of South Africa will fight shoulder to shoulder with their British fellow-subjects for their King and country "
    1274
    The Government were persuaded that the eloquent words littered by this speaker represented the truth in South Africa, and His Majesty's Ministers rejoiced that they had enjoyed the privilege of helping to carry out this great and beneficent work.
    MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid that he adhered to what he had stated. He said that the hon. Member's description of the South African elections was inaccurate, and that it had been adopted for the purpose of casting obloquy on his right hon. friend. Personally he had said nothing which had not already been said both in and out of the House. General Botha had stated that the Government returned from the polls not pledged to abolish. Chinese labour—[Oh, oh!]—and for some time after they announced their intention not to abolish it. Thereafter the Government thought fit to accord to the Transvaal exceptional financial treatment which had never been accorded to any self-governing Colony; and he said that according to the historical sequence the evidence was accurate, and he had nothing to take away from the statement. It was for the Government to explain why they offered that financial assistance at that particular period of time. He had never seen any satisfactory explanation of the circumstance, and he refused to admit any inaccuracy in his statement.
    COLONEL SEELYpointed out that General Botha in his speech before the poll, said that—
    "We will not have Chinese labour with indenture or without indenture."
    The policy adopted as to Chinese labour had been justified by its complete success, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see that his statement with regard to the programme of the Government was incorrect. General Botha's statement was conclusive on that point. He regretted that the insinuation of the right hon. Gentleman had been made, and he hoped that before the sitting was closed he would withdraw it.
    MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid that the statements were made by the Minister in the Transvaal to the effect that they returned from the polls to continue

    1275
    this Chinese labour policy. Hon. Members could only speak according to the general evidence that reached them.
    *MR. RAMSAY MACDONALDdrew attention to the attitude of mind of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, as shown in his opening remarks. The right hon. Gentleman had treated the Committee once again to the now familiar doctrine that if they persisted in their criticisms on the action of Natal, they were doing something that was showing disloyalty or that was giving embarrassment to the loyal minority in that Colony. It was a most extraordinary doctrine to be preached from the front Opposition bench that in that Imperial House they must not say what they believed to be true of the political conduct of Ministers of our self-governing Colonies lest they laid themselves open to the retort of the right hon. Gentleman that they were putting obstacles in the way of and creating embarrassment for what he called the loyal English minority.
    MR. LYTTELTONsaid that, on the contrary, he claimed and had always claimed in that House to criticise the action of the Government with regard to the Transvaal, and especially with regard to giving them self-government.
    *MR. RAMSAY MACDONALDadmitted that that was perfectly true, but before the right hon. Gentleman made the general statement, he made with special reference to Natal the observation to which he (Mr. Macdonald) now referred. If the right hon. Gentleman did not mean to convey that impression, he could only say that that was the way it struck him. Those who had ventured to make these criticisms and who honestly believed they were entitled to do so, had met with the criticism outside that they were doing something to disrupt the Empire and putting difficulties in the way of Natal. It was perfectly true that they might sometimes criticise things that had happened in Natal during the last two or three years with a strength of feeling and in a way that might create offence in Natal, but hon. and right hon. Members must
    1276
    remember that whilst that criticism on Natal might be objectionable and indiscreet, those who exaggerated the meaning and value of that criticism and who came to that House and misrepresented that criticism were doing more than those who uttered it to contribute to the unrest in Natal. The person who exaggerated what was said in the House and caused it to be exaggerated out in Natal, forgot that it was his exaggeration quite as much as the criticism in this House that caused unrest there.
    MR. LYTTLETON: Let the hon. Member quote the words that he imagines I made use of.
    *MR. RAMSAY MACDONALDsaid he was sorry he had not taken down the observations which were made by the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the criticism that was offered both inside and outside the House on affairs in Natal. With regard to the Transvaal Civil Service appointments, his hon. and gallant friend had completely and in the strongest way disposed of the complaints which were so common on that subject. But there was something more that he (Mr. Macdonald) might say. He happened to be in the Transvaal shortly after the peace, and he saw the influx of those extraordinary Civil servants whom Lord Milner appointed to carry out the pacification. He did not wish to refer to what went on, it would be sufficient for him to say to any hon. Member of the House who had made himself acquainted with the affairs of the Transvaal that the whole body of imported Civil Service which Lord Milner placed in authority in offices in the Transvaal was known to the people of the Transvaal as "Milner's Kindergarten." Anybody who went into the Government offices of Johannesburg, Pretoria, or Bloomfontein must have seen that since the War a great change had taken place. Firstly, the staff, numerically, was far too large; and, secondly, the men whom Lord Milner appointed were not the proper men for the duty imposed upon them. Every Dutch Civil servant he had had the pleasure of consulting in the Colony held up his hands in horror and

    1277
    said that as soon as self-government was granted the unfortunate thing they would have to face was the complete reconstruction of the personnel of the Civil Service that had been imposed upon the Colony by the Governor. That had taken place. It was inevitable that it should take place, and it was an evidence of the common sense of the Government put into power both in Johannesburg and Blœmfontein. Last session he took part in the debate in the House on the question of the franchise in the Transvaal, and he then expressed some doubt as to the advisability of the manhood suffrage which the Government had instituted in the Transvaal, not because he was opposed to manhood suffrage but because he believed that everybody who had studied affairs in South Africa would see the enormous disadvantage of such a franchise when the time came to enfranchise the natives. It was certain that the question of the native franchise would not be left long, and directly that question came up it would be a great obstacle to the enfranchisement of the natives all over Africa that there was manhood suffrage in the Transvaal. His democratic principles, he was sorry to say, had struggled in vain to justify the action, the Government took on that occasion, in view of the larger question of native rights. He thought greater good would have been done if the white men had been subjected to a higher standard of franchise. He thought we should not have established a franchise in the Transvaal which might he a permanent bar to the enfranchisement of the natives of South Africa. He hoped the Government would do its best to see that the Cape solution was followed when the new Federal Constitution was being framed. Although he knew that the Home Government might not want to interfere unofficial members might express a hope that Cape Colony would stand by the native franchise when the Federation Convention meets. The first thing to observe about Natal was the extraordinary Indemnity Act, which he regretted the House was not going to have a further opportunity of discussing. The extraordinary feature of the present Bill, a feature that had never been known in connection with
    1278
    an Indemnity Bill, was the change that had be made in the Bill now on its way to this country as compared with the Act of 1906. In the Act of 1906 the preamble recited—
    "That whereas serious disturbances accompanied by rebellion have recently arisen and still continue among certain parts of the native population of this Colony."
    Some Members doubted the rebellion. Some of them had never yet been convinced that there was ever a rebellion in Natal, though there were people who alleged from their point of view that there was a rebellion which justified the proclamation of martial law in 1906. The Bill did not allege rebellion. This was an example of the "Rake's Progress." The Natal Government were now going to withdraw "rebellion" and put in "several crimes of violence in Zululand creating a state of unrest and insecurity among the inhabitants." Was ever a more flimsy pretext made for martial law? What were we going to come to if we were going to jump from rebellion, from a state of war, from a hostile state of things under which it was impossible for the ordinary civil and criminal Courts to sit—the proper justification for martial law hitherto—to a state of things where "several crimes of violence" created a "state of unrest"—not even of civil disturbance but unrest—and insecurity among the inhabitants as the justification? Why, the brewers in this country at the present time could say that owing to the Bill in this House a state of unrest had come among them, and something akin to martial law should be established. He did not believe that political differences divided them on this matter. Hon. Members above the gangway shared their sense of British justice and were not going to countenance martial law in Natal because of "several acts of violence." Later on the words "disturbance and rebellion" were omitted, and the words "crimes and the restoration of order and good government" were inserted. Another reason given for the proclamation of martial law was to facilitate the investigation of crime and the arrest and detention of the persons charged. There was, he would venture to say, not a single Member of the House, even of the most old-fashioned Conservative type, who

    1279
    would maintain that the allegations in the Blue-book were adequate for a proclamation of martial law. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had said that if we did not accept this Bill things would remain as they were. That brought up the question of Dinizulu. What about evidence for defence? That was just the wickedness of it, because it proved that they went and did a certain thing which created injustice, and then at a certain point the Government turned round and said that unless they were excused from their wrong-doing the evil of that wrong-doing would be visited on the heads of innocent people. He was not going to argue the point, he only stated it and left the Committee to draw its own conclusions. The Committee would at all events agree that it was the duty of the Government to see that this sort of thing did not happen again. That was the general case against the Natal Government, not from a petty sectional point of view, but from an Imperial point of view; not from the point of view of Labour or Liberal Members, but from the point of view of the national, the inherited liberties of the British race. The right hon. Member for St. George's in his almost ladylike and drawing-room account of what was going on made him wonder if he was really listening to a statement of how Dinizulu was being tried. The right hob Gentleman left out the salient points. He did not tell them of the continued campaign of calumny, he did not tell them that they had to wait day after day and week after week before the Government could make any charge against Dinizulu; he did not describe the vagueness of the charges made against the chief; he did not refer to the long campaign of calumny which preceded the arrest when the Natal Government refused to protect Dinizulu from the libels. The Government were cognisant of the fact that these calumnies, amounting to libel, were published day after day in the South African Press, and the Government of Natal never gave any reason to show that they were the protectors of Dinizulu. They were, therefore, bound to say that the Government held on, waiting for an opportunity which inevitably came for arresting Dinizulu, not on any charge, but on a vague basis of assertions not one of which was definite enough to make it possible
    1280
    for Dinizulu's solicitor to deal with it, Dinizulu was accused of murder—the murder of whom, where, when—ten years ago, twenty years ago, or yesterday? Not a single definite statement was made in support of the accusations on which Dinizulu's solicitor or his friends could go and search for witnesses to enable them specifically to show that this or that particular story was untrue, because there was never a particular story told. The Natal Government had secured to themselves a roving commission to spread their emissaries and agents all over Zululand under martial law to inquire into this, that, and the other, not to find out whether this or that statement was true, but to find out whether Dinizulu had ever done anything which would enable them sooner or later to formulate a decent indictment to place before the Court. And not only that, but it had been alleged that in the course of gathering the evidence there had been certain floggings. He was perfectly well aware that this had been denied, anal he was not going to make the statement as absolutely true; but he thought that no one who read the Blue-Book published yesterday would be very, much impressed with that denial; nor did he think that anyone who read the newspapers would be very much impressed by it, seeing that Miss Colenso had offered to prove twenty-nine definite cases, with the names of the persons and circumstances under which they were flogged, and submit them for impartial investigation in Natal itself. But he was bound to say that hi this case his mind was open. It was said, also, that Dinizulu's wife had made a statement, it was not definitely said whether on oath or not, but he thought it must have been made under oath. She stated that Sir Duncan McKenzie had threatened to shoot her unless she gave evidence against her husband. That had not teen contradicted so far, and a statement given under those circumstances made it presumably accurate. Apparently a, good many Members of the House had come in contact with the native. He did not care where they met him, whether in the Southern States of America, where they saw him generally in railway carriages, or elsewhere, he was always willing to tell

    1281
    one anything that seemed to please. He remembered very well an interesting incident which happened to himself, which established this characteristic of which he had spoken. He got into a train exceedingly tired one morning about four o'clock, and the negro attendant, seeing he was weary, was very anxious to assure him that he would have breakfast immediately. It did not come, however, until eight o'clock. Anyone who had come in contact with the native knew perfectly well, that, owing to the social habit of obeying which he had acquired, it was easy to put statements in his mouth, and get him to say what his questioner required. If the Government came and said they wanted evidence it was a perfectly certain thing that some native would give it. It was the psychology of the native to do a thing like that. Martial law being proclaimed in Zululand, emissaries, who were known to be agents of the Government, had gone hither and thither across the face of Zululand asking for evidence on which Dinizulu was to be tried, telling the natives what the evidence was for and what sort of evidence they wanted. Would any hon. Member who understood the native psychology tell them for a single moment that evidence would not be forthcoming? That was the sort of way in which the Natal Government was conducting this trial. It was necessary to say that. He knew that right hon. Gentlemen above the gangway might think it exceedingly criminal on his part to express such sympathies and opinions; but he held them very honestly, and he could assure them that he held them not from a party or sectional point of view, but from the Imperial point of view, because he and those with him felt that the future of this Empire would be decided by its honour and by the way in which it administered justice. Then as to Dinizulu's salary. From every quarter of the House there came thanks to the Government for having determined to pay Dinizulu's salary. There was absolutely no distinction of opinion on that point, no dissentient voice on the matter. It was what they had expected from His Majesty's Government; and they were delighted that it
    1282
    had done precisely what they believed it would do. There was one little unpleasantness, however. Yesterday they had been told that after the reply to the despatch of His Majesty's Government, policemen were sent up into Zululand, and again there was the cry of "unrest in Zululand." Whenever anything was said by His Majesty's Government which seemed to run counter to the will of the Natal Government, the latter were in a position to have telegrams sent to this country, specially and carefully preserved telegrams, which appeared exclusively in certain organs of the Imperial press, for the purpose of trying to deceive the people of this country, who were ignorant of what was going on, and also for the purpose of getting responsive telegrams from this country to Natal to strengthen the hands of the Government of that Colony by misrepresentation of public opinion here. The reply to the despatch was the first step towards creating another defence so as to justify themselves. He had a cutting from the Natal Mercury which said—
    "The whole Press of Natal is unanimous in condemning the Government's action in these matters as severely as any newspaper in England has done, and this expression of opinion is endorsed by the Colonists generally. The sooner the people of England are impressed with the fact that the Government are in these matters acting in direct conflict with the ideas of Natalians, the sooner they will recognise that a gross injustice is being done to the good sense and the good taste of people of Natal."
    That was the published opinion of an important Natal newspaper. Yet in spite of that, the moment His Majesty's Government ranged itself on the side of the majority of the people of Natal, some policemen were sent into Zululand in order to give His Majesty's Government reason to pause. In reference to Dinizulu's salary, his hon. friend had said that he could not understand the delay and Dinizulu's solicitor not applying for it. He had an extract from the Natal Witness giving the complete series of Mr. Renaud's letters. He was not going to read them, but this was one of them, written on 18th May to the acting Attorney-General—
    "We beg to refer to the correspondence which has passed between us with reference to the cession of Dinizulu's salary to us. You wrote us on 30th January that the matter was receiving

    1283
    attention, but since that date we have not heard from you."
    Therefore, the explanation was that the delay was not due to Dinizulu's solicitor, but to the Natal Government. When there was nothing more than a mere acknowledgement required, they took a day or two to give it, when more was required, they took weeks and months to investigate the matter, and make their reply. He had said all that he need say on the subject. He had spoken not as what was called "a Little Englander," but as an Imperialist. He had spoken as one who believed that this Empire was going to depend, not merely upon its size or its physical strength, but upon its justice, and he was perfectly certain that if they gave way one inch in their desire to see justice done to the unenfranchised negro, then it would be absolutely impossible to keep the Empire so clean and so pure as to enable it to survive the stress and storm which time had in store for it.
    SIR GILBERT PARKERthought he would not be alone in regretting that the debate had not been absolutely free from heat. Perhaps he regretted it more than anyone else, because of a rather painful interruption which occurred in the last Parliament and in which the hon. Gentleman opposite was responsible. His right, hon. friend below him was making his speech concerning South Africa, and was making statements in good faith and with great moderation as he always did, when the hon. Gentleman and several of his friends sitting below the Opposition gangway made remarks which he himself thought wholly unparliamentary concerning his right hon. friend and his statements. They questioned his good faith.
    COLONEL SEELY: No; I may say——
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: Allow me to finish. They questioned his good faith, and he interjected, but not loudly, the word "disgraceful." The hon. Gentlemen opposite, the President of the Board of Trade, the President of the Board of Education, and the President of the Local Government Board, entered
    1284
    a loud protest, and demanded that the Member for Gravesend should be pilloried by the Speaker. The Speaker rose, and the Member for Gravesend rose also, stating the cause of his interjection, and immediately, without being called upon to do it, withdrawing the word "disgraceful," which the Speaker had pronounced as un-Parliamentary. He only wished to say this because he thought it was the hon. Gentleman himself who had imported heat into the debate that afternoon. Remembering his career, I however short it might have been in the Colonial Office, and his urbane and admirable manner in all other debates, he regretted exceedingly that he had given them cause to feel that they were not safe in future in making reasonable, and as he believed, just criticism. He wanted to say something very quietly land he hoped without offence. He understood the position taken up by his right hon. friend. He had stated that the elections in the Transvaal were not decided on the question of Chinese labour. I He thought the right hon. Gentleman was correct. Furthermore, the right hon. Gentleman had suggested, as it had been suggested before and no doubt would be again, that considerations concerning the repatriation of the Chinamen entered into all the relations between this Government and the Botha Government, and also affected the granting of the Constitution itself, but he hoped I to be able to quote, the words of the Under-Secretary for the Colonies himself in which he frankly said, for no one eevr doubted his courage or audacity, that considerations of the repatriation of the Chinamen did enter into the granting of the Constitution and into our relations with the Transvaal Government, and the Transvaal Government would never have got the £5,000,000 loan if they had not agreed to repatriate the Chinamen. At any rate hon. Gentlemen would say he had said nothing offensive.
    COLONEL SEELY: There is not a word of truth in that.
    SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid he might very well be angry at the hon. Gentleman's saying there was not a word of truth in what he said, but he was

    1285
    too broad minded. He understood what the hon. Gentleman meant, though the hon. Gentleman did not always understand what he meant. The hon. Gentleman he thought could not be speaking with absolute accuracy. It would be better for him to consult with his friend the late Under-Secretary, who, if he was sometimes vituperative, could stand ft good deal of vituperation in return. He was a gallant fighter. He did not want to say that the hon. and gallant Gentleman was not a gallant fighter—they knew that he was—but he must not really pretend to this splendid indignation against a right hon. Gentleman on that bench when he made perfectly Parliamentary statements. In the last debate he thought the statements of the hon. Gentleman opposite would not add to the smoothness of debate, and he had expressed himself strongly about it. How much more strongly could he express himself concerning the speech made by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. He had no fault to find with the underlying argument of that speech, but he had every fault to find with the manner in which it was expressed. He did not think the terms in which his argument was couched would tend to good feeling between Natal and this country, though he thought his main argument was sound, that martial law as it was applied by the Natal Government was not wisely applied. But he said in the last debate, and said very strongly, that the Government now in power was responsible for the present position, and it was responsible for the speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down. They had it in their lower, when martial law was to be proclaimed, through their Governor, through their supreme official, the King's representative in Natal, to prevent martial law being proclaimed. They had since acknowledged that the conclusion drawn by the Attorney-General was wrong, that in effect the Governor was the servant of the Natal Government. No one would stand up more strongly than he for the rights of a Colony or a Colonial Governor, but no one would stand up more strongly for the Imperial connection. The only thing they had was the Privy Council and the power of the Governor in regard to just such things as martial
    1286
    law. Our hold was very slight. Destroy the technical and constitutional hold that we had just through the Governor, and we destroyed our Imperial Power altogether. On the other hand, the refusal by Members to believe that Natal was acting in good faith, honestly and sincerely, did infinite harm to the Imperial connection. Suppose the Natal Government had made a mistake. Every Government desired to keep its self-respect and it was Natal who would pay the price of its mistakes, if it had made mistakes. It paid the cost in blood. This Government threw the whole responsibility for the late trouble upon Natal, and in a certain despatch, of which the hon. Gentleman was fully aware, said in effect: "We wash our hands of this whole business." But having washed their hands of the whole business they still intervened. Did they not see the absolutely absurd position in which they had been placed, not by Members of the House but by the Government? One word about Dinizulu's salary and the trial. He said deliberately that he thought Natal ought by every means in its power to expedite the conclusion of the examination of Dinizulu. Seven months was a long time. If the Government could not in seven months gather enough evidence against this man to formulate definitely a charge, he should be discharged. Of that he had no manner of doubt. Natal could only act, as he understood it, as a Government, compatibly with the relations of the executive and the judicial. It was a difficult situation, but lie believed the Attorney-General could expedite the conclusion of the examination either here or in Natal. He believed in Natal's bona fides absolutely. He believed it had acted honestly and sincerely, but he was firmly convinced that it would do well in all the circumstances, even if the guilty were to go free, to bring Dinizulu to trial immediately. As to the salary, he had his doubts in the last debate whether it was correct to pay the salary—whether the suspension of the salary did not go with the suspension of the office. But it was certain that if the Government on the best advice possible interpreted the arrangement made by his right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham as meaning that the salary should in no

    1287
    case be suspended without the consent of this Government and this Government did not grant its consent, it was the duty of this Government to pay that salary. He knew the House recognised the consequences that must flow from such action. It practically overrode the act and the policy of the Natal Government. It was a dangerous thing to do at any time. It was extremely dangerous to do it now when events were so acute, and when feeling ran so high. Recognising the consequences that would flow, and it being a small matter, the Natal Government would have been well advised if it had paid the salary. Having said that he desired to pass to another subject. The position of the retrenched officials had been dealt with most effectively by his right hon. friend. The Under-Secretary read some figures which seemed entirely conclusive to hon. Members opposite. The figures showed that there had only been a very limited number of changes and that of those changes the preponderance of applicants had been of British born subjects. He hoped the hon Gentleman recognised that a great many of the names that appeared as English names were names of those who fought against us in the last war, and who were not Britishers in the true sense of the term. They knew perfectly well that the retrenchment of officials would go on slowly, and that the replacement of British officials by Dutch would also be slow. He had never made any wild statements. He had been most conservative in a double sense, in speaking of the action of the Botha Government. He had never accused the Botha Government of deliberately and wilfully throwing out British officials and putting in Dutch officials. If ever men worked, no matter how young they were or how inexperienced, for the country, giving their whole life and energy, it was the men who went out from this country to what had been called Lord Milner's Kindergarten. He could mention cases which ought to go to the heart of every Member of the House. It was idle to say that there were only a few. They knew that many of them suffered uncomplainingly. A petition was presented yesterday to the Prime Minister on this subject, and anyone who read it must be impressed by the quiet reserve and the diginity of its
    1288
    terms. There was no complaint, but there was an appeal, and that was what they all heard in every letter from South Africa. He had received two letters that morning, and he would venture to read one of them, because it was very important. The hon. Gentleman had said that there were practically no replacements of British officers by the Government. He would make the following quotation from one of the letters he had received—
    "Owing to the characteristic thinness of the Boer methods it is difficult to produce evidence at this distance of specific cases such as this Gazette provides. Hitherto, many of the replacements have been indirect, that is to say, British officials have been 'retrenched ' from the established Government Departments and new offices embracing similar duties have been created to which only Dutchmen have been appointed. I refer in particular to the re-establishment of the Field Cornet system of pre-war days. In connection with these new appointments I would point out that when a number of us were retrenched at the end of last year on the ground of reduction of establishment, it was stated that in the event of vacancies occurring at a subsequent date the names of those officers who had already served for a good many years and who were leaving through no fault of their own, would be considered in preference to any new candidates. This promise like many others has evidently been ignored."
    To what did he refer? He referred to the appointment of eight acting inspectors of constabulary in the place of British officers, he being one of those who had been retrenched. When the hon. Gentleman said that British officers were not retrenched and replaced by Dutchmen, he made a statement which was not accurate. He did not deny the right of General Botha and his people to be represented in the Civil Service of their country; it would be a monstrous thing to assert that after his own experience of another country, which had two races, and he would be the last man to suggest that there should not be Dutchmen in the Civil Service. What he did say, however, was that to turn out Britishers in order to put in Dutchmen, and turn them out without adequate compensation or pensions, was quite a different thing. He did not accuse the Botha Government of this, but he accused the present Government in this country of being responsible for that, because they failed when they were grafting the new constitution to

    1289
    the Transvaal, to secure and safeguard the rights of British Civil servants. He assumed that the sympathy of the hon. Member representing the Government, and his patriotism disapproved of the action of the Government to which he belonged in making no provision for the seretrenched Civil servants. Had the hon. Gentleman any real reason for not inquiring further into this matter? The late Under-Secretary for the Colonies promised that every effort should be made to draft the retrenched officials into other departments at home. The figure which had been given amounted to 56 per cent, out of 164, and although that was not bad it ought to have been 100 per cent. [An HON. MEMBER: Why?] Because, as the hon. Member knew, if there was one man who could not get a job it was a man who had been a Government servant. Men who had been employed in general professions or general trades could get a job anywhere. But in the case of men who had been in the Government service their chances were much less of getting employment. They all knew that those who had served in the Army or in the public service had always a difficulty in getting a situation. The Governments in every other country, in Italy, Prussia, Canada, or anywhere where responsible government was granted, always took care that the Civil servants should have their interest safeguarded, and he thought the letter he had read might very well be framed and hung up in the Colonial Office for the guidance of his hon. friend and his colleague. Whoever wrote that letter was well informed as to what was the duty of the Government in the matter, and there was an element of ugly meanness in a representative of any Department of the State not even going extravagantly in the direction of protecting civil servants. There was not a right hon. Gentleman sitting on the Ministerial front bench who did not hold that the members of this Department and of all Departments of State deserved the best of treatment by this House, and this Government did a brutal thing in throwing upon the Botha Government the necessity of providing for the retrenched civil servant. They found money to pay Dinizulu's salary, and to
    1290
    repatriate Chinamen. He had evidence in his pocket in the shape of a letter showing that a distinguished officer, holding the C.M.G. Order, was given a third class indulgence passage by the Transvaal Government home to this country. He submitted that that was a case which ought to bring the blush of shame to the representative of any Government. Would it not have been a fair thing, after deciding that the compensation should be one month's salary for every year's service, to have sent that man and his five children home. Would it not have been fair, having deprived that man of that which he believed was a permanent position and pensionable, to have given him a second-class passage home? Not a single retrenched Civil servant had had his passage paid from Johannesburg to the Cape or from the Cape home, and many of them had been assisted in regard to their passages by people in this country. He thought the Government would do well even if they set apart in the Estimates a sum of money for these retrenched officials. [Cries of "Oh, oh"] Why not? They had no hesitation about voting £10,000 to Jamaica. He desired to draw attention to the railway which was being built in Uganda. Already a number of officers had gone out as engineers, and there were a good number of retrenched officials who were very capable and competent engineers. He would like to know why they could not be employed on those railways.
    COLONEL SEELYdissented.
    SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid he had presented a concrete case where something could be done, and he did not see why these men should not be given a chance. The conduct of the Government was to be wholly reprehended. It was not too late to redress this grievance, because these men had been led to believe that their positions would be permanent and pensionable. He thought it was the duty of the Under-Secretary for the Colonies to see that none of these men should suffer so severely and cruelly as many of them were now suffering. He wanted to speak briefly on the question of land settlement in the Orange

    1291
    River Colony and the Transvaal. He wanted to warn the House that an effort was going to be made to force the Land Board into making an arrangement with the Government. The Land Board which had been established was independent of the Government for five years. Both sides of the House agreed to that. Since the Board was set up there had been steady pressure to force it into an arrangement with the Government. The Board had behaved extremely well, and it had refused to do this. He did not hesitate to say that they had been incited to quarrel with the Land Board, in spite of the fact that the Board had been eminently successful in all it had done. He thought it was perfectly natural that the Orange River Colony should try to quarrel with the Board. Why? There was a revenue of £40,000 a year from rents and payments for land, and they would take that sum and apply it to the interest on the £1,200,000 loan which went for land settlement. The £40,000 now went to get fresh land on which to put the few settlers who did go there and to make it easy for the settlers when bad times came, and to shepherd them over the rough places. The Orange River Colony would be glad to have that money. A member of the Orange River Colony Government had said that it was inequitable that they did not get that money. They forgot that the Government here in its magnanimity wrote off a loan of £5,000,000 for which the Orange River Colony was responsible. He did not think that the Orange River Colony had really any ground of complaint. He still believed in the policy of the late Government in regard to Chinese labour and other matters, but he thought they made a great mistake when they guaranteed the £5,000,000 loan. What was the basis of his argument in saying so? It was that, when two races were together in a country, having to face prosperity and disaster together, they ought mutually to be responsible for all their liabilities and all their needs. He believed the hon. Gentleman opposite agreed with him that it would have been far better to have said to those people: "Work out your own salvation and raise your own loan within your colony. Struggle together until you find common working
    1292
    ground." The two races would have come more closely together infinitely sooner if they had been jointly responsible for the £5,000,000 which this Government secured to them, not without a political purpose behind it. [An HON. MEMBER: What about the £30,000,000?] Passing to West African affairs he said he did not think he would shock the susceptibility of any hon. Gentleman opposite in regard to the question he was about to raise. The Committee might be surprised if he appeared in the rôle of temperance advocate, but he did so that afternoon. He was going to challenge this Government, the past Government, and all past Governments in this country for their dealings with the natives in regard to the liquor traffic. There were certain portions of His Majesty's dominions where the sale of liquor was prohibited. He had always taken the ground that the vices of one race should not be made possible or incorporated in the nature of another race. The oriental could bear the effects of opium much better than the occidental. A European would find himself upset if he took a small portion of Kaffir beer, but a native would drink it by the gallon and not feel any evil effect. To every race its own vices. For this Government or any Government to yet 67 per cent. of its revenue out of the sale to the natives of spirits made from potatoes chiefly in Germany was a thing which made one's Christian blood boil. In our own race there was he supposed, a natural microbe which resisted to a very considerable extent the effects of our own liquors and spirits. The native had no such microbe. He thought the view expressed by the late Lord Salisbury in 1888 was one which would commend itself to all members of the Committee. He said—
    "I need not inform you that I am not a temperance enthusiast myself. I do not coincide with many of the views which I hear urged with great controversy in this country. But the controversy here and the controversy with respect to the native races have nothing in common. The native races are for all practical purposes children, and so far as we can do it, like children they must be protected. No one who even looks at history, still less at contemporary history, can doubt the extreme character of the evil which this unrestricted traffic causes. It has before this swept whole races away; it is now producing the greatest havoc in all parts of the world. We are so

    1293
    deeply convinced of that, that any efforts on our part would never be wanting, nor would our attention for a moment relax, from the purpose of inducing that common effort by which alone this miserable traffic can be restrained."
    The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham in 1889 said—
    "I do not think I am a fanatic, and no one, I hope, has called me a sentimentalist, and I am certainly not a teetotaller. I hope I am not extreme with regard to any subject; but I hold, as a matter of deep conviction, that the liquor trade, and above all, the increase of the liquor traffic in West Africa amongst the native races, is not only discreditable to the British name, not only derogatory to that true Imperialism—the sentiment which I desire to inculcate in all my countrymen—but it is also disastrous to British trade."
    He believed that to be the indubitable truth. What were the places where the sale of spirits to natives was prohibited? It was prohibited in the northern territories of the Gold Coast and Northern Nigeria. It was also prohibited in British Somaliland, the British East Africa Protectorate, Uganda, Nyassa-land, and Rhodesia. In all the countries of the South African Customs Union, namely, the Cape, Natal, Orange River Colony, Transvaal, Southern Rhodesia, Basutoland, Swaziland, and the Bechuana-land Protectorate, more or less stringent prohibition of sale to natives existed. Lord Crewe, the other day, replying to a letter from an association which took a great interest in this subject, said that the question of revenue had to be looked to. Of course if once they established the principle of getting revenue from liquor, it was very hard to do away with it. It was very hard to get it out of cotton. A certain amount was got now out of cotton in Nigeria. Wherever the revenue from drink was highest the record of cotton was lowest. This Government and hon. Members opposite were always on the side of the angels, and they often said that the Members of the Unionist Party were on the side of the diable. When hon. Members opposite were challenged to carry out their good intentions they always hesitated if it was a question of revenue. They hesitated on the Licensing Bill to apply their principles to the off-licences. He wondered whether the hon. Gentleman would make a sympathetic reply now. Would the hon. Gentleman on behalf of the Cape Government prohibit the
    1294
    sale of drink to the natives in Southern. Nigeria? If he would not do that, would he promise that the Committee which the Colonial Office had promised to appoint would be guided in the conclusions it came to on the merits of the drink question? Would he appoint a Committee to sit in London with power to send out a Commission to take evidence in West Africa? Southern Nigeria was a small place so far as the trading community was concerned and there were going to be difficulties in carrying out the examination there. There were local difficulties to be contended against. The native hesitated to give evidence in regard to the people with whom he was associated. The clerk to the small trade knew the effects of the drink trade, but he would hesitate to give evidence if a Member of the Committee happened to be his official superior in the district. He did not question the impartiality of any man in West Africa, but he did say that the choice was narrow. They could not argue this case from the purely official standpoint, or as the case of those who were necessarily more or less interested in the production of revenue. He suggested that the Committee be appointed here, and from that committee one commissioner should be sent out to Africa who would act as chairman of a local committee. He believed that this was one of the gravest questions with which the Imperial Parliament had to deal. He had always been a prohibitionist where native races were concerned. There was going to be in South Africa an increase of the native races. And they would increase still more if liquor did not destroy them. This country was bound to lead, as he believed it led at the Brussels Convention when it secured that there should be a minimum taxation of liquor, so as to have some effect in checking the trade. He believed that this country should lead all other countries in the matter of the treatment of the native races. We knew more about them than all other nations and we had the faculty for governing them. But we must go with clean hands to other nations and not say to them that out of potato spirit we got 67 per cent, of our revenue. He trusted that the Committee would have a favourable reply from the hon. and

    1295
    gallant Gentleman. He knew that the, hon. and gallant Gentleman tried to meet the views of the Committee so far as was compatible with his position as Under-Secretary and the difficulties of his Department. He appealed to him to exercise to the fullest extent his influence with his Department, and when he was told that they could not get revenue otherwise, he should say they must. They tried for years to get cheaper postage of magazines to Canada before getting it and now the Post Office was going to make it pay. They could make temperance pay. He hoped that when the hon. and gallant Gentleman replied, he would make it clear that there were no longer to be mere vain pledges, but that a real reform in this respect would be introduced which would redound to the credit of the Empire.
    *MR. G. GREENWOODsaid he would not attempt to follow the hon. Member for Gravesend, but as one of those Members alluded to by the right hon. Member for St. George's, Han-over Square, as guilty of putting Questions, he desired, with the permission of the Committee, to say a few words on the subject of Natal. He thought they were all agreed on one thing, that when we granted self-government to a colony, the less we interfered with that colony the better. But he ventured to say that there should be some limit to the doctrine of non-interference. A self-governing colony, after all, was not a separate and independent country. He had listened to speeches from hon. Gentlemen opposite, in which opinions were expressed which, if carried out to a logical conclusion, came to this; that if a self-governing colony were to establish a system of undoubted slavery in their territory, it would, nevertheless, be the duty of this country to acquiesce in it. To that doctrine he could not subscribe. There must be a limit, and after that limit had been passed—as he thought it had been passed in this matter by Natal—it became the duty of the predominant partner in the concern to interfere to save the credit and honour of this country. There was that going on in Zululand and Natal which it would not be time wasted carefully to consider.
    1296
    Sometimes it was said that they were making an attack upon the colony of Natal. He wanted to repudiate that idea. Even if they ventured to criticise the Government of Natal it could not be said that they were making any attack or criticism against the colony, because he did not believe that the Government of Natal really could be said to represent the colony. He was entitled to say that, for he had in his hand what he believed to be an authentic document which purported to be the declaration of combined committees in Natal who asked for redistribution in the Colony. These combined committees pointed out that the Prime Minister of Natal was returned to Parliament by 327 votes, that Mr. Carter, Minister of Justice and Attorney-General only polled 302 votes, whereas both the senior and junior Members for Durban had each polled more votes than Mr. Moor and his whole Cabinet put together.
    EARL WINTERTON: Are there any bye-elections in Natal?
    *MR. G. GREENWOODsaid he saw no relevancy in that interruption. The combined committees went on to say that—
    "The numbers of the white population are decreasing at a rate that already makes it questionable whether we are entitled to the status of a self-governing Colony, sufficient to itself, in maintenance of its authority, unaided."
    He thought it would be well to bear that in mind, because, as was pointed out, owing to the gerrymandering of the constituencies in the colony, it could not be maintained that the present Government represented the colony. The question of the treatment of Dinizulu had been often discussed. From the Blue-books which he had carefully read, he found that in September, 1907, the Natal Ministers and the Native Affairs Commissioner had apparently come to the conclusion that cost what it might, he might almost say whether the Chief was guilty or innocent—it was absolutely necessary that Dinizulu should be arrested and deported front the country. That was in strong contrast to what was said during the rising in May, 1906, when Sir C. Saunders and Sir Henry McCallum consistently

    1297
    bore witness to the correctitude of Dinizulu's conduct and his loyalty. But opinion changed and the Ministers and the Commissioner asked that Imperial troops should be sent into Zululand, and they decided that a secret inquiry should be held as to the guilt or otherwise of Dinizulu, and whether he was implicated in the rising of 1906. Lord Elgin replied in September, 1907, that the Government could not possibly become parties to the proposed policy, nor could they defend it in Parliament. Time went on and it seemed to those gentlemen that if they could not get their own way in this matter, there was another expedient open to them: they could suspend the constitution of the colony and govern it at their own sweet will by martial law. Accordingly on 3rd December, 1907, martial law was proclaimed in Zululand, followed by martial law being proclaimed in the Northern districts of the colony. The Governor of the colony when he announced that decision to the Home Government said that in his opinion the proclamation of martial law was premature. And why? Because there was no armed resistance. Lord Elgin on 11th December asked on what charge was Dinizulu to be tried and before, what Court, and when the proclamation of martial law would be withdrawn. The Natal Government replied that they would not assent to the withdrawal of the proclamation of martial law, although on 23rd December the Governor telegraphed to Lord Elgin that the forces were to be demobilised, except 200 men, showing that it could not be maintained that there was any danger of a rising. The Governor telegraphed again that his Ministers, against his advice, would—
    "Maintain martial law pending the arrest of criminals and further search for arms."
    Lord Elgin telegraphed that it was unjustifiable to maintain martial law for that purpose, and that martial law ought never to be extended whore there was no armed resistance, and that he had confidently expected to hear that the proclamation of martial law had been withdrawn. There was one extract which he asked to be allowed to read. On 28th December, 1907, the Governor said that he had urged upon Mr. Moor—
    "(1) The immediate withdrawal of martial law; (2) the release of all men in prison in
    1298
    connection with last year's rebellion except those at St. Helena and those awaiting trial; (3) the proclamation of a general amnesty"
    (with certain exceptions), and that he had pointed out to him—
    "that the continued maintenance of martial law tended to bring the civil law into contempt, and to prove the Government devoid of moral power."
    Nevertheless the Government of Natal insisted on maintaining martial law although there was no suspicion of a rising and although they knew that it would "tend to bring the civil law into contempt, and to prove the Government devoid of moral power." What was martial law? It had never been better stated than when stated to the Governor of Canada as long ago as 1838 by Sir John Campbell and Sir R. M. Rolfe, the then Law Officers of the Crown, each of whom subsequently became Lord Chancellor. They said:
    "Martial law is stated by Lord Hale to be in truth no law, but something rather indulged than allowed as a law, and it can only be tolerated because by reason of open rebellion the enforcing of any other laws has become impossible. It cannot be said in strictness to supersede the ordinary tribunals, inasmuch as it only exists by reason of those tribunals having been already practically superseded. The right of resorting to such an extremity is a right arising from and limited by the necessity of the case—quod necessitas cogit, defendit."
    If it was said that that was an old authority he had a more modern one, and one to which the right hon. Gentleman opposite would pay the greatest deference. Lord Alverstone speaking in the House of Lords in April, 1902, quoted Vice-Chancellor Kent to this effect—
    "Martial law is quite different from ordinary military law. It is justified by paramount necessity and proclaimed by a military chief."
    And further on Lord Alverstone stated—
    "The acts must be acts done by necessity for the defence of the Commonwealth where there is war within the realm. … The whole question is, is there such a state of war or rebellion that it cannot be put down by the civil authority, or by the military authorities acting under the orders of the civil authorities?"
    And finally—
    "The limits of what the executive may do under military law are limited by that necessity," because "the foundation of martial law is necessity."
    That was in entire agreement with what was stated in Lord Carnarvon's circular despatch of January, 1867, which had

    1299
    been reprinted in the Blue-book of May, 1906, in which he said that to justify martial law there must be men rising in armed resistance to the authority of the Crown. He could hardly conceive why it was said with all these cumulative authorities that there was any doubt upon the point. In Natal it could not be suggested for a single moment that any of these conditions existed. There was no armed resistance, no paramount necessity, and no rebellion. As the hon. Member for Leicester had pointed out, the proposed Act of Indemnity omitted the word "rebellion," so that it really came to this that martial law was applied unconstitutionally and illegally, against the advice of the Governor and the Secretary of State. They continued it in order that they might search for arms and arrest prisoners. They not only flogged natives because they would not give the evidence they required them to give, but they also prevented Dinizulu's solicitor going into Zululand to get evidence. They did exactly what the Stuart Kings did in the past, and which the Petition of Right declared to be illegal—they tried to govern by martial law in time of peace. He had called the attention of the hon. Gentleman, the Under-Secretary, to the fact that in Lord Carnarvon's circular despatch it was stated that the Governor was solely responsible both for the proclamation of martial law, and the withdrawal of that proclamation at any moment—that the responsibility for proclaiming martial law and the power of declaring it at any moment to be at an end must rest with the Governor as the representative of the Crown. He asked the late Under-Secretary whether that applied to the Governor of a self-governing colony, and he was told that it did not because he was bound to act on the advice of his Ministers. He ventured, with respect, to submit that that answer was given on imperfect consideration, because it was perfectly clear that this was a matter peculiarly within the prerogative of the Crown. There were certain things the responsibility for which rested on the Governor alone; there was the prerogative of mercy, and the prerogative of amnesty, and the dissolution of Parliament. Though a Governor
    1300
    ought, of course, to consult his Ministers, the responsibility in these cases was his alone. If they referred to the highest authority in this matter, such as Todd's Parliamentary Government in British Colonies, they would find it laid down that—
    "It must always be remembered that the Governor is not bound to comply with the advice of his Ministers. In the event of a recommendation being submitted to him that involved a breach of the law, or that was contrary to express instructions received from the Crown, he would be obliged to refuse to sanction it. For no violation of the law could be excused on the plea that it was advised by others."
    Surely that must be so when the Governor was asked to supersede the civil law in the country in favour of martial law which was no law. This question of martial law was considered in this House by a Committee which sat in 1849, before which Sir David Dundas, then Judge Advocate General, gave evidence, and said—
    "I believe the law of England is that a Governor, like the Crown has vested in him the right, where the necessity arises, of judging of it and being responsible for his work afterwards, so to deal with the laws as to supersede them all, and to proclaim martial law for the safety of the Colony."
    He, therefore, submitted that it was for the Governor and the Governor alone on his own responsibility to proclaim martial law or to issue a proclamation putting an end to it. He ventured to point out that the mere proclamation by the Governor did not make anything legal which would be illegal without it. All that such a proclamation amounted to was a notice that in future the country was to be governed by martial law and that was an answer to the suggestion that if this Bill of Indemnity was refused martial law would continue. When it was considered that the ordinary Courts, civil and criminal, were open during the whole time, because there had never been any armed resistance, he should think there was no necessity for accepting that Bill. He respectfully submitted that if the Governor was responsible for proclaiming martial law or putting an end to it, the Government should advise the Governor of the Colony to issue a proclamation putting an end to martial law, which could be done without assent being given to this

    1301
    Act of Indemnity. The Bill of Indemnity was on the model of the Act of Indemnity of 1906. That was an Act to which, in his opinion, in its present form, the assent of the Crown should not have been given. He did mot believe any precedent could be found for such an Act of Indemnity. Not only did it legalise things to be done in the future under martial law, but provided that there should be no appeal from any sentence by court-martial which had been pronounced before the Royal assent was given to the Act. Here he might refer to the case of the unfortunate chief Tilonko, now undergoing a sentence of ten years imprisonment in St. Helena. Martial law was proclaimed on 9th February, 1906. On 12th April the Minister of Justice of Natal, with the knowledge of the Governor, wrote to the Commandant of Militia that in view of the suppression of the native insurrection he thought it undesirable to try any more natives under martial law. It was on 7th July that the Bill of Indemnity passed the Legislative Assembly, and on the 12th it passed the Upper House of Natal. It was not till the 30th that Tilonko was tried by court-martial under martial law. On 13th August Lord Elgin telegraphed to the Governor that he might give his assent to the Bill of Indemnity on the assumption that martial law should be withdrawn. For some reason or other that assent was withheld until 1st October, and the Colonial Parliament was dissolved in the meantime. The result was that this unfortunate chief, because of the delay which had taken place in the assent being given to the Bill of Indemnity, was told when he appealed as he did, to the Privy Council and the Supreme Court of Natal, that he was deprived of his legal remedy, because under the Act of Indemnity there could be no appeal from any sentences by court-martial pronounced before the Royal assent was given to the Act. The same thing was in this present Bill. It was laid down that there should be no appeal from sentence of court-martial, and more than that this Bill did not conform to what the Duke of Buckingham, in his despatch to the New Zealand Government, laid down as being the proper form of a Bill of Indemnity.
    1302
    The Duke of Buckingham in his despatch of 18th May, 1867, said—
    "In my opinion the Indemnity Act should have been limited in its phraseology to an indemnity from acts ordered or approved by some responsible military or civil authority."
    That despatch had not been published, but it was to be found in the Colonial Office, and it had been reproduced in the debates of the Parliament of Newzealand at the time. What the Duke of Buckingham said in his despatch applied to this Bill, and the Government ought not to give their consent to it in its present form, for it would be an evil precedent. It would actually provide an indemnity for acts done wantonly and maliciously. They heard a good deal at the present time about Imperialists. He thought they were all Imperialists now. But there were Imperialists of different shades and complexions, and for his part, he thought the best and truest Imperialist was he who was most jealous and sensitive for the honour of the Empire and the sanctity of its obligations, for the justice of its dealings, and for the rights and liberties of all its subjects on British soil throughout the world, whether their colour were white or whether their colour were black.
    EARL WINTERTONsaid he did not propose to touch on the case of Dinizulu, but if he might say so without impertinence, he thought the attitude of the Under-Secretary was entirely correct and proper. Although, of course, he disagreed with a great deal of what the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken said, he did not think he could accuse him of unfair bias in favour of Dinizulu; but they must remember, in dealing with this subject, that whatever view the Committee might hold as to the action and attitude of the Natal Government they could not too much emphasise the special circumstances by which that Government found themselves surrounded. Natal had an enormous black population, with only a small handful of white men. They must remember further, and it was a point which some hon. Gentlemen opposite or their friends in the country apparently had not realised, that the Government of of Natal had been aggravated beyond

    1303
    human endurance. For the last six or nine months, indeed long before the case of Dinizulu came up, every species of inuendo and suggestion had been made against the Natal Government by so-called responsible newspapers in this country, and it could not be wondered at, in these circumstances, having regard to the situation in which the Natal Government found itself, that it had shown natural indignation, and had resorted to measures which did not meet with the support of the people of this country. Moreover, hon. Gentlemen who had taken up the attitude they had done on this question, an attitude which certainly he did not think they could complain of that day, must remember that certain hon. Gentlemen were altogether suspect in the matter of native administration, because they belonged to a body of people who for the last four years had done their very best in England and elsewhere to make native administration an impossibility. Probably they had done it with the best intentions. He did not refer to the hon. Member for Newbury, but to some of the hon. Members below the gangway, and chiefly those below the gangway who had done their very best to make native administration an impossibility. They had not realised that their attitude was not supported by a single section or class of the population of those countries where there was a native question to be dealt with. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Merthyr Tydvil was not supported by a single man of his own class or any other class in the Colonies. Though he thought it was most regrettable, yet the hostility which he was met with in South Africa was a demonstration which represented the very strong feeling which his action had caused, and the entire lack of sympathy on the part of the people who had to deal with such problem with his views on the subject. He hoped the Committee, whatever their views might be as to what Natal had actually done, would not be too hostile in their views towards it. There was another matter which had not been, sufficiently ventilated and which had been referred to by his right hon. friend in his speech, viz., the retrenchment of the Civil service in the Transvaal. He did not think the answer which the
    1304
    Under-Secretary had given was at all an adequate reply to the contention put forward by the Opposition. He wished to put aside the question of race prejudice. He was fully aware that it was difficult to form an unbiased opinion on that subject, and for various reasons he thought it better to leave it entirely alone; but he would say, referring to what had been said by his hon. friend the Member for Gravesend, with reference to the statistics and tables which were put forward, it was abundantly clear, but not sufficiently known in this country, that the vast majority of Britishers, or rather men bearing British names, were renegades in the South African war. A large proportion of them fought for the Boers, and they must remember that circumstance when the hon. Gentleman put forward his figures and tables so triumphantly. The hon. Gentleman had alluded to General Botha, and had paid a great tribute to his loyalty, which he had been surprised to hear loudly cheered by the hon. Members below the gangway. Indeed, it was a very pleasing feature of that afternoon's debate that loyalty should be cheered by hon. Gentlemen below the gangway on the other side of the House, and most pleasing of all by the hon. Member for Newbury. The Under-Secretary finished his speech by saying that he did not think any prejudice had been shown in the matter by General Botha. He thought that if the Under-Secretary went to South Africa and, ascending any platform, Dutch or British, said that General Botha had shown no kind of prejudice towards men of his own race, he would be laughed out of the Transvaal. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion that General Botha had shown no prejudice in favour of men of his own race was ludicrous.
    COLONEL SEELYsaid that General Botha had been freely denounced by people of Dutch extraction because he had not employed enough of them.
    EARL WINTERTONsaid that that was no doubt true, because a large number of Dutch people voted for General Botha believing that when he came into power there would not be a Britisher left in

    1305
    Africa, apart, perhaps, from some half-hearted men among the Dutch population, but he would find no one really prepared to support him in that contention. The point with which both sides could deal that afternoon with a more or less unbiassed mind was what was to be done with these unforunate men who had been retrenched. They held on that side of the House that there had been unnecessary retrenchment, and that it had not by any means resulted in increased economy. He did not see how anybody on either side could disagree with the statement that those men had been led to believe, both by the late Government and the present Government, that they would have something in the nature of permanent employment and a pension at the end of it. For the first time in British administration the honourable continuity which had lasted for scores of years, the continuity of the relations between many of the Colonial Governments and Civil servants, had been broken. That relationship had been referred to in eloquent terms by the President of the Board of Trade in the life of this Parliament, and by writers on politics. In future, any man sending his son into the Civil Service of Egypt or India or elsewhere would say that he could not trust that some Government would not come into power and at one stroke sweep away the future of the men in its service. It was the bounden duty of the Government to make inquiry into the circumstances and do something for these unfortunate men. His right hon. friend had mentioned that there were many cases of Civil servants, who had been retrenched, a very large number of whom were men who came from other parts of the Empire—New South Wales, Australia, from Canada, and other places, where they had been previously in employment and occupied high positions. [An HON MEMBER: Not high positions.] These men had filled high and honourable positions. He would like to ask hon. Members to think what His Majesty's dominions beyond the seas would think of the Government of a country which could treat its servants as this country had treated these men in South Africa. These men who raised contingents and
    1306
    did yeoman service to the Empire during the war would now go back to their part of the Empire penniless and broken men, and it would be a warning to the people in those Colonies not to place any reliance upon the gratitude or the good faith of the British Government. What would happen in the next time of crisis when this country relied, as she would have to rely, upon assistance from other parts of the Empire in fighting her battles? What would they say when they remembered these men who fought for their country and were afterwards so badly treated? There had been no attempt made, either by answer across the House, or in the course of debate, to deny the charges which had been brought against them. They knew perfectly well that there had been many hard cases; men had been put out of employment through no fault of their own, pledges had been shamelessly broken, and though they had not perhaps excited the interest of the country as they ought to do he believed when the next election came round the people of the country would not forget the Government's treatment of these faithful Civil servants in South Africa. More especially it would not forget the sneers delivered by the hon. Member for Leicester against men who did more yeoman service for the Empire in a time of stress and crisis, than perhaps had been done for the last 100 years. As a protest against the refusal of the Government to make an inquiry into these circumstances and to treat these men justly, he moved to reduce the Vote by £1,000.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £31,350, be granted for the said service."—(Earl Winterton.)
    MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid the question on which he wished to say a few words was whether it would not be practicable to have a conference to consider the whole question of oriental immigration as it affected the Empire—a conference in which our Colonial and Foreign Offices could take part, and in which the India Office would

    1307
    be represented, as well as the Governments of the great Dominions and Colonies beyond the seas. It was a matter in which we should properly take the lead, not to dictate, but to endeavour to clear away the difficulties with which the Empire was confronted. We had the greatest responsibility in this matter, both with respect to Imperial as well as foreign affairs, and yet we were apt to look on whilst each Colony in turn had to deal piecemeal with oriental immigration as each incident occurred. It would be well if we upon our side realised more fully the difficulties with which the Colonies had to deal and if they upon their side could realise a little more clearly our responsibilities. If such a Conference could be held we should get a clear statement from them, and even if no solution were in the first instance propounded, if we had to face the facts and obtain a clear statement of them, that of itself would promote a solution and might be the only way to do so. It was not a matter which should be treated piecemeal by the exigencies of each Colony. The Indian was told that everywhere within the Empire he was treated as an equal under British rule. He found out that that was not so and what they had to find out were the parts of the Empire where oriental immigration could be allowed and those parts where it must be subjected to some restriction or limitation. If they were to have restrictions and limitations they should be applied so as to create as little friction as possible. The matter was put forward in some detail in a letter to The Times last April—a letter to which he was one of the co-signatories, but which he did not himself write. He could say, therefore, that it gave a very excellent statement of the case. He would like to know that that matter had been considered at the Colonial Office. As matters stood the questions arising from oriental immigration into the different parts of the Empire hindered in some respects the unity of Imperial interests and therefore he would urge that they should find out by a Conference whether it was possible or not to have a more comprehensive policy than we had now in the Empire as regarded restrictions or limitations upon oriental immigration. The question was whether these could not be applied
    1308
    with less friction and danger than now existed. He trusted that this very important matter would have received the attention of the Colonial Office and t at some information might be given to the House upon it, because he regarded it as one on which the House was entitled to have some information.
    *MR. HAMAR GREENWOODsaid he was clearly of the view, speaking as a Colonial, that the attitude of all the self-governing Colonies required no conference to be well known. Hon. Members might take it that Canadians, Australians, South Africans, and New Zealanders, reinforced by the whole of the American people, would not allow any unrestricted immigration, whether the Orientals were Chinamen, Japanese, or our own fellow-subjects from Hindustan. One of the peculiarities of discussing Colonial questions in that House was that the debate seemed to get off on an academic line, leaving out of consideration the strongest instincts of those white men who lived on the frontiers of the Empire, who were not interested in academic definitions of Empire or of martial law; but who were brought face to face with one of the most profound and mysterious problems, the racial problem, as well as the problem of how to keep out, or co-exist with, this Oriental immigration. At present it threatened to swarm on the Pacific edge of both Americas, from Alaska to Patagonia. The Conference would do good in this, that it would show the Home Government once and for all that in dealing with Orientals the mind of the self-governing Colonies was made up, and that made-up mind should receive, as in reference to the Chinese in South Africa it had received, the endorsement of the present Government. He had risen especially to speak on the Natal problem. It presented to him but two points, one a point of detail, namely, the imprisonment of Dinizulu, and the second, a point of substance, namely, the whole of the negro problem in South Africa. As to the point of substance, namely, the relationship of the white people of Natal, to the million of negroes that surrounded them, he believed it ought to be the principle of the Government to endorse the view and uphold the attitude of the

    1309
    Natal Government in dealing with the black races, unless they had the clearest and most unmistakeable sign that that view would ultimately work against the white population in Natal. He had no sympathy whatsoever with those learned and finely spun discussions as to whether or not there was really a rebellion, or any of those minor matter that in no way touched the great and awful problem of the relationship of the white races to the great and numerically predominant black races in South Africa. There they were discussing in an almost empty House one of the most profound conflicts that the human mind could conceive, namely, of conflict between two races. He believed the consideration of His Majesty's Government of to-day and of the great to-morrow should be primarily the consideration of the Britishers living in those distant Colonies, and they should trust them to see that justice was done between black and black, and between black and white. It was very easy to find fault with the Government of Natal because perchance they had made a mistake in arresting Dinizulu. Whether they had or had not, far be it from him to prejudge, the Natal Government. He would rather trust the Natal Government on that question than the Government of any party in that House. There were in Natal about 100,000 white men, women, and children, surrounded by 1,000,000 of the most militant of the black races of the world. To these colonists there was a constant source of impending menace. This black 1,000,000 might for some unknown reason rise up, and that would mean the annihilation of the white people who came within their sphere of operations. The Natal Government was not only the best but the only judge as to the proper action to be taken to repress a supposed riot. He had always held that the return of Dinizulu was a mistake. The return of this hereditary king to the Zulus was an invitation to those great native warriors to resume hope that j Natal, or at any rate that part of it which they thought was theirs, would be once more under the dominion of a negro monarch. He hoped that the Government would not continue on the lines on which he was compelled to think they had started, of finding fault with
    1310
    the Natal Government in terms and tones which to his mind, in the first place, were undignified to the Mother Country's Government, and, secondly, detracted from the dignity and self-respect of those Ministers of the Crown in the Colony of Natal. They had to face the problem free from all this threadbare discussion as to whether martial law should be declared to-day or to-morrow afternoon. They had to make up their minds at once because the lives of thousands of men and women were in danger at the seat of trouble. Surely it was possible for this Imperial House to refrain from endeavouring to draw out of the Under-Secretary for the Colonies day by day every little detail in regard to Dinizulu, and the visits paid to him by this man or that woman, the only effect of which might be to make the loyal government of Natal appear unworthy in the eyes of this country and of the world. He thought that more respect should be shown to the views of a self-governing Colony and more consideration paid to the Ministers of the Crown who were faced with difficulties which the Government of this country knew nothing about. He could not see why the communications of the Colonial Secretary live the communications of the Foreign Secretary should not remain private, and not always be made public. If it became necessary for the Home Government sympathetically to complain of the attitude of the Natal Government surely it could be done in courteous terms, and if they must be strong let their despatches remain secret as between this and that Government and not be dragged out in such a way as to make the Government of the Mother Country appear querulous. He had every sympathy with the Government of Natal, and if he were in Natal he would be the first to resent, as that Government had resented, the unfortunate attitude the late Colonial Secretary took up in reference to this matter between the Home Government and Natal. He would go so far as to say that neither the present Government nor any other Government would venture to take up that attitude in dealing with General Botha. They would not write those despatches to Sir Wilfred Laurier, and he was inclined to believe that some

    1311
    unfair advantage had been taken of the fact that the Government of Natal was a small Government of a small white population in a small Colony, although in his opinion that should be all the more reason why they should have greater consideration, more dignified treatment, and more respect shown them than had been meted out to Natal. So much for the relations between the self-governing Colony of white people and the black population. As to the treatment of Dinizulu, that was a point of detail which in his opinion had been exaggerated out of its true position in the proper perspective one should have in dealing with native affairs. He was a Chieftain whom the Government of Natal thought fit to arrest. As to whether they should have withheld his salary or not he did not express any opinion, but that could not be fairly urged as a reason why this Chieftain was unable to prepare his legal defence. He knew something about the Bar and the long time one had sometimes to wait for fees. He knew that in Natal there would never be the slightest difficulty for Dinizulu to get the money necessary for his legal defence. Whether Dinizulu was guilty or not it was not for him to say, and he expressed no opinion as to whether he should have been arrested or not. As a Colonial himself, as a Liberal, and as one who believed that Liberalism had made the British Empire, in spite of the sneers of the noble Lord the Member for Horsham; as one who believed that Liberal principles in dealing with self-governing Colonies alone were the sound and safe principles upon which to continue the structure, he said that this Government had been ill-advised in not more cordially endorsing the attitude of the Natal Government. Even now the Natal Government should be made to know clearly that in their dealings with Dinizulu, which was a point of detail, and in their dealings with the black races, which was a point of substance, they had the whole-hearted and cordial support of the Government, and he would also like to think the cordial support of this Imperial House of Commons.
    MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONsaid that no doubt the
    1312
    powerful speech of the senior Member for York would carry great weight upon the other side of the House. If he did not follow him it was not because he did not appreciate that speech, but because of the fact that the time which remained for the discussion of Supply was so short that a thrice told tale should be avoided. He wanted to bring to the attention of the Government two matters connected with the West Indies and British Guiana. One of those questions related to a question of principle, and the other touched some commercial interests. The first question was in relation to the Island of St. Vincent. Six or seven years ago in that island, in the year 1902, there was a great disaster. There was a violent eruption, the countryside was devastated, and the island laid in ruins, and an appeal was made to charitably-minded persons. A large number of subscriptions were collected in this country towards a fund for the relief of the distress caused by the eruption, and to assist in rehabilitating the industries of that island. This country responded nobly, and a sum amounting to £73,000 was collected for this purpose. He wished to point out that to-day, £25,000 or 40 per cent, of that sum still remained unspent. In view of the purpose for which the fund was collected the greatness of the sum which was left seemed to indicate a rather grave state of affairs. Its gravity had been accentuated by circumstances which he might be pardoned if he pursued a little in detail, because it illustrated the importance of the principle he wished to emphasise. Before the eruption there was a canal called the Carib Canal which conveyed the water to the inhabitants of a country which was otherwise waterless and destitute of any hydraulic power whatever. That canal was constructed he could not say when, and it was almost impossible to ascertain by whom. It had been in existence for a very long time, and its upkeep was borne by various estates through which it passed. There were five estates in all and the upkeep cost something like £500 a year. That canal served a considerable area of the country, and hon. Members would appreciate what a water supply meant in

    1313
    that island. They would also appreciate the benefits conferred by the presence of this canal, because it was now impossible, without the presence of a water supply, to rehabilitate the industries of that part of the country, and continue the cultivation which previously went on there. In the course of the eruption that canal was destroyed. It was blocked up with ashes and broken down by lava. The water supply was cut off, and the country which the canal served was evacuated and became a desert and had remained a desert ever since. Therefore, the importance to the island of reconstructing that canal must be obvious to the Committee. Its importance had been insisted on in Reports presented to the Colonial Office from Sir Daniel Morris, from Mr. Powell, and from a local committee which inquired into the administration of the eruption fund and how the fund could best be employed. All those people recommended that among the objects towards which the money should go was the reopening of this canal. This canal passed in large measure through an estate or upon the borders of an estate which belonged to one person. That was a fact which ought to be stated at once, although it was of no weight in considering the question, because the representations which had been made on the subject came from a very wide area and strata of society which showed that the demand was a genuine one. So far as he was concerned personally, he did not know this gentleman and it was only the other day that he heard his name. He had never had any communications with him, and he was simply stating the facts as they were laid before the local committee. That supply had been lost in consequence of the eruption. Proposals were made by the owners of the land to the Government and they were accepted. The Government gave a grant of £1,600 out of the fund, and the owners spent between £3,000 and £4,000 in advancing the work. At a certain stage it was discovered that the damage done by the eruption had been more serious than was at first supposed. The lava had filled up ravines, and it was found that the water would have to be carried by pipes for irrigation and power purposes, and that must
    1314
    necessarily be an expensive method The owners were put in the position of being £5,000 out of pocket, and they had to decide whether they would go on or not. They decided to drop the project. So serious did the matter appear with regard to the industries of the island that the matter was considered by the local committee and public meetings were held regarding it. The committee recommended that a loan from the fund should be made for the purpose of carrying on this work—a loan from the fund subscribed by charitable people in this country. The loan was to be terminable and interest-bearing. The Secretary of State refused assent to that course. He was aware that when a colonial in any portion of the British dominions had a grievance to state it was the Colonial Office that was cast for the part of the wicked uncle. He had found that that was sometimes done in circumstances which were entirely undeserved. When there was a conflict of opinion between the official and the non-official members of the legislative council the duty of the Colonial Office was plain, and that was to support the official members. Unless the Colonial Office carried out the policy of trusting the men on the spot there would be difficulty. But that was not the question here, because among those foremost in recommending that a loan should be made for the purpose mentioned were the official representatives of the Government. It was they who had been repeatedly urging this policy on the Colonial Office. The policy had been recommended by the legislative council, by the officials in charge of the island, and by the Governor in charge of the group of islands. The reply of the Colonial Office was that they had no objection to the loan being made, but that if it was made it ought to be out of the floating balance of revenue. He was bound to say that from the point of view of financial theory there was a good deal to be said for that policy, but in the circumstances it was ludicrous, for the floating balance only amounted to £5,000, and from that had to come provision for secondary education, provision for a subsidy to the West Indian Telegraph Company, and a contribution for a new jetty which was now under construction. The floating balance was already earmarked and it

    1315
    was absolutely impracticable to take the loan out of it. When that suggestion was made a special meeting of the legislative council was called to consider the question. Apparently there was an objection to laying the dispatch sent by the Secretary of State on this matter on the Table of the House, but it had already been published in the island. The Governor telegraphed to the Secretary of State asking him to reconsider his decision. The administrator made, a speech in which he quoted a Memorandum setting forth the whole details of the subject. That Memorandum, which had teen published in the Colonial papers, was one which the hon. and gallant Gentleman refused to lay on the Table of the House of Commons. He took the greatest exception to the despatch being laid before the legislative assembly, while the representative of the Colonial Office refused to place it before the House of Commons. That was quite a novel proceeding, and he vent red to say that it was unconstitutional. The whole of the legislative council, official and unofficial members, were united in refusing to have anything to do with the scheme which the Secretary of State put forth. He submitted that that constituted a state of affairs which was really in principle rather grave. He would support the Colonial Office in acting on the advice of the officials on the spot, but the position was rather grave when they set up their own view against that of the local representatives and their own officials. He appealed to the hon. and gallant Gentleman to give further consideration to this point. The fund was subscribed for the relief of distress and for the rehabilitation of the industries of the natives, but the Colonial Office desired that a portion of it should be left so as to form an insurance fund against future disasters. That might or might not be a desirable thing to do, but he maintained it was ultra vires to devote any portion of the money subscribed for the relief of distress to that purpose. When a fund was being raised for the relief of the people of St. Vincent many of the subscribers pointed out that 40 per cent, of the money subscribed to the Jamaica fund was still in the coffers of the Colonial Office, and they
    1316
    subscribed on condition that the money would be applied to the purpose for which it was given. Referring to the question of cable communication with the West Indian Islands, he said that the cable service with Jamaica was above reproach. There were two competing lines at about 3s. a word, and there had been remarkably few interruptions during the past ten years. With regard to the southernmost islands, Trinidad, Barbados, and British Guiana, the very reverse was the case. The cable service was costly and unreliable. The service had been always and was at the present moment costly and unreliable. The rate to Jamaica was 3s. a word, which was reasonable. It was not a light rate, for a telegram could be sent longer distances for less. The rate to Siam, Australia, and Japan, half-way round the world, was 4s. 10d. a word, while it was 4s. 9d. to Barbados, 5s. 1d. to Trinidad, and 7s. to Demerara in British Guiana. That showed that the service was costly, which was partly in consequence of an agreement with an American company to Cuba to "route" the messages. That the service was unreliable was demonstrated by the fact that during the last six months of this year, to the end of June, or 182 days, cable communication was interrupted between British Guiana and Trinidad and Barbados on forty-five days, or two days out of every five. The best practical evidence as to the unreliability of the service was shown by the way the Colonies concerned had reduced their contributions to the cable company by way of subsidy. The subsidy cost this country nothing; the charge fell only on the exchequers of the different Colonies, amounting in all to £13,000 a year. Barbados had reduced its contribution from £2,500 to £1,500; Demerara from £4,500, to £3,000; Trinidad from £6,000 to £3,000. The hon. and gallant Gentleman would agree that it was time that something was done to improve matters. It was evident that from the commercial and political point of view great use was made of the cables by the Colonies, and from a strategic point of view cable communication would become more important when the Panama Canal was an established fact. The Government of British Guiana in November last made an agreement with a cable company

    1317
    for the establishment of a system of wireless telegrams, but he understood that nothing had been done to carry it into effect. If that were so, would the hon. and gallant Gentleman see that something was done soon? He was far from saying that wireless telegrams would prove less costly than cable messages; all he was anxious to see in the meantime was that something should be done to establish communication between British Guiana and Trinidad. As regarded the link between Trinidad and Barbados and between Barbados and Bermuda, the strongest possible case had been made out for an all-British cable. A direct cable between Bermuda and Trinidad was recommended by an Inter-Departmental Committee which sat in 1902, and by a resolution passed unanimously by the chambers of commerce of the Empire in 1906. The only question that remained to be settled was that of finance; and he wished to make a suggestion. The Colonies used to contribute £13,000 a year; they now contributed £7,000, and had expressed their willingness to make an increased contribution if this direct cable were laid. He had been told that the cost would be £23,000 per annum.
    COLONEL SEELY: Including Demerara?
    MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Yes, including Demerara. Of course a great saving would result in the rates. If the Colonies contributed their original subsidy—which they had practically agreed to do—of £13,000 that left £10,000 to be provided for. Canada at a conference held last year at Ottawa had expressed willingness to contribute towards this cable £5,000, leaving only £5,000 to be borne by the Colonial Office. He did not put forward this financial method as final, but he thought it was worth consideration by the hon. and gallant Gentleman in view of the value such a cable would be from administrative and strategic considerations to the Government. In the meantime he pressed on the hon. and gallant Gentleman the great importance of doing something in regard to the existing state of things, which constituted a burden which could hardly be borne by the Colonies
    1318
    and an injustice which required immediate remedy.
    MR. SUMMERBELLsaid that the noble Earl above the gangway had gone out of his way to sneer at the Labour Members, more especially the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil and the hon. Member for Leicester. There was a great deal of difference between the way people looked at things, but he would like to say that if the noble Earl was prepared to change places with the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil, and had gone out to the Transvaal to expose how the country was being ruined by men whose only desire was to make wealth, he might not have got a better but rather a worse reception. He had great admiration for officers who did their duty, but men who went into the factory and the mine could be just as great heroes as any man who served under the colours; and whatever might be said in regard to the Transvaal War the Labour Members had felt that they were speaking in the interests of the common workers of the country. Last year on this Vote he had called attention to the Government of the West Indian Islands, but without much effect, and he hoped he would have more success with the hon. and gallant Gentleman than with his predecessor. He asserted that the administration of the West Indian Islands was altogether too costly and that it imposed on the people of those islands an enormous burden of taxation which was altogether out of proportion to what it should be. The revenue of the islands last year amounted to £3,000,000, and how had that been raised? What he was about to state ought to appeal to a free-trade Government. He found that in Jamaica the duty at present on bacon was 20 per cent. He asked the hon. Member what he thought of Customs taxation which ranged from 33 per cent, on biscuits and bread, and 45 per cent, on flour, to 70 per cent, on domestic lighting oil. No one supporting a free trade Government could argue that such a state of things could continue. This taxation it must be remembered, weighed on the people of these islands very heavily. Of course if reductions in the Customs were to be made it was necessary to find

    1319
    some way of reducing the expenditure, and he suggested that Governors of these islands were considerably overpaid as compared with the Governors of self-governing Colonies. In Tasmania, with an average export of £16 a head the Governor's salary was £2,500. In Jamaica, where the exports were £2 a head the Governor's salary was £5,000. The same remarks applied to other islands. They ought therefore to commence by reducing the salaries of the Governors of these islands. The importation of coolies from the East Indies to these islands had reduced the wages of the agricultural labourers from fifty-five cents to thirty-two cents per day, and they objected to the subsidy of £8,000 taken out of the taxation which they had to pay being given to the planters of these islands in order that they might bring in cheap labour. There were plenty of men to work if the planters only paid a proper price, and it was unfair that these people should be compelled to pay this taxation and that out of that taxation £8,000 should be given to the planters to import cheap labour from the East Indies. Year after year he had applied to the Opposition when in power for this redress, but instead of giving it they did exactly the opposite in 1896. In the Straits Settlements the planters themselves had to pay for the introduction of this labour and the Government should now see to it that they did not subsidise the planters in these islands any longer. He also appealed to the Government again to allow the Port of Spain to have a municipal council. In 1896 they had a municipal council which was suppressed owing to a riot. They had been without now for thirteen years which, he thought, was punishment enough for what had taken place, and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would, in his reply, indicate to the Committee that the municipal council would be re-established next year. He also objected to the power which was placed in the hands of the town board of the Port of Spain summarily to sell by auction the property of anybody who was indebted to them. He knew of a case of a man whose house, which was worth £250, was sold for about £17 at auction because there were some £2 or £3 due from him for certain work in the shape of municipal repairs done by
    1320
    the town board. With regard to the Gilbert Islands he had seen a document signed by several chiefs on those islands which stated that the laws were badly administered and flagrantly broken by the Governors; that people were wrongfully deprived of their land; that their trees were cut down; and that there were numerous floggings and other outrages. He asked that these matters should be investigated because, if they were as stated, it was quite time that some reform took place. He also appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to consider the case of Mr. William Davis of Dominica which had now been hanging on for several years. That gentleman had, it appeared, a genuine grievance, and he hoped the hon. and gallant Gentleman would consider the matter and, if he found that the case was as stated, see that justice was done.
    *MR. THEODORE TAYLORdrew attention to the question of the opium consumption in Hong Kong. The people there resented the action of the Home Government in bringing their action upon this question into line with the action of the Chinese Government. All that the Colonial Secretary had done was to say that sooner or later the opium dens must be closed. That was two months ago, and not a single den had yet been closed; so that time was certainly being given for the change. The old argument had been brought up that if opium was bad it was not so bad as drink, as if that had anything to do with it. On 28th May in the Hong Kong Legislative Council a resolution of protest was moved against the dens being closed. In seconding that resolution a Chinese member of the Council said he desired to maintain the council's rights, but he described the existence of the dens as "a blot on Hong Kong's fair fame, dragging the splendid Colony in the mud." He "urged that the opium dens and farms should be destroyed root and branch." That was the attitude of the respectable Chinese members of the Colony. The objection to suppression was merely a question of revenue. He begged the Government to persevere in their policy of suppressing the opium habit. The colonists were complaining that there would be a loss of revenue and asked to be relieved

    1321
    of their contribution of $1,250,000 towards military expenditure. The same question arose in the Straits Settlements. Sympathising with this complaint, he supported the Government in giving them a little time, but he implored them to stick to their policy and not to be dismayed in the very least by whatever was said. There were interested parties who helped to create a local public opinion in favour of the traffic, and, though he did not want to overstate the matter, he had the very best evidence for saying that many of the Chinese were afraid to move to show their anti-opium feeling. As a matter of fact, whereas in China the Government encouraged by edict anti-opium societies, the natives in Hong Kong feared to promote these societies because they were afraid to offend the British there. He had good ground for stating even more than that, and he was quite certain there was in this Crown Colony, owing to the fact that a large proportion of the revenue depended upon the opium dens and habits, a considerable European opinion in favour of the continuance of them. The question affected not only Hong Kong and the Straits Settlements, but the other day they heard of it in connection with Ceylon. He thanked the Government for the action they had taken there. Contrary to common belief there was not only opium-eating but opium-smoking in Ceylon. He had a letter written by the late Sanitary Officer of Colombo to a local newspaper stating that, "as the Sanitary Officer, he was well acquainted with all the slums in Colombo, and there was no part of the city when making inspection of the poor parts where he did not find opium-smoking; the pity of it being that the habit was prevalent among the women." It was very important that they should not allow this habit to grow. They had the same story from South Africa. A memorial lately presented by the Witwatersrand Church Council in the Transvaal stated that there were twenty opium dens with 300 regular customers, whilst the number of victims was increasing and included white people as well as coloured. The Secretary of the Transvaal Government replied that they could not do anything this year. Mr. Mackenzie
    1322
    King's inquiry for the Canadian Government into the damage resulting from the anti-Asiatic riots of last September discovered that a large trade was being carried on in the manufacture of opium. There were seven factories in Victoria, Vancouver, and New Westminster, the majority of them only recently established. The opium was mostly consumed by Chinese, but the habit was making headway among white men and women, and even among white boys and girls. The Canadian Parliament had just passed a law prohibiting the importation, manufacture, and sale of the drug except for medical purposes; and that was the kind of thing they wished to press upon the British Government. They wanted the non-medical use of opium prohibited, whether inside or outside dens. It was not a question of opium dens merely. If the opium dens were closed the practice would be carried on in private houses, though no doubt to a less extent. They had to follow the practice wherever they found it. Australia and New Zealand had stopped it, and in every country public opinion was waking upon this question, and it was becoming the policy of the civilised world to suppress the traffic. He urged the Government not to fall short of that policy, lest we should soon find more opium dens in our own country. There were a few already. They largely existed in Crown Colonies for which we were specially responsible. In the United States, in Japan, in our own chief self-governing Colonies, and elsewhere public opinion now apprehended the seriousness of the matter, and it was becoming the policy of the world to stop the smoking of opium. They were told by those who excused this easy method of raising revenue that they might follow it wherever they liked, but they would not stamp it out. It was no doubt very easy to smuggle. He remembered when our own sugar duty was imposed, the Government had to take very stern measures to stop the smuggling of saccharin, an article of high value and small bulk; and if the Government meant business, the opium traffic could be stopped. Where there was a will there was a way. There was no need for the Government to be mealy-mouthed. Why should it

    1323
    deal more gently with the traffic than Japan? They only needed a thoroughgoing law and to have it properly administered. If the Government was determined and passed stringent laws and saw they were rigidly enforced, the traffic could be put down in our territory as it had been put down in Japanese territory and in our own self-governing Colonies. The United States also were about to pass a law prohibiting the traffic.
    *MR. BOULTONsaid the Opposition had laid down a new and extraordinary doctrine, and they were making the most of it inside and outside the House: they said that the Government were acting in an anti-Imperial way when they made suggestions in the mildest form to the Natal Government, and refused to take any steps to interfere in the internal policy of the Transvaal. The Opposition drew a great distinction between Natal and the Transvaal and Orange River Colony. It was wrong to interfere in the slightest way with Natal, but it was right to interfere with the Transvaal. That, in his opinion, was absurd. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, the late Colonial Secretary, had suggested that the Government should appoint a Committee to investigate the local policy of the Transvaal. He had never heard of a precedent for doing anything of the kind. The local affairs of a self-governing Colony had never been investigated in such a way as the right hon. Gentleman suggested in the history of the Empire, and the suggested Committee of Inquiry would be entirely unconstitutional and quite uncalled for. At the same time, the Opposition attacked the Government for making a mild suggestion to the Natal Government in a matter of exterior policy—the question of the government of the natives. It had been suggested that the Government had entered into some sort of disgraceful conspiracy with the Transvaal by which they lent a large sum of money in consideration of the Transvaal Government doing away with Chinese labour. The Transvaal Government had decided to do away with Chinese labour before any negotiations were
    1324
    opened for a loan. It was, in his opinion' a disgraceful charge to bring against His Majesty's Government and the Government of a self-governing Colony. There had been some strong language used, and he thought the words of the Under-Secretary were largely justified. He protested against any such suggestion. It never ought to have been made. He had felt a considerable amount of doubt about the retrenched officials of the Transvaal, but the speech of the Under-Secretary had satisfied him that the position in the Transvaal was not at all unsatisfactory. That was a matter of satisfaction on that side of the House. He was very glad to hear that steps were being taken to find positions for these unfortunate men. He knew several of them who came from Canada, and got positions after the war was over, and had now lost them. At the same time knowing something about those gentlemen and their capacity he could understand perhaps that while capable for positions while the war was going on they were not altogether suited to fill very responsible positions in the civil administration of a self-governing Colony. That might of course have had something to do with their retrenchment. At any rate it was perfectly obvious from the start that the Civil Service of the Transvaal was very much overstaffed and would have to be very largely retrenched, and consequently what happened was only what might have been expected. They were satisfied that the retrenchment had been principally under the last Administration—under the Administration of Lord Milner—and not under this, and further he felt very great satisfaction that the new appointments had been made without any respect to race. In these great Colonies where they had two races side by side, the only chance of amalgamation and fusion of the races was to treat them as Transvaalers, and not as Boers and Englishmen, and in that way they might hope some day to have one race in the Transvaal, a race of Transvaalers living under the Union lack. The speech of the Under-Secretary would give great satisfaction to the country generally.
    LORD BALCARRESasked how the authority of Parliament was to be obtained for the payment of the salary to Dinizulu. It was a new service, and could not be paid out of any economies in the Votes they were going to pass that evening and the next day, and it could not be done by Supplementary Estimate. He did not know how the authority of the House could be obtained. The proper thing was a Supplementary Estimate, but if it was introduced during the autumn session a Consolidated Fund Bill would be necessary.
    COLONEL SEELYsaid the proposal was to take a Supplementary Estimate in the autumn session. In any case they would have had to come to Parliament for a supplementary sum, and this small sum of £400 for Dinizulu would be included. The money would be paid and would be forthcoming, and he thought he could undertake that it should be done in due form. With regard to the opium question, he had been asked whether some action would be taken to deal with the evil effects of opium derivatives as well as of opium itself. That was no doubt most important. There could be no question that, bad as was the effect of smoking opium, the injection of morphia was even more injurious. He had received a most interesting letter from one of the Governors of the Straits Settlements, in which he pointed out from personal experience how awful were the effects of the injection of morphia, making a man a wreck in a year if he once took to it. He trusted the International Commission, which was to assemble shortly, would include in its purview these opium derivatives. He understood, though he did not know this officially, that the American representatives were anxious to take this course. The Government would of course agree on that point. The International Commission would meet in Shanghai, on 1st January next. Our representatives would be present and would take part in the deliberations with a view to at least coming up to the standard of China, if not of going beyond it. The hon. Member for Lanark had devoted some time to the question of
    1326
    St. Vincent and the Carib Canal. He was sorry to find himself in disagreement with the hon. Gentleman on the subject, because on the whole of the other matters connected with the West Indies he gladly availed himself of his help and saw eye to eye with him. If the hon. Member was of opinion that they were wrong about the Carib Canal he must continue to endeavour to convert them. They were not converted yet. The situation was this. A benevolent public subscribed £73,000 to repair the damage done in St. Vincent at the last eruption and in general terms to relieve distress. It seemed good to Lord Elgin that of this amount £25,000 should be retained as a nest egg for future eruptions. A gentleman who was specially concerned in these matters, and had personal acquaintance with the West Indian Islands, had said regretfully to him that he could guarantee either an eruption, an earthquake, or a hurricane within ten years. It was very unfortunate that this should be the case, but if there was any truth in it surely it was wise to keep this sum of £25,000 for the moment when the next disaster occurred. They trusted it might never occur, but unless a fresh cataclysm of Nature occurred, which should transfer the earthquakes and eruptions to another part of the world, something of that kind, or even a drop in the price of sugar of a phenomenal kind might occur which would need immediate application of relief. They would then have this £25,000 available under the scheme laid down by Lord Elgin. The hon. Gentleman said—"But the Carib Canal will remain full of ashes, and without a fresh water canal you cannot expect to have the island properly cultivated." This Mr. Porter who owned the land at the edge of the canal was digging out the ashes as fast as might be, and if the hon. Member said in point of fact he would give up digging, his only answer was that he was coming over to this country, and they hoped to have an opportunity of seeing him, for they would then know just how they stood. They would, of course, see Mr. Porter and learn all he had to say; but as at present advised they were not disposed to devote this sum to the digging of the ashes out of the canal believing as they did that Mr. Porter would do it.
    MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONsaid his point was that although it might be desirable to provide a fund for future contingencies, they had no power to divert this sum, which was subscribed for the relief of immediate necessities and earmarked for that particular purpose.
    COLONEL SEELYsaid he knew the legal aspect of that matter had been considered, and he himself had looked into it, and he was of opinion, speaking as a lawyer, that they were fully justified in the action they had taken. If it should turn out that they were bound to expend the sum, they would have to reconsider their attitude, but they had taken the best advice and were quite sure they were right. He thoroughly agreed with what the hon. Gentleman had said as to the importance of doing something to improve the cable communication both between the West Indies themselves, and between this country and the West Indies. It was certainly a most remarkable fact that the cost should be so great. The hon. Member told them it cost 7s. to Demerara, and that it cost to telegraph to the West Indian Islands, which were only a fortnight's steam from here, within a penny what it cost to telegraph to Japan, which was half-way round the world. He agreed that they ought to do something, and the Secretary of State proposed to take what action he could. There was this difficulty, that there were the two competing systems of submarine cable and wireless telegraphy. The hon. Member was quite right in what he told the Committee about the superior efficiency of cable communication, and the fact that they had taken to it in one case if not two. This made it difficult, because the inhabitants of the Islands themselves, who had subscribed the money, were not at one as to which was the best method. There must come an end to knocking people's heads together, and the Secretary of State was anxious to try the experiment of wireless telegraphy in one place, and, it might be, to increase and improve the cable communication elsewhere. These Islands were not very rich, and although it might be desirable to improve cable communication, when any concrete proposal was made, the Islands frequently
    1328
    took exception to making a contribution. But they had shown a disposition to join together to increase their contributions for a particular cable, and although he could not give any assurance on that particular point he could tell the hon. Gentleman on the authority of the Secretary of State that they were anxious to improve communication with the least possible delay. The hon. Member for Sunderland had addressed them on the subject of the finance of the West Indies. It was true that the salaries paid appeared to be large, but they must take into account the climate and the liability to earthquakes in estimating the salaries of Governors. The hon. Member had also referred to the coolie question and to the fact that in some of the West Indian Islands there was assisted immigration. It seemed to him that there were sound grounds for protesting against that system. It did not seem reasonable on the face of it to assist immigration which might be supposed to cut down wages. He consulted the Governor of Jamaica on the question of indentured coolies when he was over here, and with regard to the cutting down of wages he assured him that wages had gone up, and that the work done by the coolies was work which would not be done by the natives of Jamaica.
    MR. SUMMERBELL: Not at the same wages.
    COLONEL SEELYreplied that he was convinced that the system did not operate in Jamaica in the way it might be expected to operate in other parts of the world; but the Government did not propose to extend the system, and they would watch the experiments closely. His Majesty's Government were not in favour, as a rule, of indentured labour, but such indentured labour as existed they could not sweep away except in South Africa where it would be swept away; but in other parts of the world they could not sweep it away. He would return to that subject later on. As to the Gilbert Islands, there was in the Pacific a gentleman well known for his sympathy with the natives, Sir Everard im Thurn, and his Report did not bear out the statements

    1329
    that had been made. That gentleman was on his way home, and he would bring before him what his hon. friend who raised the question had said. Although it might be very unfortunate that people should have to work four days a week when three days work was enough, and that they should be only allowed to dance on Saturday afternoons, he hardly thought his hon. friend was justified in viewing the situation in the Islands with the alarm which he professed.
    MR. SUMMERBELLsaid he had only asked the hon. and gallant Gentleman to give his attention to the state of things alleged to exist by the chiefs.
    COLONEL SEELYsaid he understood that the people alluded to were what were called "the old men." He did not wish to appear to be in any way throwing ridicule upon this question, but he wished to defend those whom he had reason to believe were administering affairs with due regard to the conditions under which those people were working. With regard to West Africa and the liquor traffic, he admitted that there they were by no means on strong ground. The hon. Member for Gravesend had pointed out that 60 or 70 per cent. of the revenue in some Colonies was drawn from drink. That was, no doubt, approximately accurate. The Secretary of State viewed with concern the immense amount of liquor imported into West Africa and the immense ratio which the liquor tax bore to the rest of the revenue. That was not a desirable state of finances in the interests either of the natives or of the country, and the Secretary of State was anxious to amend it. They were of opinion that demoralisation followed from the importation of this spirit, and as he understood that it only cost 8d. a bottle he was not at all surprised at that. One would suppose from what had been said that this spirit was highly injurious and was killing the natives in great numbers. To his great surprise he found on inquiry from persons who were qualified to judge that the actual harm done was slight. It seemed to him that that was very unlikely, but the Secretary of State had decided to appoint a Committee to investigate the matter, That Committee would be ap-
    1330
    pointed without delay to investigate the matter on the spot, first, to find out the extent of the evil, and secondly to make suggestions as to a remedy. Of course the hon. Member for Gravesend was aware, and other hon. Members who had spoken on the Ministerial side were also aware, that the Government were somewhat tied in this matter by the contiguous frontiers of foreign countries. They had entered into engagements with foreign Powers to raise the duty in order to check the traffic. Some of those Powers were anxious to go much faster and some of them were not anxious to go much further. Unless they could come to some agreement with those foreign countries which had contiguous frontiers the drink which was being smuggled in might cause as much damage as the other drink evil. Unless they could get the consent of foreign Powers in this direction they could not check the sale of the article. He could assure hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that the Secretary of State viewed the whole situation with concern, and he proposed to appoint this Committee to consider what action was possible.
    MR. LEIF JONESasked if the hon. and gallant Gentleman could say of whom the Committee would consist?
    COLONEL SEELYreplied that he could not. The association of which the right hon. Baronet the Member for Honiton was a leading light had been asked to communicate their proposals on this subject, and he was now waiting to hear from them as to their suggestions.
    SIR JOHN KENNAWAY: They are now on their way.
    COLONEL SEELYsaid he was glad to hear it, and as soon as they were received they would be considered without delay.
    SIR GILBERT PARKERasked if the Government had considered the suggestion to appoint someone from this country to act as Chairman of the Committee?
    COLONEL SEELYsaid he would bring that suggestion to the notice of his noble friend, and ask him if he could see his way to follow it. With regard to Natal his hon. friend the Member for York had addressed the House at some length on this question, and he had begged of the Government not to interfere. They hid endeavoured not to interfere in Natal; for over seven months they had endeavoured to avoid any undue interference and he did not believe that any words which had been addressed to the House from that box could give offence to anyone in Natal. He had always endeavoured that that should be the case. With regard to Natal, the Home Government had endeavoured to avoid any undue interference. It was necessary for them to take the action they had taken. He was glad to have the approval of every Member of the House who had spoken on this subject. It augured well for the bringing of Colonial matters out of the scope of ordinary party politics. In this matter every hon. and right hon. Gentleman who had addressed the House had expressed himself in the main satisfied that His Majesty's Government had acted in this matter with every wish not to offend the Natal Government, and they desired that the promise of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham should be fulfilled. Points had been raised in regard to the Act of Indemnity by the hon. Member for Gravesend, the hon. Member for Leicester, the hon. Member for Huntingdon, and the hon. Member for Peterborough, and they had given a long and accurate account of the circumstances which had led up to the present situation. The omission of the word "rebellion" from the Act might be, in the view of the hon. Member for Peterborough, an indication that the
    state of affairs did not amount to rebellion. He submitted respectfully to the Committee that that made no difference whatever as to the policy of assenting to the Indemnity Act itself. It was a fact that the operation of martial law had not been attended with violent measures, and it was admitted that it had not been attended with much disturbance. If the Government were in any way to demur to assenting to the Act, the practical effect would be to the disadvantage of the natives. It was said that the Governor had an absolute right to proclaim martial law; but some things were possible which were not expedient. He wished to say a word or two about the Transvaal officials. It had been assumed in the course of the debate that although the figures were more or less conclusive that General Botha's Government had not unduly favoured the Dutch, there was an impression that those officials who had been retrenched had not been adequately compensated, and one hon. Member had said that they had received nothing. Altogether the retrenched officials, 345 in number, had received £87,000 from the Transvaal Government. That might not be enough to compensate them for the loss they had sustained, but at least any obligation undertaken by the Transvaal Government had been loyally fulfilled. He had no time to deal with Asiatic exclusion. It must be the subject of careful consideration, and the Government were most anxious to co-operate with the Colonies in finding a solution of the difficulty.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 92; Noes, 247. (Division List No. 228.)

    AYES.

    Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

    Ashley, W. W.

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Balcarres, Lord

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

    Duncan, Robt.(Lanark, Govan)

    Baring, Capt. Hn. G(Winchester

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Faber George Denison (York)

    Barnes, G. N.

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

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

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

    Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.

    Fell, Arthur

    Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Forster, Henry William

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Gardner, Ernest

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Snowden, P.

    Gill, A. H.

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Starkey, John R.

    Gordon, J.

    M'Arthur, Charles

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

    Guinness, Walter Edward

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Summerbell, T.

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Nicholson Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Nield, Herbert

    Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

    Valentia, Viscount

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Parker, Sir Gilbert(Gravesend)

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

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Warlde, George J.

    Hudson, Walter

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carm'rth'n

    Jenkins, J.

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

    Joynson-Hicks, William

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

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

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

    Keswick, William

    Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)

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

    Law, Andrew Bonar(Dulwich)

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Younger, George

    Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Rutherford, W. W.(Liverpool)

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

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Earl Winterton and Mr. Gretton.

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Seddon, J.

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

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

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

    Herbert, T. Arnold(Wycombe)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Cooper, G. J.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Agnew, George William

    Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

    Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Cotton, Sir; H. J. S.

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Cowan, H. W.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

    Crooks, William

    Hyde, Clarendon

    Astbury, John Meir

    Curran, Peter Francis

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Jackson, R. S.

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eikon)

    Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

    Beauchamp, E.

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Beck, A. Cecil

    Duckworth, James

    Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

    Bell, Richard

    Duffy, William J.

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Bellairs, Carlyon

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

    Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

    Erskine, David C.

    Kearley, Sir Hudson, E.

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

    Essex, R. W.

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Findlay, Alexander

    Lambert, George

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Lamont, Norman

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Bramsdon, T. A.

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

    Branch, James

    Gibb, James (Harrow)

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Brigg, John

    Glover, Thomas

    Levy, Sir Maurie

    Bright, J. A.

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Brodie, H. C.

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Brooke, Stopford

    Greenwood, Hamar (York)

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Brunner, Rt Hn Sir J.T(Cheshire

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

    Lynch, H. B.

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Gulland, John W.

    Maclean, Donald

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J

    Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

    Hall, Frederick

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Carr-Gomm, H.; W.

    Harcourt, Robert V.(Montrose)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Causton, Rt Hn. Richard Knight

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

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

    M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

    Chance, Frederick William

    Harvey, W.E. (Derbyshire, N. E

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

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston.

    Harwood, George

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Maddison, Frederick

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Mallet, Charles E.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Hazel, Dr. A. E.

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Cleland, J. W.

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Marnham, F. J.

    1334

    1335

    Massie, J.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Thomasson, Franklin

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Roberts, Sir John H.(Denbighs.)

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

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Robinson, S.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Torrance, Sir A. M.

    Mond, A.

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Toulmin, George

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Verney, F. W.

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Wadsworth, J.

    Morse, L. L.

    Rowlands, J.

    Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

    Myer, Horatio

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Walsh, Stephen

    Napier, T. B.

    Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

    Walters, John Tudor

    Nicholls, George

    Schwann, Sir C.E. (Manchester)

    Walton, Joseph

    Nolan, Joseph

    Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

    Waring, Walter

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Sears, J. E.

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Seaverns, J. H.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Seely, Colonel

    Waterlow, D. S.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

    Watt, Henry A

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    O'Connor, T, P.(Liverpool)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

    O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Whitehead, Rowland

    O'Malley, William

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

    Partington, Oswald

    Simon, John Allsebrook

    Whittaker, Rt Hn. Sir Thomas P

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

    Wiles, Thomas

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Pearce, William(Limehouse)

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    Pearson, Sir W.D. (Colchester)

    Spicer, Sir Albert

    Williamson, A.

    Pearson, W.H.M.(Suffolk, Eye)

    Stanger, H.Y.

    Wills, Arthur Walters

    Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

    Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh'e

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Pollard, Dr.

    Steadman, W. C.

    Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

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

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Winfrey, R.

    Radford, G. H.

    Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Rea, Russell, (Gloucester)

    Stuart, James (Sunderland)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

    Sutherland, J. E.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Richardson, A.

    Thomas, David Arthur (Merthyr

    Question put, and agreed to.

    And, it being after Ten of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, in pursuance of Standing Order No. 15, to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Vote under consideration.
    The CHAIRMAN The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put Severally the Questions, "That the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in each Class of the Civil Services Estimates, including Supplementary Estimates, and the total amount of the Votes outstanding in the Estimates for the Navy, the Army (including Ordnance Factories), and the Revenue Departments, be granted for the Services defined in those Classes and Estimates—

    CLASS I.
    2. "That a sum, not exceeding £608,168, be granted to His Majesty, to
    1336
    defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1909, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class I. of the Estimates for Civil Services, viz.—

    £

    1.

    Royal Palaces

    42,500

    2.

    Osborne

    7,300

    3.

    Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens

    79,900

    4.

    Houses of Parliament Buildings (including a Supplementary Sum of £5,000)

    37,000

    4A.

    Salisbury Memorial

    1,100

    5.

    Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain

    48,000

    6.

    Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain

    55,000

    10.

    Surveys of the United Kingdom

    116,815

    11.

    Harbours under the Board of Trade

    32,840

    12.

    Peterhead Harbour

    22,000

    £

    14.

    Public Works and Buildings, Ireland

    134,259

    15.

    Railways, Ireland

    31,454

    £608,168"

    Class II.
    3. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,145,045, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1909, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class II. of the Estimates for Civil Services, viz.—

    £

    1.

    House of Lords Offices

    15,956

    2.

    House of Commons Offices

    19,900

    3.

    Treasury and Subordinate Offices

    62,917

    4.

    Home Office

    139,967

    7.

    Privy Council Office

    6,217

    8.

    Board of Trade

    213,169

    9.

    Mercantile Marine Services

    80,347

    10.

    Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade

    5

    11.

    Board of Agriculture and Fisheries

    83,124

    12.

    Charity Commission

    15,308

    14.

    Exchequer and Audit Department

    39,900

    15.

    Friendly Societies Registry

    5,819

    16.

    Local Government Board

    156,500

    17.

    Lunacy Commission, England

    11,384

    £

    20.

    Public Record Office

    14,820

    21.

    Public Works Loan Commission

    2,507

    22.

    Registrar-General's Office, England

    26,825

    24.

    Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, &c., Office

    13,613

    25.

    Works and Public Buildings Office

    53,693

    26.

    Secret Service

    10,000

    Scotland.

    27.

    Secretary for Scotland's Office

    11,600

    28.

    Fishery Board

    14,998

    29.

    Lunacy Commission

    3,901

    30.

    Registrar-General's Office

    3,063

    31.

    Local Government Board

    11,592

    Ireland.

    32.

    Household of Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland

    2,627

    33.

    Chief Secretary for Ireland

    18,101

    35.

    Charitable Donations and Bequests Office

    1,053

    36.

    Local Government Board

    52,616

    37.

    Public Record Office

    3,625

    38.

    Public Works Office

    27,413

    39.

    Registrar-General's Office

    7,338

    40.

    Valuation and Boundary Survey

    15,147

    £ 1,145,045"

    Question put.
    The Committee divided; Ayes, 282, Noes, 81. (Division List No. 229.)

    AYES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

    Beauchamp, E.

    Brigg, John

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Beck, A. Cecil

    Bright, J. A.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Bell, Richard

    Brodie, H. C.

    Adkins, W. Ryland D.

    Bellairs, Carlyon

    Brooke, Stopford

    Agnew, George William

    Benn. Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

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

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

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

    Brunner, Rt Hn Sir J.T(Cheshire

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Bethel, Sir J H.(Essex, Romf'rd

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Astbury, John Meir

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Byles, William Pollard

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Bramsdon, T. A.

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Barnes, G. N.

    Branch, James

    Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Jackson, R. S.

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

    Chance, Frederick William

    Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

    Radford, G. H.

    Charming, Sir Francis Allston

    Jenkins, J.

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

    Cleland, J. W.

    Jones; Leif (Appleby)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

    Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Kekewich, Sir George

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

    Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Richardson, A.

    Cooper, G. J.

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

    Lambert, George

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Lamont, Norman

    Roberts, Sir John H.(Denbighs.)

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Robinson, S.

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Cowan, W. H.

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Crooks, William

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Curran, Peter Francis

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Rogers, F. K. Newman

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Rowlands, J.

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Lundon, W.

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

    Dilke, Rt. Hon Sir Charles

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Schwann, Sir C.E.(Manchester)

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Lynch, H. B.

    Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

    Duckworth, James

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Sears, J. E.

    Duffy, William J.

    Maclean, Donald

    Seaverns, J. H.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Seddon, J.

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Seely, Colonel

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S)

    Shackleton, David James

    Erskine, David C.

    M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Shaw, Charles Edw.(Stafford)

    Essex, R. W.

    M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

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

    Evans, Sir Samuel T.

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

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Everett, R. Lacey

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    Maddison, Frederick

    Simon, John Allsebrook

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

    Mallet, Charles E.

    Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

    Findlay, Alexander

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

    Snowden, P.

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Marnham, F. J.

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

    Spicer, Sir Albert

    Gibb, James (Harrow)

    Massie, J.

    Stanger, H. Y.

    Gill, A. H.

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

    Glover, Thomas

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Steadman, W. C.

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    Mond, A.

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    Greenwood, Hamar (York)

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

    Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

    Morse, L. L.

    Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

    Gulland, John W.

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Stuart, James (Sunderland)

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    Myer, Horatio

    Summerbell, T.

    Hall, Frederick

    Napier, T. B.

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Harcourt, Robert V.(Montrose)

    Nicholls, George

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

    Nolan, Joseph

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Harmsworth, R L.(Caithn'ss-sh

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

    Harvey, W.E.(Derbyshire, N.E.

    Nuttall, Harry

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Harwood, George

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

    Haslum, James (Derbyshire)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Thomasson, Franklin

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

    Hazel, Dr. A. E.

    O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

    Thorne, G. K. (Wolverhampton

    Helme, Norval Watson

    O'Malley, William

    Tomkinson, James

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Torrance, Sir A. M.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Partington, Oswald

    Toulmin, George

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

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Verney, F. W.

    Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Wadsworth, J.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

    Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

    Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

    Walsh, Stephen

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Pearson, W.H.M. (Suffolk, Eye)

    Walters, John Tudor

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

    Walton, Joseph

    Hope, Bateman (Somerset, N

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Wardle, George J.

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Waring, Walter

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Pollard, Dr.

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T,

    Hudson, Walter

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Hyde, Clarendon

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Idris, T. H. W.

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

    Watt, Henry A.

    1340

    1341

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Weir, James Galloway

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    Winfrey, R.

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Williamson, A.

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

    Wills, Arthur Walters

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Whitehead, Rowland

    Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

    Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

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

    TELLERS FOE THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.

    Whittaker, Rt. Hn Sir Thomas P.

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

    Wilkie, Alexander

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

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

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

    NOES.

    Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F.

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Gordon, J.

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Ashley, W. W.

    Gretton, John

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Guinness, Walter Edward

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

    Baring, Capt. Hn. G(Winchester)

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

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

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

    Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Starkey, John R.

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

    Keswick, William

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A.R.

    Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Valentia, Viscount

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

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

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

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

    Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Craik, Sir Henry

    M'Arthur, Charles

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

    Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Winterton, Earl

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Younger, George

    Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

    Morpeth, Viscount

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

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. George Faber and Sir Frederick Banbury.

    Fell, Arthur

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Nield, Herbert

    Forster, Henry William

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

    Gardner, Ernest

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Class III.
    4. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,685,768, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1909, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class III. of the Estimates for Civil Services, viz.—

    £

    1.

    Law Charges

    54,190

    2.

    Miscellaneous Legal Expenses

    22,564

    3.

    Supreme Court of Judicature

    189,867

    4.

    Land Registry

    21,750

    5.

    Public Trustee

    1,500

    6.

    County Courts

    3

    7.

    Police, England and Wales

    24,858

    Scotland.

    11.

    Law Charges and Courts of Law

    51,316

    £

    12.

    Register House, Edinburgh

    26,966

    13.

    Crofters' Commission

    2,345

    14.

    Prisons

    60,790

    Ireland.

    15.

    Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions

    38,078

    16.

    Supreme Court of Judicature and other Legal Departments

    60,446

    17.

    Irish Land Commission

    160,978

    18.

    County Court Officers, &c.

    70,475

    19.

    Dublin Metropolitan Police

    36,632

    20.

    Royal Irish Constabulary

    739,902

    21.

    Prisons

    64,661

    22.

    Reformatory and Industrial Schools

    55,225

    23.

    Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum

    3,222

    £1,685,768"

    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 299; Noes, 86. (Division List No. 230.)

    AYES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

    Duckworth, James

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Duffy, William J.

    Lambert, George

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

    Lamont, Norman

    Adkins, W. Ryland D.

    Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

    Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

    Agnew, George William

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    Lever, A. Levy(Essex, Harwich)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Erskine, David C.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Essex, R. W.

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Lupton, Arnold

    Astbury, John Meir

    Ferens, T. R.

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

    Lynch, H. B.

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Findlay, Alexander

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Barnes, G. N.

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Beauchamp, E.

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Maclean, Donald

    Beck, A. Cecil

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Bell, Richard

    Gibb, James (Harrow)

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Bellairs, Carlyon

    Gill, A. H.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down, S.)

    Benn, Sir J. Williams(Devonp'rt

    Gladstone, Rt Hn, Herbert John

    K'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

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

    Glover, Thomas

    M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

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

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Greenwood G. (Peterborough)

    Maddison, Frederick

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Greenwood, Hamar (York)

    Mallet, Charles E.

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Manfield, Harry (Northants)

    Bramsdon, T. A.

    Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Branch, James

    Gulland, John W.

    Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

    Brigg, John

    Haldane, Rt. Hon Richard B.

    Marnham, F J.

    Bright, J. A.

    Hall, Frederick

    Mason, A.E.W. (Coventry)

    Brodie, H. C.

    Harcourt, Robert V.(Montrose)

    Massie, J.

    Brooke, Stopford

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Masterman, C. F. G.

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

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Brunner, Rt. Hn Sir J. T(Cheshire

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

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Mond, A.

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Harwood, George

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Burns, Rt. Hon John

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)

    Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Morse, L. L.

    Byles, William Pollard

    Hazel, Dr. A. E.

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Myer, Horatio

    Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Napier, T. B.

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Nicholls, George

    Chance, Frederick William

    Henderson J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Nicholson, Charles N (Doncast'r

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Higham, John Sharp

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

    Nuttall, Harry

    Cleland, J. W.

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Holt, Richard Durning

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Collins, Sir Wm. J.(S. Pancras, W

    Horniman, Emslie John

    O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

    Compton-Rickett, Sir J,

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    O'Grady, J.

    Cooper, G. J.

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Malley, William

    Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

    Hyde, Clarendon

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Partington, Oswald

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Jackson, R. S.

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Cowan, W. H.

    Jenkins, J.

    Pearce, Willliam (Limehouse)

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

    Crooks, William

    Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

    Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

    Crosfield, A. H.

    Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

    Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

    Curran, Peter Francis

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Kearley, Sir Hudson, E.

    Pollard, Dr.

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

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

    Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

    Ward, W. Dudley (S'thampton)

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

    Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

    Wardle, George J.

    Radford, G. H.

    Snowden, P.

    Waring, Walter

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

    Spicer, Sir Albert

    Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

    Rea, Walter Russell, (Scarboro'

    Stanger, H. Y.

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Stanley, Albert(Staffs, N. W.)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Richards, Thomas(W. Monm'th

    Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

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

    Steadman, W. C.

    Weir, James Galloway

    Richardson, A.

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Whitehead, Rowland

    Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs.

    Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

    Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

    Robinson, S.

    Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

    Whittaker, Rt Hn. Sir Thomas P.

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Stuart, James(Sunderland)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Summerbell, T.

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carm'rth'n

    Rowlands, J.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Williamson, A.

    Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

    Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

    Wills, Arthur Walters

    Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

    Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

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

    Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

    Thomasson, Franklin

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

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

    Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

    Sears, J. E.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

    Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.

    Seaverns, J. H.

    Tomkinson, James

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

    Seddon, J.

    Torrance, Sir A. M.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Seely, Colonel

    Toulmin, George

    Winfrey, R.

    Shackleton, David James

    Verney, F. W.

    Wodehouse, Lord

    Shaw, Charles Edw.(Stafford)

    Wadsworth, J.

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

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

    Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Walsh, Stephen

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Walters, John Tudor

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Walton, Joseph

    Simon, John Allsebrook

    Ward, John(Stoke upon Trent)

    NOES.

    Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F.

    Fell, Arthur

    Nield, Herbert

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Forster, Henry William

    Parker, Sir Gilbert(Gravesend)

    Ashley, W. W.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gordon, J.

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

    Banner, John S, Harmood-

    Gretton, John

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Baring, Capt. Hn. G (Winchester

    Guinness, Walter Edward

    Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

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

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Starkey, John R.

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

    Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Keswick, William

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Cave, George

    Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt. -Col. A. R.

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

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

    Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

    Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

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

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

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Winterton, Earl

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

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

    Craik, Sir Henry

    McArthur, Charles

    Younger, George

    Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Samuel Roberts and Sir William Bull.

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Duncan, Robert(Lanark, Govan

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

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

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

    Class IV.
    5. "That a sum, not exceeding £8,217,512, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1909, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IV. of the Estimates for Civil Services, viz.—

    £

    1.

    Board of Education

    6,594,150

    2.

    British Museum

    115,137

    3.

    National Gallery

    7,414

    4.

    National Portrait Gallery

    2,621

    5.

    Wallace Collection

    4,173

    6.

    Scientific Investigation, &c, United Kingdom

    28,295

    7.

    Universities and Colleges, Great Britain, and Intermediate Education, Wales

    146,800

    £

    8.

    Public Education, Scotland

    1,198,557

    9.

    National Galleries, Scotland

    2,497

    Ireland.

    10.

    Public Education (Supplementary)

    114,000

    11.

    Endowed Schools Commissioners

    515

    12.

    National Gallery

    1,153

    13.

    Queen's Colleges

    2,200

    £8,217,512"

    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 261; Noes, 129. (Division List No. 231.)

    AYES.

    Abraham, William(Cork, N.E.)

    Causton Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Chance, Frederick William

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    Adkins, W. Ryland D.

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    Agnew, George William

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Greenwood, Hamar (York)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Cleland, J. W.

    Gulland, John W.

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    Astbury, John Meir

    Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W

    Hall, Frederick

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Cooper, G. J.

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight)

    Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

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

    Beauchamp, E.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Harvey, W. E.(Derbyshire, N.E.

    Beck, A. Cecil

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Harwood, George

    Bell, Richard

    Cowan, W. H.

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Bellairs, Carlyon

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Hazel, Dr. A. E.

    Benn, Sir J. Williams-Devonp'rt

    Crosfield, A. H.

    Helme, Norval Waltson

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Dalziel, James Henry

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

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

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

    Higham, John Sharp

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

    Bramsdon, T. A.

    Duckworth, James

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Branch, James.

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Brigg, John

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Hope W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

    Bright, J. A.

    Erskine, David C.

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Brodie, H. C.

    Essex, R. W.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Brooks, Stopford

    Evans, Sir Samuel T.

    Hyde, Clarendon

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

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Jackson, R. S.

    Brunner, Rt. Hn Sir J. T.(Cheshire

    Ferens, T. R.

    Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

    Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Findlay, Alexander

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

    Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

    Byles, William Pollard

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Gibb, James (Harrow)

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

    Lambert, George

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Stuart, James (Sunderland)

    Lamont, Norman

    Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Pearson, W.H.M. (Suffolk, Eye)

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

    Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Pollard, Dr.

    Thomasson, Franklin

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

    Lupton, Arnold

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

    Tomkinson, James

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

    Torrance, Sir A. M.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

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

    Toulmin, George

    Lynch, H. B.

    Radford, G. H.

    Verney, F. W.

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Wadsworth, J.

    Maclean, Donald

    Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

    Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

    Walters, John Tudor

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Walton, Joseph

    M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent

    M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

    Roberts, Sir John H.(Denbighs.

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n

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

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Waring, Walter

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Maddison, Frederick

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Mallet, Charles E.

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Manfield, Harry (Northants)

    Rowlands, J.

    Watt, Henry A.

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

    Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

    Weir, James Galloway

    Marnham, F. J.

    Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

    Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

    White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

    Massie, J.

    Schwann, Sir C.E.(Manchester)

    Whitehead, Rowland

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

    Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Sears, J. E.

    Whittaker, Rt. Hn Sir Thomas P

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Seaverns, J. H.

    Wiles, Thomas

    Mond, A.

    Seely, Colonel

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

    Williamson, A.

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

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

    Wills, Arthur Walters

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

    Morse, L. L.

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

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

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Myer, Horatio

    Simon, John Allsebrook

    Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

    Napier, T. B.

    Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

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

    Nicholls, George

    Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

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

    Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r

    Snowden, P.

    Winfrey, R.

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Wodehouse, Lord

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Spicer, Sir Albert

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Nuttall, Harry

    Stanger, H. Y.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

    O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    O'Malley, William

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Partington, Oswald

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    NOES.

    Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn Sir Alex, F

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

    Duffy, William J.

    Ashley, W. W.

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

    Balcarres, Lord

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Cave, George

    Edwards, Clement-Denbigh)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

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

    Baring, Capt. Hn. G (Winchester

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.

    Fell, Arthur

    Barnes, G. N.

    Coates, Major E.F. (Lewisham)

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

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

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

    Forster, Henry William

    Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Gardner, Ernest

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Crooks, William

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Curran, Peter Francis

    Gill, A. H.

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Glover, Thomas

    Bull, Sir William James

    Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

    Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

    1350

    1351

    Gordon, J.

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Steadman, W. C.

    Gretton, John

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Summerbell, T.

    Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Guinness, Walter Edward

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Nield, Herbert

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

    O'Grady, J.

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Walsh, Stephen

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

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

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Wardle, George J.

    Hudson, Walter

    Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Idris, T. H. W.

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

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Jenkins, J.

    Richardson, A.

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Keswick, William

    Robinson, S.

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

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Winterton, Earl

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

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

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

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Younger, George

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Seddon, J.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Shackleton, David James

    Mr. Leverton Harris and Mr. Bertram Straus.

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

    M Arthur, Charles

    Starkey, John R.

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Class V.
    6. "That a sum, not exceeding £366,236, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1909, for expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class V. of the Estimates for Civil Services, viz.—

    £

    1.

    Diplomatic and Consular Services

    323,103

    3.

    Telegraph Subsidies and Pacific Cable

    42,133

    4.

    Cyprus (Grant in Aid)

    1,000

    £366,236"

    Class VI.
    7. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,684,845, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1909, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VI. of the Estimates for Civil Services, viz.—

    £

    1.

    Superannuation and Retired Allowances

    375,022

    £

    3.

    Hospitals and Charities, Ireland

    110

    4.

    Savings Banks' and Friendly Societies' Deficiencies

    109,713

    5.

    Old-Age Pensions

    1,200,000

    £1,684,845"

    Class VII.
    8 "That a sum, not exceeding £382,104, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1909, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VII. of the Estimates for Civil Services, viz.—

    £

    1.

    Temporary Commissions

    25,000

    2.

    Miscellaneous Expenses

    7,867

    3.

    Repayments to the Local Loans Fund

    4,404

    4.

    Ireland Development Grant

    85,342

    5.

    Repayments to the Civil Contingencies Fund

    41,491

    6.

    Expenses under The Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905

    200,000

    1353

    £

    7.

    Relief of Distress (Ireland)

    13,000

    8.

    Government Hospitality

    5,000

    £382,104"

    Navy Estimates, 1908–9.
    9. "That a sum, not exceeding £5,562,700, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1909, for Expenditure in respect of the Navy Services, viz.—

    £

    2.

    Victualling and Clothing for the Navy

    2,286,400

    4.

    Martial Law

    13,900

    6.

    Scientific Services

    66,000

    7.

    Royal Naval Reserves

    368,300

    9.

    Naval Armaments

    2,048,700

    11.

    Miscellaneous Effective Services

    409,200

    12.

    Admiralty Office

    370,200

    £5,562,700"

    Army Estimates, 1908–9.
    10. "That a sum, not exceeding £13,505,100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1909, for Expenditure in respect of the Army Services, including Army (Ordnance Factories), viz.—

    £

    2.

    Medical Establishment, Pay, etc.

    451,000

    4.

    Territorial Forces

    2,005,000

    5.

    Establishments for Military Education

    142,000

    6.

    Quartering, Transport, and Remounts

    1,839,000

    7.

    Supplies and Clothing

    3,912,000

    8.

    Ordnance Department Establishments and General Stores

    498,000

    9.

    Armaments and Engineer Stores

    1,490,000

    1354

    £

    10.

    Works and Buildings

    2,515,000

    11.

    Miscellaneous Effective Services

    73,000

    12.

    War Office and Army Accounts Department

    580,000

    Ordnance Factories

    100

    £13,505,100"

    Revenue Departments Estimates, 1908–9.
    11. "That a sum, not exceeding £11,821,531, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1909, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Post Office, including Telegraphs, and Telephones."
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

    WAYS AND MEANS.
    Resolved, "That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1909, the sum of £69,157,274, be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.—(Mr. Joseph Pease.)
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

    EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL [LORDS].
    As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
    PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
    As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.
    AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL [LORDS].
    As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.

SMALL HOLDINGS AND ALLOTMENTS BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clauses 1 to 29 agreed to.
Clause 30:
THE TREASURER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Sir EDWARD STEACHEY, Somersetshire, S.)moved a verbal Amendment providing that the reference in Clause 30 should be, not to the Acts of "1883 to 1906," but to the "Act of 1908." This Amendment was made necessary in consequence of the Consolidating Bill which had just been read a third time.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 20, line 7, to leave out the words 'Acts of 1883 and 1906,' and to insert the words 'Act of 1908.'"—(Sir Edward Strachey.)
EARL WINTERTONthought the Committee were entitled to some further explanation of this Amendment.
SIR EDWARD STRACHEYmade some further remarks which were inaudible in the Press Gallery.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid he could not quite understand the explanation which had been given. [An HON. MEMBER: Tell us what it was.] He under-stood that the hon. Member told them this Amendment was necessary in consequence of the passing of the Consolidating Bill which had only just passed through the Report stage. The House ought clearly to know whether they were entitled to include a Bill which had not actually passed this House or at any rate which had not yet received the assent of the Crown. He had for a long time been a careful student of Parliamentary procedure and he did not remember anything of this kind having been done before. It might be necessary to do this when they were approaching the end of the session, and when they were anxious to get the business through. The reason given by the hon. Member for taking this course had no solid foundation, and he believed that this was the first time such a proposition had ever been
1356
made to the House of Commons. Until they had the authority of the Law Officer of the Crown upon the point he had raised he did not think they ought to pass this Amendment.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON, South Shields)said they were dealing here with a simple question of drafting. In the first part of the Bill now under discussion there was a reference to the Agricultural Holdings (England) Acts for 1883 and 1906. They had now passed a stage of the Consolidating Bill which made it unnecessary to refer to all the previous Agricultural Holdings Acts, and, therefore, it was much more convenient that the one Act of 1908 should take the place of the preceding Acts, They were now proposing to strike out the old reference which had now become inaccurate and to put in the new reference. That was all the Committee were being asked to do. Both these Acts would become law together, and no difficulty was likely to arise from making the reference more convenient.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid the hon. and learned Member had given them a very lucid explanation of the object of this Amendment, but he had made one mistake. It had always been held that they could not move an Amendment which would make nonsense of a Bill. The words which it was proposed to insert were "Act of 1908." Now as a matter of fact there was no Act of 1908, and, therefore, they could not insert it. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that the Bills were going up together, and that probably they would, receive the Royal Assent. The hon. and learned Gentleman could not tell whether the Crown would give the Royal Assent or not. Supposing that the Royal Assent was given in one case and not in the other, this Bill would be nonsense. In that case the words in regard to the Act of 1908 would be meaningless, because there would be no Act of 1908. It was really only a question of form. He was sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree with him that they ought to do things in proper and orderly form. Nobody objected to these Bills passing. If they were objected to,

1357
they would be discussed. It should not be assumed that the Crown would give its assent, and, therefore, the Amendment was out of order and could not be put.
*THE CHAIRMAN: On the point of order I think the hon. Baronet is not quite correct. There are precedents for this kind of thing. I do not see how what the hon. Baronet wants can be achieved except by the method proposed or by the putting off of the Bill. That however is not a question for me. The Amendment is not out of order.
THE PRIME MINISTER And FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. Asquith,)congratulated the hon. Baronet on having made a good point. Technically, the Consolidating Bill, which had received a Third Reading, was not an Act of Parliament until it had received the Royal Assent, but it was put down first in order that it might receive the Royal Assent a moment before this Bill. When this Bill received the Royal Assent the previous Bill would be "the Act of 1908." In these circumstances he put it to the hon. Baronet whether it was worth while pressing his point. If it were pressed he would be obliged to move to report progress on the Bill, and the passing of a useful measure would have to be postponed for two or three months, when it was desirable to have the two Consolidating Bills on the Statute-book at the same time.
MR. WALTER LONGthanked the Prime Minister for the fullness of his reply and the clearness with which he had dealt with the technical point raised. He ventured to say that it was rather more than a technical point which they were now discussing. The Prime Minister had appealed to them not to press the point on the ground that it was very desirable that these two Consolidating Acts should be passed into law. He entirely accepted the statement on the part of the right hon. Gentleman that
1358
they should be passed in order to consolidate a number of measures affecting one of the greatest industries in the country. But the Prime Minister knew better than anybody—certainly as well as anybody in the House—the danger of creating a bad precedent in regard to the business of the House. They were all in favour of the passing of this Consolidating Bill, and they had no objection whatever to the insertion of Amendments in order that the Statute should be intelligible after passing into law, but the Prime Minister had admitted—and he thought note should be taken of that admission—that this procedure was exceptional. When the learned Attorney-General dealt with the case a few moments ago he began by asking whether the objection which he had raised was a serious one. Having stated that it could easily be disposed of, the hon. and learned Gentleman showed the force of his own conviction by evading altogether the point raised. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not deal with the difficulty at all. He appealed to the Attorney-General, as the highest authority on constitutional law in the House, to state whether there was any precedent for the House, when dealing with that which was only a Bill, calling that Bill an Act of Parliament. While the hon. and learned Gentleman said he had no doubt there were many precedents, he did not cite one. He doubted whether the hon. and learned Gentleman was able to do so.
SIR W. ROBSONsaid the right hon. Gentleman had invited him to give a specific precedent. There was one exactly to the point. [The Attorney-General gave the name of a Bill, but it was inaudible in the Press Gallery.]
MR. WALTER LONG: Was that an Act passed by the present Government?
SIR W. ROBSON: Yes.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid the only precedent was one created by the present Government. The fact remained that the Prime Minister had admitted that if the point was pressed, the only course he could adopt would be to move to report progress and leave the fulfilment of this scheme of legislation to another period. That was a course which he had no desire to press on the Prime Minister, and he was sure that his hon. friends did not desire to press it. They had justified the raising of the question. As an old Member of the House, and one who was more jealous of its traditions than some who had not been so long in the House, he still believed that this was a matter of first rate importance. The Prime Minister had not only dealt fully with the case, but had frankly offered to postpone the Bill, and in the circumstances, he had no desire to press the point. The right hon. Gentleman had met him and his friends in a perfectly fair and courteous spirit, and they were willing to meet him halfway by withdrawing their opposition.
MR. ASQUITHsaid that this was a situation which could only occur when two Consolidating Bills were being passed side by side. Obviously it was not in the interest of the public generally, and still less in the interest of agriculture, that one should be passed into law and the other not. It was on that ground alone that he asked the House to accept the advice given by the right hon. Gentleman opposite and not to press the point which had been raised.
MR. RAWLINSONsaid he would point out that this Bill as it stood now did not come into operation until 1st January next year. This certainly ought not to become a precedent, and it was obviously a matter on which, if the other House did it, many Members would make it a subject of complaint. [An HON. MEMBER on the Ministerial Benches:
1360
Why do not you divide? Further, he asserted that the necessity the Prime Minister referred to would bring out many other inconveniences. For instance, here were two Bills which they were passing that night. In the first there was a definition of a provision about Small holdings referred to in the Small Holdings and Allotments Act of 1907. This Bill repealed that Act altogether, so that they were introducing quite the worst form of legislation—legislation not by reference, but by anticipation. This must lead to complexity and difficulty on the part of many people. He did not wish to go back on anything said from the front bench, but it was a bad precedent, was constitutionally wrong, and would cause inconvenience.
MR. ASQUITHsaid he would, point out most respectfully to the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Government would not have taken this course except in the case of two parallel Bills. His hon. and learned friend and he both belonged to a profession in which they knew many people who brought out text-books to inform the public what was the state of the law, and it was very desirable that they should have the whole subject before them so that they might occupy their time in the Vacation.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid that during the speech of his hon. and learned friend the Member for Cambridge University an hon. Member opposite said: "Why don't you divide against the Bill?" He only rose on account of that interruption. They on that side of the House had accepted the very courteous assurance of the Prime Minister that he did not regard this us a precedent and that he would like the House to allow it to pass now. He always thought that if they on that side of the House were met in a considerate way, they waived a point. The Prime Minister had acknowledged

1361
that this was not a good form of procedure, and that he did not wish to make a precedent of it; and on that understanding the Party on that side of the House did not divide. He would point out that there would be no necessity to divide because the Prime Minister had assured the House that without a division, if they chose to press the point, he would accept it.
Amendment—
Clause as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 31 to 46 inclusive, agreed to.
Clause 47:
Amendments proposed—
"In page 30, line 6, to leave out the words 'three of the Market Gardeners' Compensation Act, 1895,' and to insert the words 'forty-two of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908.'"
"In page 30, lines 19 and 20, to leave out the words '(England) Acts, 1883 to 1906,' and to insert the words 'Act, 1908.'"
"In page 30, lines 24 and 25, to leave out the words 'three of the Market Gardeners' Compensation Act, 1895,' and to insert the words 'forty-two of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908.'"
"In page 30, line 28, to leave out the word '1900,'and to insert the word '1908.'"
"In page 30, line 38, to leave out the words '(England) Acts, 1883 to 1906,' and to insert the words' Act, 1908.'"—(Sir Edward Strachey.)
Amendments agreed to.
Clauses 48 to 54 inclusive, agreed to.
Clause 55:
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out Cause 55."—(Sir Edward Strachey.)
Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 56, 57, and 58, agreed to.
Clause 59:
Amendment proposed—
"In page 37, line 25, to leave out the words '(England) Acts, 1883 to 1906.' and to insert the words' Act, 1908.'"—(Sir Edward Strachey.)
Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 59 to 64 agreed to.
Schedule:
Amendments proposed—
"In page 42, line 22, to leave out the words '(England) Acts, 1883 to 1906,' and to insert the words 'Act, 1908.'"
"In page 42, line 23, to leave out the words 'those Acts,' and to insert the words 'that Act.'"
"In page 42, lines 24 and 25, to leave out the words 'those Acts, and to insert the words 'that Act.'"—(Sir Edward Strachey.)
Amendments agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, reported, and to be considered To-morrow.

ENDOWED SCHOOLS (MASTERS) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. RAWLINSONsaid he did not oppose the Second Reading of this Bill altogether. He merely desired to draw attention to the provision relating to the time of dismissal of a master as being contrary to the ordinary practice of the common law and as being liable to lead to considerable inconvenience. He also desired to draw attention to Clause 2, which contained a peculiar provision stating that nothing in the Act should prejudice the operation or enforcement of any judgment pronounced or made before 1st April, 1908. Why had that date been chosen for the beginning of the Act? He suggested that it should be altered to the day of the passing of the Act.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. RUNCIMAN,)said that he agreed with the points which had been put I by the hon. Member; but the Bill had been the result of agreement between the assistant and head masters' associations and others interested in endowed schools. The words mentioned

1363
were pressed for by the assistant schoolmasters, and the date mentioned was about the period when an agreement was fixed. He hoped the hon. Member would not press his objection. An agreement had been arrived at after long and intricate negotiations, and he would be vary sorry if it was disturbed.
MR. CAVEsaid the effect of the Bill was to alter the rights of parties, and it might be that somebody had brought an action on the basis of the existing law and had not got judgment. If that had been the case, he did not think the other party to the action should be prejudiced by legislation. The two associations were no doubt representative bodies; but they did not represent every member of the profession, and they ought to consider everybody when altering an Act of Parliament. He ventured to think that Clause 2 required careful consideration and possibly radical alteration. The Bill ought not to prejudice any judgment pronounced before it was passed, nor ought it to prejudice the rights of any parties who had already commenced proceedings.
MR. RUNCIMANthought he could reassure the hon. Gentleman. There had been no case in recent years under the existing law except that of the Marquess of Zetland.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONhoped the Bill would be allowed to pass before the adjournment. It was the result of the settlement of a long-standing difficulty arising out of the power of a new head master to dismiss without notice upon his appointment the whole of tin staff of a school. If the Bill was not passed, the trouble would be accentuated.
LORD R. CECILhoped the right hon. Gentleman would give careful consideration to the second clause. If the Bill was not
1364
designed to take away the rights of somebody who had already commenced an action at law, why was it not in the ordinary form? Such a clause, if it got into an Act of Parliament, was apt to become a precedent, and might be inserted in another Act where there was no excuse for it. It was not desirable to have this kind of clause unless there was some over-mastering reason.

NAVY AND ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1906–7.
Resolutions reported.
I.—Whereas it appears by the Navy Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1907, 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 are as follows, viz.:—

£

s.

d.

Total Surpluses

1,041,698

8

7

Total Deficits

644,285

12

7

Net Surplus

£397,412

16

0

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. "That the application pf such sums be sanctioned,"

Schedule.

Number of Vote.

Navy Services, 1906–07. Votes.

Differences between Exchequer Grants and Net Expenditure.

Surpluses.

Deficits.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

1

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

—

254,136

17

1

2

Victualling and Clothing for the Navy

187,206

2

8

—

3

Medical Establishments & Services

22,225

13

8

—

4

Martial Law

1,842

18

0

—

5

Educational Services

9,894

19

7

—

6

Scientific Services

2,771

14

8

—

7

Royal Naval Reserves

80,309

1

6

—

8

Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &c.:

I. Personnel

—

82,848

1

11

II. Matériel

—

264,933

12

10

III. Contract Work

199,886

1

10

—

9

Naval Armaments

260,541

17

5

—

10

Works, Buildings, and Repairs, at Home and Abroad

194,528

0

11

—

11

Miscellaneous Effective Services-

78,025

9

9

—

12

Admiralty Office

4,466

8

7

—

13

Half Pay, Reserved and Retired Pay

—

20,078

19

7

14

Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, and Compassionate Allowances

—

19,838

9

4

15

Civil Pensions and Gratuities

—

895

11

4

—

Amount written off as irrecoverable

—

1,554

0

6

Total

1,041,698

8

7

644,285

12

7

Net Surplus

£397,412 16 0

II.—Whereas it appears by the Army Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1907, 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

1,336,708

4

1

Total Deficits

42,029

13

4

Net Surplus

1,294,678

10

9

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. "That the application of such sums be sanctioned."

Schedule.

Number of Vote.

Army Services, 1906–7. Votes.

Differences between Exchequer Grants and Net Expenditure.

Surpluses.

Deficits.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

1

Pay, &c, of Array

358,433

12

9

—

2

Medical Establishment: Pay, &c.

44,876

13

4

—

3

Militia: Pay, Bounty, &c.

41,127

7

2

—

4

Imperial Yeomanry: Pay and Allowances

16,943

14

7

—

5

Volunteer Corps: Pay and Allowances

30,198

4

1

—

6

Quarterings, Transport, and Remounts

107,764

3

7

—

7

Supplies and Clothing

105,665

13

2

—

8

Ordnance Department Establishments and General Stores

128,775

0

10

—

9

Armaments and Engineer Stores

366,429

11

4

—

10

Works and Buildings

87,310

0

6

—

11

Establishments for Military Education

—

2,323

6

8

12

Miscellaneous Effective Services

24,390

16

4

—

13

War Office and Army Accounts Department

4,229

10

11

—

14

Non-effective Charges for Officers, &c.

20,563

15

6

—

15

Non-effective Charges for Men, &c.

—

32,744

16

2

16

Civil Superannuation, Compensation, Compassionate Allowances, and Gratuities

—

2,855

2

7

—

Balances irrecoverable

—

4,106

7

11

Total

1,336,708

4

1

42,029

13

4

Net Surplus

£1,294,678 10 9

CRAN MEASURES BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
LORD R. CECILsaid the clause was very strangely drafted. It seemed extraordinary that it should be necessary to enact that four times a quarter cran measure was equal to a cran measure.
SIR EDWARD STRACHEYsaid they were following the precedent of the Scottish Bill, and the Government draftsman had no doubt been very
1368
wise in doing so, in order to make it perfectly clear what was meant. The whole object of the Bill was to give the local authority power, if they thought fit, to adopt the cran measure and to allow the fisherman to use his cran and quarter cran measure.
Bill reported, without Amendment; Bill read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Whereupon Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the Order of the House of 10th July, adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at nineteen minutes before Twelve o'clock.