Commons Sitting of 27 July 1909

Preamble
Mr. SPEAKER took the chair at a quarter before Three of the clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into not complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the first reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have not been complied with, viz.:—
Glasgow Corporation Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
Torquay and Paignton Tramways Bill [Lords],—read a second time, and committed.
Dunoon Burgh Bill [Lords] (by Order),— read a second time, and committed.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill,—read the third time, and passed.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill,
Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Administrator-General in Bengal (Will of Mr. Knox Johnson).
  Captain FABERasked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he would state whether the Administrator-General in Bengal can use his discretion in dealing with property which he may sell or keep as he thinks best, setting wills aside; whether he is at liberty to spend or retain money belonging to estates, and is not accountable for the same; whether his attention has been called to the will of
  994
  Mr. Knox Johnson, principal of Queen's College, Jubbulpore, of which will probate was granted, who died 19th June, 1906, and to whose widow no communication was sent until 4th October, 1906, after all the effects had been disposed of at low prices; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (The Master of Elibank): As regards the realising of assets, the Administrator-General in Bengal is under the same Administrator-General, is under the same obligations as a private executor or administrator: his powers and duties are laid down in the Indian Acts, No. 2 of 1874 and No. 5 of 1902. The Secretary of State and my predecessor, the right hon. Member for East Perthshire, have personally looked into this case, and Mrs. Knox Johnson has been informed that the Secretary of State is unable to interfere with the discretion of the Administrator-General in the exercise of the powers conferred on him by law.

  Government of Bengal: Model Buildings as Liquor Shops.
  Sir HERBERT ROBERTSasked the Under-Secretary for India whether he would state how many sites had been acquired by the Government of Bengal for the construction of model buildings to be used as liquor shops; what had been the result of the experiment; and whether, before arriving at a final decision upon the subject, due regard will be paid to the objections entertained by all sections of opinion in India to the acquisition of such sites and the erection of liquor shops under the direct control of the Government?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The Secretary of State has no information as to whether any action has as yet been taken by the Bengal Government on the recommendation, to which the hon. Member refers, of the Calcutta Licensing Committee; and in any case results are hardly likely as yet to be available. There is no reason to suppose that in arriving at a final decision the Bengal Government will be insensible to well-considered objections preferred by responsible exponents of public opinion in India. The Licensing Committee, which recommended the experiment in the interests of temperance and sanitary reform, included representatives of the Municipal Corporation.

  Indian Deportations.
  Mr. GEORGE GOOCHasked the Under-Secretary for India whether the Secretary of State had yet received official information as to whether the cases of the nine British subjects who were deported from Bengal last December without charge or trial have now been reconsidered by the Government of India; and, if so, with what result?
  Mr. J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary for India whether the cases of the nine deported Bengalis came up this month for reconsideration by the Government of India, or were merely reported in the manner prescribed by the Regulation as a matter of administrative routine?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The Regulation requires the officer, in whose custody a State prisoner is, to submit twice a year a report to the Government of India on the "conduct, health, and comfort" of such State prisoner, in order that the Government of India may determine whether the orders for his detention shall continue in force or be modified.
  Mr. GOOCH: May I ask whether it is not also obligatory on the Government to consider the whole policy of the deportation of these prisoners, and not merely their detention?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: I have quoted entirely from the Regulation.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Are we to understand that the Government of India is not reconsidering the policy that has been pursued?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: I do not think that arises out of the answer.
  Mr. MACKARNESS: How much longer will they have to be detained; can the right hon. Gentleman say?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: No, Sir, I am afraid I cannot.

  Libel Action of Mr. Lajpat Rai (Calcutta High Court).
  Mr. HART-DAVIESinquired whether the official report of the libel action brought by Mr. Lajpat Rai in the Calcutta High Court has yet been received from India?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The Secretary of State has, as I have already informed the House, cabled for a report of the proceedings to be sent by mail
  996
  Meanwhile full reports of the case as published in the newspapers are available, and there is no reason to doubt their accuracy.
  Mr. HART-DAVIES: Will the Secretary of State arrange that Mr. Lajpat Rai should be relieved from the imputation cast on him by the suggestions—which were no more than suggestions—made in this House?
  The MASTER Of ELIBANK: I think that the whole matter is so controversial that I prefer to deal with it when the Indian Budget is taken; this is fairness also to the Indian Government.
  Mr. FLYNN: More than once we have been told that the Government did not accept the accuracy of the newspaper versions. How can the House now rely upon them?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: I never said that the Government did not accept their accuracy. I said we have received no official information.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: When is the information expected?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: It may arrive at any moment.
  Mr. J. D. REES: Has any appeal been lodged?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: I shall have to consult the Secretary of State.

  Murder Trial, Lahore High Court.
  Mr. HART-DAVIESasked the Under-Secretary for India whether the Punjab Government have completed their consideration of the Report made in the case of the alleged murder of her husband by one Gulab Bano, heard on appeal in the Lahore High Court in January last, and whether any, and, if so, what, orders have been passed on the Report with regard to the conduct of the police officers concerned?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The Secretary of State has not yet been informed of the conclusions arrived at by the Local Government, and he is unable to say whether any orders have been passed.
  Sir HENRY COTTON: Could not the Secretary of State make inquiries?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: I will convey the suggestion to the Secretary of State.

  Calcutta Police Administration.
  Mr. MACKARNESSasked the Under-Secretary for India whether the attention of the Secretary of State has been called to the Report of the administration of the police in Calcutta for last year issued by the Commissioner, Mr. Halliday; whether it is reported by Mr. Halliday that in the course of the year I sergeant, 4 head constables, and 65 constables were dismissed from the service, of whom 2 head constables and 15 constables were dismissed for taking bribes; that 1 head constable and 7 constables were judicially convicted of crime; that 1 head constable and 22 constables were dismissed for illegal acts; that, in addition, over 500 inspectors, sub-inspectors, sergeants, head constables, and constables were punished departmentally for various offences; and whether, if these facts are so, the Secretary of State will give them careful consideration before sanctioning any measure which will place larger powers in the hands of the police of Calcutta?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The Secretary of State has seen the Report quoted by the hon. Member. As to the powers proposed to be given to the police by the Bill, I would refer the hon. Member to the explanation of its scope and intentions given in reply to the hon. Member for East Nottingham last Thursday. The number of punishments inflicted appears to show that the responsible officers are exercising proper supervision and enforcing strict discipline over a force drawn from an Oriental population. That being so, the Secretary of State deprecates inquiries, which may have the effect of lowering in the public estimation a body of men which is loyally doing its best in difficult circumstances, and upon which the public must rely for their security.
  Mr. MACKARNESS: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the Anglo-Indian Press the record of the police is described as an appalling record, and is it not proposed to place larger powers in their hands?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: Well, the hon. Member will see from the reply to his question that the Government in India have been dealing with this appalling record in so far as it has been able to.
  Mr. REES: May I ask whether the controlling agency in the Indian police, is, to a large extent, European; whether further control of the character indicated by the punishments referred to in the
  998
  question can be effected by increasing the employment of Europeans in the police; and what would be the cost of substituting European for native agency upon such a scale as to effect an improvement throughout the Indian Empire?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The control is largely in the hands of Europeans.

  Trinidad (Prosecution of Indentured Immigrant).
  Mr. SUMMERBELLasked the Under-Secretary for the Colonies if he is aware that at the Prince's Town police court, Trinidad, on the 29th June, an indentured immigrant was prosecuted for absenting himself from work at the Buen Intento estate; that the presiding magistrate, Mr. H. H. Pasea, called the attention of the overseer to the man's physical condition, remarking that he had been an overseer when these people were treated as human beings, and, after commenting on their present treatment, ordered the man to be sent to hospital; and whether ho is prepared to take action in regard to such cases of ill-treatment?
  Mr. SUMMERBELLalso asked the Under-Secretary for the Colonies if he was aware that at the Prince's Town police court, Trinidad, on the 29th June, an indentured labourer from the Jordan Hill estate was prosecuted for absenting himself from such estate without a pass; that, in regard to such, it was pointed out that at Bronté there had been a free fight amongst such labourers, and that the overseers stood by and saw a man being beaten to death; that the man prosecuted was a good worker; that there are many complaints as to the treatment of these people; and, if so, would he state what action, if any, the Government intend to take to put an end to such proceedings?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for the COLONIES (Colonel Seely): The Secretary of State has no knowledge of any of the incidents to which he refers, but he will cause inquiry to be made into these allegations.

  Cape Government and Commercial Licence Duty.
  Captain FABER (for Mr. Mildmay)asked the Under-Secretary for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Cape Government have raised the licence duty on representatives of British firms in South Africa from £25 per annum to £50,

  999
  and in cases of agents representing a number of firms up to £100, withdrawing at the same time the traveller's concession on his railway ticket, and also imposing a charge upon them equal to a 5 per cent. duty on the value of all samples carried by them; and whether he will represent to the Cape Government that the travellers affected by this taxation are suffering severe pecuniary loss as a result of the same?
  Colonel SEELY: The attention of the Secretary of State has been called to the large increase in the licence duties referred to, though not to the other points, by a number of complaints from commercial bodies in this country, and he has been in communication with the Cape Government on the subject. The Cape Government, who were compelled to impose considerably increased taxation to meet a deficit, have not felt able so far to take steps to reduce the duties, but they gave an assurance that the objections made should receive full consideration if it should be found possible to make a reduction later. In these circumstances, and more particularly in view of the impending Union of the South African Colonies, it is not proposed to reopen the question at present.

  Nyasaland Bankruptcy Laws.
  Mr. REESinquired whether the Government proposes to take any action in order to render the bankruptcy laws more stringent in Nyasaland.
  Colonel SEELY: No, Sir; it has not hitherto been represented to the Secretary of State that more stringent bankruptcy laws are required, but if my hon. Friend ii disposed to furnish me with his reasons for thinking that they give too much latitude to the bankrupts of Nyasaland I shall be happy to look into the matter.

  Naval Stores (Value).
  Captain FABERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the value of stock of naval stores on 1st April, 1906, and on 31st March, 1909.
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): The value of the stock of naval stores, etc., on the dates named, was:—

  1st April, 1906

  …

  £5,511,896

  1st April, 1909

  …

  £4,965,700

  The figures for the 1st April, 1909, are approximate only, and subject to amendment on the final completion of the accounts for the financial year 1908–9.
  Captain FABER: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed that my question refers to the 31st March as well as to 1st April?
  Mr. McKENNA: I did notice that, but there would be no difference in the amount.
  Mr. ASHLEY: In naval stores is the supply of cordite included?
  Mr. McKENNA: No; that would come under the head of ordnance stores.

  Confidential Naval Documents.
  Captain FABERasked the First Lord if he will state whether it is the official rule that a register should be kept of the recipients of all confidential documents and a signed receipt given in each case for the same at the Admiralty; and, if so, whether this rule was observed in the case of the Bacon and Mann letters, and also of the document in which one First Sea Lord took credit to himself for saving seven millions over Rosyth?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir. There is no such general rule.

  H.M.S. "St. Vincent" and "Collingwood" (East Coast Strike).
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked the First Lord if he will state to what extent are the "St. Vincent," building at Portsmouth, and the "Collingwood," building at Devonport, likely to be delayed; and what is the cause of this delay?
  Mr. McKENNA: It is expected that the "St. Vincent" will be delayed in completion three months, and the "Collingwood" two months. The cause of delay is the strike on the East Coast last year, which has affected the completion of the machinery.
  Mr. MIDDLEMORE: How long have these vessels been building since laid down?
  Mr. McKENNA: The period of the contract is two years. If they are delayed respectively two months and three months, it will be two years and two months and two years and three months.

  German "Dreadnoughts."
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked whether the Government can give the House authentic details as to displacement, speed and armament of the German "Dreadnoughts" to be commissioned this autumn?
  Mr. McKENNA: The details are understood to be as follows:—

  Displacement

  …

  18,200 tons.

  Speed

  …

  Over 19 knots.

  Armament

  …

  12 11-inch guns.

  12 5.9-inch guns.

  16 3.4 inch guns.

  Mr. MIDDLEMORE: Has the right hon. Gentleman anything more exact with regard to speed than "over 19 knots"?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir; I have nothing more than that—I should say something over 19 knots.

  British Cruisers in Full Commission.
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked how many of the 18 first-class protected cruisers in the Navy are maintained in full commission, excluding such vessels whose crews may have been increased to full complement for the temporary purposes of manœuvres, etc?
  Mr. McKENNA: One first-class protected cruiser, the "Powerful," is in commission with full crew.
  Mr. MIDDLEMORE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman regard this as a most serious state of things—only one out of 18 in full commission?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir; the others are perfectly ready and available to go to sea, if required.
  Mr. MIDDLEMORE: How long would it take to put them in full commission?
  Mr. McKENNA: Those with nucleus crews probably five or six hours; those with the special reserve may take a couple of days—probably two or three—
  Mr. ASHLEY: Can a vessel in the special reserve be sent to sea without mobilising the reserves?
  Mr. McKENNA: If we wished, of course.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Is it not a fact that it is laid down in the regulations that the reserve of crews are to be Naval reserve men?
  Mr. McKENNA: No; under the scheme of mobilisation in the event of war these special reserve ships would be manned with a certain proportion of Naval Reserve, and that is under the scheme for the manning of the whole fleet; but it does not follow that if we wished to man these vessels at any time we could not do so.
  Mr. MIDDLEMORE: Is the right hon. Gentleman quite satisfied with the manning of only one?
  Mr. McKENNA: Oh, yes! Perfectly satisfied. It has nothing to do with the availability of the ships.

  H.M.S. "Neptune" and "Indefatigable."
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked when it is hoped to launch the "Neptune" and "Indefatigable," building at Portsmouth and Devonport respectively; and how long will be required to prepare the slips they vacate for the new battleships ordered under the current programme?
  Mr. McKENNA: As at present arranged the "Neptune" will be launched at the latter end of September and the "Indefatigable" during the last week in October. It is expected that the further new ships referred to will be laid down by the end of November on the same slips.

  Royal Marines ("Marching Order" Dress).
  Mr. ASHLEYasked what dress it is contemplated that men of the Royal Marines wear when engaged in land operations in time of war?
  Mr. McKENNA: The "marching order" dress of the corps as specified in Dress Numbers 5a and 9, page 840a, "Quarterly Navy List." Under certain circumstances the ordinary serge tunic would be replaced by khaki.

  Suffragettes in Prison.
  Mr. SILCOCKasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has considered the question whether the offences of which the suffragettes have been convicted are or are not to be regarded as political offences; and if he will state whether the Home Office has received any legal advice on the subject?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Gladstone): Political offences are not in any way recognised by the common law of England, nor can political motive be pleaded in justification of an offence or as in itself entitling

  1003
  the offender to special treatment in prison. Persons guilty of certain offences specified by statute, such as sedition and seditious libel, must by statute be placed in the first division, but it is not, and never has been, the law or practice in this country to accord special treatment to prisoners who, like the suffragettes, have offended against the ordinary law in the course of a political agitation or from political motives, and the introduction of such a practice would be likely to have dangerous consequences. If special treatment were to be provided by law for prisoners who have committed offences, and who could prove that they had acted with a political motive, any persons able to show that they were in earnest on some social or political question could create obstruction, assault policemen, and break windows, without having to anticipate any punitive consequences beyond detention for a short period. In the gradation from trifling offences to murder it would be impossible to fix the point where such leniency should cease. The provision in the Extradition Acts has reference to offences committed abroad, was designed to protect the right of asylum, and has no bearing whatever upon the punishment of offenders for offences committed in this country. The answer to the latter part of the question is in the affirmative.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has given the ladies, who have been accused and punished for breach of discipline in Holloway, including charges of biting and kicking officials, an opportunity of stating their version of what took place, or whether in his replies he is relying on the ex parte statement of the officials?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I do not see how that arises; but if the hon. Member wishes to press that question he will put it on the Paper. I am not in a position to answer it to-day.
  Mr. J. C. FLYNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in this respect the British Government differs from all other Governments in connection with political offences?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: Then it is about time other Governments should imitate us.

  Political Offenders (Women and Men).
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Home Secretary whether his attention had been
  1004
  drawn to the sentence of four months' imprisonment in the first division passed on Arthur Fletcher Horsley for unlawfully printing and publishing a scandalous and seditious libel against the Members of the Government of His Majesty and against the peace; whether the offence was a political one; and, if so, whether he will seek to so amend the law as to ensure that women convicted of political offences shall not be subject to less favoured treatment than men?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: It was pleaded on Horsley's behalf that, so far as he was concerned, the offence was not political, and that plea was accepted by the judge in passing the lenient sentence of four months' imprisonment. Had he been actuated by political motive his offence would have assumed a much graver aspect. Prisoners, whether male or female, convicted of publishing seditious libels must by statute be placed in the first division. There are no grounds for suggesting that women are subject to less favoured treatment than men convicted of similar offences.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: May I ask whether the publishing of a scandalous and seditious libel is a more heinous crime than seeking to interview the Prime Minister?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: The question of the magnitude of the crime is, of course, a question for the courts.

  Royal College of Surgeons (New Bye-laws).
  Dr. RUTHERFORDasked whether, in view of the attitude of the members of the Royal College of Surgeons, as shown in the memorial recently submitted, he proposes to sanction the new bye-laws proposed by the council of the Royal College of Surgeons?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: This matter is still under my consideration.

  Scottish Prison Commission (Chairman).
  Mr. WATTasked the Lord Advocate if he will state to the House the reasons for the extension of service of the chairman of the Scottish Prison Commission for 2½ years beyond the compulsory retiral age; was it on account of his exceptional efficiency; and, if so, will he say whether the work of the Prisons Commissioners is subject to any independent inspection, or do they report on themselves?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Alexander Ure): My hon. Friend is correct in his surmise; various exceptional matters in connection with prison administration have been engaging the attention of the Prison Commissioners during this period, and in view of the long experience and special qualifications of the chairman it was thought desirable to retain his services. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative. The Prison Commissioners present an annual Report to the Secretary for Scotland, in the same manner as other Departments of Government in Scotland, which is laid before Parliament, and the Vote for the Department forms part of the annual Estimates, and is, of course, subject to the criticism of the House of Commons.
  Mr. WATT: Is it the case that the present Commissioners reported on their own chairman that he was exceptionally efficient; and that on that Report an extension of the time was twice made?
  Mr. URE: I really do not know whether that is so, but if they did they were quite correct.

  Hammersmith Infirmary.
  Mr. JAMES PARKER (Halifax) (for Mr. William Thorne)asked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the treatment towards Mr. Jameson by the Hammersmith Infirmary officials because he refused to undergo an operation on his leg and was turned out in consequence, although the infirmary doctor had to remove the splints from his leg to pass him out; and, seeing that this man was readmitted an hour afterwards and subjected to bad treatment on readmission, will he cause an inquiry to be made about the matter?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. John Burns): I have received complaint with regard to this case, and have made inquiry with respect to it. Jameson was admitted to the infirmary on 5th January. The splint was removed on the 6th, not apparently for the purpose of passing him out, but because it was no longer required and because the sinues from which he suffered rendered its continuance undesirable. On the 8th he declined to undergo an operation on his leg. He was discharged on the 9th, not, as I understand, on this account, but at his own request. He was re-
  1006
  admitted the same day. The allegation that he then received bad treatment is entirely denied by the officers concerned, whom I have caused to be questioned on the subject, and I do not find any evidence in support of it.

  Croydon Rural District (Water Supply).
  Mr. JAMES PARKER (for Mr. William Thorne)asked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that, according to the report of the medical officer of health for the Borough of Croydon for 1908, numerous cess-pools in the Croydon Rural District are in direct communication with water-bearing strata from which drinking-water is derived; that the local authorities do not attempt to put into operation the model building bye-laws of the Local Government Board, which insist on builders making cess-pools watertight; that cess-pools in the district are allowed to be built in defiance of the bye-laws and in such a way as to encourage the direct flow of sewage under 20 or 30 feet of pressure into porous chalk; and that within the Croydon drainage areas there were in 1907, according to the borough engineer's report, 249 houses drained by cess-pools which were and are capable of being connected with the sewers; is he aware that the medical officer has urged the necessity of safeguarding and extending the present water supply; and seeing that in January, 1908, the Croydon Corporation laid the facts before the Local Government Board, will he say what action the Board has taken or proposes to take in the matter, and what assistance or advice the Board can give on the whole question of water supply from the chalk?
  Mr. BURNS: I am aware of the reports of the medical officer of health and borough engineer referred to in the question. I communicated with the rural district council, and was informed that they had succeeded in persuading a considerable proportion of the owners concerned to connect their premises with the public sewers. I advised them as to the powers which they possessed for dealing with cases where such connections had not been made, and I subsequently issued an Order conferring upon them certain additional powers under the Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1907. Further, I am causing some scientific investigations to be made with regard to chemical means of purifying chalk waters. I am fully alive to the importance of the subject.

  Daily Provisions Consumption Account.
  Mr. REESasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that two daily diet books cost £2 12s.; and whether he can see his way to reducing the charges levied on guardians of the poor for union books?
  Mr. BURNS: I presume that the book referred to is the Daily Provisions Consumption Account prescribed by the General Order for Accounts issued by the Poor Law Board on the 14th January, 1867. I am not aware of the precise cost of the book as prepared for any particular Board of Guardians. This would be settled between the Guardians and the bookseller. It is not fixed by me, and I do not think I can take any action in the matter.

  Public Health Act (Imported Meat).
  Mr. WATTasked the right hon. Gentleman whether, in regulations under The Public Health (Regulations as to Food) Act, it is the Customs officer whose duty it is to call in the medical officer of health to examine imported meat which the Customs officer considers unsound; if so, will he say whether that official is qualified by training to decide what meat is diseased and what meat is wholesome; and, if not, will he alter the regulation so that all meats imported are subjected to expert examination?
  Mr. BURNS: It is the case that an officer of Customs would not be qualified by training to decide what meat is diseased and what meat is wholesome, but the Regulations do not require him to do this. His duties under them are to require that certain classes of foreign meat, whether it is diseased or not, shall not be removed until they have been examined by the medical officer of health, and that other classes of foreign meat shall not be removed if, by reason of facts brought to his knowledge, or of representations made to him, he is of opinion that the meat requires examination by the medical officer of health. The responsibility for expert examination rests with the medical officer of health, and he may examine any foreign meat whilst it is still in the district, although it has not been detained by the officer of Customs. It does not appear to me that any alteration of the Regulations is necessary.
  Mr. WATT: Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether this is entirely a matter of expense?
  Mr. BURNS: It is a matter of cost plus common-sense.

  West Ham Union Surcharge.
  Mr. JAMES PARKER (on behalf of Mr. William Thorne)asked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the Local Government Board auditor to the West Ham Union surcharged the clerk to the board of guardians 5s. for 10 sixpences given to 10 persons ordered by the several relief committees, acting under regulations ordered by the board of guardians in meeting assembled, and sanctioned by the Local Government Board itself, to appear before the house committee, and kept waiting there from 10 a.m. to as late as 2.30 p.m. without food; that the resolution to pay the 6d. for food to such persons was carried at a duly summoned meeting of the board where, by 4 and 5 Will., c. 76, s. 38. it is enacted that no guardian has any power to act in virtue of his office except as a member at a meeting of the board; and will he say where the auditor gets the power to override decisions of boards of guardians at board meeting assembled, and where the Local Government Board auditors get their right to interfere in cases of relief, as is done in this same Union, by telling the relieving officers they will be surcharged with the amount of relief ordered, when the Local Government Board have admitted that they have no power to interfere in individual cases of relief, as no Act of Parliament give the Board such power?
  Mr. BURNS: I am aware that the auditor disallowed the 5s. referred to. The guardians appear to have had no legal authority to direct the clerk to pay this sum, and hence the payment was illegal The auditor has, under the Poor Law Acts and the Orders made under them, full power to disallow payments not authorised by law, and it was in exercise of this power that the disallowance was made. I do not know under what circumstances the statements attributed to the auditors in the last part of the question were made, but I presume that they consisted of a warning to the relieving officers that they would be liable to be surcharged with the amount of any relief given by them, if it was illegal. This would be the case. The Local Government Board are precluded by the proviso to section 15 of the Poor Law Amendment Act from interfering in any individual case "for the purpose of order-

  1009
  ing relief," but the present matter does not seem to be affected by this enactment.

  London Postal Service (Male Sorterships).
  Mr. WILESasked the Postmaster-General if he will state when the next open competitive examination for sorter-ships in the London postal service will take place; and whether the list for the limited competition has been extended beyond the advertised number?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Sydney Buxton): No date has yet been fixed for the next open competition for male sorterships in London. The number of candidates originally declared successful in the competitions restricted to postmen and other Post Office servants has been increased to provide for the vacancies which have occurred in excess of those estimated at the time that arrangements were made for holding the last competition.

  South-East District Post Office (Accommodation).
  Mr. WILESasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a number of officers work in the South-East District Office in an old furniture shop which is being used as a temporary sorting office, the height of which is about eight feet and the ventilation very unsatisfactory during the hot weather; and can he see his way to having an electric fan at once installed?
  Mr. BUXTON: Instructions have already been given for an electric fan to be installed in the temporary sorting office at the South-Eastern District Post Office. The premises are merely being used for temporary purposes.

  FINANCE BILL.

    INCREASES OF BEER LICENCES.
    Captain FABER: I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state whether, in the case of large increases of licences being fixed, such as at Portsmouth Town railway station, where the increase works out at £2 8s. 9d. per barrel, or the pier at Brighton, where the increase per barrel is £3 8s., such increases will be chargeable to owners who are in receipt of profit rentals, seeing that such tenancies do not realise their profit out of beer, but chiefly on temperance drinks and eatables of every description?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Charles Hobhouse): My
    1010
    right hon. Friend is not sure that he quite understands what is meant by the expression "owners who are in receipt of profit rentals" in this question, but if the expression is intended to refer to cases in which the holder of the licence is under such an obligation to the owner of the premises as is referred to in Clause 32 of the Bill the owner will be under a liability in respect of the Licence Duty.

    DEATH DUTIES (YIELD).
    Mr. PIKE PEASEasked the right hon. Gentleman if he will follow the precedent of the 1907 Budget of the present Prime Minister when Chancellor of the Exchequer, and state the method by which the estimate of £18,600,000 as the yield of the Death Duties during the present financial year was reached?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have already explained, in my reply to the hon. Member on the 19th inst., that the estimate of £18,600,000 referred to is based upon the average yield of the past three years, after making certain necessary adjustments.

    SITE VALUE (FRANKFORT).
    Mr. PIKE PEASEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the aggregate site value of the land in Frankfort; and what is the average Increment Duty collected on this land during the last three years for which figures are available?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Under the Frankfort tax lands and buildings are not separately assessed, and therefore the site value cannot be stated. It follows that the average Increment Duty on land, as distinct from land and buildings, cannot be given.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what portion of the 29,700,000 gallons of spirits estimated as likely to pay duty in the current year have paid such duty at the old rate; and what is therefore the estimated quantity which will pay the increased rate of duty?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: 5,100,000 gallons were duty paid before 30th April at the old rate of duty, leaving an estimated quantity of 24,600,000 gallons to be cleared during the remainder of the current financial year at the new rate of duty.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether the duty on the estimated 24,000,000 will not come to a great deal more than £600,000?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes, if the estimate were reached, but probably it will not be reached.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will it not come to a great deal more if the estimate is anything like reached, say, within half a dozen millions?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Half a dozen millions is rather a large quantity, as the hon. Gentleman is aware.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether a payment on 8,000,000 gallons at 3s. 9d. per gallon will not produce the Chancellor's estimates?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: If the hon. Member will put down these progressive calculations I shall be happy to furnish him with the information he desires.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will do so.

    SPIRITUOUS LIQUORS (HOUSE OF SALE).
    Mr. WATTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the hours during which retailers of spirituous liquors can sell in Scotland amount to 84 hours per week; that in England the corresponding hours of sale, outside of the metropolitan area, are 108 hours per week; that this difference equals 88 days more for sale in one year in England than in Scotland; and whether, in view of that difference between the two countries, he can see his way to equalise matters by a duty in Scotland proportionate to the hours of sale?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. Friend is aware of the difference in the number of hours per week during which licensed premises in England and Scotland can respectively be open for the sale of liquors. These hours are, to some extent, regulated by the requirements of the locality, and he does not think that the fact that premises can be kept open for a less number of hours in Scotland than in England, or that the hours vary in different places or localities, is a sufficient reason for differential treatment as respects licence duty.

    IRISH WHISKY (QUANTITIES EXPORTED AND TAKEN OUT OE BOND).
    Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked what quantity of whisky was exported from Ireland, including exports to Great Britain, since the introduction of the Budget to the present date this year; and what
    1012
    quantity was exported for the corresponding period last year?
    The HON. MEMBERfurther asked: (1) What quantity of whisky was taken out of bond in Ireland this year since the introduction of the Budget to the present date, and what quantity for the corresponding period last year, and the amount paid for duty in each period respectively? (2) What quantity of whisky was taken out of bond in Ireland during the three months preceding the introduction of the Budget this year, the amount of duty paid thereon and the quantity taken out of bond, and the duty paid, in the corresponding three months of last year?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I regret that I am not in a position to give this information, as whisky is not shown in the Revenue accounts separately from other British spirits.
    Mr. PATRICK WHITE: What quantity of whisky was taken out of bond in Ireland?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: We cannot say that. The Revenue Returns only show what is called plain spirit taken out of bond. They do not distinguish whisky from other spirits.
    Mr. PATRICK WHITE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say the quantity of spirits taken out of bond in Ireland?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes, if the hon. Gentleman will put the question down.
    Mr. PATRICK WHITE: Is it not a fact that there is no other spirit but whisky in bond in Ireland?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes, I am sure there is.
    Mr. J. J. MOONEY: Is it not customary to state on the entry forms whether it is whisky or what class of spirit it is?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: No, that is not so.

    FINANCIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION (GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND).
    Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked what was the taxable capacity of Ireland as compared to Great Britain according to the findings of the Financial Relations Commission; whether in the Finance Bill at present before this House he took them as an equitable basis for the bringing of future taxes upon the two countries; and if not, will he accept such modifications

    1013
    as will bring Ireland's contribution into harmony with her fair quota as laid down by that Commission?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The general Report, signed by?1 of the?3 members of the Financial Relations Commission, states that "whilst the actual tax revenue of Ireland is about one-eleventh of that of Great Britain, the relative taxable capacity of Ireland is very much smaller, and is not estimated by any of us as exceeding one-twentieth." The separate Reports of different groups of members show, however, that there was no general consensus of opinion how relative taxable capacity should be ascertained, and I do not think it would be possible to found, either on the conjectural opinion I have quoted from the general Report or on any material which could be extracted from the special Reports, any precise rule to apply to the actual adjustment of taxation. I may, however, point out that, as stated in a reply he gave to a question by the hon. Member for East Tyrone on 3rd May last, my right hon. Friend estimates that the contribution of Ireland to the taxes proposed in the Budget will not exceed £640,000, as against £13,560,000 estimated to be contributed by Great Britain—a proportion of something less than one-twentieth.
    Mr. R. DUNCAN (Lanark, Govan): May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if, in estimating the taxable capacity of Ireland, production for export is one of the things included?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: If the hon. Gentleman will put that question down I will consider it.

    LAND VALUATION (ESTIMATED COST).
    Mr. STANLEY WILSONasked what is the estimated cost of procuring an up-to-date Domesday Book, showing the capital value, apart from buildings and improvements, of every piece of land in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am not in a position to furnish the hon. Member with the estimate for which he asks.
    Mr. STANLEY WILSON: May I ask whether it is not the intention of the Government to bring about an up-to-date Domesday Book by means of the Finance Bill?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The hon. Gentleman wishes to know what is the estimated cost,
    1014
    and that I have told him the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not able to give him.
    Mr. STANLEY WILSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the Government, repudiate the statement of the President of the Board of Trade?
    Mr. W. CROOKS: What did he say?
    Mr. W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: May I ask whether, as a matter of fact, an estimate of the cost has not been made?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: No.
    Mr. J. C. WEDGWOOD: Will the Government at the same time form an estimate of the saving to public authorities and corporations of this country in purchasing land?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise.

    Old Age Pensions.
    Mr. LUNDONasked the right hon. Gentleman if he will state the number of applicants in Ireland who have been deprived of old age pensions because of being in receipt of outdoor relief?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The total number of applicants in Ireland who have been disqualified on account of the receipt of Poor Law relief up to the 30th June is 8,563. I have no means of distinguishing between outdoor and indoor relief in these cases.
    Mr. STANLEY WILSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman state when it is the intention of the Government to introduce their Bill amending the Old Age Pensions Act?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of this question.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been directed to the case of Mrs. Logan, aged 79 years, residing at Kirkmichael, Ayrshire, who has been refused a pension on the plea that she has been in receipt of Poor Law relief; whether the alleged relief consisted of 25s. advanced by the Kirkmichael Parish Council pending the investigation of her claim by the New Cumnock Parish Council, which offered her the workhouse, which she refused, and has since been maintaining herself; whether, as Mrs. Logan was never admitted to the poor roll of New Cumnock, she is subject to the pauper disqualification; and whether, under all the circumstances, he will cause the case to be inquired into afresh?
    Mr. URE: The facts are generally as stated by my hon. Friend. The case has been carefully considered by the Local Government Board for Scotland, but in view of the continuance of the relief by Kirkmichael Parish Council the Board felt that they had no alternative but to disallow the claim on appeal.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: What is meant by "continuance of relief?" As I understand it, after all, these few small payments were made pending the investigation into the claim. The old lady's name was never entered into the Poor Law book at all.
    Mr. URE: I understand sundry payments were made, and unfortunately one payment is sufficient to disqualify.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: If it can be shown that no subsequent payments were made will the right hon. Gentleman cause an inquiry to be made?
    Mr. URE: I am afraid that as the statute stands one payment given by the parochial council disqualifies.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I will supply the right hon. Gentleman with the information.
    Mr. JOHN REDMONDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the fact that a conditional order has been granted by the courts in Ireland for a certiorari to quash a decision of an old age pension committee in the county of Wexford, withdrawing a pension already granted to a Mrs. Sinnott on the ground that she was not of the statutory age; whether in this case the claim for a pension was acceded to in the first instance without an objection, no appeal was brought in respect of it, and the pension was paid weekly to 1st June, when payment was stopped; and whether, in view of the fact that the decision in this case may affect thousands of similar cases, all action in withdrawing pensions will be suspended until this case has been argued and decided by the courts?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The facts are as stated, except that the pension was stopped on 3rd June. The conditional order referred to was granted on the grounds, firstly, that the local pension committee, having once awarded the pension, had no jurisdiction to disallow it on the ground of age; and, secondly, that, if they had this jurisdiction, they acted in excess of it by deciding the question raised by the officer without giving Mrs. Sinnott
    1016
    an opportunity of being heard, without giving her notice of their decision, and without informing her of the grounds thereof. The order only becomes absolute if no cause is shown to the contrary within 10 days after it is served on the clerks to the local pension committee and sub-committees, the pension officer for the district, and the solicitor of Inland Revenue at Dublin. So far as my right hon. Friend is aware, the order has not as yet been served on the solicitor of Inland Revenue or on the pension officer. My right hon. Friend regrets that he cannot see his way to adopt the suggestion made by the hon. Member.

    Inland Revenue (Establishment of Officers).
    Mr. FELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state under what statute the Commissioners of Inland Revenue are empowered to establish offices in various centres in the country where the land which may come under the provisions of the Finance Bill can be registered?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: If the hon. Member will refer to the reply which I gave to his questions on the 19th instant he will see that this question does not at present arise.
    Mr. FELL: I am asking whether there is any statute which enables the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to establish these offices, and to that question I have never had a reply.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: That is exactly the question on which I said the matter does not at present arise.
    Mr. FELL: Then it is not at present arranged for?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have already answered the hon. Member on the 19th instant very fully. If he will turn up that answer he will find the information he asks for fully set out.
    Lord BALCARRES: Might we have the reference to the statute authorising the establishment of these offices?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have never said that the statute would be required.
    Lord BALCARRES: But is there a statute authorising it?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Not so far as I am aware?

    Dormant Bank Balances.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has obtained any further information on the subject of dormant bank balances and unclaimed securities in the hands of the bankers of the United Kingdom; and whether he is prepared to move for the appointment of a Select Committee to investigate the whole subject?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. My right hon. Friend does not think there are grounds for the appointment of a Select Committee to investigate the matter.
    Mr. REESasked the right hon. Gentleman whether the amount of dormant bank balances and unclaimed securities in the hands of bankers in the United Kingdom has been exaggerated; and whether he will cause some preliminary inquiry to be made before appointing a Select Committee?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I must refer the hon. Member to the reply which I have just given to the hon. Member for South Hackney.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: May I ask upon what data the right hon. Gentleman bases his opinion that there is no ground for an inquiry into this question, and by whom the amount of the unclaimed balances has been exaggerated?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has expressed his opinion on this question upon more than one occasion, and that opinion I now repeat on his behalf.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has promised a Committee, bar accidents, early next year?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: No; I am not aware of that fact. Probably the accident has intervened.
    Mr. REES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the case of one private bank, which formed the subject of the hon. Member for Hackney's speech in introducing his Bill, it has already been ascertained that the amount of the unclaimed balances and deposits has been enormously exaggerated?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must put that question down on the Paper.

    Customs and Excise Service (New Second Division Scale of Salary).
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked what would be the approximate annual saving effected by the introduction of the new Second Division scale of salary in lieu of the present port clerk's classification, Customs and Excise service, in ranks up to £300 per annum maximum salary, on the number provided for in this year's Estimates?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The information asked for would involve a number of calculations which would occupy a great deal of time, and would be largely hypothetical. In these circumstances, my right hon. Friend hardly feels justified in causing it to be compiled.

    Second Class Examining Officers of Customs.
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked what number of vacancies have existed in the grade of second class examining officer of Customs since 1st May last; the number of assistants of Customs promoted since that date; the number of Excise officers temporarily filling the places of second class examining officers; and the number of vacancies now existing in the grade of examining officer, second class, which have not been temporarily filled?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The information requested by the hon. Member is as follows:—

    No.

    Vacancies of Examining Officer, second class, since 1st May, 1909

    31

    Assistants of Customs promoted since 1st May, 1909

    0

    Excise Officers temporarily filling vacancies of Examining Officer second class

    l7

    Vacancies of Examining Officer, second class, now existing

    14

    Irish Guaranteed Land Stock.
    Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked what amount of Irish Guaranteed Land Stock is at present held by the National Debt Commissioners?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The amount of Guaranteed Land Stock held by the National Debt Commissioners at 31st March last was £9,186,433?5s.?d., as shown in the Return of Government Departments Securities recently issued, No.?35.

    Naval Review at Spithead (Free Railway Tickets for Members of Parliament).
    Mr. ARNOLD HERBERTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will explain by what authority he has given his sanction to the expenditure by the Admiralty of money voted by Parliament for the service of the Admiralty upon the provision of free railway tickets and other entertainment for Members of Parliament and their families; and, if he purported to give such sanction under section 4 of the Appropriation Act,?908, will he explain under what heading in the Navy Votes this expenditure comes, or in what way it would be detrimental to the public service to postpone this free entertainment for Members of Parliament until provision could be made for it by Parliament in the usual course?
    The HON. MEMBERfurther asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he has any authority to sanction the expenditure of moneys voted by Parliament for the Army or any other Department upon the pro-Vision of free railway tickets or other entertainment for Members of Parliament and their families?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. Friend sanctioned the expenditure in question in his capacity as representing the Treasury, whose authority is required for expenditure not specifically authorised in the Estimates.
    Mr. ARNOLD HERBERT: Will the Treasury arrange in future that all moneys voted for each Department are appropriated in such a way that they cannot with or without Treasury sanction be used for the direct personal advantage of Members of Parliament who vote the Supply, and who are themselves the trustees of the public purse?
    Mr. STANLEY WILSON: Under which of the Admiralty Votes and under which sub-head will this entertainment be included?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: If the hon. Member will put that question down on the Paper, I will get him the information.
    Mr. STANLEY WILSON: It is on the Paper.
    Mr. REES: Is there anything in this more open to objection than the payment of Members?
    Mr. STANLEY WILSON: They have not done that yet.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some three years ago Members of Parliament had a trip to Portsmouth, and paid for their own tickets on that occasion?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I believe that is the case.
    Mr. WATT: Will the right hon. Gentleman extend this system so that Members of constituencies at a distance may travel free?

    Untenanted Lands (Rossmore Estate, Kilkenny).
    Mr. M. MEAGHERasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he can say if any steps have been yet taken to acquire untenanted lands on the Rossmore estate of James Purify Poe, Harley Park, Callan, county Kilkenny; is he aware that a number of evicted tenants and uneconomic landholders exist in this and surrounding districts; and will he see that immediate steps will be taken to supply the wants of those people?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. A. Birrell): Proceedings have been instituted before the Estates Commissioners for the sale of this estate under the Irish Land Act, 1903. When it is being dealt with in order of priority due inquiry will be made as regards the lands referred to.

    Estate of late Mr. T. Boyd, Shanbough, Kilkenny.
    Mr. MEAGHERasked the right hon. Gentleman if he could say whether any steps had been recently taken by the Estates Commissioners with a view of acquiring the untenanted land of the estate of the late T. Boyd, Esquire, Shanbough, near New Ross, county Kilkenny; is he aware that a feeling of discontent exists in this district owing to the number of evicted tenants yet, unprovided for owing to the want of untenanted land; is he aware that the receivers of the above estate expressed their willingness to sell to the Estates Commissioners on reasonable terms; can he say why Messrs. Golfer and Gethin, New Ross, who appear to have carriage of the proceedings in the Rolls Court, have refused to give any information in the matter; and will he see that immediate steps will be taken with a view of meeting the requirements of this district by acquiring the above lands?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that this estate, which is situated in the counties of Kilkenny and Wexford, is under the control of the Master of the Rolls. Up to the present no proceedings for sale have been instituted before the Commissioners, and until this is done they cannot take any action in the matter. They understand that Messrs. Golfer and Gethin's client only represents one-fourth of the owner's interest, and that it is improbable that the untenanted land would be sold apart from the tenanted portion of the estate.

    Bayonet Charge at Cappamore, Limerick.
    Mr. T. LUNDONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will give the names of the nine civilians from whom Mr. Ball sought information regarding the bayonet charge at Cappamore; was the inquiry a sworn one; and will the evidence of all the witnesses examined be made public?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The inquiry in question was not on oath — there is no power to administer an oath in such cases. It was held solely for the purpose of enabling the constabulary authorities to report to the Government, and it would not be desirable or fair to the persons concerned, whether police or civilians, to publish ex parte statements as to their conduct. Nor do I think that it would be desirable to give the names of those from whom statements were obtained.

    Old Age Pensions (Mary Adamson, Kilclooney).
    Mr. PATRICK O'BRIEN (on behalf of Mr. Hugh Law)asked on what grounds the old age pension granted to Mary Adam-son, Kilclooney, has been withdrawn; and whether the Local Government Board have communicated to the applicant the grounds of their decision?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board have not yet given their decision on the question raised by the pension officer as to the age of the claimant. They are at present awaiting the result of the further inquiries which they have requested the pension officer to make in the matter.

    Territorial Force (Standard of Efficiency).
    Captain FABERasked the Secretary of State for War whether the preparations of the Territorial Army are sufficiently advanced for them to be able to repel
    1022
    invasion by foreign regular forces without undergoing six months' preliminary training?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): Owing to the shortness of the period during which the Territorial Force has been in existence, it is not yet possible to gauge the standard of efficiency which that force may be expected to reach. The Army Council have, however, in view the importance of aiming at so training the force that it may be competent to take the field at the outbreak of hostilities.

    Special Reserve (Sergeant-Majors).
    Mr. WALTER GUINNESSasked the Secretary of State for War whether, as the post of regimental sergeant-major at infantry battalion depots has been abolished, and as their work now devolves on the sergeant-majors of the Special Reserve, he will consider the question of raising the pay and pension of the latter to an equality with that of those sergeant-majors whom they now replace?
    Mr. HALDANE: This question has been fully considered, and it has been decided not to give sergeant-majors of reserve battalions more than was given to militia sergeant-majors. The sergeant-major of a reserve battalion has not the same responsibilities as the sergeant-major of a line battalion, nor is his work so onerous.
    Mr. GUINNESS: Is it not the fact he now carries out the work formerly performed by sergeant-majors of the line?
    Mr. HALDANE: No; it is not the fact.

    Southwick District Council Allotments.
    Mr. SUMMER BELLasked the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he is aware that there have been 46 applicants for allotments through the Southwick Urban District Council, Sunderland; that such council has only been able to secure land at about £8 per acre; and, if so, can he state whether it is the intention of the Government to take action with a view to the securing of land at a more reasonable price?
    The TREASURER of the HOUSEHOLD (Sir E. Strachey): The total number of applicants is 31. The council have the offer of suitable land at £7 an acre, but they are communicating with the applicants before deciding whether they should

    1023
    accept it. As other allotments in the locality are let at £8 an acre it seems doubtful whether a lower rent would be awarded under a compulsory order.

    Pension for Lady Curzon Wyllie.
    Mr. HART-DAVIESasked the Under-Secretary for India whether he was in a position to state as yet if a pension would be granted to Lady Wyllie?
    The MASTER of ELIBANK: In recognition of the long and excellent services rendered to the State by the late Sir Curzon Wyllie, and in view of the circumstances in which he met his death, the Secretary of State has decided, with the unanimous approval of the Council of India, to grant to Lady Wyllie a special pension of £500 a year for life.
    Dr. V. H. RUTHERFORD: Will the cost fall on the Government of India or on this country?
    The MASTER of ELIBANK: The pension has been granted from Indian revenues, because Sir Curzon Wyllie was in Indian service or in service paid from the revenues of India during the whole of his official career and at the time of his death.

    South Africa Union Bill (Delegates and Government Conference).
    Mr. LYTTELTONasked the Under-Secretary for the Colonies whether he can give the House any information as to the result of the conference between His Majesty's Government and the delegates from South Africa with regard to the South Africa Union Bill, and as to any agreement for the amendment of the same?
    Colonel SEELY: The House will not wish me, in reply to the right hon. Gentleman-—and I thank him for putting the question—to explain the main provisions of the Bill. But in order to make the meaning of such changes as have been made in the Bill quite clear, I would say generally that at the present time South Africa is divided into the four self-governing Colonies and the Protectorates and Territories under Imperial control. The immediate purpose of the Bill is to provide for the union of those four self-governing Colonies, the Protectorates remaining outside. But all men must recognise that it may not be possible or even desirable for those territories for ever to stand apart. For this reason a
    1024
    schedule has been added to the Bill by its franiers, laying down certain broad lines on which the transfer should be effected, if and when the transfer is desired, and is sanctioned by the Crown.
    In this schedule elaborate provision is made for the safeguarding of the rights and immunities of the native races, who form almost the whole population of those territories, and I think the House will not be slow to recognise the enlightened policy contained in the clauses which deal with these matters.
    I will say a few words only with regard to the Amendments made during the last few days. There are a number of drafting Amendments to which attention need hardly be drawn, e.g., the phrase "the Union of South Africa" is substituted for "South Africa" for reasons of convenience. Then the Bill as passed by the Convention was framed to meet the possibility that one or more of the South African Colonies might hold aloof from the Union. Happily, that is no longer a possibility, and the unanimity of the four Colonies has rendered the retention of certain clauses and phrases unnecessary. Again, there are Amendments of a more or less technical character, such as the clause applying certain Imperial Acts, for instance the Colonial Boundaries Act, to the Union.
    The other Amendments, though of more importance, in no case alter the purpose of the measure. They are designed in each instance to carry out the known intentions of the framers of the Bill, and they have in each instance received the consent of the delegates. In this spirit, a provision has been inserted, making it clear that any differential treatment of Asiatics will be a matter for the Union Government, and not for the Provinces. Similarly, the provision in the Schedule prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquor to natives in the territories, and that providing for the financial relations of the territories to the Union, have been amplified, and now embody the fullest possible safeguards. It should be understood that these Amendments are modifications made by mutual agreement to give effect to a common purpose.
    The Bill, as laid before Parliament, is not the work of an individual, a Government, or a party. It is a concrete expression of the will of South Africa—of the will of the new Colonies of the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony, as well as of the older Colonies of the Cape and Natal; of the will of the parties in oppo-

    1025
    sition in those Colonies as well as of the parties in power. It is a worthy embodiment of a great national purpose, with which His Majesty's Government are glad indeed to have the privilege of associating themselves, in commending it to the approval of Parliament. But, of course, this unanimity has only been arrived at by concessions at many important moments, and on many points of vital concern—the Bill is conceived in a spirit of conciliation and compromise, and in the same spirit it will be considered, I doubt not, by the House of Commons. Indeed, we know this will be the case; for if strife has been hushed in South Africa, no less has it been hushed here; and I would like gratefully to acknowledge, on behalf of the Government, the help given by all parties in this country since this movement for closer union in South Africa took practical shape. I should like to acknowledge gratefully, on behalf of the Government and of all who have at heart the future of South Africa, the generous spirit in which all parties in this House and in this country have approached this measure. It is due to their co-operation that this happy result will be secured. Perhaps I may add that a special meed of acknowledgment is due to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lyttelton) who asked this question.
    If the House will permit me I would add that we view this unanimous resolve not only with gratitude, but with wonder. Few could have believed not many years ago that such unanimity for this great purpose would have been possible in South Africa. But one must not forget that many years ago there were men who believed in and worked for this happy solution. The name of one may be recalled, a faithful friend of both Dutch and English in South Africa—I mean President Brand. On his grave is recorded his saying, which was the motto of his public life, prophetic words of hope which seem to be coming true to-day, "Alles sal recht komen"-— "All shall come right."
    Mr.KEIR HARDIE: May I ask whether, in the concurrence of all parties in the measure now before the House, native opinion in the Protectorate has been taken; secondly, whether, in the event of the time coming when it is proposed to transfer the Protectorate from the Crown to the new Parliament, this House of Commons will be allowed to discuss the matter before it becomes finally binding; and, thirdly, with regard to the franchise now enjoyed by coloured people in Cape
    1026
    Colony, the same safeguards are in the Bill as have been introduced in regard to the liquor traffic, so that any change which has been made shall not worsen the conditions under which natives hold the franchise at the present time in Cape Colony?
    Colonel SEELY: The hon. Member will realise that putting these three very important questions to me, without notice— although I do not in the least complain— it is difficult for me to give an adequate reply on so delicate a matter. I would say with regard to the first point, as to the wishes of the natives, we have taken every step we possibly could to ascertain what their wishes are. With regard to the second point, and it is akin to it, as to the transfer of the Protectorates, I think I made it plain in my statement that the schedule of the Bill is permissive, that it arranges the broad principles, and indeed the generous principles, with regard to native rights and immunities on which such transfer should be effected, if and when that transfer is desired by South Africa as a whole and is assented to by the Crown.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Including; the natives?
    Colonel SEELY: Certainly; when I say South Africa as a whole I mean South Africa as a whole. With regard to the technical point which he desires to ask me, I think it will be better to wait for the Bill, and the hon. Member will see that the matter is not immediately possible, for the Parliament cannot be set up for at least another year from now, and it will then be for them to discuss many matters, including possibly this one, and it will be for the Government of the day to consider whether they should advise His Majesty and the Privy Council to accede to that demand. With regard to the third point, the franchise, I think it would be impossible for me to talk of what is a technical point, as to the relative advantages of the two kinds of safeguard, on an occasion of this kind when question and answer is only permitted by the leave of the House. It would be better, if I were permitted, to reply to the question on a subsequent day, or when the Bill is introduced to this House.
    Sir GILBERT PARKER: Will the hon. Gentleman communicate to the House now on what date the South African Bill will be introduced into this House?
    Colonel SEELY: I believe the Prime Minister will make a statement on Thursday. I am not yet in a position to say exactly the date.

  IMPERIAL DEFENCE VOTE.
  Mr. HAMAR GREENWOOD: Will the Imperial Defence Vote be discussed on Thursday, as previously arranged?
  Mr. JOSEPH PEASE: Circumstances have arisen which may necessitate the postponement of the discussion until Monday. If Supply is not to be taken on Thursday we will announce the business on that day at the adjournment of the House to-night.

SUPPLY.— [18th Allotted Day.]
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. EMMOTT in the chair.]
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1909–10.
[CLASS II.—VOTE 6.]

COLONIAL OFFICE.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £33,900, 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, 1910, 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. ALFRED LYTTELTON: I have personally to thank the hon. Gentleman for the statement which he made in answer to a question put down by me, which, for the convenience of the House, has acquainted us in some little detail with the Amendments which have been proposed, and which have been agreed to in the conference which has recently taken place. We shall have a full opportunity of discussing the South African Bill when it comes down to this House, and it is not my intention, nor, indeed, should I be in order, to discuss its provisions at the present moment. I can only assure the hon. Gentleman of what, I think, is indeed well known to him and to most of my op-
1028
ponents, that we on this side of the House will approach that Bill with sympathy and with the welcome which is due to the energy, wisdom and patriotism of its South. African authors. It is with much smaller subjects that we have to do this afternoon, and I think I will pause to touch, not for any considerable time, upon one point, which I think it will be desirable to mention shortly after the full answer which the hon. Gentleman has given. There is one question at the present moment in South Africa, which, if it is not solved, or, at any rate, mitigated, will be in my opinion, a serious disaster, and will be an obstacle to the harmonious introduction into South Africa of the provisions of the Bill upon which so much hope is based. It is not a partisan question in this House at all, and I do not desire to make it so. I refer to the case which has arisen in connection with the education policy, promulgated in the Orange River Colony, and the dismissal of three British inspectors in that Colony. I trust, the House will believe that it is my desire to remove, just before we approach the consideration of the South African Union Bill—if possibly we can remove an irritating and formidable obstacle to the general agreement which prevails upon that subject.
I do not underrate for a moment the strong feelings, even the passions which are aroused by the question of language in South Africa. I think the late President Steyn urged at the Durban Conference, with great eloquence and force, the rights of the Dutch language in South Africa, and unless the reports have been misleading— I do not think they have been—the acceptance which was given to his views as to the equality between the two languages by all the British representatives at that convention was a source of deepest gratification to him and largely smoothed the passage of the Bill. I would refer also especially to the action of Dr. Jameson, in a proposal which he made for the restoration of the old name Orange River Colony, and to the admirable effect which that exceedingly graceful and tactful proposal produced upon all those who heard it. I think I am entitled to say, after having mentioned those two circumstances, so fruitful of hope and congratulation, that discord in connection with the Dutch and British languages was not what we expected of the Orange River Colony. That discord, however, has unhappily arisen, and I will mention in the briefest way what the cause has been. The cause has been the education

1029
policy of the present Administration. It observed may be contrasted with the policy which has prevailed in the Transvaal, and which has secured now the cordial assent of both races. The education policy in regard to the teaching of languages in the Orange River Colony has been demonstrated to be unworkable. I make that statement, not, it is true, on official information, as I have been unable to obtain it from the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but I do not make it from conjecture. I make it from inquiries from the highest, most unbiassed, and most authoritative sources which are to be obtained in South Africa. I say deliberately that many of our Dutch fellow subjects in the Orange Colony, as well as elsewhere, dislike the policy, and have protested against it. One distinguished man, bearing a distinguished name, at present in this country, views the policy of the Government in this respect with disapproval. It is disliked by the Dutch. They wish the English language, which is really the great medium of business, throughout South Africa, to be thoroughly taught to their children. They wish also to have freely at their command the great literature of this country. If they dislike the weight that has been placed on the teaching to the Dutch of the English language, the English also deeply deplore the handicapping of their children in the race of life by insufficient instruction in the language which is their own, and which they desire that their children shall freely acquire.
This was perceived by the educational administrators in the Orange River Colony. They perceived that, if the Act of Parliament which was passed there was strictly enforced, it would result "in the closing down of the schools, and with that general desire to make things work well which characterises the Civil Service and the educational service they, with the strong approval of both Dutch and English parents in the Colony, worked the Bill with a great deal of latitude. The original circular from the Department of Education in October,1908, gave them the opportunity to do that. Things were not going badly when the Act was somewhat winked at and a latitude, which was not permissible if the Act were strictly read, no doubt caused a far greater acceptance of its provisions by those who came under its jurisdiction. But that policy was unhappily put an end to by a circular of February,?909, which definitely advised teachers and inspectors in that Colony that this latitude was not further to be
1030
observed, but that the Act of Parliament should be followed literally and accurately. The inspectors had no choice, and they put that policy into force. It is a strange thing that although the policy of this circular was in reality to further assist, as I presume the Government thought, the Dutch language in the Orange Colony, the indignation of the Dutch themselves at the policy broke out and expressed itself with great strength, they seeing, no doubt, that their children would be handicapped in the race of life were this policy to be continued. The House will scarcely believe that after enforcing that policy, for strictly obeying the circular which had directly called to their attention the necessity of literal obedience to the Act of Parliament, three inspectors have been dismissed under circumstances which I am perfectly certain were not only most repugnant to everyone, even of my opponents in this House. They were dismissed without being heard and without a complaint having been made against them. A meeting was arranged at the request of the Director of Education, at which they should hear the charges preferred against them, and should have the elementary right of every British subject to be heard before he is condemned. That meeting was in the first place postponed, in the next place it was abandoned, and before one single word had been said either of complaint, so far as I know, but certainly without a single word of attempted justification on the part of the inspectors, they were dismissed from their positions. Of these gentlemen the Director of Education in the Orange Colony—a man of high educational repute throughout the whole of South Africa—used these words:—
"They have served the Department loyally and efficiently for periods ranging from five to seven years, under conditions which required unusual tact and ability. I have no doubt that the explanation of any complaint against them will be found to be satisfactory."
This explanation they have never had an opportunity of giving. There are the facts. I fully accept what was said by the hon. and gallant Gentleman when I asked him a question, that self-government having been granted to the Orange Colony, His Majesty's Government had, in such a matter as this, not the right to override the decision of the responsible Government. I think the principle of self-government of such vital importance throughout the Empire that I could never press any representative of the Crown upon that

1031
bench to say or do anything which could impeach the responsibility for their affairs which the grant of self-government gives to the members of that Colony. My motive this afternoon is not to impeach the grant of self-government or its consequences, but my desire is to call upon the Government, just before this question of South African union is brought before the House, to do something by way of persuasion, by way of representation, by way of influence, even by way of diplomatic pressure, to endeavour to obtain the removal of so grave a cause of disquietude. That would be the right of British subjects even if these occurrences had taken place in a foreign country. Manifestly after what has been done to earn their gratitude by the grant of self-government, and in view of the influence which that action should have on the minds of our Dutch fellow subjects in the Colony, diplomatic pressure ought to be exercised, and must be exercised surely, if right is to be done with a good chance of success. I say a good chance of success, for I believe from every inquiry I have made that this action is not liked, nay, is disliked, by many of our Dutch fellow subjects in South Africa. I believe myself that it would not be tolerated were this subject brought before the United Parliament in South Africa which is about to be created. Certainly I desire, by bringing forward this question not to censure the Government, but to place in as conspicuous a way as I can, on record the circumstances of the case, believing that they have only to be thoroughly known and appreciated in South Africa, and that there will be a strong opinion likely to take effect, and to operate in the South African Parliament which is about to be created, to remove the grievances, which no one, I think, can doubt are both substantial and real. I thought it desirable, as a statement was made just before I rose in regard to the South African Parliament, to make these preliminary remarks on this subject. I finish as I began, by the expression of the most sincere desire that this irritating source of discord may, if possible, be mitigated before the Act of Union is brought to completion.
Mr. H. J. WILSON: I rise for the purpose of drawing the attention of the Committee to certain deplorable occurrences in British East Africa, and also to what I think has been the deplorable manner in which they have been treated by the Colonial Office in this country. I say so
1032
with considerable regret, because it appears to me that if my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Seely) had not been sitting on the Front Bench, he would be foremost in his desire to draw attention to the question himself, and I feel sure that he would have put it before the Committee with a force to which I can make no pretension. Two officials are implicated in this matter and some natives. My chief complaint is against the superior official in respect of what has been done in the treatment of the case. It is a complicated story, and I have tried to the best of my ability to disentangle it. I will put it as briefly as I can before the Committee. I may say that the main facts are not disputed; they are practically admitted all round. That lightens my task to a certain extent. In the first case there was a native girl, named Wameisa, whose age is stated to have been 12 to 14, but who, I take it, at the time this occurrence was commenced, was younger than that. It appears that she was seen by a British officer named Heywood, who had conceived a desire to possess her. He told a native to get her for him, and he paid 40 goats for her, which, I understand, is about the usual price of a wife in that part of the world. He took her about as his concubine for some time, and then he came home to England, sending her back to her village. When he returned he sent for her again, and, being ordered to a more remote part of the country, she objected to go there. There happened to be at this time on the station another official commanding the district, named Silberrad. The first official told this girl to go and live with the second official, and as she objected to do so, she was sent home. The second official was not satisfied with that, and he tried to get her. Her brother says that he was threatened that if she did not go the village would be burned and the goats taken as in war. That particular threat, I understand, was denied, but it is admitted by the messenger that a threat was made, and what particular form it took really does not signify. A second attempt was made by this officer to get the girl, and it succeeded. On this occasion the acting district commissioner was travelling from Nyeri to Fort Hall. Passing through the village where this girl was, he told the chief, Wambugu, that she was to be ready on his return in two days' time. She says she was threatened again and told that if she did not go with him her people would be put in prison. At

1033
any rates she was taken to a hut, made to change her clothes, and put into this commissioner's room. He then made overtures to her which she declined. He says that he sent a message in the morning that she was not to go further with him unless she wished. She declares that the message was never delivered to her and that it was only because he was a Government official that she went next day to Nyeri. She remained there until Mrs. Routledge fetched her away. Mr. and Mrs. Rout-ledge are English people holding property in that country, and probably they are the only independent people within some hundreds of miles. I think a debt of gratitude was due to them for the part they took in this affair. My hon. and gallant Friend, answering a question in this House, used these words, "We are all very much obliged to the lady for what she has done."
Colonel SEELY: That was in reply to a question as to whether she had sheltered this girl and cared for her. I do not wish it to be assumed that that applied to all the circumstances of the case.
Mr. PIKE PEASE: I asked the question to which reference has been made. What I asked was whether these girls were to be given up?
Mr. H. J. WILSON: I do not know whether the question had reference to sheltering or not, but the answer had reference to the fact that Mrs. Routledge fetched the girl away from that man's house. I do think that it is a very sad thing, after all that has happened, and after the action of this public-spirited and independent lady, that she has not had adequate thanks. My hon. and gallant Friend has qualified the thanks which they deserve from the people of this country, from the Members of this House, and the Colonial Office.
Colonel SEELY: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but I do not wish it to be assumed that I qualify the thanks which are due to the lady. The hon. Member put his remarks in a way which would seem to imply censure upon our own officials in' East Africa. The thanks which I expressed to this lady do not in the least imply such censure. We are most grateful to the lady for the kindness she extended to this girl. It was to that matter I confined my answer, but if it were to be taken as implying a reflection on our own officials that would be going beyond what is fair.
Mr. H. J. WILSON: I do not wish to misrepresent my hon. and gallant Friend in the slightest degree. There was a second case, and the circumstances, so far as I have been able to gather, were these. Mr. Heywood was at a native dance, and there he told the chief that he wanted a girl. Two were brought to him, and he selected one. Her name was Niambura. She did not wish to go, but the official gave her father "many goats." He took this girl about the country with him, at the same time as the former one, and, like the other, she was sent for by him when he returned from England. When he went to a more distant station she went with him, but left after a time, and came to Silberrad with a letter of introduction from Heywood. There is no doubt about the fact that he knew from the first that she lived with Mr. Silberrad willingly for a monthly wage. I ought to state that Judge Barth was sent to make preliminary inquiries. I do not know the status of a judge in that part of the world, but I suppose the object of making the preliminary inquiries was to report to the Government on the case.
Then we come to the third case of a girl 12 or13 years of age, who was the wife or concubine of a policeman under the orders of Silberrad. According to the report of Judge Barth, she was ordered to return to Nyeri for that officer's pleasure. She was fetched from her house by a policeman, and in the presence of a sergeant she was handed over to Silberrad's cook, and she slept with Silberrad. The policeman hearing of what had happened, went to the official's house and began to lead the girl away, but the Commissioner appeared, and, although it seems hardly credible, a scene or scuffle of some kind took place between the policeman and the Commissioner. The Commissioner was so annoyed at the policeman making resistance that he sent for the guard, and had him put in prison for endeavouring to protect his own wife or concubine, as the case may be. These facts are not denied as regards the main points. One of the offenders made two excuses. The first was-that there was no compulsion, the second was that in the third case he believed the girl was not really married to the policeman. I say that both of these pleas are the merest quibbling. The idea of compulsion on the part of an important British official who took this action among people practically under his sway and influence is one which will not hold.

1035
Whether this girl was or was not married according to some native custom does not seem to me to be in the least worth discussing at the present moment. I am not a lawyer; but it seems to me that serious offences have been committed, as set forth in the Indian Penal Code. I would direct the attention of the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies to two paragraphs in the Penal Code. Section 366 says:—
"Whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, or knowing it to be likely that she will be so forced or seduced, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to a fine."
That appears to apply to persons who are employed to secure these women. Section 173 says:—
"Whoever buys, hires, or otherwise obtains possession of any minor under the age of 16 years to the intent that such minor shall be employed or used for the purpose of prostitution, or for any unlawful or immoral purpose, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to a tine."
The facts to which I have referred appeared in "The Times" on December 3rd of last year, and on December 7th several questions were asked in this House in regard to them. My hon. and gallant Friend stated, amongst other things, in reply, that the official named was not a man of high rank, but was of a junior grade. This is to me a great puzzle, because it appears that he had the power of trying capital charges, of passing sentence of death, and, on confirmation by some higher official or court, it was his duty to see that the execution was carried out. I am assured that this person had tried capital charges, and had superintended the execution of one man sentenced by himself. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will explain whether questions of life and death are entrusted to these officials of junior grade in this part of the world. He also discussed briefly the question of age, and objected to one of the girls being called a child. Judge Barth, in his report, uses two expressions; in one case he calls the girl a "child" and in another "a girl of tender years" therefore I do not see the use of discussing what the age really was. The clauses from the Penal Code to which I have called attention refer to girls under the age of 16 years. After all, what does it matter whether there was a particular and special form of compulsion? The circumstances all point to the fact that it was practical compulsion. Here we have a high Government official—I still call him that—dealing in this way with
1036
native girls, and scuffling at his kitchen door with one of his own policemen for the personal custody of one of these girls. To my mind it is simply abominable that this nation, this House of Commons, should be represented in a far-off dependency by such a man, with enormous power and influence—that he should be travelling about his district with his native pimps around him, and asking the chief, who ought to be the protector of these girls, to procure and bring an assortment of girls for his selection. It is very possible that the chief could hardly refuse the demand of a man in such a position. And when these public-spirited people, Mr. and Mrs. Rout-ledge, have gone to a great deal of trouble, expense, and inconvenience in bringing these things to light, instead of receiving the warmest thanks of everybody for their action, they are practically discouraged. It seems to me that the Governor, the judge, and the Colonial Office have combined to minimise the offence or offences. Even now we are not allowed to know the whole truth. We are not allowed to see the evidence or to have papers laid. It is said that some sort of despatch or circular has been sent out, but it is withheld from thi5 public at large. If it is a good and efficient circular the general public would be glad to see it, and I cannot understand why it should not be seen by the House of Commons and the public. In cases of this kind nothing is gained by secrecy. Secrecy only tends to make people believe there is something worse than appears on the surface. One of these men has been punished. How? He has been degraded in rank and sent to a remote district—to what is termed a "closed" district, where neither Mr. and Mrs. Routledge nor anybody else will be able to follow him or to know what he is doing. The other person, I believe, has had a reprimand, though I do not know of what sort. It is because, in my judgment, no proper action has been taken in the matter that I beg to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £100.
Question proposed, "That Item A (Salaries, Wages, and Allowances) be reduced by £100 in respect of the Salary of the Secretary of State."
Mr. CATHCART WASON: The speech to which we have just listened is in many respects a most deplorable one. We have had the matter brought up on the floor of the House; there have been made a number of statements more or less true, but none the less objectionable on that

1037
account. The concluding remarks of my hon. Friend (Mr. Wilson) would lead the Committee to believe that the person to whom he alluded is still going about the country, carrying out his own wicked will, in what my hon. Friend called a closed district. While I agree with very much that my hon. Friend has said, I must say that, if it is possible to do so, the case has been very greatly exaggerated. There is no evidence whatever that any of the women referred to were either children or of tender years. It is purely a matter of opinion on one side or the other.
Mr. H. J. WILSON: It was stated by the judge.
Mr. CATHCART WASON: There is not the slightest evidence that the man committed a breach of the penal code by either kidnapping or abducting these people. I do not rise for the purpose of extenuating the offence. The offence is a very serious one. All of us will admit that without hesitation. But I agree with my hon. Friend that it would be very desirable if all the circumstances of the case could be dragged into the light, as I believe that then many motives would be shown for the persecution of the individual whose conduct is in question. The position is briefly this: The Governor of the Colony, on the facts being brought to his notice, immediately sent Judge Barth to report on the matter. Judge Barth issued his report, and on that report the Governor and the Administration took immediate action and punished the offender, some people say, very severely. At any rate, he was punished; he suffered, and is still suffering, for his offence. Surely there is no ground for re-trying the case here after all that has been done in the Protectorate itself. What can we know about it except the hearsay evidence which is before us? There is no evidence whatever upon which the House of Commons can go, except Judge Barth's report. I deplore not only the attack upon the individual in question, but still more the attack upon the Governor and the Administration. The "Spectator," a journal of great repute, goes out of its way to assert that:—
"such cases are not exceptional and individual, but are typical of unsound and dangerous conditions prevailing in a particular Administration "
I believe that that is a gross calumny and absolute libel on our officials in East Africa. I speak with some knowledge of the country, having visited it twice, and spent a considerable time there. I know
1038
many of the officials, and I believe that they are as honest-minded and pure-living a class of people as you could wish. In the name of our common Christianity we might have let this matter drop. Even if we forget Him who wrote with His finger in the sand, and said, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone," we might, at any rate, think of ourselves. Before we drag up this unfortunate man before the Bar of the House of Commons, we might think of our own morals; we might take our leading journals, from "The Times," downwards, and reads in the annals of the Divorce Court the sordid details which are issued every day for the education of the young. We might also study the morals of Piccadilly, and, when we had put those right, we might have some ground for studying African morals. African morals are not ours. In some respects they may be better than ours; in other respects, worse; at any rate, they are not the same. What would be deplorable in any country is not in Africa the very serious offence it has been made out to be. Are we going to try here this man who has been punished, and has suffered? This man has come home after this reprimand, and not only has he laid his sins at the foot of the Throne, but he has gone to an English lady and told her the whole story, and she has consented to be his wife and to go out to Africa with him, there to help him to lead a higher and a purer life, and to regain the position which he has lost. Is not it then too cruel to bring all those charges up again? Anyone who has got the smallest knowledge of native races knows that a white man, whether an official or a settler, once he has sexual intercourse with them loses all that legitimate influence among them which exists in ordinary cases; I believe there is not an official or a settler in East Africa who would not cordially welcome a law that anyone found guilty of this practice should be immediately deported from the Colonies. Such a proposal would command universal consent. That the offence is rare I believe with all my heart. I have seen a great many officials. Many of them are men living under conditions of great hardship. In many cases they are shut off from their fellows. They have not got any of the comforts, necessities almost, to which they might be entitled from their position in life, and as a rule as a class they leave very little to be desired; and they do not deserve such charges as those, which are injurious to the country at large and to the best interests of these classes.

1039
East Africa is to some extent an unfortunate country. I sincerely hope that the incident to which attention has just now been directed will not divert our attention from some other features to which I wish to call my hon. Friend's notice for a few moments. It is impossible to discuss this question of East Africa without also taking in that of Uganda. The two are almost inseparable. My hon. Friend the other day stated that he hoped the time would soon come when those countries would be united under one Protectorate. The present position is extremely unsatisfactory. We have spent millions of money in those two countries, 13 or 14 millions. We have gone to great expense inducing settlers to go out, and we are still spending very large sums of money in the country. In face of all that, the country is not progressing. It is very largely at a standstill, and no one can visit the country and regard it from the point of view of the ordinary British taxpayer with anything like satisfaction. Fifteen millions of money has been given, and there is nothing to show for it. We get no trade and no commerce from the country. We find that settlers in East Africa are told that the Government is doing everything it possibly can for them in the way of providing for them a first-class, well-equipped Agricultural Department which is second to none. We find that many of the settlers are dissatisfied, and leave the Colony after having spent very large sums of money there and a great many years of their lives. We must know the reason of this. We have got a country which everyone who has been there believes to be one of immense possibilities and immense prospects. We know that products of all sorts can be grown there. We know that the natives are an industrious, intelligent race, that in Uganda they are growing cotton with very great success, and that in East Africa they are growing wheat and a variety of other products. We know that white settlers there have introduced coffee, which is doing uncommonly well, as well as many other things, and yet in face of all those advantages the country is, so to speak, at a standstill. If we inquire into the reason of that it is not in any inherent defect in administration; it is because all this vast country, extending from the Mountains of the Moon to the Indian Ocean, is practically blocked at its exit. Settlers may grow produce, the Government may do what it can to help them, but then we find that through the exit being abso-
1040
lutely blocked the whole development of the country is arrested. Enormous quantities of the produce of the country which is grown on the shores of Like Victoria come down the line. It all goes in German bottoms to Germany, or in French bottoms to France. There is practically not a single particle of our produce from East Africa or Uganda that comes home direct to this country. If it does it comes home at a very costly rate.
The only possible means by which you can put this great estate of ours—because after all it is an estate belonging to the British taxpayer—on a satisfactory footing is to open this exit now, which is admittedly closed to British products and also to British manufactures. We cannot compete with the German and the French line. We have a subsidised line on which we are absolutely throwing away £9,000 a year, which is not I lie smallest value to East Africa or to a soul in the country or to our commerce. The subsidy is for the mail service, but our passengers and our mails all go by either the French or the German lines. Why on earth my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General (Mr. Buxton) persists in doing this has always been a matter of impossibility for me to understand. What are we going to do to remedy this? I can hardly imagine that my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Seely) will ask the House for a subsidy to put on a satisfactory steamship line direct between this country and East Africa and Uganda, but I think that this course might be adopted, that it might be laid down that the Suez Canal is not merely a source for collecting so much revenue from ships that go through it, but that we should treat the Suez Canal as a great highway, and that while it might not be possible to ask the House for a direct subsidy he might very well, if satisfactory conditions of contract could be arranged, give a refund of the dues paid in the Suez Canal by any steamship company that would bring our country and this great undeveloped land closer together. It is only by some means of this-sort that we can bring affairs in East Africa to a satisfactory conclusion at this time. Although the Government has made great efforts to develop Uganda, and has made unparalleled exertions, and with great success, to stamp out the sleeping sickness, which is now almost unknown, and has done much to encourage settlers, yet all those things mean nothing to the commercial development of this country as long as it is blocked by not having satisfactory

1041
steamship communication with Great Britain. My hon. Friend is a little bit heavily handicapped in having so much to do, and if his attention were specially directed to Grown Colonies they would be really almost sufficient for any one Government Department.
Now we have also got enormous interests, commercial and philanthropic, with which we have been connected from time immemorial, in British West Africa. There also we have got possessions; there also we can show a wonderfully good record; there also we have got at the present time a great country which is producing and sends home to our country vast quantities of material every year with great advantage to us and to them. Railways are being made, and the whole country is being developed in the most satisfactory manner. But one point to which I wish to direct my hon. Friend's attention for a moment is with reference to the Treaty of Abbeokuta. Hon. Members will recollect that when the chief of Abbeokuta came over here some years ago we gave him a great ovation, and entertained him profusely, and he went back to his country exceedingly satisfied with the treaty which had been signed between us and him. That treaty solemnly guaranteed the absolute independence of his country. I was recently told by people who had come over from that country that the little kingdom of Abbeokuta is almost a model, but on the other hand, like other models, possibly slightly extravagant, and that the cost may be a little more than a prudent governor would wish for. But even if it is, I entreat my hon. Friend religiously to observe the independence of these people. Everyone who knows natives knows that they are extremely sensitive and extremely touchy in matters of agreement if once come to. If even the smallest detail in a solemn treaty of negation has been in some way or other set aside they will attach very great importance to it, and may desist from doing their utmost to develop their own country as they are doing now. It is perfectly marvellous to sea what they are doing now, endeavouring to improve their agriculture by the importation of all sorts of machinery; and I think it would be a thousand pities if anything whatever was done to lead those people for one moment to think that we were not going most religiously to observe our treaty made with them guaranteeing their independence. I grant that there is a difficulty there of allowing the tolls to go on as they have done. They say it is the
1042
one thing in which they can assert their independence. I sincerely trust that nothing whatever will be done by the Government to hurry the matter and to give those people any idea whatever that the treaty would not be religiously observed.
Mr. EVELYN CECIL: I would like to emphasise what has been said by the hon. Member who has just sat down (Mr. Cath-cart Wason) in reference to the question of direct British steamship communication with East Africa. This is a question which I have interested myself in in this House for the last seven years, and which I should now like to press on the hon. Gentleman who represents the Colonial Office. It was one of the special recommendations of the Steamship Subsidies Committee, over which I had the honour to preside, and in those recommendations the Committee urged—and I think it will be generally agreed—that all mail subsidies and subventions are granted to ensure speed and regularity of service, and, so far as they follow the lines of great commercial traffic, to encourage our trade and pioneer it into new markets. To this case particular attention was drawn, because from the evidence before us it was perfectly clear that at this point in our Empire Imperial communication required to be strengthened. The Committee was composed of men of both parties. There was no question specially of Tariff Reform or Free Trade, or views about carrying out Free Trade principles or Protectionist principles. We recommended that in a case such as this Imperial communication should be improved from a general standpoint, and we were backed up by no less a person than Sir Spencer Walpole, who gave evidence before us as secretary of the Cobden Club, and who, in answer to a question from the hon. Member for Pontefract, said, "If I thought it right to have a direct line to Zanzibar for Imperial purposes it would come within my principles and you ought to establish it. I confess I thought until I came into this room that there was direct communication there."
All who are well acquainted with this matter know perfectly well that there was no direct communication there. There was an effort since to make some sort of communication, but it very rapidly failed for other reasons than those connected with East Africa. There is no direct British communication with any of our Colonies on the East African Coast. No

1043
doubt an opportunity might have arisen when we laid down the Uganda Railway. We spent many millions of money on the development of the country, and much material had to be shipped to Uganda, though it was spasmodically brought there at monthly intervals, or whenever opportunity offered. But the occasion was not taken advantage of to establish a direct British line of communication to Uganda or the East Coast of Africa. I understand that the Uganda Government have now practically sanctioned, or are projecting, large railway schemes, for which, no doubt, further material will be required. Therefore, a fresh opportunity arises to establish a direct British steamship line to that country, and I trust that His Majesty's Government will not allow the opportunity on this occasion to slip. A steamship line could run with perfect advantage to the Port of Soudan, which would serve Kartoum; it could go on to Mombassa and Zanzibar, and draw material from Nyassaland through the Shire River. But it is not to the commercial side alone that I want to call the attention of the Under Secretary for the Colonies. There is a military side. The hon. Gentleman will recollect as well as I do that last December we wanted to bring two companies of the 1st Battalion of the King's African Rifles from Kyassaland to Somaliland, and that it was impossible to convey those troops in British ships, because there was no British ship there at the moment, and we shipped them on board the German mail steamship "Prinzessin." The ship had to land the troops at Berbera, and then went on her way. What was the result? Not only had we to do that which was decidedly undesirable, namely, to allow a foreign Power to know exactly what were the movements of our troops, and how many there were of them—a thing which in different circumstances might have been extremely disagreeable—but we had to pay a fine for the German mail steamer exceeding her mail contract time. We had to pay, I fancy, a further fine because of demurrage while she was landing the troops at Berbera, a port not on her course. Is not that a reason for establishing a British line to keep clear of all these foreign communications?
It seems to me that if a case of that sort arises, quite apart from the commercial side, it does afford an additional argument for getting some Government encouragement in respect of the establishment of a direct British steamship line. There are
1044
certain facts in this matter which cannot be ignored. Of course, tae German East African Line has special rebates to its customers which very seriously handicap the British manufacturer and trader I do not propose at this moment to deal with that. Full information will be found in the Steamships Subsidies Committee's Report, and further information in a recent shipping report. Let me point out that German merchants always get their goods systematically used in East Africa, and, owing to the conservatism of merchants, once they get a footing in the country it will be very difficult to oust them. If we look at the figures of British and German trade, they show that this contention of mine is clearly proved. From the last Consular Report I have obtained the following figures. I find that British exports to Zanzibar and Pemba in 1892 amounted to the value of £105,670. The British exports to Zanzibar and Pemba amounted in 1907 to £193,242, that is to say, an increase of 83 per cent. What about the German figures? According to the last report from our Consul, the German East African trade, including both imports and exports, in 1891, amounted to the value of £300,900; the German East African trade, both imports and exports, in 1907 were of the value of £1,815,327, or an increase of 503 per cent, since 1891, so that, while our British experts to Zanzibar and Pemba increased 83 per cent, between 1892 and 1907, the German East African trade between 1891 and 1907 increased 503 per cent.
Mr. AUSTIN TAYLOR: What about the exports to British East Africa?
Mr. EVELYN CECIL: I have not got all the figures, but if the hon. Member will consult the Consular Report, he will find there the indication of the kind of progress Germany is making.
Mr. JOSIAH C. WEDGWOOD: Does the hon. Member compare Zanzibar and Pemba, which were thoroughly settled in 1891, with German East Africa, which is just beginning?
Mr. EVELYN CECIL: I do not think Zanzibar and Pemba were thoroughly settled in 1891. I was there some years after 1891, and I should certainly say they were not thoroughly settled. But surely there is something wrong when we have this further fact, that in our own port of Mombassa there are practically only two British firms, whereas the remainder are

1045
foreigners, mostly Germans. At Mombassa, according to the very latest information, German homeward vessels are generally more or less full. So far as there is any room, the choice is always given to the German firms, very naturally, and the British firms have to wait until the German firms have had all their cargoes loaded. Germans get in addition a special rebate under the German freight arrangements. It frequently happens, I may say in the case of almost every German steamer, that British firms have their goods left on the wharf, because there is no room to carry them home. In Zanzibar, German trading firms are much more in evidence than British. That is the statement of the last Consular Report. In Dar-es-Salaam, the German capital of East Africa, it is remarkable that there is not a single British firm at all. Surely all these facts deserve some weight at the Colonial Office. If we could establish a steamship line out there, I think there would be no real difficulty about return cargoes, which I have sometimes heard raised as an objection. As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Cathcart Wason) stated, cotton-growing is rapidly increasing in British East Africa, and I think there is copper ore to be got from the Beira Hinterland. There is coffee in Nyassaland, there is wheat-growing in Uganda, and I believe that coal is likely to be developed in Rhodesia. At any rate, Uganda and that part of Africa will grow almost anything, as will be testified by those who know the country well. I feel confident that His Majesty's Government will not refuse to assist, so far as they can, the increasing British trade in our Colonies, and prevent it going into the hands of foreigners. I know it is sometimes argued, "Why not let the Germans do it, because it is cheap, and if they can bring home British goods at a loss to themselves, so much the better for the British Empire." But are we sure of this? Are we so very certain that they do it at a loss? I have looked at some of the figures of the freights that are charged. I find in 1907 the German East African Line's average rate of charges from, I think, Mombassa, was £1 16s. a ton. Almost immediately after that came the collapse of the Dale Line, which only existed for a very short time, and collapsed in circumstances not connected with East Africa at all.
Mr. J. D. REES: What year was that in?
Mr. EVELYN CECIL: I gave the year 1907 as the year in which German freight charges amounted to £1 16s. a ton from, I think, Mombassa. Then came the collapse of the Dale Line in 1908. The German freights—the Germans having then got the monopoly—averaged, for British goods at any rate—I am not sure about the German goods—£2 5s. a ton, and in the present year the German freight charges average £2 15s. to £3 a ton, as the last Consular Report states. That cannot be good for British trade, and I should, therefore, like to direct the hon. Gentleman's special attention to these figures. It is to be remembered that at the present time we pay to the German East African Steamship Line £12,000 for the transport of British officials to and from the East African coast. We also pay £10,000 a year for the export out of British Government stores. That makes £22,000. We pay them something more, which I have not been able to ascertain, for the carriage of our British mails, and that is all we pay, as far as I know, apart from the military question to which I previously referred. But as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said, we pay £9,000 more to the British India Line for the Aden parcels mail, of which there is only a very limited use, because the vessels are slower than the German mail ships, and because it involves the transshipment at Aden of parcels from England with all the attendant delays, and, indeed, thefts which occur. That makes a total of £31,000, plus the carriage of mails by German vessels and plus the carriage of troops by German vessels; so that we are already paying for this very unsatisfactory communication in East Africa £31,000 a year. I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether it would not be much better to stop making these payments to the German East Africa Line and shift off that payment to help to run a British East Africa Line. I do not ask him if it is against his views on political economy to do so by way of subsidy, but let him do it by way of guaranteeing goods or guaranteeing passages to that extent. If it is true that the Uganda Railway is going to be so largely increased, would it not be possible to guarantee all the material for the new line? I do not want to hamper the hon. Gentleman by asking him unnecessary questions, but as I hope and believe he is trying to get some British line established in conjunction with the Secretary of State for the Colonies, I should be only too glad to hear that it is so. I have merely stated these facts and referred to

1047
these statistics with the view of improving Imperial communications in a way such as Sir Spencer Walpole spoke of, and to prevent trade from the East African Colonies being shipped first to Hamburg and having to come round to Liverpool afterwards. The whole thing seems anomalous and unreasonable, and if we want to develop British East Africa I hope and trust that His Majesty's Government will take to heart the serious facts I have suggested and give them favourable consideration.
Mr. J. C. WEDGWOOD: The hon. Member for Aston Manor (Mr. Evelyn Cecil) is perfectly justified from the standpoint of his politics in advocating a subsidy for an East African line of steamers. That is, of course, purely a protective suggestion to tax the community for the benefit of one particular Colony.
Mr. EVELYN CECIL: I did not say necessarily subsidies.
Mr. WEDGWOOD: Whether you call them subsidies or, as the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. C. Wason) says, a rebate on Suez Canal dues, it is purely a protective measure in the interests of one Colony. I think the hon. Member for Shetland and Orkney can hardly expect the Colonial Secretary to take very serious action at present in that direction. Even if my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Seely) is influenced by the hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Rees) and by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, I hope he will consider that of all the methods of bolstering up Colonial trade the worst is by steamship subsidies. It irritates every other steamship company, it drives "tramps" out of the market, it interferes with the liberty of commerce, and leaves nothing permanent behind it. If we are spending the taxpayers' money in developing railways in Uganda, we do have a tangible asset after the money is spent, and some day we may hope it may pay its way. The hon. Member for Aston Manor is right in one sense, namely, that the land in British East Africa is being retained in the hands of the State, and I think there is more justification for the spending of our money in developing our country by means of railways than probably in the case of any other Colony in our possession. If money is to be spent, it should be spent in some permanent way, or in a way from which there will be some permanent benefit, rather than in a purely transitory revolu-
1048
tion in the carrying trade of East Africa. The Colonial Office will probably look at it rather from the railway point of view than from the sea transport question. I hope that in any extension or expansion of the British East Africa railway system special regard will be had to developing those parts of the country which are still State property, instead of those parts which have been unfortunately alienated in large blocks to big settlers. [Mr. REES: "Down with private enterprise."] Obviously it is good sense on the part of the British taxpayer to develop his own rather than somebody else's property. The hon. Member for Holmfirth (Mr. H. J. Wilson) was replied to with rather unnecessary violence by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, but I can assure him that the hon. Member for Holmfirth had no wish to emphasise the morality of white settlers in any country in the world. We do not wish to do so because we believe in the liberty of the subject. It is not our business to interfere with people who choose to live in that sort of way, but the objection we have is that in East Africa British officials are using their official position to procure those girls. That is the sort of thing which cannot be tolerated under the British Crown. I have had myself the honour to serve two years in the Transvaal. I was in charge of a district in which there was a population of some 13,000 natives. The administration of the natives came always intimately under my notice, and the whole time I was there I never heard of such a case as that of an official living with a black woman. It is opposed to the most elementary sense of morality in those countries. I cannot believe the British official when he gets elsewhere is entirely different from what he is in South Africa; but, if it is so, how are we to explain the more or less silent support which the Colonial Office in this country have given to the manner in which Sir James Sadleir deals with this case in East Africa. They have sent out a circular to officials in East Africa. I had the privilege of seeing the circular, which was given to me privately; and I can only say it was a most unsatisfactory circular so far as I was concerned. This state of affairs, which has been revealed in East Africa, is the same sort of thing as the scandal in Germany. We do want a little more reprobation from the Colonial Office of that state of things than was visible in that circular. I have no doubt nine out of ten officials in East

1049
Africa loathe that state of things as much as we do. Surely it is all the more necessary the Government should show, however much that particular case may have been dealt with leniently—I think dealt with much too leniently—that in future the man will be dismissed on the spot. That circular was sent out six months ago, and I want to know whether anybody has been dismissed since, or is to be dismissed, or whether any offences have occurred since, and whether we are to assume that if any more cases of that kind occur the offenders will be dismissed. I think we are entitled to have that definitely from the Colonial Office to-day. I am bound to say, I think that the advent of Sir Percy Girouard in East Africa will do probably more than a good many circulars to control any bad state of affairs among officials in that Colony. He has done more than anyone else to put affairs in Northern Nigeria into their present excellent state. I believe if he has a free hand that he will put the East Africa Colony on the same healthy lines of progress as Northern Nigeria.
Mr. AUSTIN TAYLOR: I do not propose to pursue the question of policy raised by the last speaker in regard to subsidising the Mercantile Marine, but I desire to speak upon the question of a British steamship service in East Africa as a business proposition. Whatever may be the policy of particular Governments which come and go, the policy of regarding facts from the business standpoint is absolutely necessary for any Government, particularly for the Colonial Office, which has to deal so largely with the commerce and trade of our Colonics. It may not be generally known to the Committee, but I believe it to be a fact that there is no direct out-and-home service to East Africa under any flag whatsoever. There is certainly none under the British flag, and to German East Africa there is none. The manner in which the Germans have dealt with this question is very interesting. They hit upon a solution which apparently has not been adopted by any British line or by the Government on its own account. The German service to East Africa is worked on this basis; the German steamer that goes down the East Coast of Africa circumnavigates Africa, and goes via the south, and comes up the west side, thus making a complete round. The German boat that goes down the west side does vice versa, and makes a complete round by the East Coast. Thus you have a service as often, I believe,
1050
as once a fortnight, and certainly once every three weeks, which furnishes an out-and-home boat to the German and British Colonies not by a direct out-and-home ser vice with East Africa as its terminus, but by the somewhat ingenious service of going out one side of Africa and coming home the other. I am not able to state what the financial results of that line are to the Ger man Company. What is certain is that no British company has imitated it, and yet, I am inclined to think, it would be perfectly possible for any of the great British lines, which are now trading either to South Africa or to India, to adopt some such policy if it suited them to do so. I take it that they are business people, and that there are business considerations which make the great shipping lines trading to those parts ignore any overture that might be made to them to imitate the Ger man example. The figures given by the hon. Member for Aston Manor with regard to freights homeward were very remark able, and I do not know whether he quite understood them himself. I really wish he had given us a little more explanation. He told us that the rate from Mombassa by the German line had risen from £1 16s. in 1907 to £3 per ton in 1909. He seemed in a very shocked frame of mind, if I may say so, at this horrible charge upon British goods. I made a very hasty calculation, and I think the £3 per ton only comes to three-eighths of a pound on cotton. I do not know why that should shock him. I do not think three-eighths—
Mr. EVELYN CECIL: I commented on the increase in the two years.
Mr. A. TAYLOR: Is it merely the increase, and not the figure?
Mr. EVELYN CECIL: Yes, the increase, not the figure. The increase from 36s. per ton in 1907 to £3 per ton in 1909.
Mr. A. TAYLOR: Well, I understood that there had been competition in 1907 which has abnormally lowered the rates. Competition in shipping, like competition in everything else, lowers freights; therefore freights were at an abnormally low level. What I want to point out is that the freights finally settled this year are not, as far as I can judge it, a very abnormal charge, and are merely such a charge as would be made by any steamship company which finds itself more or less in the position of a monopolist. Let me point out very briefly the extreme

1051
difficulty which any Government is in which undertakes to deal with this question from a business side. I believe that the Committee on Subsidies reported in 1902. I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman why nothing was done by his Government? They claim a monopoly of patriotism and Imperialist expansion.
Several HON. MEMBERS: "You were a supporter of that Government."
Mr. A. TAYLOR: Yes; that is perfectly true, and since then I have obtained sufficient sense to recognise the impotence of a private Member to direct the policy of any Government. I was a very humble Member of the party opposite. Had they proposed anything practical for the benefit of this trade they would have had my support. They did not do it. If they did not do it I presume it was because the facts of the situation, from a business point of view, were such as to show that they had better leave the matter alone. May I just point out what are the facts in regard to the total amount of cargo going from England to East Africa. I believe I am not overstating or understating the facts when I say that the total amount of cargo going from here to British East Africa does not exceed something like 2,500 tons per month. Two thousand five hundred tons a month, at a moderate rate of freight, would not exceed about £4,000 per month in freight for a line of steamers outwards. The minimum expense at which a purely cargo steamer could go out and home would be, I make it, £7,000. There is a gap, even if you do with one steamer per month, of £3,000 to be filled before that steamer would pay her expenses. Therefore a subsidy of something like £40,000 per year is the minimum figure that would be required from the Government before you could even see anything like making ends meet on a purely cargo service. Does anyone suggest that any prudent shipowner would take a risk of that kind, dependent upon such a small quantity of cargo outwards, even if the whole were guaranteed? Where are you going to get the goods? That is the prior question which does not occur to the hon. Gentleman. First catch your hare, then cook it. But the trade of East Africa from this country does not come to such a figure as would justify any shipowner in putting on a direct line. As to homeward cargo the hon. Gentleman opposite did not say very much about it. I believe chat it is extremely undeveloped at present, and furnishes no solid con-
1052
sideration to any shipowner who desires to put on an unassisted line of steamers.
Mr. EVELYN CECIL: Germany seems to do it.
Mr. A. TAYLOR: As I pointed out, the Germans do not rely on East Africa alone but on the whole of Africa.
Mr. EVELYN CECIL: So could we.
Mr. A. TAYLOR: I really wish the hon. Gentleman would look the situation calmly in the face, and seriously say if he means that the present Government should subsidise a line not to go TO East Africa merely, but to go right round the whole of Africa.
Mr. EVELYN CECIL: I am not prepared to confine myself to any particular way, but it is a thing we should attend to. I did turn to the homeward cargo question. The Germans do pay a dividend on their business trade, and I do not see why we could not.
Mr. A. TAYLOR: I do not know on what authority the hon. Gentleman says that the German East Africa Line pays a dividend. I very much doubt it.
Mr. EVELYN CECIL: They paid 3 per cent, last year.
Mr. A. TAYLOR: The only German line whose balance-sheet I have seen recently lost £800,000. It shows that German maritime expansion, though great, is not always so successful as, some people desire to mike out. But I rose partly in order to say, from a business point of view and as a shipowner, how extremely difficult this proposition is for any Government 1o face. The question of policy is entirely a matter for the Government of the day, although, of course, private Members have their own views on questions of policy. I would like to make one observation on that point, not by way of committing myself to any particular view on tariffs or subsidies—upon which my views are perfectly well known —but to point out the remarkable contrast between this country and America. The American nation, as everybody knows, never hesitates at a high protective tariff. They screw up their tariffs with callous impartiality against every nation in its trading capacity, but they are extremely sensitive upon the point of subsidies. Anyone who read the evidence before the Commission on the American Mercantile Marine will have realised that the Ameri-

1053
cans will go to any length almost in protecting particular industries to enable them to plunder the community behind the shelter of a tariff, but they will not tole-rate subsidies. That is one of those phases of human contrariety which are worth noting. As one of the witnesses before that Commission said to the chairman: "No, Sir, when a man in our country gets his hand into the Treasury he begins to be busy." I daresay the same thing would happen in England if the same phenomenon were to take place, but this Free Trade country has shown, to a certain extent, the opposite sentiment. I am only referring to the matter as a phenomenon of historic interest, that while this country has never, for the last 50 or 60 years, tolerated anything in the nature of protective Customs tariffs, it has strained a point of national sentiment to justify any Government where it came to a question of subsidies for the postal service by particular lines of Steamers, or for the development of particular Colonies, or for fast cruisers for the help of the naval service. I think the two countries are to be contrasted in that respect. Therefore, I do not think my right hon. Friend below me is to be blamed if he did for a moment consider the question of a subsidy to a line of steamers to East Africa, because everybody must lament the fact from a political and Imperial point of view that the ingenuity of the Germans has given them any priority, and that they have been able to do what no British shipowner so far has been able to do. I hope from a business point of view the difficulties may be surmounted, but I do feel that it is only right that the Committee should understand from a business man what the practical difficulties are: how great they have been found even by the Germans, the only maritime nation who have so far contributed anything to a practical solution of the question.
Sir JOHN KENNAWAY: May I address a few words to the Committee on this question, as having been from the first connected with that wonderful development which has taken place in East Africa and along that coast. I remember when there was no trade around that coast, and when we maintained a large fleet for the purpose of putting a stop to slavery. The whole of the interior of Africa was eaten up by the slave traffic and cruelty. Steps were taken which have given us an estate of very real value, and has opened up to us the opportunity of serving the people
1054
of Africa in a most marvellous way. We have been able to encourage the population, including that of Uganda, where they have shown more than any other of the African natives the power of self-development and self-government in Church and State. We nearly lost the country, but through the courage of Lord Rosebery that country was preserved, and we have expended very large sums of money, millions, upon the railway. It is now, I believe, about very nearly paying its way. I cannot understand how it is that with this great increase of population, and with the railway, that the amount of trade going from this country is so small. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman went into his arguments tu quoque. He asked why we did not do this? Why one side or the other did not do something else? It would be better to encourage my hon. Friend opposite in the great work which he has undertaken and which he is carrying out with very great success, or hopes of success, in developing our Colonial possessions, and in furthering the great interests of the country. We recognise the very severe competition of our German friends, but I cannot but hope and believe that we shall hold our own. We used to do something in subsidies. We of the McKinnon line did great service. The trade of that country is worth saving and encouraging, and I hope to-day's discussion will mean that something will be done in that-direction. A question has been raised as to the status and the character of our Civil servants out there. We send out young men, and they are not allowed to marry. I believe that that is a penny-wise pound-foolish policy. I believe that in doing that we have done things not only bad for the morality of the country and prestige of England, but also for the health of the members of the Civil Service concerned, and if they were put upon a different footing, though there might be an increase in salaries, yet there would be a general saving in the improvement of health and the morale of the Civil Service who do a great work under very difficult circumstances. As pioneers, we have happily in the English Civil Service men calculated to do good work, and if we put them upon a proper basis I believe they will do still better work, and increase the well being of the countries over which they are placed, and also improve the trade committed to their care. I should also like to express my gratitude to the Colonial Office for dealing with the question, or doing something in the way of dealing with

1055
the question, which arises in West Africa. It is a great scandal and growing sore, and there seemed but little hope of having something done. Reports were made to the Colonial Office by representative bodies of West Africans who came over here last year, and the Secretary of State listened to their reports, and appointed a Commission, which has investigated the question, and will soon give us a result of its labours. I believe and hope it will be found that evidence has been fully taken and fairly given, and that witnesses have been ready to come forward. I understand that difficulties which have hitherto prevented international agreement in regard to raising the rates of Excise and Customs duty upon liquor imported and sold, are on a fair way to being removed, and that we may hope to find Germany co-operating with us in this matter to a greater extent than hitherto. These are most vital and important questions for the House, and I hope the discussion this evening will tend towards a better solution of all these matters.
Mr. J. D.REES: Before referring to the subject immediately under discussion, I wish to repudiate the suggestion which I think was made in some quarters that the character of the gentleman whose case was brought before the House is in any way typical of the European in office amongst Oriental or coloured populations. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme handsomely stated that he did not believe that the standard in East Africa was in any way inferior to that of South Africa. I think it becomes me, as one who spent his life in the public service among Oriental races, to say that I believe the members of that public service are just as honourable, as upright, and moral in all their relations in life as any man in this House, and I personally deplore the fact that this gentleman, who committed a fault and was punished and went back to his duties a married man, absolved from all his past transgressions, should be haled before the House to-day as a malefactor, and that all these circumstances should be raked up to the pain and ignominy of himself and his wife. I wish the matter had been left to be finally settled by the Governor of the Colony, who is so competent to deal with the matter, and who knew the circumstances of the matter so much better than hon. Gentlemen in and out of this House, whose sympathy with native races, when roused, is too often im-
1056
moderate in character and expression as it is uninformed by knowledge and experience. I cannot help regretting that when it was suggested that there was any thing like compulsion of a minor, the fact was left entirely out of account that women of this age in these countries are on an entirely different footing from what a woman of similar age would be in this country. These attacks recall to me the rancorous attitude taken up in certain quarters whenever the conduct of Indian officers who are struggling with great difficulties comes be fore this House. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Cathcart Wason) began by taking the House to the Mountains of the Moon and speaking of the need for better communication between the Mountains of the Moon, the Indian Ocean, and—
Mr. CATHCART WASON: That was not my expression.
Mr. REES: The difficulty of sending home the produce that came down to the Indian Ocean, and that brings me to a branch of the subject with which I am greatly interested. That is to say, the case of steam communication on the East Coast of Africa. I cannot entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Austin Taylor), who suggested that the Under-Secretary had too much to do nowadays, and that he should be relegated to the Crown Colonies and taken away from the Protectorates. On the part of the Protectorates I object entirely. We want to keep the right hon. Gentleman to the Protectorates. I was rather disappointed with that portion of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, in which he dealt with the point of the shipping upon the East Coast of Africa, and although he is an expert in regard to shipping matters, I think he hardly did justice to the very considerable trade of the Coast. I wish, as one interested in this trade, to lift up my voice in the same sense as did the hon. Gentleman the Member' for Aston Manor (Mr. Evelyn Cecil), who, I believe, is quite right in his view. I do not believe in pedantic fiscal policy when dealing with this question. I believe the hon. Member for Liverpool underestimated the amount of business done on that coast, and this is a subject on which I have had some personal experience. I believe there is a very great amount of trade upon that coast, and I regret extremely that the whole of it is going into the hands of the Deutsche Ost African Line. There is some-

1057
thing more than ordinary percentages to be considered. We want some Imperial percentage in this connection. We want to get the business in that part of the world into our hands. When this subject was before the House last there was an hon. Member who actually suggested that the British traders profited by the German subsidies because they got their rates and freights so much cheaper by the amount of the subsidy, as if the Germans were subsidising the line for the benefit of our trade.
Is it not absolutely elementary that they were doing this in order to wipe out their competitors, and that then, having wiped them out, they would put up their rates to such a height as to injure our trade and to benefit their own? And it is hardly conceivable that in this House, from a business point of view, a hon. Gentleman should be found to contend that the action of the Germans in giving a subsidy to this line, of steamers is something, which is beneficial to British trade. I am perfectly certain there is no quarter of the City of London where such a theory would be listened to for one moment. The hon. Member for Liverpool dealt with the question of rates at some length. I do not intend to follow him into figures—figures are not very attractive—but the hon. Member for Liverpool stated that he made a hasty calculation. I think it was a very hasty calculation, and I am not prepared to accept his figures, though I sit upon the same side of the House. I believe the traffic is much more than 25,000 tons, and I do not accept his state-meat.
Mr. A. TAYLOR: I never said 25,000. What I did say was 2,500 tons per month, or 25 hundred tons, which is the same thing.
Mr. REES: I say the trade is very much more than that. Surely it is the same thing to say 25,000 tons a year and 2,000 tons a month?
Mr. A. TAYLOR: I must put my hon. Friend right. I said 2,500 tons. That is the same thing as 25 hundred, but neither of these figures is the same thing as 25,000.
Mr. REES: Twelve times 2,600 gives 25,000—
Mr. A. TAYLOR: There again I differ from my hon. Friend.
Mr. REES: It is approximately correct, and much more correct than my hon. Friend's estimate of the trade of the coast. [An HON. MEMBER; "It is 30,000."] I am
1058
very much obliged to my hon. Friend for his arithmetic. The British East African Protectorate has been subsidised to an extent of £13,000,000, the cost, including interest, of the Uganda Railway, and in view of that, why should we be so shy in spending a little in the subsidy of British trade? I want to ask the Under-Secretary what is the present policy that is being pursued as regards labour from Nyassaland. We were told that the export of labour to the Transvaal from Nyassaland was stopped because of the terrible mortality among the natives of a tropical country immigrated into the Transvaal, but it seems to me that they are now going under some informal arrangement, I believe, in the Government of Nyassaland, primarily for the benefit of Nyassaland, and we want natives of Nyassaland, as far as possible, to cultivate the land of Nyassa. I am not aware of what policy is really behind this matter, and I shall be very glad if my hon. Friend will explain it. Permission was given for 3,000 coolies to go to the Transvaal. If that is so, it will require some explanation as to who authorised that policy. Indeed, I am told that in some of the villages at present there are hardly any men left, the whole of the population being women. We should deal with this question in a sympathetic spirit towards Nyassaland, as well as towards the neighbouring territory, which wants coolies for its own purposes. It really is to me quite impossible to discover what at present is the policy in the Protectorate and outside as regards its labour, and I shall be very grateful to my hon. Friend if he will deal with the matter.
There is another question to which I should like to refer, and that is, the bankruptcy laws of Nyassaland. When I asked a question to-day someone suggested that the bankruptcies might amount to one, or possibly two, a year, but they do not understand the great operations taking place in Nyassaland. Bankruptcies are, I am sorry to say, exceedingly common. Hindus come there to trade, and they carry on trade for a little time, getting their goods from European merchants in Nyassaland. They send their profits away to India, and then they fail, and do not pay for the goods they sold, and ha I been paid for. Those are disastrous circumstances for business going on in Nyassaland, in which, as the Under-Secretary for the Colonies well knows, I have personal interest, and I make no secret of it. It is very desirable that the bankruptcy law there should be made

1059
more stringent, and this reform is certainly called for in that Protectorate. As laws are more easily passed in countries where there is no Parliament, and are none the worse laws for that, I suggest to the Under-Secretary that he should urge upon the Governor of Nyassaland that it is desirable that some steps should be taken to protect European traders there in this respect, because the present law gives a great advantage to dishonest as against honest traders. I am not prepared to say, so far as bankruptcy laws go, that that is a state of things peculiar to Nyassaland. I believe it would be out of order, and at any rate it would be inconvenient to refer to the South Africa Bill, which was dealt with by the Under-Secretary at Question time to-day. But I cannot sit down without expressing the hope that the sympathy which has been expressed for the native races will not degenerate into an opposition to an arrangement which is so satisfactory to all the States, and which I sincerely hope will go through without any great opposition in this House.
Mr. P. F. CURRAN: I will not attempt to follow the methods adopted by the hon. Member who has just sat down, who, in my opinion, seems to have been using this Debate to some extent for the promotion of business interests. At any rate, from the nature of his speech that is the way it has appealed to me. The object I had in view in placing the Motion which stands in my name on the Paper was not to discuss the South African problem. I had an idea there would be great competition from various quarters of the House to take part in that discussion, but I desire to take advantage of this Debate for the purpose of calling the attention of the Committee to what I regard as an important and somewhat serious problem which comes within the category of Colonial administration—I refer to the position of the Legislative Council of Malta. We have information at our disposal which tends to show that there is no other Colony under British rule to-day which is governed in the same manner. The Legislative Council of Malta consists of 20 members—three of them are permanent officials, nine are appointed by the Governor, and eight are elected by popular vote. So that out of the whole 20 there are only eight actual representatives of the people of Malta sitting on that Legislative Council. My reason for raising this question to-day is first of all because some 12 months ago I asked the pre-
1060
decessor of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Seely) whether he was prepared to take into account the consideration of a revision of the constitution of that council. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had just returned after paying a brief visit to Malta, and he said the Government had the matter under consideration. Quite recently I put a question, and the Under-Secretary for the Colonies replied to the effect that there was no alteration contemplated in the Legislative Council, but some alteration was contemplated in the Executive. I think that was the nature of his reply. We are all of opinion, from information at our disposal, that the form of Government in that island is unsatisfactory. Malta, although small as compared with South Africa, is certainly an important part of the British Empire. We believe that the nature of the Government, if it can be called a Legislative Council at all, is creating a good deal of unrest, and perhaps I may say that it is against, the traditional policy which has been adopted in all the other possessions of the British Empire. With regard to the composition of the council, I will give the Committee a brief quotation from the "Statesman's Year Book" for 1909. Here it is stated:—
"The Government is assisted by an Executive Council, consisting, according to the New Letters Patent of 3rd June, 1903, of the Governor as President, the Vice-President, Lieut.-Governor, und nine officially appointed members, and eight elected members."
That is to say, out of the 20 that form the Legislative Council there are only eight elected by popular vote. This was not always the case in Malta, because an alteration took place during the reign of the last Government. During the late Administration—about 1902—the then Colonial Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham—whom we all regret is compelled to be absent from this House because of long illness—for some reason or other formed a scheme for altering and revising the constitution of that council. Prior to that, I am given to understand that, while there were always a number of officially appointed persons, appointed through the Governor prior to 1902 the majority of the council were elected persons. As to the reason of the alteration I will leave the Committee to judge. During the reign of the last Government no efforts were made, as far as I am aware, to have any alteration made in this respect, but when the present Government came into power with its democratic traditions, and its reputation for popular forms of Government,

1061
the people who were suffering under the new method made representations to the Colonial Office, to the Governor, and to other quarters in order that the matter might be brought before the Government of the day. Up to the present nothing has been done to alter that condition of affairs. We believe that an alteration in the direction I have indicated would tend towards harmony in that island. I am quite aware that not only are the natives suffering under the present form of government, but even English residents in Malta recognise, and naturally recognise, the injustice of a legislative council composed in this manner. In my judgment it would be just as well for Malta that the Governor should have entire control without any council as to have 12 officially appointed persons, three of them permanent officials as against eight elected persons. Throughout our Colonial possessions there is a natural, and I think a justifiable, suspicion of non-elected persons. We have had some experience of them in this country, and we are likely to have some more. I ask the Government and the hon. and gallant Gentleman to recognise the importance of this problem, because of the importance of the island to this country. The defences of the country were discussed yesterday for a long time, and I would like to call the attention of the Committee to what the Statesman's Year Book says in regard to the importance of the island of Malta. Here is a brief quotation:—
"Malta is one of the most important ports of call in the world, and it is the best resort for the repair and refitment of the British and Mediterranean fleet. Its harbour is a naval station. It is small, too small for the fleet, but a new breakwater is being constructed this year."
In my judgment the port is a very important one to this country, and it has long been under the British flag. On many occasions, especially when Sir George White was associated with the Colony, many matters of interest to the working classes were brought before some of the representatives of labour in this country. I am not going into that side of the question to-day, but I am prepared to say that if an alteration took place in the constitution of the legislative council, if the Government of the island was made of a more democratic character, in my judgment I should say all sections of the island would be much more content and more loyal to the British Crown than we find them to-day. There is a very important newspaper in Malta, which is not by any means a revolutionary paper,
1062
which gives business news, and, in fact, all classes of news, and exists for the purpose of appealing not only to the populace of the island, but to the British Government, to alter the state of affairs which exists today. I ask the Committee to remember the manner in which we are treating other parts of the British Empire in regard to self-government. There is a Bill which will come before this House at a later period, namely, the South Africa Union Bill, which will confer self-government upon a people who have been for a short period only under British rule. Therefore, I feel that what is being done in any part of the British Empire ought to be done in the case of Malta. Malta to-day has no Government at all. The Government is merely a farce, inasmuch as the permanent officials, with the appointed persons acting in conjunction, can always outvote and override any suggestions or schemes brought forward by the elected members. I would ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to take into serious consideration the promotion of a scheme for the revision of the council, making it more democratic. He will then be acting up to the traditions of his party in regard to democratic government, and he will also be doing that which will make the people of Malta more loyal and contented than they are to-day. It is a great coaling port, and the grievances of the workmen, especially since this new form of government was instituted, have not been recognised to the extent they were in years gone by, and, from the point of view of having labour's claims voiced to a representative body of the people, I would urge upon the hon. and gallant Gentleman to recognise the justice of the proposal I now make.
Mr. G. H. ROBERTS (Norwich): I think all will admit that my hon. Friend has submitted a tangible matter for the consideration of the Committee. He has pointed out that a real grievance is entertained by the Maltese people respecting the present form of their constitution, and he has also pointed out that in his opinion, if this grievance is removed, the Maltese people will be more contented and loyal. I believe it is the tradition of the Maltese people that they are proud of their loyalty to the British Crown. Malta was incorporated into the British Empire at the express request of the Maltese people, and not by conquest, in 1798, and so satisfied were the British Government with the conduct of the people that in 1887 a constitution was granted to them by the then Tory

1063
Government, This constitution gave a majority of elected representatives to the Council of Government of the Island. The Maltese people are alleged to be given to a great deal of agitation, and I believe the then Colonial Secretary stated that Malta was not an ordinary Colony but a fortress, and that anything in the nature of determined agitation could not be permitted by the British Government. The agitation there arose mainly over the language question, and it has consistently loomed as a matter of great agitation between this Government and the Maltese people. The Maltese people have grave cause for agitation, and this was subsequently acknowledged by the British Government itself. An Order was made that English instead of Italian should be the official language after the expiration of a period of years. This caused great discontent among the people. They were supported by the Italian Government, and our Colonial Office subsequently withdrew the Order and the matter was settled. I simply instance that to prove that, in my opinion, the Maltese people had a grave cause for agitation, and that at any rate that wais tacitly acknowledged by our Government at home. Of course, in this Constitution the British Crown retained the right to legislate by Order in Council, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain) in June, 1903, summarily altered the Constitution. He claimed it was not so much an alteration as a reversion to the pre-1887 condition. The Maltese people have strongly resented this alteration or reversion throughout, and they have certainly held hopes that when the Liberals came into office they would reverse the Tory policy of the late Government and restore the position to that instituted by the Conservative Government in 1887. A majority of non-elected persons on this Council deprives the Maltese people of any direct control of their own affairs, and I submit that they have made out a case for the consideration of the Committee this afternoon. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, when at the Colonial Office, stated that disputes between this Government and the elected Members could never be settled, because the elected Members refused to pass certain estimates that had been submitted to them. I do not think that that can be admitted as a real substantial reason for the withdrawal of their
1064
Constitution. If we admit their right to take a share in the control of their own affairs, then we acknowledge they have a perfect right to criticise or to endorse or reject estimates that may be submitted to them. I do not think it will be denied that the Maltese people are deserving of participation in their own affairs, and I am hopeful the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be able to give us some assurance that this question is receiving favourable consideration at the hands of his Department. The Maltese people are a thrifty and very industrious people, and Malta, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, is a very important dependency of ours. I am sure we all prefer to know that the Maltese people are loyal and contented, and if they have, as we apprehend, a substantial grievance, it ought to be removed as a result of the attention of the House being drawn to it. They have, in our opinion, a great complaint, and I feel sure all will agree that they have a right to submit their grievance to this House and to expect that it shall receive just and suitable consideration. I trust the result will be that their grievance will be removed and the matter equitably adjusted, so that loyalty and content may once more be restored to this little military station of ours.
The UNDER-SECRETARY for the COLONIES (Colonel Seely): It may be convenient if I now reply to some of the points raised in the course of the Debate. If I might begin with the point last raised, I would say that I do not quarrel with either of my hon. Friends opposite, the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Curran) or the Member for Norwich (Mr. G. H. Roberts) in having raised this important question. The question of the Maltese Constitution and the contentment of the people of Malta is one of the highest concern, not only to this House but to the people of this country. Malta, as both hon. Gentlemen have said, is a country of the utmost importance to us. It is a great naval and military station, and it is a port of call second to none in importance in that part of the world, and, if we derive great benefits, as no doubt we do, from the strategical point of view, from the fact that Malta is an integral portion of our Empire, it is our duty to attend to the representations of the people of the island. Mention was made of the language question, and, in introducing it, my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow made one remark which will be received with absolute unanimity by every single right hon. and hon. Gentleman

1065
in this House. He said hew much we all regretted the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. We do, and we regret his absence more particularly to-day, not only because of the interest he took in this question, but also because of the peculiarly interesting occasion to which we referred at Question-time to-day in reference to the Union of South Africa. He was one of those who foresaw this happy solution, and said, if I remember rightly, that co-operation in South Africa would soon give place to union. The right hon. Gentleman was concerned in the quarrels—I think we must call them so—which took place on the language question in Malta, and, although many of us on this side of the House did not agree with his policy in many parts of the world, there is this to be said on the language question. It was assumed for the purpose of the controversy by many hon. Gentlemen here, of course in perfect fairness and in complete good faith, that the language of the people of Malta was Italian, whereas the language of the military and official inhabitants was English. That is a complete delusion, and it ought to be explained on every occasion as being a delusion. There is a great deal to be said on both sides of the language question, but it is always necessary to make it plain to those who do not naturally know the details of Maltese questions that whereas there are many persons of the official classes who speak English and many who speak Italian, the vast majority of the people of Malta speak neither, but Maltese. That, of course, introduces a complication into the problem which has made it more than usually difficult of solution.
Mr. CURRAN: There is a statement of authority that a plebiscite was taken of the people of the island as to whether they desired their children taught English or Italian, and the majority were in favour of the teaching of English.
Colonel SEELY: That is not an argument in favour of the Italian solution of the problem. We are, of course, dealing with questions which occurred some time back, and which, happily, are not now acute. I only referred to it because the hon. Gentleman himself did so, and because that is a part of the difficulty which might be solved, if such a solution were possible, by a complete democratic system of government. I am not here to say that the present system of governing Malta meets with
1066
complete satisfaction from the people of Malta. We know it does not. But at the same time I cannot say, on behalf of the Government, that we are prepared now to adopt what you may call a completely democratic system of government for Malta. It is not only that Malta is a great port; it is not because, as the Duke of Wellington once said, you might as well give a constitution to a battleship, but it is because the constitution of the island is such that the grant of democratic government would not, in the opinion of the Government, solve the difficulty. I am not in a position to say why that is so. I make no reflection on the people of Malta. On the contrary, the Maltese people have a great history, of which they are justly proud, and they have rendered us many services—among others, one of our best-known Governors is a gentleman of distinguished Maltese extraction. There are a great many considerations involved in this matter in addition to those which are military and naval. There is the difficulty of language; the fact that the official classes do not speak the same language as the people. But the Government are not only prepared to take a step forward—they have already done so. They are anxious to associate two elected members more closely with the Government of the island, and I may tell the Committee it has been decided by the Secretary of State that two unofficial members shall be placed on the Executive Council, at salaries of £300 a year, to enable them to give their time to these important duties. I do not mean to say that this is a complete solution of the difficulty, or that it will be accepted as such, but I do think it will be regarded as a distinct step forward in associating the people of Malta more closely with the government of their own affairs. I trust my hon. Friends will be satisfied with the statement I have made. The two new members will, I can assure them, be gentlemen who would have been selected by their colleagues on behalf of what is known as the popular party in the island.
I turn now to other matters, and, if I may be permitted, I will deal first, without discourtesy to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lyttelton), who raised a very important question—the education question of the Orange Free State—a question with regard to East Africa, a question, in its general aspects, of the greatest importance, which was raised by the hon. Member for the Holmfirth Division (Mr. H. J. Wilson), and has been referred

1067
to by other hon. Members. It is difficult to speak as fully as one could wish on a question of this kind: not in the least because there is anything to conceal—for all the facts with regard to this deplorable case have already been laid fully before this House. Nor is there anything to conceal, because it might come out that our officials are guilty of leading immoral lives, as a general rule. I believe that to be absolutely untrue. Speaking broadly, the statement made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood), who has himself been a Government official, and undoubtedly he is not biassed in this matter, takes a strong attitude on the question in favour of the views held by the hon. Member for the Holmfirth Division, represents the true state of the case. I am certain, from the information we have at the Colonial Office, that the officials who administer the affairs of different countries in the different Crown Colonies live decent, honourable, straightforward lives. The type of offence to which reference has been made to-day is isolated. I do not wonder my hon. Friend raised the question, because it is one of grave importance. The reason I do not like to dwell on it is because it seems so hard upon the man. The question has been raised before, it has been dealt with administratively, punishment has been meted out — it has been a heavy punishment—and the man is now endeavouring to lead a new and better life, as we all know. I cannot be a party to trying a man twice for the same offence. I cannot be a party to saying that the extent of punishment meted out to a man shall be measured by the publicity given to his offence, and, therefore, speaking on behalf of the Secretary of State, I must say definitely that we decline to reopen the question as it affects this particular officer. He has been punished for his offence; he is endeavouring to repair the past, and we cannot reopen the question because further publicity has been given to it. But, on the general question, one cannot be too strict in preventing irregular alliances of this kind. I will not speak on the question of morality. There is much force in what was said by an hon. Member below the Gangway that a Christian man should remember the parable about those who sin casting the first stone, but, leaving aside the question of morality, experience shows that the administration not only in
1068
our Colonies, but especially in India and Persia, suffers deplorably when these irregular alliances are contracted, and, for that reason, every effort has been made by the Executive under successive Governments to check the practice, and to stop it in India, Burmah, and other parts of the world. I am glad to think that these efforts have been successful, and that a system which at one time was common in the East has now practically disappeared, and the evil results which inevitably follow from these irregular alliances are now almost unknown, because the practice itself has almost ceased. But the very case we have been discussing shows how very dangerous it is. Allegations have been made to-day that the Indian Penal Code is very laxly administered, but, so far as our officials are concerned, the Government has taken a strong line on this matter. The offence was not proved in this case. There was a conflict of evidence, and it must be remembered that these cases offer opportunities for blackmail—
Mr. PIKE PEASE: If it was not true, why was punishment administered?
Colonel SEELY: It was punishment of an administrative kind, and was not intended to ruin a man's career. Had it been proved he would have been sent to gaol, but the answer is there was no proof, and had there been proof, the code would at once have been put into operation.
Mr. WEDGWOOD: Did they try to prove it?
Colonel SEELY: Of course they did. A judge of some eminence in that country gave the matter most anxious consideration. The Colonial Office also gave it careful consideration, and the conclusion come to by all concerned was that there was no proof of the kind of offence alleged which would have brought this man under the Penal Code. We definitely refuse to reopen the case for the reasons I have stated. We will not try a man twice. I have only to say one last word on this very painful topic. Reference has been made in the course of the Debate to the action of the Secretary of State in consequence of this isolated case. The Secretary of State took a grave view, and he issued a confidential circular, copies of which have been shown to one or two hon. Members of this House. It was confidential in the sense that all instructions to officers on subjects of this kind must be so regarded. I am not at liberty to quote from the cir-

1069
cular or to lay it upon the Table. It would, indeed, be undesirable to do so, but those who have seen it—and some of them are conversant with the public service and the language generally used in it—have told me that they regard it as a very stern warning. Those not so well accustomed to this kind of phraseology have complained that the words used are not strong enough. But I can assure my hon. Friends that the words used, from the official point of view, contained language absolutely and positively menacing in its character. I was once told that if the Government desired to say a man was a liar their lordships would observe that "the circumstances did not quite bear out his statements," and so on. After all, that is a question of methods and circumlocution, but I can assure my hon. Friends that when we say that grave consequences may be expected to follow from a certain act everybody knows that such a warning of grave consequences can only end in one thing, and that is the closing of a man's official career.
I turn now to the question of shipping in East Africa, which has been raised by hon. Gentlemen on both sides of this House, and particularly by the hon. Member who presided over a Committee on this question (Mr. Evelyn Cecil.) Although he is a brilliant exponent of political fiscal views, he applied a perfectly impartial mind, regardless either of Free Trade or Protection, to this question. I will say at once I do not think one can discuss the question of the subsidy to the East African Line on grounds of Free Trade or Protection. The admirable speech of the hon. Member for Liverpool stated that very clearly. It is not a fiscal question whether you should or should not give a subsidy in a case like this. Of course, it involves the spending of money, and in so far as that it is a fiscal question, but I mean that it does not involve the subject of Free Trade or Protection in the least degree. If we propose to go in for a general system of subsidy, it might involve what is ordinarily called the fiscal question, but in this case the serious arguments used have been purely on lines of postal subsidy already given, and notably on the lines that our security demands, that British ships should not be entirely banished from any part of the world.
I have great sympathy with the view that British ships should not be banished from any part of the world, but on the general question of subsidies I confess myself
1070
entirely unconverted. I do not think a general case for subsidies is made out; indeed, I think the history of the last three or four years is overwhelmingly against subsidies as a general principle. The hon. Member for Liverpool made an opportune interruption on this point in reply to the hon. Member for Aston Manor, who pointed out that a German shipping company were obtaining a large portion of the trade of East Africa. The hon. Gentleman interrupted by saying that the only German company of that sort that he had seen the figures of showed a loss of £800,000 in the last year. It is the fact that no subsidies seem to be able to make a country successful in their maritime enterprises, and so much is that the case that many countries, notably France, which spends very large sums in subsidies, find themselves dropping behind in the race for mercantile maritime supremacy. If the argument is that on general principles you ought to give a subsidy because German ships are carrying British merchandise, I say there is no case. If it be true that there is more merchandise to be carried, then there is room for British ships, and British ships will soon go to carry it. It is necessary to remove a misapprehension on that point. British ships are carrying British goods to East Africa. It may be a surprise to hon. Gentlemen opposite to know that the overwhelming majority of Government cargoes, speaking from recollection, I should say to the extent of more than nine-tenths of Government cargoes, shipped to East Africa are shipped in British bottoms. Still, it is true that it is embarrassing to have British ships there so seldom and only going at irregular intervals.
Mr. REES: It is the coastal trade I refer to, the trade with the coastal ports. There are no British ships going to the coastal ports in any regular fashion.
Colonel SEELY: That is another question, and I will deal with it on another occasion. That would be a very much smaller matter, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give us the advantage of his assistance in regard to it.
Mr. REES: I should like to know which is the company which has lost £800,000 in a year?
Colonel SEELY: I am glad it was not my hon. Friend's company. I thank it will be recognised, of course, that if an immense subsidy is paid to a company it is not so difficult to show a dividend, but

1071
there are special circumstances in the case of East Africa, because although it is true that British bottoms carry the Government cargoes, it is also true that they do not go there with any regularity. The problem is to get some arrangement by which British ships, or any ships for that matter, shall go with some regularity to British East African ports. I should like to say a word or two about the carriage of troops. That is one reason why we must view with concern the disappearance of the British flag in these waters; but it is unfair to carry it too far and to assert that the carriage of British troops by foreign ships must necessarily show that we must go in for a subsidy; because, suppose we had a subsidised monthly service at a cost of £40,000 a year, and supposing the ship belonging to that service had gone two days before the troubles arose in Somaliland, the troops would have had to be sent, and we should still have sent them, by the first available ship, which would have been the German ship. The truth is, we send the troops by the ships that come first and which you can charter first. I am not, however, in a position to make any definite statement about the matter which we are anxiously considering for the reasons I have given. I think it is true to say, moreover, that the complete disappearance of the flag from any sea is a serious inconvenience, apart from the fiscal or commercial question. I do not share the idea, however, that, the competition of a foreign country will monopolise the trade and drive away our ships; although there may be cases arise in which I, the enemy of subsidies, should be ready to say that it was desirable to take some steps in that direction. That has not happened yet, however; but we are anxiously considering the matter, for strategical and postal reasons. I do not think I can say more on the question of these subsidies, but I must say a word or two in regard to what fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Honiton (Sir J. Kennaway). I should like to say how entirely I agree with him, speaking personally, in regard to what fell from him as to the undesirability of paying very low salaries to our officials in different parts of the world. But here, on the same day, we are asked, for the good of the Empire, to expend a large sum in subsidising British lines for various purposes, and we also have brought to our notice that one or two deplorable incidents have occurred which have brought into momentary disrepute a great service like the
1072
Colonial service, which bears so high name for purity and honour throughout the world.
The right hon. Gentleman opposite I think very truly pointed out that the two questions must be dealt with together, I mean the moral question and the question of salary; because if you pay a man in a small colony, far away from this country and he gets home but seldom, a salary so small that it is impossible for him to look forward to marriage and the happiness of children, then I say there is, and always must be, a danger that the moral level will not be so high as amongst those men who can look forward to marriage and the happiness of a family. We want money for this purpose, but the question is, Where is it to be got? There is only a certain amount of money in the till, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer tells me there is very little, and we cannot do all these things at once. In-the Colonial service, I can prove to this House that you could spend £40,000,000 this year with the greatest advantage, in developing our assets, in fostering commercial interest in various parts of the world, and pushing forward railways, but you cannot have it everywhere, and there is very little to go round, but if I were to choose, and if the Committee were to press me in which direction I should insist upon expenditure, I should say it would be better expended upon the salaries of these officials in different parts of the world than it would be in the payment of a subsidy to a shipping line, however desirable for other reasons that might be. The parallel of India and of Burma tends to show the advisability of not keeping the salaries too low. My Noble Friend has not taken any action yet, but it is being carefully considered whether the salaries should not be raised in some parts of the world in some ranks of the Colonial service. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Rees) asked me why we were permitting labour to go from Nyassaland to the Transvaal mines? The labourers go from Nyassaland to the Transvaal because they want to go, and they want to go so badly that we cannot stop them, and the realson they wish to change is that they get higher pay. We have imposed most careful restrictions upon them, although these very restrictions at the very time when you are trying to stop them make it appear that you are taking the matter under State control. The same thing arises in regard to the drink traffic in this country, and it is because we are

1073
anxious to control the flow of labour from Nyassaland to the Transvaal, and because we realise the desire on the part of the people of Nyassaland not to lose suoh valuable labour, and setting that altogether aside, that there is such danger to health in the importation of people from tropical climates that we have laid it down that this importation can only be permitted under restrictions. As to the bankruptcy laws, it is a very difficult question, and I would ask my hon. Friend to give us some information as to the bankruptcies m Nyassaland to which he refers.
Mr. REES: They are very numerous. The bankruptcies are those of Hindu traders, who get goods, very seldom pay for them, and subsequently fail, with the result that there are numerous bankruptcies, and the British merchants who supply the goods are defrauded.
Colonel SEELY: How very shocking. But that condition of things arises in many different parts of the world. But there may be special circumstances in the bankruptcy law of Nyassaland which we do not know of at the Colonial Office, but I should be very glad, if the hon. Member will give me any information, to carefully consider the matter, with a view to making such Amendments as may be necessary.
I think I have now dealt with the points raised except the most important subject mentioned at the commencement of the Debate by my right hon. Friend the late Colonial Secretary. He asked me a question about Orange River Colony education, and said that the Act was unworkable, that as a consequence three inspectors, who had done their work well, had been dismissed, and the children of the Colony were being handicapped in the race of life. These and many other things, he said, in a spirit of great moderation but still of strong condemnation, not only of the Act itself, but of the Orange River Colony Government. It is not proper for me, as representing the Colonial Office, to take a side in a matter like this affecting a self-governing Colony, but since the right hon. Gentleman has put one side of the case it is only fair, as it has not been put by anyone else in the Debate, that I should put the other side of the case. The Act complained of has been administered, and was largely the result of the labours of General Hertzog, who, besides being a brilliant soldier, was a judge of the Orange River Colony, and a very highly educated man, before the late war. The right hon. Gen-
1074
tleman says the Act was unworkable, but is it? It did not work well, I admit, but the scheme of the Act is not entirely in fault. I am informed that it is similar in almost all respects to two other schemes which have worked well under similar conditions. Of course, the difficulty is that you have a bi-lingual country, a country where about five out of six children speak Dutch in their childhood and the remaining child speaks English; and, as often happens, of the five most will ultimately speak English no doubt, as is highly desirable. But the principle of General Hertzog's Act is that the children shall be taught all in classes together in the language which they best understand.
Say you have a class with 40 children, 30 Dutch-speaking and 10 English-speaking. The teacher will teach the children in the lower standards in the language which they best understand, and, as the Act was intended to be administered according to the information I have received, the teacher would teach them in Dutch for a time, and would then turn to the English children and say, "Do you understand that? Here is London, on the Thames, the capital of England," and so on, presuming it to be a geography lesson. The English children would say "Yes," and they would then pass on to the next part of the lesson. That is the kind of scheme, I am informed, which has worked well in Alsace-Lorraine, where a very similar problem presented itself. I am told Professor Rein, who has made a special study of this question, believes that this system of teaching the children all in classes together in the language they best understand, and as far as possible simultaneously, first in one language and then in another, is the best plan. I think the right hon. Gentleman, and most certainly the Leader of the Opposition, will find no fault with the wisdom of a Scotch professor, Professor Macalister, of Glasgow University. I am told he can be called in aid of this scheme, and considers that in a bilingual country this is the best system. I am told that in the Western Highlands, where Gaelic prevails, this system has been tried and has worked well, and that the attempt to make a bi-lingual people by teaching them as far as possible in both languages up to a certain standard, and then by teaching them some subjects in one language and some in another best suited to it, and teaching both languages as languages, as we are taught Latin and Greek or French and German, is the best system. It is not

1075
the Transvaal system and it is not our system, except in the place which I have named. I know there are many other educational experts in South Africa as well as here and on the Continent, who strongly commend this Act as being the best scheme under difficult circumstances.
So much for the merits of the Act itself. I do not say it worked well, but that may not have been the fault of the Act. No Education Act I have ever heard of worked well, though some of them must have contained elements of good. But the problem is very similar in South Africa to the problem here, where you have the Anglican and the Nonconformist child, and in conversations which I have had not only with General Hertzog himself, but also with the two inspectors who were unfortunately dismissed—and no one deplores it more than we do—and with Mr. Browne, of the Orange River Colony Legislative Council, who is also in this country, it is surprising to find the old phrases that we knew so well in the days of the Education Bill and the Education Bill before last, constantly arising. There are some who think' the parents' rights are the best solution. I naturally heard that with interest and with some favour, but that is not the system adopted, nor is it the system favoured in many parts of South Africa.
With regard to the inspectors themselves, it was no doubt a very unfortunate episode, but I think we may say this without laying any blame upon the inspectors, that the circumstances were quite peculiar. Here was a country where, although racial bitterness has well-nigh gone, some little must still have subsisted then, and many spoke Dutch, and were proud of it, and many spoke English, and were proud of it. General Hertzog had to produce a scheme, and he did it, but instead of being able to stay in the Colony and see the scheme through, he was bound to go, on a subject of even more vital importance to his Colony, to Cape Town, and Durban, and Bloemfontein, to attend the conference on Closer Union. While he was away, of course, the thing got out of order. It was bound to happen. When he came back he found that things had not gone as they would have done if he had been there. That explains, I think, how acute the difficulty became. It would not be proper to make any statement as to the merits of the case, but we are very sorry indeed that a, conflict should have arisen, and that these inspectors have found themselves deprived of their appointments, but while
1076
we cannot take sides on the matter, or express an opinion as to the rights or wrongs of their dismissal, we, as a Government, wish, if possible, to find them further and suitable employment. We trust that may not be necessary, because they will find it under private auspices. The reason they were dismissed, the right hen. Gentleman said, was because they worked the Act in accordance with the circular. I think he put the point too strongly, because there is something to be said on the other side. I know a story of an Austrian railway which was entirely brought to a standstill simply because the officials carried out the regulations. You could do that in any place, and tie right hon. Gentleman, who knows the Colonial Office, wll not dispute that if everyone in the Colonial Office, did his own duty and nothing but his duty, the whole business of the Office would be brought to a standstill in two days. A mass of boxes the height of this House would block the Secretary of State's room, and nothing could be done. So it is possible under any scheme, by carrying out things literally and not in a sympathetic spirit, to bring them to a standstill.
It may be said, "What business have we to interfere with a self-governing Colony?" We only interfere because the children are supposed to be hampered in their work. The self-governing Colonies themselves would have a right to complain if the children, in their opinion, were handicapped in the race for life by the system of education here. I do not say that is so. Having discussed the matter with all those who can give me information, I am not prepared to say for a moment that the Act is not a good Act, and quite as good as the Transvaal Act, but we deeply deplore the difficulty which has arisen, and we earnestly hope that some solution may be found.
Mr. LYTTELTON: I stated the case on behalf of the educationists of the Orange Colony, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman admits, in an extremely temperate manner. I said the scheme of education which has been propounded there was unworkable, and had proved to be unworkable. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said not that it is unworkable, but that it does not work well. He has totally ignored the fact that it was as objectionable, from an education point of view, to the Dutch as it was to the British. I repeat that statement, which has not been contradicted, and I adhere to it. He

1077
entirely failed to make any excuse, or indeed any observation, upon another serious part of the observations which I made, which was that the inspectors had been dismissed without knowing what the complaint was against them and without having had an opportunity of being heard in their own defence. He says these gentlemen were unsympathetic and carried out literally the regulations of the Act of Parliament. I agree that unsympathetic administrators can, by applying very literally the words of an Act of Parliament, sometimes make it difficult in its operation. The case is absolutely different and absolutely contrary here. In point of fact, the inspectors and the educational authorities of the Orange River Colony found the Act was profoundly distasteful to a great majority of the inhabitants, and worked it an a lenient and liberal spirit. That was not to work it in an unsympathetic way, but to work it in the only way in which it could be made workable. Before that action they were lenient, liberal and sympathetic, and full of desire to assist the Government. For that act they were called over the coals, a circular was sent out pointedly calling their attention to what they were doing, and they were called upon literally to administer the Act. It was for obedience to that second circular, which they were bound to obey, that we gather they were dismissed, although no complaint was made against them, and they were never heard in their own defence. I have never heard a case more frankly admitted. There is no answer to it. I did not ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to interfere with the rights of self-governing Colonies; I asked him to do on behalf of British subjects in the Orange Colony that which we should have a perfect right to do in respect to British subjects living in a foreign country, namely, to use our influence, persuasion and diplomatic pressure, which we are bound to use on behalf of our own fellow-subjects, no matter in what country they may be.
I pass to a subject which I would have willingly omitted. It has been raised by the Amendment upon which we are engaged, and I am sorry to say that this discussion has revealed a state of things in East Africa which I think is deplorable, and which shows that the Government have dealt with it with very reprehensible weakness. Do not let the Committee consider for a moment that I am going to ask them to re-try the case against an official,
1078
or to pass upon him a sentence heavier than that which was passed by his Administrative Chief. I agree so far with the speech of the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Seely) that the case is now six months or more old. It certainly would be repugnant to me, as I believe it would to the Committee, to ask for further punishment of the offending official. Still more I desire to say that I never myself bring general charges against officials, and I should certainly never have dreamt of bringing general charges against officials in East Africa, whom we are proud to regard as English officials, and whom we believe, until the contrary is proved, to be high-minded and honourable men. But my complaint is against the Government for their weakness in dealing with this case, and let me inform the Committee that the facts are really not in dispute. I have carefully verified the facts which the hon. Member opposite (Mr. H. J. Wilson) brought forward in his opening speech. These facts have been established in their substance by a judicial inquiry conducted by Justice Barth, who has written a report of the matter. It has been said by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Cathcart Wason) that the facts have been exaggerated, but not a word of argument or a sentence was used to point out one single exaggeration. On the contrary, he went much further than anybody on this side of the House. He said he was in favour of deporting any white man in a tropical climate who lived with a black woman. Apparently the exception to that rule is an official who has lived with a very young woman when she has been taken away from her proper custodian by that official through the exercise of administrative authority.
Let me tell the House that anybody who has occupied a position at the Colonial Office is bound to call the attention of the Committee to the, I think, deplorable weakness in this case on the part of the Government. The admitted facts are that one in the position of acting administrator, who has the power of life and death within his jurisdiction—
Colonel SEELY: No.
Mr. LYTTELTON: At any rate, it is quite sufficient to say that if he has not the power of life and death he has very high jurisdiction in criminal matters. It was found against him by the judge—and I believe it is not denied by himself—that this acting administrator did procure to live with him a girl between 13 and 14.

1079
It is perfectly true that, being in a tropical country, a girl of that age would be as mature as a girl of 17 here. When she objected—and he admits that she objected to his advances in the first instance—he afterwards persisted. I should imagine that such yielding would be natural to the most powerful man in the district, seconded by one of the most powerful chiefs who had procured her to live with him. These are the facts as regards the first case proved against this gentleman. No one can deny the facts I have stated. They are found in the judge's report.
There is another and graver charge against the same official. There was a policeman who was actually under the command of the acting district administrator. The official saw the girl who was living either as wife or concubine with this policeman, and he conceived a desire to possess her. He did take her away from the man who was under his command. All that is found by the judge, who equally found that the policeman resented and objected to this conduct. This fact is not found in the judge's report, but it is stated to be in the evidence which has not been presented to this House. It has been stated by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, and it has not been contradicted by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Seely) that this policeman went to the official's house and claimed the woman who had been taken away from him. Some scuffle or quarrel took place, and the man who had been deprived of his wife or concubine was put in prison for having threatened violence to the official. These are the absolutely uncontradicted facts in this case, and I say that no one would be more reluctant than I should be to express condemnation of a man living under different circumstances, in a different climate, in a position of isolation, and the like. Very few men would desire to deal hardly with any man who lived what is called an immoral life or have the right to be hard upon a man for doing so. But the Committee know perfectly well that there is a vast difference between immorality and that conduct which uses high official position as against very young and very uncivilised girls to bring them against the will of those who are protecting them into his own custody and for his own enjoyment. I think I can say from my knowledge of my illustrious predecessor the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) that such conduct would not
1080
have been tolerated for 24 hours by him on the part of officials under his administration. I say myself that it is hypocrisy, it is almost monstrous, that we should pride ourselves on the laws which exclude intoxicating drink from the native population, and that we should be tolerating the seizure and corruption of young girls by officials, instead of visiting the offence with heavy and instant condemnation. I do not desire that this case should be retried. I do not desire that the man who has suffered the punishment of suspension for one year from his promotion should now be further punished, but if that is called heavy punishment, I leave the House to judge. He has been fortunate enough to incur only that punishment. I do say that the Committee should convey as emphatically as possible that conduct such as has been admitted here should not have been dealt with with the miserable weakness it was dealt with by the Colonial Office, and that if in future such an abuse of official position takes place, the person who so abuses his authority should no longer be left in a position to deal with the lives, or, if not the lives, at least with the liberties of the subjects of the King. My last observation in regard to this most painful and discreditable case is that it is worthy of notice that the Indian Criminal Code was in force, according to the Under-Secretary, in East Africa. This official, if the Indian Penal Code was in truth in force in East Africa, would have-been liable to punishment by imprisonment for ten years. Section 373 of the Indian Penal Code prescribes:—
"Whoever buys, hires, or otherwise obtains possession of any minor under the age of 16 years with intent that such minor shall be employed or used for the purpose of prostitution, or for any other unlawful and immoral purpose, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years…and shall also be liable to a fine."
There is the Act of Parliament which applies to the case. In recent years it has been used, I understand, so as to obtain the punishment of six months' imprisonment for a civilian who was guilty of an offence far short of this. What was done in this case by the Colonial Office leaves on my mind the unpleasant impression that if a man who is not in authority commits this offence, this Act should be enforced against him, but that as regards a man who is in authority, it is to be left unen-forced.
Sir GILBERT PARKER: I listened to the speech of the Under-Secretary with a good deal of amazement when he described

1081
the conditions under which the inspectors were dismissed. I referred to a paper which I had in my hand showing all the circumstances, and I cannot help saying that the statement made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman represents a good deal of ignorance at least.
The hon. Gentleman drew a picture of the education authorities in the Orange River Colony trying to work out under an advantageous system the educational destinies of the Colony, and he led the Committee to believe that the main question at issue was that the inspectors had not interpreted the regulations made by the Director of Education exactly or properly. He said that the law as passed represented as good a scheme as could be invented there for the education of Dutch and English children; and he led us to believe that these inspectors were dismissed because of their interpretation of a clause which he defined to the Committee. These inspectors were not dismissed for any interpretation of the clause which the hon. Gentleman quoted.
Colonel SEELY: I said that that was what I understood the right hon. Gentleman opposite to say.
Sir GILBERT PARKER: In a Debate a few weeks ago the hon. Gentleman stated that he would on an early occasion make a full statement concerning the dismissal of these inspectors. I submit that he has given us no such statement. He said that difficulties had arisen. These inspectors were dismissed, not because of their interpretation of the clause to which the hon. Gentleman referred, where a class was to be taught first in one language and then in another, but because they interpreted the following clause in the circular issued by the Director of Education:—
"When a class is composed entirely of children whose mother tongue is the same the question of medium would present no difficulty. The children should be taught through the medium of their mother tongue, and the language which is not the medium should be resorted to in conversation, and gradually introduced and used up to and including Standard IV."
That was the rock on which these three inspectors were hurled and lost their places. I will not say that the hon. Gentle, man wilfully misled the Committee, but I do say that he led us to understand that there was on the part of the inspectors a sort of general misinterpretation of the regulations laid down by the Minister of Education. These inspectors were dismissed because they interpreted the regulations concerning the teaching of Dutch
1082
children their own and the English language. The Dutch parents of the schools over which these inspectors had control objected to their children not being given opportunities to study the English language. The inspectors appealed to the Department for fresh instructions, and the very Minister who ultimately dismissed them said they were interpreting the regulations as they were intended to be interpreted. At an interview General Hertzog said the inspectors had interpreted the regulations correctly, and refused all concession. He and the inspectors were agreed, but protests came in, not from the British, but from the Dutch people, whose interests the inspectors were endeavouring to protect, for the inspectors regretted that they had to interpret the law as they did. It was from the Dutch people the protest came; it was the Dutch people who drove the Minister into a corner, with the result that the Minister turned upon the innocent victims. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head.
Colonel SEELY: I think that to go as far as that is really unfair to a Minister in a self-governing Colony who cannot possibly defend himself here.
Sir GILBERT PARKER: I am stating what has been categorically declared in the Legislative Chamber of Bloemfontein, where no reply was given to it. If the inspectors strictly interpreted the law, as it was their duty to do, they were doing an act of which the Government did not approve. If they did not interpret the law correctly, they were not doing their duty as inspectors. I do not make these statements in order to attack General Hertzog or any other Minister, but because, when this Education Law was introduced into the Legislative Assembly of the Orange River Colony, I asked whether this Government had given due consideration to the questions involved. I was certain that the Government had not seen the final draft of the Bill, and that the Governor had given his assent to the Bill without the final draft having been passed by this Government. It is the Government here that I blame. At a time when we were giving to the Colony responsible Government, it was most important that the language question should be very delicately and carefully dealt with. It was the duty of the Government to see that the last words added to the Bill came under their supervision before the consent of the Crown was given. Am I wrong in stating that the Government did not see the final draft, and

1083
that the hon. Gentleman (Colonel Seely) if he had seen it would have raised some difficulty as to the consent of the Crown being given? Because I notice in the report of the proceedings in the Legislative Chamber at Bloemfontein, an hon. Member said that in the Colonial Office the hon. Gentleman had stated "General Hertzog has, I hear, cut himself off in his new Bill from the intellect of his Colony." If the Under-Secretary for the Colonies said that in the Colonial Office to a Member of the Legislative Assembly of the Orange River Colony, he will understand why I made such careful inquiries when the Bill was passed by the Legislative Assembly and signed by the Governor, and why I was so anxious to know whether this Government had passed in review the Bill in its final form. I think I can state with certainty that the Bill did not pass through the hands of this Government in its final form before the assent of the Governor was given to it.
Colonel SEELY: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that we ought to repeal the Act?
Sir GILBERT PARKER: I have not suggested that, nor do I think the Committee have in the least thought that I was suggesting it. What I would suggest is that the Government of the Orange River Colony might have been asked again to alter the Bill if the Government could foresee any such conditions as have arisen from putting the Bill into operation. I do not wish to say anything which would appear to attack the Government of the Orange River Colony, but I do attack this Government for passing a Bill which has proved, as the Under-Secretary stated, if not unworkable, at any rate not to work very well, in the interests either of the Dutch or of the British.
Colonel SEELY: Again I ask the hon. Gentleman, Have we any power to alter that I "What are we to do? He does not suggest the repeal of the Act. We cannot alter these matters here. He is going in detail into a matter which is really not worth while considering, as we cannot do anything except in one respect, and that the hon. Gentleman does not suggest.
Sir GILBERT PARKER: The Under-Secretary is perfectly aware that there are many instances in the history of Colonial law—take the Copyright Law as an
1084
instance—a law was passed by the Canadian Parliament; it came to this country, and the Government declined to give its consent. That has been done not once, but in 50 cases in the history of the Colonies. Does the Under-Secretary suggest that this Government retains no power of revision of legislation passed by a Colony, even a self-governing Colony?
Colonel SEELY: I think it is highly desirable, before anything more is said which may cause exacerbation of feeling, that I should intervene. In a case such as the Copyright Bill, where international relations are affected, of course we can intervene; but, as I stated at the time, and as I have said again to-day, the question of education in the Colony is not one in which His Majesty's Government can properly interfere, and the hon. Gentleman would not suggest that we should interfere. I deprecate discussions of this character which may cause angry feelings, at such a moment as the present, between the Parliament of this country and the Parliament of a self-governing Colony.
Sir GILBERT PARKER: Really the hon. Gentleman's remarks are very strange. I have said nothing that could possibly be interpreted as being an attempt to arouse racial feeling of any kind. I have merely stated the facts. The Under-Secretary undertook to tell the Committee what were the facts concerning the dismissal of certain inspectors in the Orange River Colony, and I disputed those facts. I have given the Committee the facts as they were brought out in the Debate at Bloemfontein, and as they are recorded in the papers which I hold in my hand. I have read from official documents, and I can only ask that the hon. Gentleman whose duty it is to instruct this House on Colonial questions, should, when he makes statements concerning a matter of this kind, give the exact facts. It is the exact facts which I have tried to give. I do not wish to labour the question any longer, but I must absolutely repudiate the attempt of the hon. Gentleman to cast upon me any desire to arouse racial feelings.
Colonel SEELY: Not racial feelings.
Sir GILBERT PARKER: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means. Does he mean to say it is a point of constitutional right that this Government has not the bounden duty before a law is passed, particularly in such circumstances when a language question has been so delicate and

1085
difficult a matter, that when that Bill which will become law is presented to a legislature and passed it shall not carefully revise the draft of the last words of the Bill and enter its reasonable protest, if it thinks that that Bill will prove unworkable, or, as the hon. Gentleman says, will not work well? I say that this Government did not exercise that proper and careful supervision which it ought to have exercised. If it had done so this difficulty would not have occurred, because the regulations which were passed in the Bill by the Department were absolutely unworkable, and the people who protested against it, the Dutch people of the Colony, in harrying their Minister pressed him to make scapegoats of three officials. We can come to no other conclusion. We have no reasons given for the dismissal other than those alluded to. They dismissed those officials as having created the trouble, and that the officials were right is borne out by the Minute of the Minister himself, in which he says, giving them permission to teach English and to provide the school children with the English books, that this was not an interpretation of the law in the letter or the spirit, but was a departure from the regulations which he himself had issued. The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I have spoken, not indignantly, but warningly, concerning the conduct of himself and the Government and the consequences that may ensue from it. Now I pass for a moment to the question of British East Africa. I will only say one thing regarding it. I do not wish to enter into the case that has been referred to. I regret very much that it is again before the House. The case has been dealt with; the man has begun work again in the Colonies. It is a bad business, altogether detestable to us all to discuss it. But I say this, that that incident could not have occurred if the man who committed this particular misdemeanour, this offence against the British Civil Service, had been certain that he would be treated with severity by those above him in authority, by the Governor, the Executive, and His Majesty's Government. That incident I do not say is typical, but I say that it is not solitary in that country, and it is an evidence of the certain laxity of administration which has made British East Africa during the last few years a point of anxiety for a great many people in this country, not to say a point of education in itself. We all remember that the late Under-Secretary for the Colonies (Mr. Winston Churchill), with a British man-o'-
1086
war, went to British East Africa to make an inquiry into the general administration there, the relations between the natives and the white settlers, and between the white settlers and the Government, and between the natives and the Government; and also the conditions of labour, the labour regulations existing for the natives in that part. With a flourish of trumpets, quite natural and quite suitable, the right hon. Gentleman, as he now is, went to British East Africa. We all encouraged him, we all applauded him, and we all expected results. I have asked for reports in this House. We all have expected to see something, some statement of results from the visit of the late Under-Secretary. All that we have seen are beautiful pictorial impressions in a monthly magazine, pictorial impressions of East Africa painted in rainbow colours, with a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman may have achieved from his visit to British East Africa, we have yet to learn that the Colonial Office or this House has derived any direct benefit. I would ask the hon. Gentleman is it indiscreet to ask whether the late Under-Secretary for the Colonies offered any report on his visit to British East Africa which would give information to the Colonial Office on the solution of the problems under discussion, and which were agitating the public, native and white, in British East Africa? Was there any report upon the relations of the natives with the white settlers, or any report upon the relation of native labour or upon the relations between the white settlers and the Government?
Colonel SEELY: There were reports on many subjects of a most valuable character.
Sir GILBERT PARKER: This reply of the Under-Secretary is not what you would call deeply impressive. He has told the Committee that there were reports upon many subjects. What I will say to the Committee to-night is this, that it may be that through Sir Percy Girard, an excellent administrator in British East Africa, we may have reforms there, but I believe myself that the weakness of administration—and there is no reason why we should not speak of it without offence—will not be cured by even the appointment of Sir Percy Girard to the position of Governor. I think that there ought to be a Commission of inquiry upon the questions which have perplexed this House during the career of the present Government sent to British East Africa. No solution has been arrived

1087
at. The same old agitation, apparently the same difficulties as existed years ago, still continue. They have cured nothing. The hon. Gentleman would have the support of every Member on this side of the House if the Government showed its determination to attempt to solve the problem by sending out a Commission of Inquiry, and of carrying out perhaps through the recommendations of the Commission, an amalgamation of the two provinces of Uganda and British East Africa. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Liverpool waxed eloquent against subsidies. In his view subsidies were an infringement of the sacred principles of Free Trade. The Under-Secretary with that careful ability of his to bridge over difficult chasms, and to pass from one side of a question to another with great ability has suggested that perhaps subsidies are not a form of protection, that they do not bring fiscal issues.
Colonel SEELY: We have lots of subsidies.
Sir GILBERT PARKER: It is perfectly true that we have subsidies, for instance by this cheap transit over the lines of railway of Nigeria for cotton grown there. That was done when the late Under-Secretary was Member for Manchester. I do not think, of course, that it has any relation to that particular circumstance, but it is a form of subsidising railways. We have a subsidy, as was admitted to this House by the late Under-Secretary for the Treasury, to the Canadian Pacific Railway for the carrying of mails, and he admitted and the late Prime Minister admitted in a Debate which they raised in this House that part of the revenue went to the general Imperial credit; and there is another instance in the British West Indies. If subsidies are not Protection in any form, then the question must be examined solely on its merits, and the Under-Secretary, the most complete Free Trader in the whole catalogue, has arrived at that position where he is willing to receive the compliments of a Protectionist, like myself, on his Protectionist principles, or, if he is not willing to receive them, at least I give them to him. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Austin Taylor) talked about the United States not having subsidies, but the United States has a system of subsidy which is very powerful and far more effective than giving a money grant. For instance, a British ship, or a ship of any
1088
other nationality, cannot carry a pound of cargo from the Sandwich Islands to San Francisco. All goods must be carried in American bottoms. [An HON. MEMBER: "Very few."] They have been found sufficient to carry all the trade from the Sandwich Islands. [Some laughter.] Do hon. Gentlemen laugh at that? I wonder if hon. Gentlemen know what the Sandwich Islands produce. They produce in the Sandwich Islands vast quantities of sugar. The trade between the Sandwich Islands which we used to carry and which was once entirely under our control has passed to the United States absolutely by the cheap policy of subsidising by prohibition. [An HON. MEMBER: "How much was it?"] In another form the United States practice prohibition by preventing British ships from coasting along their coasts. The hon. Gentleman suggests that that is not in itself a form of protection for American ships. The hon. Gentleman has said that the amount of subsidy which would be paid to a ship going to East Africa would produce practically no result—that, I think, there was £3,000 of loss on a ship going to British East Africa. But, while the German Government prevented ships carrying a single pound of foodstuff from Australia to Germany, I can remember when, for instance, the North German Lloyd Company established a line of steamers between Sydney and Samoa, and if we are to argue in respect of the success of that system of subsidies I maintain my illustration is absolutely pat. The whole German mercantile marine has been built up in the last 20 years on a system of subsidies. They never could have built up a strong mercantile marine except through a system of cartels and subsidies and Protection in other forms. I submit to hon. Gentlemen opposite who are reasoning men that the statement made by the hon. Member for Liverpool was not correct. He stated, I think, that there had never been a successful system of subsidies, and that no system of subsidies had ever built up a mercantile marine.
Mr. AUSTIN TAYLOR: I never made such a statement, whether it be true or not.
Sir GILBERT PARKER: It was that subsidies would not build up a successful mercantile marine. It is quite possible that for a number of years the system of subsidies would not assist very materially the trade. But to build up commerce with British East Africa I do submit this—and appeal to hon. Members who know British East Africa—that if there had been a more

1089
careful and better organised administration, a firmer policy in British East Africa during the last five years, commerce and agriculture would have developed. You cannot have a system of subsidies which of itself would develop trade. There must be co-ordination and co-operation by all ways and means of the Government and of private enterprise as well as the system of subsidies. I believe that subsidies in British East Africa would ultimately assist very materially in preserving British trade for British ships. Otherwise where is the logic of granting subsidies to railways and the passage of free material like cotton over railway lines, and of finding the advantage of commercial development in that, and not finding it in a subsidy for the passage of goods over the sea as well as over the land? I submit that the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary and hon. Members opposite have not proved their case. There is one other point I wish to make. About six weeks ago I asked the Under-Secretary whether at the present time women, children, and girls are being recruited in the New Hebrides for places outside the group. He said he did not think so, but he had no knowledge, though he would endeavour to secure information. I then asked him whether the French Government permitted the recruiting of women, children, and girls in these islands from places outside the group. I asked whether there were any regulations for preventing that. The hon. Gentleman said he did not know. I am not able to teach the hon. Gentleman much; he knows all, or nearly all; but I would refer him to the Convention, to the proceedings which followed the Convention, and to the arrangements which were come to by this Government and the French Government, and the instructions given by the French Government to their Commissioner that women and children, except accompanied by the heads of their families, should not be recruited for labour outside the group, and not permitted to leave the island for places outside the group except accompanied by the heads of their families. The question I wish to ask is: Are women and children recruited for places outside the group by French citizens with the approval of the French Government? The hon. Gentleman will again suggest that I am trying to raise international feeling.
Colonel SEELY: No.
Sir GILBERT PARKER: I am very glad that I can say something without causing exacerbation and anxiety in the hon.
1090
Gentleman. Are women and children and girls recruited in the New Hebrides for places outside the group, and, if they are, does this Government retain any responsibility concerning that Act? Can it, for instance, prevent this recruiting, by arrangement, of course, by understanding of course—because if there is no understanding between the French and the British Government concerning that main principle upon which we were so anxiously agitating two years ago, then all the promises made by the Government are null and void. I am asking the hon. Gentleman for information, because I should like to know whether these women, children, and girls are being recruited, and if they are, whether this Government feels that it has any power under the Convention entered into with France to prevent by agreement, by co-incident and agreeing regulations, such an act, which will be an offence against the very regulations issued by the French Minister to the Commissioner.
Mr. F. C. MACKARNESS: I rise to make an appeal in a very few words to my hon. and gallant Friend. I wish to take the opportunity of the presence of the Prime Minister of Natal in this country to discuss with the hon. Gentleman the possibility of mitigating the long sentence imposed upon Dinizulu. The Committee knows very well that we have a special interest and right to interfere in the case of Dinizulu, because he was restored by this country and established in an official position by the intervention of the Imperial Government, acting through the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain) ten years ago. The conditions under which Dinizulu was restored was that he should not be deprived of his salary and position without the assent of the Imperial Government. However much I dislike to ask this House and the Imperial Government to interfere at all in the affairs of a self-governing Colony, this is a special case in which one has the right to do so. The facts can be stated in a few words. This Chief was accused by the Natal Government of the most serious charges known to the law in 1907. A large force was sent to arrest him, although he had demanded an inquiry into those charges, which he was not allowed to have, and although he came at once to surrender himself before the force sent to arrest him could do so. He was then for several months examined in secret before the Magistrate on charges of murder,

1091
rebellion, sedition, incitement to murder, incitement to sedition, incitement to rebellion, and conspiracy. At the end of several months he was committed for trial. The murder charges having broken down, he was committed on a great many very serious charges, in fact no less than 23 charges were contained in the indictment—charges of conspiracy, sedition, rebellion, incitement to rebellion, incitement to sedition, concealing arms, and some other charges.
The result was that after a very careful inquiry into these charges he was convicted on only three of them, and these were minor charges not involving any guilty mind. He was found guilty of giving food and succour for a few days to two Chiefs who had taken part in the rebellion, and to the wife and children of one of them. According to the findings he had done that out of feelings of charity, and with no hostile intent towards the State. For that offence he was sentenced to a fine of £100 and four years' imprisonment. He has already been in prison more than eighteen months, and he has two and a half years more imprisonment before him. I am perfectly correct in saying that not merely in the opinion of the Imperial Government, not merely in the opinion of Members on both sides of this House, but also amongst the best opinion in South Africa, a great injustice has been done to this man. I venture to appeal to my hon. and gallant Friend, by friendly discussion, which he knows so well how to arrange to carry out, with the Prime Minister of Natal, to represent to him that, now all danger is past to the Colony of Natal, and now that the Colony of Natal is going to enter into a Union under which a strong Government will be able to provide against any possible danger that possibly might have existed before from the position of Dinizulu, under those circumstances this chief might have the rest of his sentence remitted, and so put an end to a state of things which I think has not brought credit upon the Government of Natal and which would bring immense relief to everybody in this country.
Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am very glad to hear that the Colonial Secretary recognises the fact that it is very important that the British flag should not altogether disappear from East African waters, and that any service provided there should be regular. If these two points are recognised by the Colonial
1092
Office I think we have gone far to securing that in which we on this side of the House are most interested. In the first place, I should like the hon. and gallant Gentleman, if he can, to give us some information as to what he is going to do with regard to exterminating sleeping sickness in Uganda. I understand that this disease exists all round the lake, and as I gather from the proposal of Sir Hesketh Bell that there is a large scheme for the migration of the people from this belt of land around the lake, and I should like to know how-far that scheme is in progress. Then to go across Africa to Northern Nigeria. The Committee is aware that some three years ago a policy of railway extension was undertaken there. A railway has been projected and is in course of construction from Lagos up to Zungeru. I think it would be of considerable public interest if the hon. and gallant Gentleman would give us some information later than that which we have had as to what progress is being made with the line, and what existing sections so far are open. Portion of the line was opened last August, and I think some information as to how it is going on would be of some interest. As to British West Indies and the question of cable communication, I would like to know how the investigation is proceeding. A Departmental Committee has been sitting for a considerable time, and I do not know that they have; yet presented any report. If they have, I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be able to tell us of some of the points at which they have arrived. When we hear of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Henniker Heaton) asking for cablegrams at 1d. per word it makes the mouths water of unfortunate business people. It is not a question of pence. A cablegram to British Guiana costs no less than 7s. 0½d. per word. Another point is as to the recent discoveries of oil in Trinidad. No doubt the hon. and gallant Gentleman is aware of the details of those discoveries. I would like to know what action, if any, the Government has taken with regard to them. The Committee will surely see the importance of such a discovery in what is practically an impregnable harbour within half a mile of deep water, and within two days' sea of the future mouth of the Panama Canal. From a strategic point of view and from a political point of view it obviously carries enormous potentialities. I would ask whether the Government are keeping a watchful eye on the developments there.
Earl WINTERTON: I think it is only fair to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir Gilbert Parker) to say that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Under-Secretary, if I may say so, really rather endeavoured to confuse the issue with regard to the case of the inspectors in the Orange River Colony. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said something about the feeling which would be aroused in that Colony by any attack made upon the Government of the Colony in connection with the matter. Surely the observation of my hon. Friend could not by any possibility have such an effect? What he said was that in his opinion those two in spectors had not been fairly treated by the Orange River Colony Government. I submit that the criticism which he made was perfectly fair and just and reasonable. No one really acquainted with the circum stances of the case could deny that those men did meet with somewhat harsh treatment, to use no stronger term, from the Orange River Government. The cases are on all fours with the cases which we have brought before the House during the last year or 18 months. I refer to the cases of men who were originally in the English Civil Service, and passed into the service of the Orange River Colony, and who, through no fault of their own, find themselves out of employment. I am sorry to say we have not been successful in get ting any redress. Owing to the unification of South Africa, I do not desire to say any thing which could in any way reduce the good effect which the unification will have, but just this, that at this triumph which is about to take place there will be a skeleton at the feast in the shape of these unfortunate men. No doubt, as hundreds of other things have happened since, cases of the kind are forgotten, but I believe a very great injustice has been done, and more injustice in this than in some of the other cases. I can only urge once again on His Majesty's Government to do every thing they can to mitigate the hardships which those men, who were formerly in the employ of the Government, have suffered. I do not go into the general question of the teaching of Dutch and English in the schools, but I think these men have not been fairly treated. I do think the hon. Gentleman attempted to confuse the issue by making the almost ridiculous suggestion that the criticism of my hon. Friend might cause a constitutional crisis—
Colonel SEELY: No, no.
Earl WINTERTON: Between this country and Orange River Colony I do not think anything of the sort would take place. There is the question which has not been referred to in any of the Debates for the past two or three years, and that is that of big game in Africa. I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will endeavour to carry out the suggestions in the very admirable paper published about a year ago, and adopt something like a uniform system of the preservation of big game in tropical Africa. At the present time there is no doubt of the fact that many different systems are very confusing, and really tend to defeat the object aimed at. In addition to a uniform system, the supervision should be more stringent than it is at present. It is exceedingly difficult and practically impossible in vast tracts of country for only one white man to afford proper protection. This is a most important question. Six months ago an enormous amount of damage was done on a gigantic scale by, I regret to say, an Englishman in a part of Africa which does not come under the Colonial Office, but under the Foreign Office. This Englishman, to the shame of himself and his country, collected a number of other desperadoes—I think that is not too strong a term—and slaughtered thousands of elephants of all kinds indiscriminately. I do not say that that directly affects my point, but it shows that there is in Africa as in other countries unscrupulous individuals who will take every advantage of laxity in administration. I hope the hon. and gall-ant Gentleman will give some attention to the subject. Big game in Africa forms one of the most valuable and interesting assets of the British Empire. We hold a unique position in that respect. We see what has taken place in North America, in the absolute destruction of certain species, and I think we ought to take the lesson and endeavour to see that in South Africa the rarest species of big game are properly preserved.
As to the question referred to by many speakers, and notably in the very fine speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square (Mr. Lyttelton), in reference to British East Africa, it is obvious there can be no kind of justification for the action of either the individual whose conduct came under review in the House, or of such conduct by any person else. I am not attempting to say a word in justification of it. As the

1095
incident is now over, and as the punishment is given, I do not think it is desirable to say anything. I do venture to refer to one statement made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Under-Secretary. He, as I understand, in the course of his speech practically admitted that the Civil servants in equatorial Africa are underpaid. Their prospects are very small. They have to live in a very trying climate, and they have to sacrifice their comfort in many ways, and it is really hard to think that, on the admission of the hon. and gallant Gentleman responsible, that they are receiving inadequate salaries. I would add from my own experience that, in addition to the question of salary, the housing conditions are exceedingly bad in tropical Africa. In many cases Civil servants are provided with nothing better than tin-roofed houses. The only house suitable for a white man is that made of a native timber. A tin-roofed house is most abominable in which to compel a white man to live. The hon. Gentleman went on to say that he could easily spend 40 millions in improving the Civil Service.
Colonel SEELY: No, no.
Earl WINTERTON: I hope, at any rate, the hon. and gallant Gentleman will consider that this question of the grievances of these Civil servants is as important as any with which he has to deal. Those men who risk their lives, health, and prospects are surely entitled to better houses and a more adequate salary.
Mr. E. N. BENNETT: I wish to say, in the minute which is left to me, how much I regret that the Government should have put down on the day of the Vote of the Colonial Office a contentious Bill—
And, it being a Quarter-past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  NORTH-EASTERN RAILWAY BILL [Lords]. (By Order).
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [15th July], "That the Bill be now read a second time:"
  Which Amendment was to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—[Mr. Summerbell.]
  Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  Debate resumed.
  Mr. A. HENDERSON: I ask the permission of the House to further adjourn the consideration of the second reading of this Bill. After the last adjournment a conference was held between the representatives of the company and the representatives of the union, with a member of the Labour party present. At the close of the conference, which lasted a little over two hours, a transcript of the notes was promised, in order to show exactly what had taken place. The transcript of the notes is not forthcoming, and a difference has arisen as to what was the decision arrived at at the conference. The parties to-night have agreed that, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, and with the permission of the House, to ask for a further adjournment, in order that the transcript of the notes may be furnished, and the actual arrangements come to on the question at issue decided upon by the notes of the conference. I think it, would be beneficial to all concerned if the House, without debating the matter further this evening, would agree to the adjournment asked for. I beg to make that request. I beg to move accordingly.
  Mr. JOHN WARD:I second the Motion.
  Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.
  Debate to be resumed upon Thursday, 29th July.
  Debate adjourned.

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES (1909–10).
  [CLASS II.—VOTE 6.]

  COLONIAL OFFICE.
  Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question on consideration of Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £33,900, 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, 1910, for the

  1097
  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:"
  Which Question was, "That Item A (Salaries, Ways, and Allowances) be reduced by £100 in respect of the Salary of the Secretary of State."—[Mr. H. J. Wilson.]
  Question again proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £33,800, be granted to the said Service." Debate resumed.
  Mr. BENNETT (resuming): I should like to refer to the question of the opium traffic, with special reference to our Colonies of Hong Kong and Ceylon. Since the last Debate in this House an International Opium Conference at Shanghai passed a series of resolutions. Although those resolutions do not reach the high level which are desired by opium reformers both inside and outside this House, yet we must remember that only unanimous resolutions were accepted. The Conference was spared the irritation of minority reports. At the same time, of course, it suffered the loss of value attaching to these expressions of opinion. Two things were settled by this opium conference once and for all. The first was the unquestionably evil character of the opium traffic, and the second was the absolute sincerity of the Chinese Government in the matter. The resolution of the conference justified the sincerity of the Chinese Government, which has been backed up by the words of Sir Alexander Hosie, one of the commercial attaches of the Pekin Legation. He uses these words?—
  "That the central Government continues to be sincere and zealous in its crusade is beyond question. Although China considers the abandonment of its revenue from opium of no account in comparison with the eradication of the evil, the sacrifice is a heavy one."
  The Chinese edict of this year contained the following words:—
  "Though the Government is in straitened circumstances, it will not seek to satisfy its hunger or quench its thirst through this harmful poison, if perchance it may rid its people of a great curse."
  I trust, therefore, that for the future, at any rate, we shall have no more of that grotesque argument that our efforts for the reform of the opium traffic must depend on the efforts made by the Chinese. We have had the British Parliament declaring emphatically time after time that the sale and consumption of opium is morally indefensible, and that steps should be taken to minimise that evil. We have
  1098
  been told that we will advance along the path of progress provided the Chinese are sincere and will meet us along that path. We have conclusive proof that the Chinese have advanced to meet us. Even if China had not, I maintain what has been maintained over and over again in these Debates: that it is not a matter of Chinese ethics, but a matter of our own ethics. As regards Hong Kong, some measure of progress has been reached, but it has been with the utmost difficulty and in spite of opposition in quarters where it ought not to be expected, that is from our own Government servants. The Government's telegram was sent last May. Strong resentment was expressed in the Legislative Assembly of Hong Kong, and violent speeches were made against the Government's action. Only one Member, so far as I know, and he a Chinaman, stood up for the policy contained in that telegram, and he described the opium traffic as a blot on the fair fame of the Colony. A year after, one small step we find had been made by crushing out 26 of the opium divans out of a total of 191, and, for these, 11,613 dollars were paid as compensation. At the same time it was stated that no more suppression of opium divans would take place until the year 1910. It is true that since that some progress has been made. Lately, I think last June, we had a new ordinance, which states that next March, that is in two years from the receipt of the Governor's telegram, all divans in Hong Kong will be closed. So far so good, but I should like to ask the Under-Secretary: What about the sale of opium in the Colony 1—that may exist after the closing of the whole of the divans. Unless the sale of opium is restricted and gradually reduced, the evil will still continue to flourish. There is one important statement made by the Governor of Hong Kong, which has a pretty wide bearing from the Imperial point of view. It is this: that Lord Crewe —the Governor (Sir F. Lugard) stated— I do not know with what authority—that Lord Crewe had promised to ask the Imperial Government to grant a sum of money in order to pay for the loss caused by the suppression of the opium dens at Hong Kong. This meant that the British taxpayer was to be called upon to pay money for compensation. I do sincerely hope that Lord Crewe did not make that statement. If he did, and if it ever comes before this House, I sincerely trust that the Members on this side of the House, and the Members of the Labour party,

  1099
  will effectually resist any attempt to extract money from the British tax-payer to make up for the suppression of the opium dens and the loss of revenue.
  Here is a Colony deriving from one-ninth to one-fifth of its revenue from the use and sale of this poisonous and degrading drug, and when public opinion comes to the front, and Imperial action is taken, and certain divans are closed, then forsooth the British taxpayer is asked to make good the loss. There are other means in Hong Kong of finding more revenue. It might very well be found, for instance, by higher income tax, by taxation of site values, and by higher customs duties upon the importation of wine and spirits. I throw that out merely as a possibility of getting fresh revenue, but there, as elsewhere, the idea is that the basis of taxation is to be broadened, and that revenue is to be got from the Chinese labourer, who degrades himself by smoking opium, and none of it is to be got by higher income tax, and by the taxation of site value. May I say this? It seems to me that the position of the British Government, owing to the action of our Imperial Governors in the Colonies, is often made very difficult. Here is Sir F. Lugard, in a memorandum addressed to the Legislative Council of Hong Kong, defending the farming system, and stating that the abolition of 191 divans would be likely to extend rather than diminish the habits of opium consumption. That is a form of argument with which we are rather familiar, and that is the recommendation of the Governor to the Legislative Council of Hong Kong. He goes on to say—
  "The substitution of alcohol for opium is a source of real danger."
  There is to my mind a suspicion of real cant about that kind of statement. I say that these Imperial officials and these officers of the Imperial Government ought not to be permitted to openly thwart the efforts made to better the condition of things in our Colonies. That they should be allowed to do so is really intolerable. It is bad enough to have the work of our Government thwarted by political opponents at home; but, of course, that is the normal procedure, and is above board, but that paid officials in the Colonies or at home should thwart the action of their own Government is an intolerable state of things, and I think that some very sharp reprimand should be administered to officials of this type.
  1100
  I should like to say something about the condition of affairs of Ceylon. There, instead of making progress with regard to the suppression of opium, I am sorry to say, as far as I can judge, we appear to have gone backward instead of forward. The Ordinance introduced by the Governor last year was withdrawn; we have gone back to where we were before. The main difficulty in Ceylon, of which I know a little, having been born there, is that the native doctors prescribe opium very largely in their more or less quack remedies for rheumatism, malarial fever, etc. I am told many of the victims of this habit in Ceylon mentioned the fact that they procured their opium through the prescriptions of those doctors. It is well to remember that 50 years ago, until the British introduced licences for opium in Colombo and elsewhere, the consumption of opium there was practically non-existent, but since that time no less than 20,000 lb. weight of opium year by year is consumed. I need not waste time to show that opium as a phrophylaotic against malarial fever has no medical sanction. I say that not only are some steps necessary in Hong Kong to prevent the traffic in opium, but they are necessary more especially, I think, in Ceylon. We might adopt, for instance, the same methods which have been so singularly successful in the case of the Philippine Islands and Formosa, namely, the registering of the traders and the Philippine Islands and Formosa, of opium, both of which are prevalent vices in Ceylon. Let us sec how successful Japan has been in her efforts to cope with the opium evil in the island of Formosa. Japan suffered more than any other country from the evils of opium. The opium committee appointed by the American Government in the case of the Philippines stated that—
  "China's curse has been Japan's warning, and a warning indeed. No surer testimony to the reality of the evil effects of opium can be found than the horror with which China's next-door neighbour views it."
  In Formosa Japan insisted on a system of registration, and after a certain date no more registration was to be permitted. Meanwhile the number of people consuming opium was very materially reduced. American effort was still more successful in the Philippines than in Japan. In the Philippine Islands the Philippinos were prevented, ipso facto, from any further consumption of opium, but in the case of the Chinese population of 70,000 they were allowed a respite of three years, and during that time the consumers were

  1101
  thoroughly registered. The result has been perfectly marvellous. At the end of the three years the consumption appears to have disappeared altogether from the Philippine Islands, and the only people who now consume it are the few Chinese inveterate smokers who are treated in hospital as incurable invalids. I venture to say these few words with regard to the necessity of still further work in the case of our Colonies of Hong Kong and Ceylon. Other hon. Members will speak more fully upon the subject, especially the hon. Member for Renfrew, whose work upon the Opium Commission was exceedingly useful. I want to refer now to a subject that comes before this House very little, and in touching on that I want to refer to a vexed question which has been the subject of smouldering discontent for years. I mean the question of the Gilbert and Ellice group of islands. I am very glad to see that the administrator of these islands, Mr. Telfer Campbell, has recently been removed. I think the words used are "has been promoted." Why he should have been promoted passes the wit of man, because, without being in any way unjust or without attempting to try a man in his absence, I defy any man to read the accounts of the islands without coming to the conclusion that Mr. Campbell has behaved in a high-handed and outrageous manner in his Government of these islands. Serious charges have been brought against this official time and again. One was that of a native whom he had cruelly flogged; in order to escape, the man, it is said, climbed a tree and was then, by the orders of the Governor, fired at. These are only some of the many alleged outrages on the part of this local Satrap in the Pacific. Unquestionably all these repeated charges against this Resident led the Government to order or to outline in 1903 the appointment of a Commission to investigate the charges. I think it was in 1905 that the High Commissioner of the Fiji visited this island. It was the first inspectorial visit that took place in 12 years. The Report did not reach the Colonial Office till 1906, and it has never been made public. All attempts made for access to it have been refused, and I do protest as a Member of this House that Members should not have access to a Report of the Commissioner sent out to investigate for the Government certain charges made against the officials in one of our dependencies. We are not allowed to see the Report, and for the life of me I cannot understand why we should
  1102
  not have access to the Report sent by the Commissioner. So many things might be cleared up if that Report was accessible, but from the year 1906 onward it has not seen the light of day. One does get certain side lights into the theory and practice of Mr. Campbell's policy in these islands in the Pacific. He says, e.g., that:—
  "Imprisonment is not followed by social ostracism but on the contrary tends to increase their social position. When prisoners return to their homes they are regarded as travelled and experienced individuals."
  One is sorry that all the chiefs and all the islanders who live there have not been to gaol to get a little more experience before they were swindled out of their rights by the company to which I am going to allude. This gentleman exacted a month's hard labour from the people of two villages because they danced upon the Queen's Birthday. Fancy exacting hard labour from people for celebrating their own Queen's birthday! This is on Mr. Campbell's own showing, and do you wonder the natives do not show appreciation of his rule? The sort of spirit which prevails in these islands is very well illustrated by the conversation with a Fijian planter, which Lord Stanmore quoted, in which it was said:—
  "We want the natives to be ill-off, because where they are ill-off they will come and work for you, but when they are well-off they will not."
  That is the kind of spirit in which a dependency of the British Crown is being ruled at the present time. I should like to ask the Under-Secretary whether the forced labour admitted to be going on in this island, where flogging is practised, is really legal? Is it a legal practice to flog British subjects in a British Protectorate? If the natives are put to forced labour, what is that particular form of labour Is it forced labour for public works? Surely there cannot be much labour required for public works in this island. Is the forced labour being employed for the benefit of the company which extracts the wealth from those islands? That is what I should like to know. I do not know whether hon. Members are acquainted with the doings of the great Phosphate Company in the Pacific, but the formation of that company has a very interesting history. It was formed about the year 1901, and it was granted a concession by the natives of these islands. One would like to know the facts of that concession. We have heard some talk of a bargain between the financiers who organised this great movement and the inhabitants of these Polynesian Islands. We all know that the type of natives in those islands is incapable of

  1103
  making anything in the nature of a bargain. What consideration was paid to these chiefs for that immense concession? To talk of it as a bargain is grotesque and absurd. Where were the British officials when the bargain was made? Is it not the duty of British officials to look after the natives and protect them against exploiting financiers? The officials in this case made no attempt to get a good bargain for the natives because they were otherwise occupied in taking shares in this company. [An HON. MEMBER: "Taking the 'swag.'"] Possibly there was a box of cigars or bottle of gin paid for the original concession. It was arranged that £50 per annum should be the rent charged to this company for the extraction of this untold wealth from the island. The company admit having made £85,000 profit in four years, and they only paid £50 a year in rent. Since that there has been a royalty of 6d. per ton. The company was floated with a nominal capital of £250,000, but only £50,000 of the capital was subscribed, and they have recently proceeded to water their capital. I was astonished, when I heard somebody in this House ask the Under-Secretary whether or not this company was registered in London, to hear the reply given that he did not know. Anybody who goes to Somerset House can easily find that it is registered in London. The total value of the phosphates are estimated at £18,000,000. The total profit in 1907, after paying 40 per cent, on the shares left a balance of £134,000, and in 1908 the profit was £370,000. They are watering their capital, and instead of £250,000 the capital is now £500,000. Why was this inadequate rent exacted from these people for this concession? When this question was asked in the House of Commons the reason given was that the company had told the officials of the Colonial Office that they valued their phosphate at 10s. a ton, and the Colonial Secretary said he had no means of checking the estimate. If he had taken the trouble to go to the City he would hare found out the real state of the case. A quantity of this phosphate comes from Ocean Island to Australia, and through a series of years, from 1902 to 1907, the average price has been £2 10s. per ton. On the strength of that statement we extract this miserable sum out of these concessionnaires. Surely, if the officials had done their duty, they would have secured this immense wealth for the good of the community. Just think of the immense bene-
  1104
  fits which might have been conferred upon the islands. I feel very strongly on this question of the exploitation of natives under the British Crown. Side by side with these immense profits which go into the pockets of shareholdei s—and I regret very much to see that Lord Stanmore is chairman of the company, for I do not think it is a desirable tiling that a former high official of the Pacific should utilise his experience to take that position—you have the fact that taxes are levied on the cocoanuts of the people. I hope our Free Trade friends will note that. The taxes of the islands, to secure, I presume, the working of the islands, are levied on the food of the natives, whereas no taxation, barring a miserable 6d, a ton, is levied on this immense wealth proceeding from the islands. I hope the Under-Secretary will look into this matter, and that he will let us see the Report of this High Commissioner, who went round to investigate the subject. The Commissioner was accompanied by one of the officials who was inculpated in the charges. That is a nice sort of Commission! I hope we may see the Report and judge for ourselves, and that sooner or later, the sooner the better, the Colonial Office will appoint a Commission to go into the whole question and see whether justice has been done.
  Mr. R. LAIDLAW: I rise to call the attention of the Committee and of the hon. and gallant Gentleman to the findings of the International Opium Commission. The resolutions passed by that Commission relate to our foreign relations, to our India Office, and to the Colonial Office. On Thursday last, when the Foreign Office Vote was under discussion, I intended to present the international aspects of this question, but, unfortunately, I did not get an opportunity. I much prefer discussing questions of this kind when the Vote is before the House rather than asking questions across the floor, because in this way we have an opportunity of imparting a little information as well as of asking for some. I would like at this stage to remove what I find is a very common misconception in this House and in the country with regard to the object of the Commission. It was not appointed to discover whether the use of opium was a good or a bad thing for the Chinese, but to ascertain in what way the countries interested in the Far East could assist China in carrying out a great reform. The whole of the countries represented have interests in and

  1105
  around China, and the resolutions which were come to from the standpoint of the desire to assist China in her reforms were almost unanimously agreed upon. These resolutions call upon the various delegates to move their Governments in certain directions with a view to our coming to some uniform policy in our Colonies with regard to the trade in opium, and I feel I should be altogether lacking in my duty as one of the Commissioners if I did not take every opportunity to urge our Government in the direction that we think will be beneficial. The first resolution passed was one recognising that China was entirely in earnest in her efforts to eradicate the opium trade, to suppress the traffic, and to reduce and extinguish the cultivation of the drug in her own country. We also recognise China's ability to carry out the programme she has put before herself. It is from that standpoint that I wish to review our position in our own Colonies in the East. The last speaker has dealt with the question of Hong Kong. It is now over a year since the Colonial Secretary sent out instructions that the opium-smoking dens should be forthwith closed. A certain amount of progress has been made in that direction, but not very much, and the time, I think, has come when a little more pressure should be brought to bear upon the Government of Hong Kong to proceed a little more rapidly. I was greatly surprised to find that at the present moment tenders are being invited for the renewal of the farm at Hong Kong from March next for three years. If the smoking dens are to be extinguished, the time has come, in my estimation — and I am quite sure I share this view with the majority of those who attended the Commission at Shanghai—that the farm system should be abandoned as an utterly bad one. It has been abandoned by a great many of our neighbours in the Far East; it has been abandoned by the Germans in Shantung, and by the Dutch in Java, the Straits Settlements Commissioners condemned it as a bad policy in the Straits Settlements. If it is bad there, it is certainly bad in Hong Kong. The farm system opens the door to all kinds of irregularities. When there is direct Government control we have far more active control over the trade, and there is far less temptation for its being pushed. I hope the Colonial Secretary will take steps to bring this objectionable system to a termination, not only in the Straits Settlements,
  1106
  but also in Hong Kong. Of course, the great difficulty is the amount of revenue we have been deriving from the trade in Hong Kong. It should never have been allowed to become such a large proportion of the total revenue. I think it is something like one-third of the total—that is a far larger proportion than any other of the foreign countries who have possessions in the East derive from the trade. When the Germans went to Shantung some ten years ago they found a large part of the province was under the cultivation of opium. They took the thing entirely into their own hands, and gradually made reductions. The revenue from opium was about one-seventh of the total revenue, and they gradually reduced it, until to-day it is only about? per cent. That is a very good example for us, and I think the time has now come for pressure to be put upon the Hong Kong officials to look to some other sources for revenue rather than depend upon opium for such a large proportion. The Opium Revenue Tax is altogether unfair in its incidence in Hong Kong. We are told it would be entirely unfair to have this taxation transferred to other sections of the community. It is a controversial question as to how many of the population of Hong Kong use opium, but it is probably 10 or 12 per cent, of the adults, and presumably these bear their full share of the two-thirds raised from other sources, and the whole of the third derived from opium. As an alternative I would suggest that if we raise the Tobacco Tax to a figure which would produce something approximating the opium revenue it would be equitable to all sections of the community. I would like, before proceeding further, to quote a resolution passed at Shanghai which brings home to us the duty of putting our own house in order. The resolution is to the effect that, in view of the action taken by the Government of China in the suppression of the tax on opium smoking, the International Opium Commission recommend that each delegation shall move its own Government to take measures for the gradual suppression of the practice of opium smoking in its own possessions, with due regard to the varying circumstances of each country concerned. It is from that standpoint I press the hon. and gallant Gentleman to take further action in Hong Kong. The question is how far we ought to move in the direction indicated by that resolution. Let me refer again to what has been done by some of

  1107
  our neighbours. The Americans inquired into the question in the territory over which they have control, and, after most thorough and searching investigation, they condemned entirely, root and branch, the whole traffic, and they prohibited the import of any more opium into the Philippines. Japan has taken very effective measures in Formosa. There they have adopted a registry system, and in Java they have adopted a similar system. The result in these places is that they are gradually extinguishing the traffic, and the number of smokers registered is being reduced. If these systems are found workable and beneficial in Java and similar places there is no reason why they should not be adopted in the Straits Settlements and in Hong Kong. In the Straits Settlements the revenue from opium is no less than one-half of the total, and I would like to ask the Under-Secretary what steps the Government are taking to carry out the recommendations of the Straits Commission in that Colony. With respect to the Federated Malay States I may say the trade there is not so deeply rooted and the Government are not so dependent on it for revenue as in the Straits Settlements. Therefore, now is the time to suppress it before it spreads beyond its present dimensions. One of the great obstacles our Colonial Office has had to face in dealing with this subject is the fact that the officials are determined to stick to the revenue, and I would like our Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary to impress upon those officials the fact that the sentiment expressed is no mere Liberal fad, that it is not merely advocated by the Liberal party, but that it is a British, a National, and even an International sentiment. We joined this International Commission on the invitation of America. The time has come when we should take the lead in this matter, in view of our dominating influence and our dominating trade in the East—in view of the fact that we have more Colonies, and more important Colonies, than any of our neighbours. Therefore, I say the time has come when we should take the lead in the matter instead of waiting on the initiative of China or America. We ought to endeavour to live up to the resolutions passed at Shanghai, and to take steps to put ourselves on an equality with them. The hon. Member who last spoke referred to the case of Ceylon, and said the opium trade was not so deeply rooted there. The
  1108
  Committee which sat last May made certain recommendations for more stringent supervision there, looking ultimately to the prohibition of the trade in the island, and soon afterwards measures were introduced into the Colony in order to carry out the recommendations of the Committee. When it was announced that a commission was to assemble at Shanghai, for some reason or other, those measures which were before the Ceylon Government were withdrawn, and I should like to ask the Under-Secretary what has become of them? Have they been re-introduced, and is it the intention of the Colony to carry through the measures that were before them last year, but which were suspended? Now is the time for action. This Commission investigated affairs in Ceylon, and found that natives of India were going into that Colony in great numbers, and that the consumption of opium was increasing very rapidly. In order that we may protect our Indian fellow-subjects against this vice when they go to that Colony, I think it is most important that drastic steps should be taken to suppress the traffic. I should also like to ask what policy is to be carried out with regard to the Colonies which we have taken over from Siam as regards opium? I do not know what policy has been in force there, or what policy is in force there at the present time, but I am bound to say that if there are better regulations in those Colonies now than we have in our Federated Colonies, I hope the Colonial Office will not take any backward steps, and that they will not be at a disadvantage by being placed on the same footing with our own Colonies. A question was asked a few weeks ago with regard to notices that appeared in North Borneo inviting tenders for opium, and the Under-Secretary at that time rather disclaimed having any authority over North Borneo. It is true that a chartered company have control in North Borneo, but surely that does not mean that our Colonial Office has no authority? I sincerely hope that that is not the case, and that our Colonial Department may be able to control matters of this kind in Borneo. I should like to have some statement from the Under-Secretary on that point.
  I wish for a few moments to refer to a totally different, although kindred subject, and that is, the licensed gambling in the Federated Malay States. About two years ago I asked the Under-Secretary a question on that point, and was then informed that it was the policy of the Government

  1109
  to suppress the gambling licences and to restrict the area over which they extended. My information is that a certain amount of restriction has taken place, and that the area so licensed is not quite so large as formerly. That is to say, in the outlying districts where there was no demand, the licences have been withdrawn, but the system prevails in the large towns, just as much as it did two years ago. To test that question and to ascertain whether them has been any real reduction, I would ask the Under-Secretary how much the revenue has suffered in consequence of the reduction which has been made; that is-to say how much less revenue has been derived this year than last? In visiting these Colonies 18 months ago I was very much shocked and surprised that under the British flag this vice of open daylight gambling should be more in evidence than it is at Monte Carlo, and it is a great deal more harmful. At Monte Carlo we have a great many people who go there with a certain amount of money which they can well afford to lose, but in the large towns of the Federated Malay States the gambling is done almost exclusively by Chinese coolies, who work hard for their earnings and who crowd into the two or three large towns for the purpose of gambling. In these places there are no less than 20 or 30 gambling dens, and they are not hidden away in back streets, but occupy the corner sites and the very best positions in the finest towns in those States. Not only that, but they are frequented by small children; boys of from 12 or 13 years of age assemble in large numbers, and the school children—the children of the more respectable residents, including those of the European residents—have to pass these places on their way to school.
  I am sure that anyone who has visited those places must be impressed with the fact that this is a sight which should not be seen in any of our Colonies. I would like, too, to ask what policy is to be pursued with regard to the native Colonies ceded from Siam in this connection1? I believe the province of Johore, which is under the Sultan of Johore, abolished the gambling dens some years ago, as was also the case in Siam, and I believe in these new Colonies no gambling has been allowed for the last two years. I should like to know whether now that they have come under our protection they will have the same regulations as hitherto, or will they have temptations to this vice imposed upon them? In regard to both these matters of gambling in Eastern Colo-
  1110
  nies and the opium trade, I trust that the Colonial Office will exert itself to take more active measures and that the time will soon come when we shall lead and not follow at the heels of other countries who are introducing great reforms. The representatives of the International Commission have a unanimous view with regard to what should be done in our Eastern Colonies; they are all agreed that opium should be entirely confined to medical use, and if we are to give any real and effective help to China in this great enterprise which she has undertaken we must eradicate the evil from our own Colonies.
  Colonel SEELY: With regard to the question of Dinizulu, it is true the Prime Minister of Natal is here, and he will no doubt make himself acquainted with what has fallen from my hon. Friend, but I think the moment is now opportune to reopen this question, in view of the closer union that we hope to see come about when the Central Government will be able to review the whole situation. The hon. Member for Lanarkshire (Mr. Mitchell-Thomson) raised several technical points. I think my best plan would be to send him a full precis with regard to sleeping sickness, the extension of the railway in Nigeria, and with regard to Trinidad oil. All these matters I will communicate to him. With regard to the Noble Lord's (Earl Winterton) question about game, of course, we realise the importance of seeing that game is not exterminated in Africa, but we must be careful not to allow it to stray into those parts where cultivation is going on. Difficulties of that kind have arisen, but on the whole I think the matter is now on a good basis, and there is no reason at present, so far as we can foresee, for any large extinction of game in the places under our own control, in spite of the deplorable episode to which he referred, which was not under the Colonial Office.
  With regard to the point put by the hon. Member for Woodstock (Mr. Bennett) about Ocean Island, I do not think he quite understands what took place. He wants to know what we meant by allowing this company to secure this immense profit while our officials were looking on and doing nothing. Such an accusation is entirely wide of the truth, because, of course, the company made the agreement long before we had anything to do with the island, and they made an uncommonly good bargain. But after they began working we came along and

  1111
  annexed the island. If we had been there for a start, no doubt a very different state of affairs would have prevailed. I come now to the important point of opium and gambling, and its allied evils. With regard to opium, we are glad to welcome back here the hon. Member for Renfrewshire (Mr. Laidlaw). He was one of our delegates at the conference at Shanghai to consider the opium question, and speaks with peculiar knowledge and authority upon the subject. He asked me definitely about Hong Kong. The situation in Hong Kong is that by the end of February, 1910, all the opium divans will have been closed. There are those who may say it is unnecessary to close opium divans, and that the effect of so doing will be to drive the smoking of opium into other quarters. All I can say is that the Conference was in favour of the closing of the divans, and that the best information that we can get leads us to believe that it is a good plan to close them, and we propose, therefore, to pursue the policy which I outlined a year and a quarter ago. It is true that farming continues, but it is a fact that legislation is being introduced to restrict the amount of importation, and it is intended to continue and restrict the amount of importation, and it is intended to continue to restrict the amount imported. With regard to the Straits Settlements and the Federated Malay States, the Government is about to set up a State monopoly of opium, which, I think, meets with the general approval of those who wish to see the diminution in the use of the drug. In the case of Ceylon the difficulty that has arisen there is that it is plain that you must allow opium to be sold by properly-qualified doctors, because there are occasions when it is a most valuable drug, but in Ceylon there is a class of native doctors who cannot be described otherwise than as doctors, but yet have been in the habit very often of prescribing opium for every kind of ailment, so that those who desire it can get it in this way. How are you to get round this difficulty? How are you to stop this loophole of improper consumption of opium? I think the best plan will be to have a further inquiry on this one point alone, and we can then proceed with the policy which we have laid down, and which we have no intention of departing from in the smallest possible degree.
  With regard to gambling, I stated a year ago that it is our policy to discourage gambling, but I was not so much
  1112
  shocked as I ought to have been at the description of daylight gambling in the public streets. I have roamed about the world a bit—I hope I did not frequent gambling dens—but from what I have seen. I should have thought the more gambling dens were brought into the light of day the better. However, that is a matter of opinion. What we want to do is to check this habit, which does cause a great deal of harm in this country, because people gamble who lose the whole of their week's earnings in a very short time. I do not think the system is defended by anyone in the world. The only thing is that they will gamble, and we thought it better to keep an eye upon gambling and try to keep it within due limits. Our policy there, also, has been the policy of our predecessors, and I am sure it will be the policy of our successors, to restrict it within the narrowest possible limits, with a view to its ultimate prohibition altogether. My hon. Friend asks me whether I can say what was the view of the Government on the general question of opium. Did we take the view that after all there was not much harm in it, as has been suggested in many quarters, or did we adhere to our previous decision that it was really a bad thing for a race? We adhere to our view that it is a bad thing for a race, and the more you can stop it, the better for all concerned, and we base ourselves on the broad and simple ground that the people who ought to know most about it, the great Eastern race of the Japanese, have set us an example in stamping it out by savage penalties—a thing which they certainly would not do if there was no harm in the use of the drug. We are also forced, knowing this, to do our best, by the fact that China, with the good will of all who care for the regeneration of that country, is trying to shake herself free from a habit which all the best men in China believe is the cause why she cannot attain to a higher state of civilisation. For the reason that we know the thing is bad from the Japanese example, and because we are determined not to thwart China in her efforts to rid herself of what she regards as a national curse, we will not cease to do our best to assist China to make what reduction she can, and to diminish, as far as possible, and as soon as posible, the consumption of opium in all places where the Colonial Office has rule.
  Only a word in reply to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lyttelton). There was much force in what the right hon. Gentleman said. I am not quite clear

  1113
  how far it was true that on all previous occasions in the Colonial Office more drastic action would have been taken. I cannot be taken as assenting to that view, nor do I absolutely deny it. All I can and do say is that now that warning has been given, now that all and sundry have been told by the Secretary of State and the Government—with the concurrence, as we know from the course of this Debate, of the party opposite, with the concurrence undoubtedly of smaller parties such as the Labour party and the Irish party, with the concurrence practically of all parties in this House—that the practices referred to are condemned, I would say at once and without hesitation—and I say no more than I said before, but I am saying it in plainer language—that if such a case as this is brought to our notice in future, so far as we have the power, if all the attendant circumstances are as bad as they have been represented to be in the course of this Debate, if the story is as deplorable a one as is understood to have been the case here, such an officer will be dismissed the service.
  Mr. H. J. WILSON: I have only a word to say on the question I raised some time ago. I did not ask the retrial of this man, nor did I desire to have the punishment increased, but I expressly stated that I wanted to draw the attention of the Committee to what I thought was the unsatisfactory action of the Colonial Office in regard to this matter. I am extremely glad at what has taken place, and especially at the impressive speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lyttelton), which produced the impression that this House and the country will not tolerate such things as have been going on. That being so and my object having been entirely achieved, I would ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment.
  Leave to withdraw Amendment withheld.
  Mr. SUMMERBELL: I wish to say in regard to the matter which has been discussed to-day that for acts of immorality there is a partial cure. From what I know of several of our Colonies, I am rather inclined to believe that the cure is for the Government to provide in every case proper and reasonable accommodation, and every facility for a man to have his wife, if he be a married man, whenever he goes away for a long period. I do not know that there are many men in the Colonial service who, if proper accommodation were
  1114
  provided, would object to have their wives with them. I suggest to the Under-Secretary that if he wants to put a stop to the practices which have been described to-day, that is one of the best methods of procedure.
  With regard to the question raised by the hon. Member for North-West Lanarkshire (Mr. Mitchell-Thomson) as to the finding of petroleum in Trinidad, I would express the hope that, in view of the experiments as to oil fuel which are being made in the British Navy, the attention of the Government will be given to this matter. I have reason to believe that an oil syndicate are trying to get hold of these wells. I hope they will not get an entire monopoly, and that the wells will be retained. As to the question of indentured coolie labour, in view of the fact that there is a Committee sitting, before which I have expressed my views, I do not mean to go into the merits of the question, whether it is right or wrong to introduce indentured labour, but I want to raise my voice against the people of Trinidad being penalised or taxed to the extent they are in order that certain employers there may have this cheap indentured coolie labour. If they want to get indentured labour they ought to be compelled, as other employers are compelled, to pay for it themselves. A tax should not be levied in order to get this coolie labour for them at a low price. I wish also to refer to the question of local government in the West Indies. In view of what has taken place in the Transvaal, I do think that the time has arrived, now that we have for 250 years governed these islands, when we ought to give them a more democratic franchise than prevails at the present time. I think I am correct in saying that in order to exercise the franchise in several towns you require a property qualification of £20 per annum. The average yearly rental is £4 in the West Indies, and therefore the Committee will readily realise that practically the population of the West Indies have no say whatever in their municipal government.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Do I understand the hon. Member to say that the average rental in the Port of Spain is £4?
  Mr. SUMMERBELL: I have not mentioned the Port of Spain yet. I will come to that. In Trinidad it works out at something like £4 per annum. I find that in Georgetown and one or two other places they have wards where the voters number seven, nine, and ten. That is the system of municipal government which prevails in

  1115
  the West Indies at the present time. I would appeal to the Under-Secretary to try to get a more democratic franchise in order that the people there may have a greater voice in the management of their own internal affairs. In 1898, when the Unionist Government were in power, they took away the municipal power from the Port of Spain on the ground that there had been misdemeanours which were followed by riots. If there were misdemeanours of any kind, I wish to point out that the municipal government was elected by voters having the £20 qualification. It was an authority elected purely by the middle and upper classes of the town5 and I think, inasmuch as that was taken away in 1898, the people of that town have been sufficiently long penalised, and that it is time the municipal government was restored to them. The late Governor was in favour of the restoration of the municipal government to the town. I appeal, therefore, to the Government to give the town the municipal government it had before, if not a more democratic government. There is now in the Port of Spain a nominated board in regard to which the people have no say whatever—a board entirely governed by the permanent officials of this country. That form of government, in view of what has taken place in the Transvaal, ought to be altered at the earliest possible moment. So far as the cost of government in the West Indies is concerned, I think the time has arrived for some economy. I have on previous occasions given figures showing that in some of the self-governing Colonies high officials are actually receiving less than the Governors of West Indian Islands. The cost of administration ought to be considerably reduced, because, while it is maintained at its present level, there exists a condition of things which ought not to exist, at any rate under the present Government, namely, that the people are taxed to an enormous extent to obtain the necessary revenue. Under the Customs Tariff in Jamaica, bacon is taxed equivalent to 20 per cent., beef from 20 to 30 per cent., bread 33 per cent., butter 29 per cent., cheese 33 per cent., flour 45 per cent., sugar 50 per cent., domestic oil 70 per cent., and so on. When a confessedly Free Trade Government are in power they should see to it that some alteration is made. Speaking in all sincerity, though not knowing the country—I do not profess to have been there, but I
  1116
  am in touch with those who are concerned in its welfare—I say that the taxation is entirely out of proportion to what it ought to be, and that it is time the Government stepped in and declared that there should be a substantial reduction in the Customs charges now made.
  Mr. W. W. ASHLEY: I do not wish to go into the merits or demerits of the particular case in connection with British East Africa to which attention has been drawn to-night, nor to discuss whether the Government themselves are not, to a large extent, responsible for it, owing to the laxity of administration which it shows does exist in that Colony; but I hope hon. Members will not carry away with them a wrong impression as to the officials in British East Africa and Uganda. Taken on the whole, I can say from personal experience that those officials are a very hard-working and honourable class of men, and because one of them has been found to depart from the ordinary code of morality, which in all our Colonies is so high among our officials, and in regard to which we may claim to stand out honourably in comparison with the officials of other nations, I hope hon. Members will not go away with the idea that the sort of thing referred to occurs frequently in British East Africa or has occurred perhaps more than once in the history of the Protectorate.
  I desire to ask the Under-Secretary if he can now give us any further information with regard to affairs in Somaliland. It will be within the recollection of the Committee that we had a Debate of some length on the Supplementary Estimates in March last, and though the Under-Secretary to the Colonies made a very conciliatory and able speech, yet his statement of the Government policy did not carry us much farther. He said we were not going to have a big expedition, or stand entirely on the defensive, or build a railway, or go in for small expeditions. It rather seemed that the Government, like Mr. Micawber, were waiting for something to turn up. It is reported in the papers that the Government have, through the Governor out there, practically sent an ultimatum to the Mullah. I should like the Under-Secretary to tell us what this ultimatum is, or whether any communication has been made. It is commonly stated that the last word of the Government is that if the Mullah will agree to remain peaceably and quietly within his sphere of influence in the Italian portion of the country, and promise on his word as a Prophet not to raid

  1117
  the tribes under our protection, we shall be prepared to make him a monetary allowance. If that is true, I do not think it is a very fortunate way to carry on business in Africa or in any other part of our Colonial Empire. It has not had very happy results on the North-West frontier of India, where it has been going on for a great number of years. It has not prevented numerous costly wars there. I suppose it is only continued there because it is a time-honoured custom which, once started, we did not like to break off; but we ought to think not once or twice, but at least thrice, before we enter into the same entanglement in Somaliland. What guarantee have we that the Mullah would keep his agreement? He might take a year's salary and proceed to raid our tribes directly afterwards. But that some arrangement is urgently necessary will not be denied by those who listened to the Debate of March last, because at the present moment we are spending about £8,000 a month on defensive measures in Somaliland. Surely the time has come when we must make a decision one way or the other. We have got to make up our minds whether Somaliland is worth retaining, and worth spending money on to bring to a peaceful state and to develop, and, if not worth spending money on, surely it is not worth retaining at all. But to remain in this undecided state, in which we are spending substantial sums of money each year, in these expensive operations, and getting no further than having to spend every year more and more, surely is not a satisfactory state of affairs. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has some later information to give us, because I understand that the Sirdar has arrived back in India about a fortnight ago. He has been spending some weeks or months in the country in order to find out exactly what the military situation is, and I imagine also what the political situation is. Therefore, probably by now he has been able to impart to the Government what information he possesses, and the Government perhaps might let us know something of what their opinion is; because any departure from the existing policy of wearing out the Mullah by a blockade, except it be a regular forward policy, is one to be deprecated From letters which I have received from officers out there, it appears, that they hold very strongly the opinion that the wearing-out policy, which has been applied during the last three or four years, to the Mullah, has had a good effect upon
  1118
  them, and has weakened its position perceptibly, and if this pressure is continued—stopping his supplies and stopping arms going in—we may have a position in which the Mullah, from sheer inability to carry on his provinces, will come in and accept any conditions. Now, if we enter into some agreement with him—if it means paying a money tribute to him—the Whole good effect of the work of the last few years would be done away with, and we shall have to go back to the position of 1905, when he gaily entered into an agreement with us and broke it as soon as it was convenient to him. I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman, when he answers, will tell us what Sir Reginald Wingate advises, because I think it is information-which this Committee ought to have.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: I dare say some surprise was felt in some quarters of the House when the hon. Member for the Holmfirth Division (Mr. H. J. Wilson) asked leave to withdraw his Motion and the leave was refused. If anyone feels surprised, I may be in a position to give some enlightenment on the subject. To get enlightenment I must ask any Members, experienced in the proceedings of the House, what would be the situation supposing a Division had been taken at the end of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for St. George's Hanover-square (Mr. A. Lyttelton). I may ask some hon. Members who were Members of the last Parliament to tax their imaginations further, and ask themselves what would the situation of the hon. Gentlemen opposite then sitting upon these benches have been in the conduct of a Motion in the last Parliament, such as that of the hon. Member for the Holmfirth Division? What was the situation in which that Motion stood when leave was asked to withdraw it? The hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies made two speeches. If anything stands out perfectly clearly, it is that the second speech was an absolute condemnation of the first. In the first speech lie took a point which had not been raised at all. The point he took was whether a certain gentleman, whose name I have forgotten, holding an official position on the East Coast of Africa should be tried a second time. Nobody asked him that. What never seemed to dawn on him was that it was he who was on his trial and not the officials on the East Coast of Africa—and that he was on his trial for undue leniency in a case which he himself in his second speech described as a terrible story.
  Colonel SEELY: I never denied that it was a terrible story.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: The phrase "terrible story" was used in the second speech, not in the first. The first speech was all extenuation; the second was in a very different style. I think that the House has some reason to pause before it allows this subject to die down on the easy terms of the withdrawal of the Motion by the hon. Member for the Holmfirth division. For my part, the subject should stand exactly where it did on the very significant utterance of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Lyttelton), who, speaking with the experience that he had, was able to tell the House with what seemed to be universal acceptance, said that the conduct of the Government in this case showed an undue amount of leniency towards what was an extremely serious case. I do not think these things ought to be got rid of quite so easily. It was for that reason that leave was not given to withdraw his Motion. Here is the case of a man using his official position to obtain a gratification which it does not need any acumen to see is absolutely condemned as a criminal offence by the Penal Code in the country in which he was living. There is no question of consent. Consent is a matter that is immaterial. Yet the utmost that seems to have been done is the deprivation of official promotion for the period of a year. I think my right hon. Friend the Member for St. George's Hanover-square Division was no more than right when he charged the Government with showing an undue amount of leniency in this case. I only want to draw attention to the extraordinary way in which this case was handled to-night by hon. Gentlemen opposite, compared with the way in which much less serious cases were handled when they had it in their power to make themselves disagreeable to the Government of the day in pressing home charges at the time. The whole thing is in a most unsatisfactory position. Whether we shall get a Division on anything like satisfactory terms I do not know, but whether the consciences of hon. Gentlemen opposite will be satisfied if they give a vote in favour of the Government, and against the facts of this particular case, remains to be seen. It would not have been right if this question had been allowed to die down in the second speech of the hon. Gentleman, who always poses as an extremely high authority on morals of all kinds in this House, and I cannot say
  1120
  that his speech to-night has added anything very much to his claims on this subject.
  Colonel SEELY: I find myself constrained to reply to the remark which has just been made, and ask to be allowed to say as regards the discrepancies alleged to exist between the first and second speeches that I am not aware that there is any discrepancy between the two statements. I think that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stuart-Wortley), when he recovers his temper to-morrow, will probably see that there is no discrepancy between my two statements. [Cries of "Withdraw."] I do not wish to say anything offensive, nor to go beyond the ordinary courtesies of debate, but merely to explain the actual position of affairs.
  Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman quite appreciates either the point of view stated by my right hon. Friend the late Secretary for the Colonies (Mr. Lyttelton) or the point raised by my right hon. Friend who has just sat down (Mr. Stuart-Wortley). We do not desire in the least that the Government should go back on this case. Whether the gentleman who has been the subject of this Debate has, or has not, escaped too easily from the net of the criminal law is a matter which no doubt may be discussed. We do not want his case and his offence to be reopened. We think it unfortunate, but we want to put him altogether on one side. A year ago his fate was decided, and decided on the responsibility of the Government, and it is the Government, and the Government only, who are now in question. What defence have the Government made to the action they are pursuing? They have really made no defence at all. They have said, as I understand, that if anybody else offends, as the gentleman in question has offended, the future offender will be punished by a far more rigorous penalty than has been meted out to his predecessor. That literally is the whole defence that the Government up to the present moment have made. That defence is, I think, or might be, quite adequate if the matter dealt with was one in which a different code of morals was brought into play, or if it had not been clear, in the case of the original offender, to the Government, who were his superior, what the offence was he had committed. Then I think it might be just and fair and proper to say that the first offender should be let off with a relatively easy penalty, but that anybody who offended in the same way in future should

  1121
  have meted out to him a far severer measure of justice. But surely that is not the case. It is not the case which has been made by the hon. Member. He has not suggested a further consideration and review of the circumstances. No new fact whatever has been brought to light which should put offenders in future in a different position from offenders in the past.
  Colonel SEELY: Oh, yes. A circular was issued. The right hon. Gentleman will forgive my interrupting him to explain that we issued a circular, and that circumstance changed the whole situation. We considered that no sufficient warning had previously been given; and we intimated that any future offender would be more severely punished. We did take the view that a sufficient warning had not previously been given of the terrible consequences that would follow such an offence as this. We therefore issued a circular, and the moment we did so, a new situation arose, and that is why I made the announcement.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I was here when the hon. Gentleman made that statement, which really brought out in the most definite and concrete form the point I was endeavouring to make. He and the Government appear to think that the offence committed by this gentleman was of a kind which they did not consider, had no ground for considering, was of so serious a character that either criminal proceedings might be taken against him or dismissal from his employment would follow. And it required a circular to bring home to British officers in East Africa and other Colonies similarly situated the character of the offence which had been committed and the nature of the punishment which was to follow. That is really the point. Am I wrong t I listened with great attention, I think, to the most important speeches which have been delivered on the subject, and I agree that I knew nothing of the case before I came down to the House. I need not go further than what did take place. The Government admit not merely that one of their officials was living in this sort of intercourse with native women, but against one particular official there were two indictments to be made. The first indictment was to the effect that he had used his position of authority—his position of judicial authority in the country, remember—to induce against her will a girl of 13 or 14 to leave her natural protectors and come to cohabit with him. That is the first charge.
  1122
  I hope the House will believe me that I am really not trying to impose upon officials elsewhere a code of morality and purity, whatever it may be called, which, no doubt, is violated in our own country and in our own society. I am not putting up a special standard for these people. On the contrary, I admit the fact of their isolated life and all the rest of it. We know there are special difficulties. But what I am trying to press upon the Committee is the particular complexion put upon this whole case owing to the fact that he was a man of judicial authority, that he used that judicial authority as the instrument and the means by which he might induce this girl, willingly or unwillingly, to become his mistress.
  I do think that goes quite outside anything that in this country is recognised as immorality. It is quite a different order of offence, and has nothing whatever to do with purity in the sense in which that word is used in these ethical discussions. It is quite different; it is a gross abuse of administrative power, and such a matter as that ought not to be lightly passed over by the Colonial Office. May I ask another question? Am I wrong in gathering from this Debate that the offence was one which directly came within the purview of the criminal law obtaining in that particular part of His Majesty's dominions? I understand the hon. Gentleman says there is some doubt as to whether it did. Has he explained to us in what that doubt consists? There was no doubt as to the age of the girl, and there is equally no doubt that the age mentioned in the Indian Code is 16. The girl was not 16; she was 13 or 14. Then where is the doubt? I am, of course, no lawyer, but I have read these articles in the Indian criminal code to which our attention has been called, and it seems to me on the face of it that this gentleman was plainly open to a criminal indictment. I think there is no doubt of that. The code uses the word "seduce," and says, "Whoever buys or otherwise obtains possession of." These words are of the widest character. There is no question about the age of the victim, and if this gentleman did not come within the operation of the criminal law, on what words in these sections of the code can the Government think he would be likely to escape? That point has never been cleared up; never referred to by the Under-Secretary of State, or by any other gentleman taking part in this Debate. But that is not all. My right hon. Friend the late Colonial

  1123
  Secretary (Mr. Lyttelton) told us that a civilian not connected in any way with the Government in any official capacity had been sentenced to six months' imprisonment for a precisely similar offence. I do not understand that that statement was contradicted by the Under-Secretary. If that allegation is true, is not the light which it throws on the action of the Colonial Office of the most lurid description. Here you have a man who was in no position of responsibility and who violates the letter of this Indian law; you take him and try him and sentence him. Another man, as we are told, commits a precisely similar offence and he commits it with the profoundest indecent aggravation, an aggravation which moves me far more than the fact that there was immorality committed with this girl of 16.
  The influence which moves me is not that the immorality was committed, but that it was committed by a man with judicial authority, who used that judicial authority in order to enable him to commit it. I am not raising myself into a censor of morals, even of human weakness. I am not taking up that position. My position is quite a different one. It is that all human sentiment and all human morality profoundly condemn the man who uses his authority in order to commit these acts of immorality. That can be paralleled from history. Only too many of them are recorded in the ages of mankind, and all have met with either condign moral punishment or have been blasted in the pages of history. I am amazed at the position exhibited by the Government in this case. Their view was that the offence was only one which you might expect ordinary weak human nature to perform, and only a severe warning and relatively light punishment is to be inflicted on the offender, and it is only as regards the future offenders that they lay down a certain code of ethics, which is now rather late when adopted by the Colonial Government. I leave that first part of the story, and I come to the second. Am I wrong in saying that according to the second story the same official—judicial official—actually got into conflict with a man who was his own subordinate about that man's own wife, and that this discreditable and sordid scene ended in a scuffle, and that the man was actually sent to prison by the judicial person who had appropriated to his own immoral purposes the woman who was living with the other
  1124
  man? I do not know how this Committee feels about that story. Again, I say I am most anxious not to be too nice as to the purity of this matter.
  Here again is the case of the man using his authority over his subordinate to induce the woman living with that subordinate to live with him, and punishing the subordinate by imprisonment when the subordinate resists the transaction. I could scarcely think of anything worse. Does not the present Committee feel that some defence is required from the Government on this matter? The hon. Member for Holmfirth (Mr. H. J. Wilson) is so satisfied with the punishment which is going to be meted out to other officials who offend in this way that he desires to withdraw his Amendment. If he had not been a supporter of the Government, and if he had been an opponent would he have withdrawn that Amendment? If hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway instead of having in addition to their ethical interests political interests in supporting the present Colonial Office, if they had been in the position anxious not merely to spread a high sentiment of morality throughout the British Empire, but anxious also to turn out the Government, would they have been so very tolerant as they have towards this tonight. I confess that I listened with amazement to what has occurred to-night, an amazement which grows the more I think over the details of this story. As I told the House, I knew nothing about it except what I have heard in the Debate to-nighxt. Uncontradicted speeches have been made, admitted facts have been mentioned which have moved, I do not deny, my great indignation. The Government have made no defence. They have not even attempted to make any defence. I venture to think that those who were so anxious to prove themselves, even in the last few weeks, so deeply anxious to see that the moral code, the moral political code, carried out in other countries in which we have no concern have conducted themselves amazingly strangely when there is brought to their notice one of the most discreditable passages, so far as I know, which has ever tarnished the administrative fame of this country.
  Colonel SEELY: The right hon. Gentleman said just now he was amazed. I confess I was amazed, too, because he said that this was the first he had heard of this case, and that he had only heard of it tonight. Is he aware that the last of the

  1125
  offences to which he refers took place nearly eighteen months ago—February, 1908?
  Mr. BALFOUR: I did not know.
  Colonel SEELY: I know how absolutely truthful the right hon. Gentleman is. He is reported once to have said that he never reads the newspapers. Now we know he does not. In every newspaper in this country this case has been referred to. There were leading articles in the "Spectator" and in "The Times," and, as well, it was reproduced in the Press throughout the length and breadth of the land. More than that, there was a full-dress Debate on the subject last November. Where was the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bal four)? I think it is a little hard, when you consider what has happened, and when you consider this man who, after all—
  Mr. BALFOUR: When was the full-dress Debate?
  Colonel SEELY: I was wrong. Questions on the subject were answered by the score. It was a full-dress question and answer. I do not know how far it has been debated, but the questions and answers have been innumerable, and after those I was requested to receive a deputation of some hon. Gentlemen opposite as well as hon. Gentlemen on this side. I am sorry the hon. Member for Shrews bury is not in his place; he would bear me out in saying that this was a vehement controversy. I see the hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench who was also present, after there being a controversy in this House which he will not dispute. I met the deputation. I explained the action of the Government so far as I understood it at that time; the action that the Government proposed to take. For the right hon. Gentleman to come down here now, and tell us, 18 months after the event, after all there has been in the Press, after the scene in this House, when this matter was first brought up, that he has not heard of it—well, it is really for us to be amazed! He tells us that through the action of this man the whole public service is tarnished—
  Mr. BALFOUR: I never said so. If I had there would be very good reason for passing a vote of censure on me. I never suggested that the general public service was tarnished. I said that I condemned, and do condemn, vehemently, from the facts laid before me, the action of the Colonial Office in dealing with this particular case, which I hope and believe to be unique.
  Colonel SEELY: "The whole service was tarnished." Those were the right hon. Gentleman's last words.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I beg your pardon. What I said was that the action of this single man had tarnished the service.
  Colonel SEELY: Yes, of course.
  Mr. BALFOUR: Is that not so? The action of one single Member of a Governmen may tarnish the whole Government.
  Colonel SEELY: We were told that the public service is tarnished because of this offence which took place a year and a half ago. Those most interested expressed their satisfaction at the action taken by the Government. The right hon. Gentleman raises two specific points to which I should like to reply, although I have replied to them both already, perhaps in not sufficiently precise terms. First as to the indictment against the officer: it was a grave one. It was for that reason that punishment—heavy punishment—was awarded to him, a punishment which must involve him in little chance of ultimate success in the Colonial service, and a punishment far more heavy than seemed to be the case on the face of it. The right hon. Gentleman asked also as to why these proceedings were not taken under the Indian Penal Code. I do not think I put it precisely before. I put it precisely now: That both the Governor and the judge who investigated the case say that no action would, in their opinion, lie under the Indian Penal Code; if brought, it would be unsuccessful.
  Mr. BALFOUR: On what ground? The age of the girl?
  Colonel SEELY: I presume that it would be impossible to say what the age of the girl was. In a case of this sort you would have to be absolutely sure of the age of the girl. Anyone who knows these countries—the hon. Member for Blackpool will bear me out—knows that you cannot get positive proof that a girl supposed to be 13 or 14 is in point of fact 17. It is really impossible to get positive proof in a matter of that gravity which may condemn a man to death. That is the answer to the gravamen of the charge which the right hon. Gentleman brought against me.
  It has been asked why was not this man tried under the penal code? He was not tried because he could not have been, and because the Governor and the judge said that no action would lie, and that if an action were brought it would not be successful. I think I have now dealt with all the points. It is a very old story, and a

  1127
  very sad story, and I do not think I can usefully add anything to it. I withdraw unreservedly any suggestion that I made with regard to the action of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, or that he took the action he did take, because of a Division coming on. We do not deny that this was a shocking case, but in the circumstances, and assuming that this man was only guilty of what he states in his own confession, I do not think you would have been justified in ordering his dismissal, because he had no warning from us or from our predecessors.
  Mr. PIKE PEASE: I should like to say a few words with reference to this question, because I have taken a great interest in it for some time. It is perfectly true that at the invitation of the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for the Colonies I had the privilege of going to his room and talking the matter over with him. The circumstances put forward by the hon. Member who brought this case before the Committee were, in my opinion, no exaggeration whatever. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Cathcart Wason) told us there was some exaggeration, but he did not say in what direction it lay. It is perfectly true, as has been said, that this question has exercised the public mind in a considerable degree for some time, and that there have been leading articles in "The Times" and in the "Spectator" in reference to it. Mr. Rout-ledge, who brought the matter before the Governor, and who went to this man's house and took away from him those two black girls living with him at the time, is a friend of mine. It is perfectly true also, as far as the case is concerned, that there has been no trial whatever in reference to this man. It was stated over and over again that this man was to be put upon his trial. Anyone who takes the trouble to examine the facts in reference to this matter, which took place upon the initiative of Mr. Routledge, and which was investigated by Judge Barth, will see what happens. There were no witnesses called upon oath, and there was no trial in the ordinary sense of the word. What we complain of is this: this officer took advantage of his official position to procure these women. There is no doubt whatever, as far as the policeman is concerned, of his having gone to the house and complained about his wife, as he called her, being taken from him. The point I want to make is that it was absolutely the duty of the Government to put this man upon his
  1128
  trial. If he had been put upon his trial in an ordinary court we should then have known whether he was guilty of the charge against him as found by Judge Barth. Anyone who takes the trouble to read the notes of Mr. Justice Barth will see that it is perfectly plain that one of these girls was 13 and the other 12. Of course, I make no great point in regard to that, because age in that part of the world is different to similar age in this, but I think it is perfectly plain to anyone listening to the Debate to-day that the action of the Government in reference to this matter has been fundamentally unsound.
  Dr. RUTHERFORD: I think the Committee will agree, after the discussion we have had on this wretched and deplorable case, that a duty rests upon this official, and it is that for the sake of the service he should tender without delay his resignation. I think the Colonial Office would be well advised to notify him after the nature of this discussion and the depth of feeling aroused that that is the only way out of a deplorable situation. The hon. Member for Blackpool raised the question of Somaliland. As far as I could understand the hon. Member, he complains of the policy of the Government in that portion of the Empire. I should like the hon. Member to tell the House his alternative policy. The policy of the Government is one of peaceful persuasion to the Mullah if he behaves himself. Is the alternative policy of the hon. Member the policy of the late Government, which meant war, the loss of life, and the sacrifice of treasure. I sincerely trust the Government will not listen for a single moment to the view of the hon. Members opposite, but continue their policy of peaceful persuasion in Somaliland. Might I remind the hon. Member opposite that the other day we were told we should not intervene in the internal affairs of other countries. I think after that it would be a great mistake and a serious injustice for us to unnecessarily, and unwisely, and unjustly intervene in the affairs of the Mullah and his people. I should like to appeal to the Under-Secretary with regard to a problem that has taxed his predecessors, and in which they have unfortunately failed. I wish to make a direct appeal to the Under-Secretary for the Colonies on this matter, because his predecessors failed to do justice to the British Indians in South Africa. That is a very serious grievance which has its reflex in India, and causes and excites immense indignation

  1129
  there. I think the Under-Secretary ought to use his best endeavours at the present time to rectify this serious situation in the Transvaal. The British Indians there complain of the Asiatic Registration Acts, because these Acts put indignities upon their countrymen, and there have been a large number of passive resisters, as many as 2,500 of them having gone to prison. This is really a very serious matter, and I want the Under-Secretary to take the opportunity of the presence of General Botha and General Smuts in this country to see what he can do to remedy this state of things. He will have their ear, and can make a direct appeal to them and explain that the matter has been discussed in the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and that the general sentiment is in favour of more reasonable and equitable justice being meted out to British Indians. I know the difficulties of the situation. We dislike, when self-government has been given, to interfere unnecessarily, but as the Imperial Parliament we are directly responsible for justice to natives and to Indians in every portion of the Empire. I trust sincerely the Under-Secretary will seize this opportunity to see General Botha, capture him, and bring him to see the wisdom of advocating and carrying out a better, a more reasonable, and a more just policy, and so bring contentment to British Indians as well as to those in our Empire of India.
  Mr. F. W. VERNEY: I was not quite satisfied with what my hon. Friend (Colonel Seely) said, if I heard him correctly, on the question of opium smoking and gambling dens. I think he said that the intention was to create a Government monopoly in the Federated Malay States, and I should like to quote the case of the Government monopoly in a country with which I was connected for many years, which has been by degrees destroyed by enlightened Government. There was a Government monopoly of gambling and opium smoking in Siam, and the Siamese Government was so obsessed of the idea of the tremendous harm to that country done by the gambling den that, little by little, with a determination and a patience which is beyond all praise, they gradually extirpated the gambling dens in the country districts, to the immense advantage of the natives. I appeal to my hon. Friend not to be satisfied with turning gambling dens into a Government monopoly. The Siamese Government got a large revenue out of the monopoly, but they forfeited it for the sake of
  1130
  their own people, and I hope the same moral courage will be found to exist in our own Colonial Government as has been shown in that distant and small Eastern country. I should also like to refer for a moment to a much larger country, where a much more drastic remedy was taken—I mean Japan. I have had the privilege of acquaintance with several Japanese who have occupied high positions under the Government, and I have spoken to them constantly about the drastic means taken absolutely to exclude opium from Japan. I have never heard but one opinion, and that was that it was to the immense advantage of Japan that opium had been excluded. We have all followed the history of Japan with the greatest interest in recent years. I am one of those who hope our alliance with that country will long continue. I think the character of the Japanese people has been quite as remarkable in the peaceful administration of the country and the extraordinary improvement which has taken place in the internal administration of Japan as it has been with regard to the administration of their fleet and the marvellous victories they have secured both on land and on sea. I would ask my hon. Friend to take the case of Japan into consideration, and not to leave entirely out of account the case of Siam. The climate of Siam much more nearly resembles the climate of many parts of India and the climate of Japan much more nearly resembles our own, and in both countries it has been found that the restriction of opium-smoking is of enormous importance to the population. I am quite aware of the difficulties which surround the opium question in India, and of the difficulties with which the Chinese Government are now gallantly grappling to restrict or absolutely stop the sale of opium in their own country; but I hope everything our own Government does will be in advance, and not behind these Eastern Governments. This is a matter of the greatest importance and I sincerely hope they will take it into account. I do not think a Government monopoly is harmless or can be harmless if a very large revenue is attached to it. After all, this is very much a financial question, and if you create a monopoly you may create a financial difficulty from which you may find it extremely hard to extricate yourselves. In India it has become a financial question of the first importance. If there had been no financial side to it we might have got rid of the traffic many years ago. I hope that the united opinion of

  1131
  independent witnesses will prevail in this matter, and, although it is known to those who have been in Eastern countries that opium-smoking may go on for years and years in moderation, without apparently very great harm, yet no one who has been through the hospitals in the East and has seen the wrecks of opium-smoking stretched out upon the beds can forget the scene and can apologise for the introduction or even the permission of a trade which carries with it such effects. It is a trade we can safely condemn without in any way trespassing beyond the bounds of strict truth or exaggerating the evils connected with it.
  Mr. A. RENDALL: I desire first to criticise the views of the Leader of the Opposition with regard to the question raised with respect to East Africa. We are told that we ought to trust the man on the spot and to take his advice, but it has been my experience that the Opposition, for the sake of a small party advantage, are willing to throw over the man on the spot. This matter has been discussed in the Press for many months, and it seems to me that the idea of censuring the Government is to throw the man on the spot overboard. I rise, however, for the purpose mainly of drawing attention to a matter affecting the management of the Barotseland police force. It will be remembered that after the Raid the control of the police force in Barotseland was taken from the Chartered Company and placed with the High Commissioner, and, as the result of that, a certain gentleman named Colonel Harding was made Commandant of it in 1901. In that capacity he had most difficult duties to perform, and his salary was £800 a year. He was paid by the Chartered Company, but was told by the High Commissioner, Lord Milner or Lord Selborne, that he was an official of the Colonial Office. Colonel Harding had the difficult duty of creating a police force out of poor material. He was asked to be economical and to make his subordinate officers out of the natives. He accomplished that work, and was constantly praised by the Chartered Company. In the course of his duties he had to collect certain hut taxes on behalf of the Chartered Company. About that time the Home Government seemed to have been somewhat nervous about any native rising that should take place. Towards the end of 1905 Colonel Harding was asked by the Administrator, whose name for the moment I forget, to collect certain hut taxes. Colonel
  1132
  Harding went with a force of police into Barotseland and endeavoured to collect the taxes. He found that the natives were not unwilling to pay, but were unable, as they had not sufficient money. Thereupon he reported to his superior, and asked for further instructions. He was practically told to collect the hut tax, and if he could not do it, to burn the huts. He declined, and reported to the High Commissioner, and asked for his advice. The High Commissioner telegraphed home to the Colonial Secretary, and the right hon. Gentleman telegraphed to Lord Milner that there was on no account to be any raid, that the natives were to be treated leniently, and were not to be pressed if they could not pay, and on no account was the High Commissioner to allow any warlike preparation to take place, unless he had the permission of the Colonial Secretary.
  Colonel Harding was in possession of these facts and of the letter of the Colonial Secretary, and having got these instructions he did his duty, and tried to carry them out. He declined to burn the huts, and he came back to the head office. The Administrator strongly disapproved of his conduct, and unfavourably reported Colonel Harding to the Chartered Company. A little while afterwards Colonel Harding was informed that owing to economies proposed by the Chartered Company the police force was going to be reduced, and the most important official in the police force, the commandant (Colonel Harding), was to be reduced. Colonel Harding, believing what he was told, at once offered his assistance to re-organise the police on the new lines, although this would mean his withdrawal from the police force. He believed that the Chartered Company had the permission of the Colonial Office and the High Commissioner to make the reduction, and he took the advice of his friends, and of the Administrator, and sent his resignation in, in the belief, and as the result of a statement made by the Administrator, that another appointment of at least equal value would be found for him. He sent in his resignation in order to assist the administrator in making arrangements for the alteration of the police force in Barotseland. Lord Selborne then writes to him, and tells him he is very sorry he has to go, and that the reduction of the police force has become necessary, and telling Colonel Harding that he hopes to be able to find him some other billet. An impor-

  1133
  tant thing here happens. The Adminis trator and the Chartered Company apparently never really wanted a reduction of the police force, and never wanted further economy in running it. What the Administrator wanted was to get rid of Colonel Harding, who was a great friend of the natives, presumably in the belief that if he was out of the way the hut tax would be collected in a much more thorough manner. The Administrator, having got his letter of resignation by false pretences out of Colonel Harding, writes to Lord Selborne a letter in which he throws doubt upon Colonel Harding's loyalty. Fortunately this came to Colonel Harding's knowledge, and he immediately complained to Lord Selborne and asked him whether he accepted his resignation on that ground? Lord Selborne replied that he accepted it simply on the ground of the reduction which was proposed, and which he had approved, and that he personally asserted nothing against Colonel Harding, who, he said, had been a loyal officer, and had done his work thoroughly well. Colonel Harding had to be satisfied with this letter. Shortly afterwards he resigned, but before that he saw, or heard, from Lord Selborne, who told him that in a very short while indeed there would be no difficulty in finding him a post. He sacrified £800 simply because he endeavoured to carry out the instructions of the right hon. Gentleman oppo site—
  Mr. STANLEY WILSON: On a point of order, is there not a Standing Order against repetition?
  Mr. RENDALL: I always regret, when I hear the hon. Member make a remark, that there is not a Standing Order in favour of good manners. Colonel Harding came home and asked the Colonial Office what they were going to do? They told him and the world that they had never approved of this reduction, which Lord Selborne thought they did approve of; and, in fact, the reduction has never taken place, and there is now a man occupying Colonel Harding's post at the same salary. I ask that Colonel Harding should at least receive fair and just treatment from the Colonial Office. I have worried my hon. and gallant Friend for months past on this subject, and I think in doing so I have had the sympathy of hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House and of the right hon. Gentleman the late Colonial Secretary. This gallant Gentleman, who has served us
  1134
  faithful has been done out of hisplace by a trick—I use the word advisedly and after full consideration—and I ask the Under-Secretary whether he can find a post for him where his extraordinary abilities could be employed. His abilities were extraordinary, for I suppose no man ever gained the confidence of the native more than he did.
  Colonel SEELY: It would not be courteous not to reply to several of the questions which have been asked, though only a few minutes are available to do so. The hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Summerbell) was good enough to give me notice of the questions he was going to raise affecting the West Indies. He raised the question of the municipalities in the West Indian islands, and especially the case of Trinidad. He referred to the riots which took place there some years ago, and he assumed that the abolition of the municipality was due to that. I think, historically speaking, that is not entirely the case. I agree that it is not desirable that this municipality should permanently remain abolished. The Secretary of State has said before now that it is a matter which does require consideration sooner or later. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are not losing sight of the matter. The question of giving more self-government to places like Trinidad is receiving the most careful consideration. The hon. Member gave a most formidable list of taxes imposed in the West Indian Islands, and said that they resembled a protective tariff. These taxes are not imposed with protective intentions. I have never heard them defended on that ground. If the hon. Member says to me that the amount of taxation imposed on the poorer classes in the West Indian Islands is rather bigger than it should be I think there is something to be said for that view. The hon. Member appealed to me as a Free Trader to take them off. That is a question which is rightly raised, and I can assure the hon. Member that it is receiving our careful consideration. If he will put a question to me later on I may be able to give him some information as to the intentions of the Government. As to indentured labour the hon. Member did not press for further information in view of the fact that a Committee is sitting.
  Wih regard to the question which was asked by an hon. Member, in regard to the treatment of British Indians in the Transvaal, I think we may look forward to some amelioration of their lot especially in view

  1135
  of the approaching Union. The Union Government is certain to be anxious to give fairest possible treatment to our British fellow subjects. The Union has been commended to the House on the ground that the larger the body is the more impartial it is likely to be. The hon. Member asked us to make definite representations to the Government of the Transvaal. I can assure him that that has been done and will be done. I can assure him also that the Prime Minister of the Transvaal is sincerely anxious to find a solution for what is a very difficult matter. There is a good deal to be said on both sides. The hon. Member for Thornbury was vehement on the subject of Colonel Harding. I find it difficult to reply to him, because I am entirely at one with him in regard to almost all that he said. When he tells us that Colonel Harding is an excellent officer and ought to be re-employed, I entirely agree. The difficulty is that it is very hard to find places for officers of his seniority. Most of the posts in our gift are suitable for men from 18 to 25 years of age. Indeed, in most cases the age is limited to 30 or 35 years. Colonel Harding, although he is younger than I thought when I last spoke on the subject, is above that age, and that makes it difficult to deal with his case. I have conveyed to the Secretary of State the strong representations which have been made, and the general sense in the Department seems to be that, in the exceptional circumstances of the case, a special effort ought to be made to secure an appointment for this officer.
  I will now turn to Somaliland. The hon. Member for Blackpool (Mr. W. W. Ashley) asked where we were going and what we were going to do. It seems to me that this is one of those cases in which there is not any best course, and we have to be content with the second best, third best, or fourth best course. All we can say is that the situation in Somaliland has sensibly improved. At the time I last spoke the Mullah was somewhat active. He is now much less active, and the reason is, I think, that he has received a rather severe blow. I think this will be of interest to the House, and especially to those who have sometimes thought that the Mullah is a person who deserves our sympathy and support because he is really a kindly hearted fellow.
  Mr. STANLEY WILSON Mr. STANLEY WILSON rose in his place and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."
  Colonel SEELY: I can assure the hon. Member that I have no desire to delay the Division. I am endeavouring, in the face of considerable difficulty, to get through the points which have been raised. The Mullah has received a letter from his religious chief. [Colonel SHELY read two or three passages from the letter, but they could not be heard by the Official Reporter.] The Committee will therefore see that the Mullah has been denounced by his religious chief, and the situation is more peaceful than when I last addressed the Committee.
  Question put, "That Item A be reduced by £100 in respect of the salary of the Secretary of State."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 47; Noes, 142.

  Division No. 368]

  AYES.

  [11.0 p.m.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Forster, Henry William

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

  Foster, P. S.

  Renwick, George

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Gretton, John

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Starkey, John R.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hills, J. W.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Clark, George Smith

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.)

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Hunt, Rowland

  Valentia, Viscount

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Kerry, Earl of

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

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

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

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

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. Charles Scott-

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Markham, Arthur Basll

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir W. Bull and Mr. W. W. Ashley.

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Gevan)

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Fell, Arthur

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  NOES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Bennett, E. N.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Beale, W. P.

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

  Hodge, John

  Richardson, A.

  Brigg, John

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Hooper, A. G.

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Brodie, H. C.

  Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

  Robinson, S.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Hudson, Walter

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Byles, William Pollard

  Jenkins, J.

  Rowlands, J.

  Cameron, Robert

  Kavanagh, Walter M.

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Kelley, George D.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Clough, William

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E, Grinstead)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lambert, George

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Seddon, J.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Seely, Colonel

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Shackleton, David James

  Crossley, William J.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Summerbell, T.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Thomasson, Franklin

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

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Tomkinson, James

  Essex, R. W.

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

  Toulmin, Geerge

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Maddison, Frederick

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Marnham, F. J.

  Verney, F. W.

  Findlay, Alexander

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Vivian, Henry

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Walsh, Stephen

  GilI, A. H.

  Middlebrook, William

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)

  Mond, A.

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Glover, Thomas

  Morse, L. L.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Gulland, John W.

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Napier, T. B.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Hall, Frederick

  Nussey, Sir Willans

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Wiles, Thomas

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Partington, Oswald

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

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

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

  Hazel, Dr. A E. W.

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

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

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Pointer, J.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Winfrey, R.

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Radford, G. H.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Rainy, A. Holland

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Original Question put, and agreed to.

  And it being after Eleven of the clock, the Chairman left the chair to make his Report to the House.
  Resolution to be reported to-morrow (Wednesday); Committee to sit again to-morrow.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. JOSEPH PEASE: I beg to move "That this House do now adjourn." In moving I may be allowed to state that on Thursday, if we can get the Army and Navy Expenditure 1907–8, which we failed to secure to-night, we shall proceed with the Imperial Defence Committee Vote; and it is arranged between the two sides that at that sitting we shall take the Report stage of the Labour Exchanges Bill, and secure the Third Reading the same evening.
  Mr. J. GRETTON: It has been stated in some quarters that the business on Friday is not to be the Irish Land Bill, but some small Bill, and will the Govern-
  1138
  ment state if they adhere to the statement that the Irish Land Bill will be taken?
  Mr. JOSEPH PEASE: There is no change.
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Adjourned at Thirteen minutes after Eleven o'clock.